Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Obviously different people will have different capacities, different histories and different dispositions, to assimilate the "Good News".

The Catholic Church has taught that in the first instance the best teachers of the Good News are parents with their children. In other words the best time and the best means to communicate is between parent and child, through example and through discussing the events and lessons in the Bible.
School then should re-enforce what has been taught and naturally the Church should also re-enforce that teaching.

I was educated in a school run by a great Catholic missionary order. I spoke with the priests who taught us about their work on the missions. These men worked in Africa and South America in 1950's and 1960's.These men served in locations of great material deprivation. Their advice about conversion was "persuade the local chieftan/witchdoctor first and the rest will follow!"

Which was my question: how does it work when the dispositions vary as wildly as laid out in my post. Your approach: tell them and move on seems the opposite to what you yourself experienced.

Not sure about the 'follow the leader' approach. It might get people to join, but not necessarily for the right reasons. The witch doctor hand rocking the sheep-like cradle raises questions. Quantity, not quality like?

In terms of the OT people. The Catholic Church teaches (it's not dogma) that prophets such as Moses etc never knew of Jesus but they knew about God.
It is therefore reasonable for the Church to surmise that if Moses was alive during Jesus ministry, that Moses etc would have become Catholic.

By not dogma you mean its not necessarily true. A stab, an indication, a perhaps?

Everyone knows about God (according to Paul in Romans).

If Abraham didn't know Jesus and wasn't a Catholic, it would seem less than essential that a person be a Catholic. And some of these characters are 'greats' - so even elevated 'status' doesn't require that you be a Catholic it seems. What you reckon?

hinault

What I experienced is different.

Your question was premised upon preaching to people who'd never heard of God.

The conversion of the chieftain meant that others were likely to follow what the chieftain does.

It's reasonable to assume that if Abraham had heard jesed teaching that he would have been a follower of Christ. That is a reasonable thesis. That thesis does have to be subject to dogma. Dogma is irrelevant in this context.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

What I experienced is different.

Your question was premised upon preaching to people who'd never heard of God.

My question was premised upon there being all kinds of people. People who've never heard of God (a remote tribesman) or someone Irish who has but has very good reason not to want to listen from someone who says they represent God and his truth.

How does a "I tell 'em and move on" take account of this.

The conversion of the chieftain meant that others were likely to follow what the chieftain does.

Raising the obvious problem. Are they following just because he is the chief (meaning the Muslim evangelist getting to the chief before you will produce a tribe of sheep-like Muslims. Or are they following because of their own evaluation

It's reasonable to assume that if Abraham had heard jesed teaching that he would have been a follower of Christ. That is a reasonable thesis. That thesis does have to be subject to dogma. Dogma is irrelevant in this context.

But Abraham was saved despite never having heard the teachings of Jesus - what he may or may not have done had he been born in Jesus day or later has little relevance. Isn't the key issue salvation and not Catholicism?

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

My question was premised upon there being all kinds of people. People who've never heard of God (a remote tribesman) or someone Irish who has but has very good reason not to want to listen from someone who says they represent God and his truth.

How does a "I tell 'em and move on" take account of this.

It accounts for this on the basis (1) they're told the Good News, and (2) that the need to spread the Good News further to other people, restricts the time energy/time expended on people who are obstinate in their unbelief/disbelief.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Raising the obvious problem. Are they following just because he is the chief (meaning the Muslim evangelist getting to the chief before you will produce a tribe of sheep-like Muslims. Or are they following because of their own evaluation

Both perhaps.

antiskeptic wrote: »

d despite never having heard the teachings of Jesus - what he may or may not have done had he been born in Jesus day or later has little relevance. Isn't the key issue salvation and not Catholicism?

Abraham abided by the covenant that applied at the time.

However it is reasonable to assume that Abraham would have conformed to Jesus ministry if he had had the opportunity. That's no dogma.

What is dogma.
Jesus replaced the old covenant with His covenant through His church, the Catholic Church which contains the possibility of salvation to those who are Catholic.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

It accounts for this on the basis (1) they're told the Good News, and (2) that the need to spread the Good News further to other people, restricts the time energy/time expended on people who are obstinate in their unbelief/disbelief.

Even if their obstinancy is founded on very negative experiences at the hands of messangers from God (e.g. the violent brothers I encountered who, it appears, weren't a patch on some of their peers)?

Surely the one shot approach is faulty if it takesno account of the recipient. A person damned because some Christian brother made receipt of the message problematic?

Both perhaps.

The tribe follows the chief into Islam (because Islam beat Catholicism to it) and they are damned because they followed the leader? This 'get the chief and the rest will follow' is problematic. It only works if the Catholics get in first.

Abraham abided by the covenant that applied at the time.

Abraham believed God and was declared righteous. His salvation was a new covenant salvation - so much so Paul uses his example in his explanation of the new covenant. The "father" of the new covenant faith he calls him.. in fact.

No one is declared righteous by the old covenant. Says Paul.

However it is reasonable to assume that Abraham would have conformed to Jesus ministry if he had had the opportunity. That's no dogma.

Abraham saved. Without Christianity. Without Catholicism.

One wonders what the point of the new covenant would be if the old covenant could save.

What is dogma.
Jesus replaced the old covenant with His covenant through His church, the Catholic Church which contains the possibility of salvation to those who are Catholic.

As I say, salvation wasn't possible under the old covenant. Meaning nobody saved before Christ? No one saved after Christ bar they hear the Catholic message. Pity an American Indian circa the time of Christ and pre instant global communication.

Do you actually believe this stuff ??

jimmycrackcorm

Is there a timeline for repentance? Seems like a chicken and egg situation.

Ie. Can't I wait until my dying hours and repent then?
Or if the argument is that you need to repent sooner then it must be too late as I didn't do it already.

It's repentance just another 'sale just end soon' mantra?

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, salvation wasn't possible under the old covenant.

Why do you say this?

The Abrahamic covenant was unconditional on his performance (Genesis 12, 15 and 17 could be helpful here). Abraham himself was deemed righteous apart from his works (Genesis 15:17).

The Mosaic covenant was given in the aftermath of salvation from Egypt. Deuteronomy 9 even goes on to say that this was undeserved.

You are right to say that in the Old Testament that there is a tension that is only resolved in Jesus but there are clear references pointing towards grace in the Mosaic covenant (for example the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 that took place every year for the remission of sins and the sacrificial system a picture of salvation - Hebrews is excellent for exploring this) and in other parts of the Old Testament.

One passage that sums up the tension beautifully is after the golden calf incident when God speaks to Moses.

Exodus 34:6-7 wrote:

The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

God's mercy and not letting off the guilty aren't naturally reconcilable but they are both true. Their full reconciliation is seen at the cross.

That's before we talk about the unconditional nature of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7.

Salvation was definitely possible under the Old Covenant as a picture that points to its true fulfilment in Jesus.

The Bible is a whole it isn't two disparate halves. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament despite people claiming otherwise. The New Testament can only be understood with the background of the Old Testament.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Is there a timeline for repentance? Seems like a chicken and egg situation.

Ie. Can't I wait until my dying hours and repent then?
Or if the argument is that you need to repent sooner then it must be too late as I didn't do it already.

It's repentance just another 'sale just end soon' mantra?

Yes. When Jesus returns it will be too late.

Also repentance isn't just about salvation. It is about enjoying fellowship with God and His people now.

hinault

So you're saying that Abraham wasn't saved.

Abraham was saved because he abided by the covenant that applied at the time.
To abide by the covenant required an awareness of the covenant, and Abraham possessed that awareness

God became incarnate (the concept you do not believe in) lo g after Abraham lived
Jesus established the new covenant.

That new covenant is the only way for people since then to be saved through His church

I suggest to you that you become a member of His church therefore.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

Why do you say this?

The Abrahamic covenant was unconditional on his performance (Genesis 12, 15 and 17 could be helpful here). Abraham himself was deemed righteous apart from his works (Genesis 15:17).

Which is what, if not the new covenant? That it is the same covenant, salvation by faith (or believing what God says), is made clear when Paul draws a line to it in his explaining the workings of the gospel of gracein Romans. Abraham, the father of this mode of salvation.

There is nothing unusual in the gospel of salvation by faith being announced in the OT.

The Mosaic covenant was given in the aftermath of salvation from Egypt. Deuteronomy 9 even goes on to say that this was undeserved.

And salvation by this covenant - adherence to God's laws is impossible.

There are only two covenants: by law and by faith. It would be a misreading to suppose there was a covenant of faith (Abraham), then a second covenant by law, then a third covenant by faith installed with Christ.

Abraham was saved by faith. And being saved thus he is put in Christ.

You are right to say that in the Old Testament that there is a tension that is only resolved in Jesus but there are clear references pointing towards grace in the Mosaic covenant (for example the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 that took place every year for the remission of sins and the sacrificial system a picture of salvation - Hebrews is excellent for exploring this) and in other parts of the Old Testament.

Whatever about the extent of grace via the Mosaic covenant (things would go better for those who adhered to it), there is no salvation to be found there. Salvation is excluded as a possibility by Paul in Romans.

Salvation was definitely possible under the Old Covenant as a picture that points to its true fulfilment in Jesus.

By what mechanism salvation under the law? Perfect adherence isn't possible. What's left?

The Bible is a whole it isn't two disparate halves. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament despite people claiming otherwise. The New Testament can only be understood with the background of the Old Testament.

Agreed to an extent. I don't believe, for example, that the nation slaying God of the Old Testament represents who God is though. The argument that this is a projection by a formerly pagan people,a people used to following war-gods seems sound enough.

This is a people who demanded Kings rather than be led by The King. Old habits die hard.

Anyway, salvation by self (following the drumbeat mode of self determining sinful humanity) vs salvation by God are sufficient to cover the story of mankind. There is no need for a shed load of differing covenants.

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is what, if not the new covenant? That it is the same covenant, salvation by faith (or believing what God says), is made clear when Paul draws a line to it in his explaining the workings of the gospel of gracein Romans. Abraham, the father of this mode of salvation.

There is nothing unusual in the gospel of salvation by faith being announced in the OT.

This has been explained to you before. Abraham received grace through faith in God according to what was revealed at the time. That doesn't nullify Jesus or the cross. Now that Christ has been revealed He is the way of salvation. In fact Christ has always been the way of salvation even for Abraham, even if He only saw it through what had been revealed at the time.

One could argue that the (near) sacrifice at Moriah in Genesis 22 showed Abraham that God would provide, and one day God indeed provided by offering His own Son for our salvation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And salvation by this covenant - adherence to God's laws is impossible.

The Mosaic covenant was given to a people who were saved by grace out of Egypt (see Deuteronomy 9). The Mosaic covenant also operates in parallel with the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, and we see elements of God's forgiveness and forebearance throughout the Mosaic law as I showed you with the example from Exodus 34. There is a tension that is unresolved between God's justice and God's mercy that runs through the whole Bible however.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are only two covenants: by law and by faith. It would be a misreading to suppose there was a covenant of faith (Abraham), then a second covenant by law, then a third covenant by faith installed with Christ.

No, there are several covenants in the Bible. God makes promises to several different people in the Old Testament. Some of them seem to conflict until we see their resolution in Christ who brings the New Covenant to which all of the other ones point towards.

I would encourage you to read 2 Samuel 7 in particular to see the Davidic covenant at work. Think of what it adds to the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant in particular.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abraham was saved by faith. And being saved thus he is put in Christ.

Right, so why is there an issue with salvation in the Old Testament then? It is clearly there.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whatever about the extent of grace via the Mosaic covenant (things would go better for those who adhered to it), there is no salvation to be found there. Salvation is excluded as a possibility by Paul in Romans.

I disagree with you. The Mosaic covenant came out of God saving His people. It is a response to a saved people to live a new life.

One cannot be saved by following the Mosaic covenant, but that is a different claim to saying that salvation isn't in the Old Testament. It is all over the Old Testament and it points supremely to salvation in Christ.

Perhaps you're using different terminology to me, but I think it is incorrect to say there is no salvation in the Old Testament.

antiskeptic wrote: »

By what mechanism salvation under the law? Perfect adherence isn't possible. What's left?

I agree that the law can't save. That isn't what you originally claimed however.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed to an extent. I don't believe, for example, that the nation slaying God of the Old Testament represents who God is though. The argument that this is a projection by a formerly pagan people,a people used to following war-gods seems sound enough.

When we slice the Bible and say that God didn't speak here and God didn't speak there, the pages lose their consistency and the thread that binds it all together is removed.

I can't follow you to this conclusion for consistency reasons.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is a people who demanded Kings rather than be led by The King. Old habits die hard.

I think you're extracting something from one passage and applying it too widely. The reason why the people demanding a king in 1 Samuel was wrong at that time was because they wanted a king to be like all of the other nations. The King from David's line leads to the Christ. So kings aren't universally a bad idea.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyway, salvation by self (following the drumbeat mode of self determining sinful humanity) vs salvation by God are sufficient to cover the story of mankind. There is no need for a shed load of differing covenants.

It isn't that there is a need for it. It is that God in His Word speaks of different covenants to different people and to understand the Bible correctly we need to know how they function and how they work.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

This has been explained to you before. Abraham received grace through faith in God according to what was revealed at the time. That doesn't nullify Jesus or the cross. Now that Christ has been revealed He is the way of salvation. In fact Christ has always been the way of salvation even for Abraham, even if He only saw it through what had been revealed at the time.

Which is what I said. Abraham availed of salvation through Christs redemptive work. By faith. It's the exact same covenant.

Christ isn't nullified - since it is through him that I and Abraham are saved.

What is interesting is that one need not have heard of Christ back then, to be saved through Christ. One had to believe what God said.

Does one need to have heard of Christ now to be saved through him. It is said that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. And the Lord has many names: truth, justice, comforter, salvation. In fact he is named things people in utter despair can call on.

One could argue that the (near) sacrifice at Moriah in Genesis 22 showed Abraham that God would provide, and one day God indeed provided by offering His own Son for our salvation.

Yes, but as you say yourself, salvation was provided through his redemptive work to come. A simple time techicality.

Believing God was the trigger then. And is presumably now.

The Mosaic covenant was given to a people who were saved by grace out of Egypt (see Deuteronomy 9).

Saved by grace? You mean they availed of spiritual salvation (rather than physical salvation which is a type, a pointer to the spiritual - like physical circumcision is a pointer to spiritual circumcision)

Deut 9 doesn't seem to point to the Lords dealings with a spiritual people, but with a physical people. The same physical nation set aside in Romans 9

The Mosaic covenant is one of blessing according to law adherence. It cannot spiritually save. What law was Paul saying cannot save in the start of Romans?

The Mosaic covenant also operates in parallel with the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, and we see elements of God's forgiveness and forebearance throughout the Mosaic law as I showed you with the example from Exodus 34. There is a tension that is unresolved between God's justice and God's mercy that runs through the whole Bible however.

What tension?

The Mosaic is conditional (if you follow all that I command today). The only tension in it involves the person who tries to be made right with God by attempting to follow it.

The Abrahamic/new covenant is unconditional - bar the condition that a person believe God / call on the name of the Lord.

No, there are several covenants in the Bible. God makes promises to several different people in the Old Testament. Some of them seem to conflict until we see their resolution in Christ who brings the New Covenant to which all of the other ones point towards.

Yet you agree Abraham was saved according the new covenant. By faith. It was there, perhaps not revealed in full bit there and operating.

How can you ignore Paul, in the context of explaining the gospel workings, drawing a line right back to Abraham's experience and Davids experience. Righteous by faith not law. All the way back.

Its not pointing if its in action. Hidden perhaps, not crystal clear perhaps. But what we're interested in is the fact the NT way of salvation was operable long before Christ. Read Romans 4 - it's conclusive.

I would encourage you to read 2 Samuel 7 in particular to see the Davidic covenant at work. Think of what it adds to the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant in particular.

I see a mingling of a promise relevant to physical Israel with revelation as to the spiritual covenant which is the new covenant. Like Deut 30 where the Lord mingles commands that if his law be obeyed then blessings will follow (old covenant) with references to circumcising hearts (new covenant).

Whatever about expanding on physical/law and spiritual/grace covenants, I don't note anything of significance. Do you?

Right, so why is there an issue with salvation in the Old Testament then? It is clearly there.

The new covenant is operating then. There is no salvation by the old covenant - which relies on law adherence. But there is by the new covenant.

As I say, the new is alluded to alongside the old - eg circumcision of the heart at Deut 30

I disagree with you. The Mosaic covenant came out of God saving His people. It is a response to a saved people to live a new life.

One cannot be saved by following the Mosaic covenant, but that is a different claim to saying that salvation isn't in the Old Testament. It is all over the Old Testament and it points supremely to salvation in Christ.

Perhaps you're using different terminology to me, but I think it is incorrect to say there is no salvation in the Old Testament.

Rather than terminology, the problem appears to be your not saying where this OT salvation lies. It doesn't lie in the law: the Mosaic covenant. This covenant, the old covenant, the covenant of law was Paul says, but a schoolteacher..

It lies in salvation by faith. It saved Abraham. It is the new covenant operating back then (an arguably back to Adam). And Paul says so. I really don't see the difficulty your having. The clearest line is given from the gospel to Abraham salvation.

I agree that the law can't save. That isn't what you originally claimed however.

There is nothing else to the mosaic covenant. Follow my commands then. In so far as there are rederences to salvation by grace they are just that. A promise laid atop an impossible to follow command.

When we slice the Bible and say that God didn't speak here and God didn't speak there, the pages lose their consistency and the thread that binds it all together is removed.

I can't follow you to this conclusion for consistency reasons.

Jesus is the full revelation of God. When we want to know what God is like, Jesus is who we look to. If your talking inconsistancy then you have a problem reconciling a God of peace who would stoop down to the bottom of a sin-filth barrel in order to save. And a God who slays nations.

It seems that the only thing insisting on the view you hold is an a priori decision to take scripture as the literal word of God. That God had his hand on the authors hands making them write what he wanted them to write?

I think you're extracting something from one passage and applying it too widely. The reason why the people demanding a king in 1 Samuel was wrong at that time was because they wanted a king to be like all of the other nations. The King from David's line leads to the Christ. So kings aren't universally a bad idea.

That God works things to good doesn't detract from the fact that Israel rejected God as their king and harked after what other nations had. They were worldly in other words.

Why would it be that their cultural influences didn't influence their writing - unless you hold all scripture God breathed to mean God wrote the words himself?

It isn't that there is a need for it. It is that God in His Word speaks of different covenants to different people and to understand the Bible correctly we need to know how they function and how they work.

The covenant with Abraham was an everlasting covenant amd connects up to the gospel of grace. What other covenant is there by which an OT man is to be saved?

theological

The tension is in these verses as God explains His character to Moses after the golden calf incident.

Exodus 34:6-7 wrote:

The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

The first half of this speaks of God's mercy. Abounding in steadfast love, forgiving. Yet not acquitting the guilty and visiting the sins of the father's down to the fourth generation.

Yet God's mercy and God's justice are both true. This tension is only fully resolved with Jesus.

I agree with you that Abraham's covenant was an everlasting covenant. So is the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7. Both offer an unconditional relationship with God apart from works. All these threads come together in Jesus. But obviously people were saved before Jesus came on earth. Abraham is the golden example.

I also agree with you that salvation cannot come through the Mosaic law even if it offers some provisions for atonement such as the sacrificial system.

We just need to be clearer about our language. You said salvation wasn't possible under the old covenant. It was and God did bring salvation to His people but it was despite the law rather than because of it.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

The tension is in these verses as God explains His character to Moses after the golden calf incident.



The first half of this speaks of God's mercy. Abounding in steadfast love, forgiving. Yet not acquitting the guilty and visiting the sins of the father's down to the fourth generation.

By what do you understand 'visiting'. Do you think it means punishing a sinners children and grandchildren because of that sinners sin?

I'm more inclined to think the visiting being the consequences if non-kingdom living rolling on down the generations. The children of an alcoholic more likely to become alcoholics, abused children becoming abusers .. and the like. Not God actively punishing or propagating sins reward down the line. Rather, the order of God's kingdom means ripples for sin roll outwards.

I agree with you that Abraham's covenant was an everlasting covenant. So is the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7. Both offer an unconditional relationship with God apart from works. All these threads come together in Jesus. But obviously people were saved before Jesus came on earth. Abraham is the golden example.

I also agree with you that salvation cannot come through the Mosaic law even if it offers some provisions for atonement such as the sacrificial system.

We just need to be clearer about our language. You said salvation wasn't possible under the old covenant. It was and God did bring salvation to His people but it was despite the law rather than because of it.

The covenant with Abraham wasn't the old covenant. The old covenant is a law conditional one. With Abraham (or anywhere else you see a faith/believe God based covenant you are merelt seeing early, partial revelation of the new covenant that would be fully revealed with Christ.

Fully revealed with Christ. But always operational.