Post "Plot" Questions?
- Thread starter truthteller86
- Start date
- Status
I think for me the "works" that were required in the OT were the sacrificial laws. Sacrifice of blood is required for the remission of sins. Before Jesus sacrifices were offered. Now Jesus is our sacrifice. Faith is required and a sacrifice. For Cain and Abel God hadn't given sacrificial laws yet, but they still had to give something, their best. Abel did so, Cain didn't and the Lord only accepted one. Abraham was tested to sacrifice his son. Moses was given the law of animal sacrifice. Now Jesus is our sacrifice.
Clete, I appreciate your patience here. All you guy's. I don't deny that I may be making this more difficult than it is, but I guess I just don't get it at this point.
On that point I agree. But, then you say...
What's the difference between being "justified" and "having a relationship with Him"? Don't they both equate to "being saved"? If so, then it sounds like you're saying in the first quote that they were saved by Christ's shed blood, but in the second quote you're saying they were saved by that "different thing" that God expected...
That is indeed the $64,000 question! Based on the above argument, at this point I don't have an answer.
Clete said:
On that point I agree. But, then you say...
Clete said:
What's the difference between being "justified" and "having a relationship with Him"? Don't they both equate to "being saved"? If so, then it sounds like you're saying in the first quote that they were saved by Christ's shed blood, but in the second quote you're saying they were saved by that "different thing" that God expected...
Clete said:
That is indeed the $64,000 question! Based on the above argument, at this point I don't have an answer.
I can live with that! I don't mind honest questions as long as they are just that, honest, which yours seem definitely to be. :thumb:dale said:
Okay, in keeping with the theme of "The Plot", let's back up a step and take a look at the big picture here and maybe we will get a better view of this particular detail.
Every man is guilty of sin. God wants to save them and so provides a means of doing so (the death of Christ). But even though that sacrifice has been made and is sufficient for the whole world, God is not REQUIRED to save the whole world but simply has the means by which He can save people and remain just. He still has the authority to stipulate under what conditions that payment will be applied and He has the absolute right to change those stipulations at His own will.
Now, God has more purposes in mind than just the salvation of sinful man. He also, for example, wants to see to it that the law is exalted and upheld with respect to His creation and the He is doing that by means of teaching mankind as well as the angels in heaven certain spiritual truths via the history of mankind. God has dealt with man in different ways through history in order that those lessons might be learned. In the beginning there was the Dispensation of Innocence where we see how God relates to innocent man. Immediately after the fall of Adam there was the Dispensation of Conscience where there was no law and men were allowed to do that which was right in there own eyes. The result was clear, without God, man needs the law to restrain his evil desires. Then the Dispensation of Human Government was given having to do with man's relations with other men, and then the Dispensation of Law, which had to do with man's relations with God. All of which had to do with teaching the fact that mankind doesn't have what it takes to be righteous in any respect.
Now, that last paragraph may have seemed like a rabbit trail but the point is that God has changed the rules for various reasons throughout history and it has always been the people who have faith that God has saved but that doesn't change the fact that one had to follow the rules of whatever dispensation one was saved under. In fact, obedience to those dispensational “house rules” was precisely how one expressed their faith! As James wrote (under the Dispensation of Law) "faith without works is dead"!
So for those under the law, they were required to keep the law and if they did not it was because they did not have faith. And since we know that man cannot be perfect, God covers the gap in their faith with the blood of Christ, and they are thereby justified.
Now for us, in the Dispensation of Grace, there is no such requirement. In fact we are prohibited from placing ourselves under the law for any reason. We are saved by the blood of Christ and made holy not by the observance of the law but rather by the power of His resurrection and faith in the same. And if we attempt to be holy by observing the law then with respect to our living the Christian life God's power will not be available and we will fail, every single time. In effect, as Paul said, Christ will profit us nothing.
If circumcision was optional, why all the fuss between Paul and the twelve during the first century? Doesn't the Bible repeatedly teach that if one does not get circumcised that they themselves will be cut off? Remember also that God was moving to kill Moses himself because he had not circumcised his son. I really don't think it can be disputed that circumcision was an absolute requirement as was following the whole law. As I mentioned a moment ago, James said that faith without works is dead as so it was.
Resting in Him,
Clete
kmoney,
It is not my intention to ignore your questions. I'm sort of intentionally letting my answers to dale be my answers to you as well at this point because I want to wait until you've read at least the first four chapters of The Plot before getting into the thick of a lot of your questions. I've attempted to address some of the issues you've brought up in my response to dale so I hope they will do for now. But rest assured that the bulk of your questions are dealt with directly by those first four chapters of The Plot and I think you'll be surprised at the simplicity of the answers. I just cannot wait until you've read it! :jump:
It is not my intention to ignore your questions. I'm sort of intentionally letting my answers to dale be my answers to you as well at this point because I want to wait until you've read at least the first four chapters of The Plot before getting into the thick of a lot of your questions. I've attempted to address some of the issues you've brought up in my response to dale so I hope they will do for now. But rest assured that the bulk of your questions are dealt with directly by those first four chapters of The Plot and I think you'll be surprised at the simplicity of the answers. I just cannot wait until you've read it! :jump:
kmoney said:It makes me so mad when people ignore my questions!!!! :madmad:
just kidding....
:chuckle:
I know, I know! It's just that I've learned from experience not to go into too much detail about the teaching of The Plot until after a person has already read the book. It seems to be very important that people actually read the book and follow the reasoning one point at a time so that when the conclusion is reached, the reader understands how they got there. If that thought process is bypassed to too great a degree, people have a tendency to reject the teaching before they've read the book. No offense intended to godrulz, but I believe that this is exactly what happened with him (although I could be wrong on that).
Resting in Him,
Clete
truthteller86
New member
Please don't accuse me of beating a dead horse. Clete did much work explaining how he believes everyone agrees that even OT saints were justified solely on the work of Christ and not the works of the flesh. But, page 48 of The Plot say's "...Paul had to reprimand Peter telling him "that a man is not justified by the works of the law" (Gal. 2:16), a message that admittedly was new to Peter" A message that admittedly was new to Peter? Is Bob saying that prior to this new message Peter believed that man WAS justified by the works of the law? Is this in harmony with what Clete wrote (which would mean I STILL don't get it)? Or is this an example of Clete and Bob in disagreement?
Peter had no concept prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus of being saved by the shedding of Christ's blood. Even when Jesus told him directly that He was about to be killed, Peter refused to beleive it. What do you think this means in regards to what Peter thought the gospel message was (prior to Paul coming on the scene that is)?dale said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited by a moderator:
There seems to be some confusion about the distinction between the OT saints being justified by Christ's crucifixion and whether they were saved because they believed that Christ would die for them.
As Clete pointed out, even the apostles didn't know/understand/believe that Christ would be killed and raised from the dead in the days leading up to those events. Yes, Christ's blood provided for the salvation of all, including the OT saints. But there any evidence that any OT saint believed that someday God would become a man and die for him, and they were never told that such a belief was expected of them. They were expected to keep the law by faith.
As Clete pointed out, even the apostles didn't know/understand/believe that Christ would be killed and raised from the dead in the days leading up to those events. Yes, Christ's blood provided for the salvation of all, including the OT saints. But there any evidence that any OT saint believed that someday God would become a man and die for him, and they were never told that such a belief was expected of them. They were expected to keep the law by faith.
I understand that prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, the apostles may very well NOT have understood what was going on. But I was under the impression that was more to their shame. I can't prove it with scripture (although I believe someone can), but I thought had they understood the scriptures properly they should have, or at least could have known to expect the Messiah and that He would die as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
After the resurrection, but prior to Paul, I thought Peter did understand the gospel to be salvation freely granted through faith in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ.
After the resurrection, but prior to Paul, I thought Peter did understand the gospel to be salvation freely granted through faith in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ.
So, how does everyone feel about the idea that before Christ's death that no one was saved the way we are today? I.e., they were not saved by the blood...
I don't believe that it can be disputed that the average Jew did not expect the death of the Messiah. Even the average faithful Jew would generally have not understood that the Messiah must be offered up as a sacrifice for their sin. And even if you wanted to dispute that much, two things are certain, no one was required to believe that in order to be saved and Jesus expressly forbid the apostles and the rest of His followers from preaching that as they went about Jerusalem and the surrounding area preaching the Gospel. They weren't even permitted to tell people that Jesus was the messiah, never mind that He would die and rise from the dead. The central part of what we would call the gospel today was a very tight secret during Jesus' Earthly ministry and thus could not have been part of the gospel at that time.dale said:
Peter, at Pentecost, preached the same gospel he had been preaching before Pentecost, that being, if Israel would repent of their sin (i.e. follow the law) then God would give them their kingdom. The only modification to that message at Pentecost was two fold. The Spirit was given and manifested the sign of tongues which was a prophesied sign (as Peter explained) and it wasn't simply that God would give them their kingdom but that JESUS would return and be their king. But aside from those two additional details the message was the same as it had been and didn't change at all until Paul came on the scene and started talking about how Israel had been cut off and had turned to the gentiles who were expressly forbidden to be circumcised or observe any other part of the law and that if they simply believed that God would make them members of the Body of Christ Himself. A plan which God had always had but which had been kept a secret in God from the beginning.
Resting in Him,
Clete
:thumb:dale said:
Meat is harder to chew than milk!
Heb.5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
- Status