You wrote: This is a 'works based' salvation message, absolutely contrary to the plain teaching of scripture, which states that we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9; Ro 4:5).
My response: IMO your argument is using Paul's teaching as a canon to which the teaching of Jesus and the OT must conform which creates a discontinuity between OT and NT and; therefore, is logically inconsistent. The OT was Paul's scripture (2 Ti 3:16, 17). It is inconceivable that he would be given the authority to change what had been revealed by a God who cannot lie. Nonetheless, you are proposing that an 'unto the least of these' judgment is a 'works based salvation' message (Jesus) as opposed to the 'faith apart from works' message (Paul). Your argument hinges on a 'winking' which took place prior to the preaching of the death and resurrection of Christ.
A 'winking' idea can be justified on the basis of the Levitical law where a man's sin may be hid from him so that he only becomes guilty once he realizes what he has done (i.e. Lev 5:4). I find the 'individuation' of this idea better than the 'universal' declaration of guilt before and after the resurrection.
A scheme which I find brings more continuity to the OT/NT begins with Hab 2:4 'the just live by faith' ['faith' is emunah (Strong's #530)]. Emunah is used in 1 Sa 26:23 'YHWH render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness (emunah #530).' This appears to be universal rather than 'any Israelite' and the idea is continued (after the preaching of the resurrection) as per He 2:2-3 'if the [former] word was steadfast, and every transgression … received a just recompense … how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation.' Accordingly, I would say that Paul preaches an 'obedience of faith' (Ro 1:5) rather than 'an obedience which is faith.' Note the content of the gospel here in Ro 1:1-5 which corresponds to 1 Co 15:1ff). I would interpret Jesus 'seek first the kingdom … and its righteousness' (Mt 6:33) to be a summary of what he had taught before (i.e. 'when thou doest thy [mercies #1654] let not your left hand [et al]' (v 2-3). Thus, the 'reward' (v 4) is consistent with the OT idea of 1 Sa 26:23. A correspondence can then be drawn between this passage and Ro 12:20 en loc where Paul exhorts his audience to good works (cf. Eph 2:10 'created for good works'). We could also note Paul's message to Felix (Acts 24:25) where he 'reasoned of righteousness [et al].' In Corinthians, 'the greatest … is love' (1 Co 13) and they are to 'examine [themselves] whether [they] be in the faith' (2 Co 13:5). James also echoes this idea: 'hold not the faith … with respect of persons' (Ja 2:2). Both Paul and James affirm that 'love fulfills the law' (Ro 13:10 cf Ja 2:8). The only difference between the OT and NT is the preeminence of Jesus as Lord. Thus, I would suggest that all men are under a covenant (Noahic, Abrahamic and Mosaic) which is ratified when they fulfill its terms (i.e. Ge 9:9 'I [ratifiy] my covenant with you and with your seed after you'). Those terms include, for the New Covenant, acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord but only when the preaching of the cross has been heard by the individual. Thus, the remnant's preaching seals the doom of all men as did the preaching of Noah. The remnant are those who follow the manual vs. those merely promoting the manual. Everyone who 'understandeth [the word]; which also beareth fruit' (Mt 13:23) is those of the NT and those spoken of by the prophets (cf. Isaiah 6:9-13 quoted by Jesus in explanation of this parable in Mt 13:15).
IMO, John, we are standing on far better ground to 'prove' the resurrection empirically (i.e. the Road to Emmaus story and other appearances) which then affirms the historicity of Gen 1-11 and, then, to apply its meaning in terms of bearing fruit; rather, than affirming the historicity of the Gen 1-11 account as a 'faith' in and of itself as opposed to a faith evidenced by obedience.
In terms of the special revelation: Through Enoch (cf. Jude 14 'the Lord cometh') all nations have the terms of the covenant revealed to them which, according the extant writings attributed to Enoch, includes a reward for righteousness (i.e. 'if ill-requitals befall you, do not return them to neighbor or enemy, because the Lord will return them for you' 2 Enoch). Thus, IMO all nations begin with a special revelation as well as the natural revelation of Ro 1-2.
You wrote: This is a 'works based' salvation message, absolutely contrary to the plain teaching of scripture, which states that we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9; Ro 4:5).
My response: IMO your argument is using Paul's teaching as a canon to which the teaching of Jesus and the OT must conform which creates a discontinuity between OT and NT and; therefore, is logically inconsistent.
Paul's clear message of salvation by grace through faith in no way contradicts the Old Testament scriptures (unless we've already decided that God's salvation must be works-based).
The OT was Paul's scripture (2 Ti 3:16, 17). It is inconceivable that he would be given the authority to change what had been revealed by a God who cannot lie.
By the time Paul wrote his second epistle to Timothy, both he and Timothy were not only acquainted with the written Gospel, but were regarding it as authoritative. 1 Timothy 5:18 cites both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as "scripture".
Nonetheless, you are proposing that an 'unto the least of these' judgment is a 'works based salvation' message (Jesus) as opposed to the 'faith apart from works' message (Paul).No such division exists. Jesus' message of salvation by grace through faith matches Paul's perfectly. John 6:28-29 (which you failed to address) speaks to this. Again, you're meshing ideas and scriptures together in ways that simply aren't warranted. It is important to read each passage in its proper context. The universal guilt of mankind, which you deny, is spelled out for us so clearly that only a preconceived idea that this must not be the case would lead us to conclude differently. We simply cannot gloss over clear passages like these:
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise, for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one…For all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:9-12, 23
"The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalm 14:2-3
"But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterward be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians 3:22-25
The Matthew 25 passage speaks to a specific time and place. This sheep and goat judgment is to the nations that were on the earth through the Great Tribulation, a.k.a. the time of Jacob's trouble. The Scriptures tell us it will be a time of trouble for God's people, the Jews, and all those that come to faith in Christ. Again, based on the extreme anti Semitic and anti Christian atmosphere that we are told will pervade the planet during this period, it is only reasonable to suppose that whoever helps one of Christ's brethren will undoubtedly be a born again Christian saved by grace through faith.
Your argument hinges on a 'winking' which took place prior to the preaching of the death and resurrection of Christ.
A 'winking' idea can be justified on the basis of the Levitical law where a man's sin may be hid from him so that he only becomes guilty once he realizes what he has done (i.e. Lev 5:4). I find the 'individuation' of this idea better than the 'universal' declaration of guilt before and after the resurrection.
That my entire argument hinges on the "winking" described in Acts 17 is a straw man. I've cited numerous passages that clearly show that a faithful response to Scriptural truth is necessary for salvation. The Acts 17 passage does not say (nor did I imply) that before the death of Christ the heathen could be saved apart from scriptural truth. I simply said that even that were the case (that a person could be saved that way, which you maintained) the language Paul's uses would indicate that those days must surely be over.
The winking has nothing to do with God accepting people who have not heard and accepted His revealed truth. His winking was carried out in order to allow people to follow their natural course, which is depravation. In this way, the winking caused the nations to become colossal object lessons, showing clearly the sinfulness of man if left to his own devices (compare Ecclesiastes 8:11).
Regarding your interpretation of Leviticus 5:4: we must remember that these laws and ordinances were given to Israel at a specific time and place and for a specific purpose. To use this portion of Scripture to argue that God will only impute our guilt to us when we are conscious of transgression flies in the face of other more "universal" scripture passages. Notice Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 4:4
"For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord."
Jesus echoes the same sentiment in Luke 12:47-48:
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Concerning obedience to the Law, Paul assures us that, "…by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Galatians 2:16).
Romans chapters 1 & 2 tell us that people can be sure God exist through what He has made. Further, that our conscience testifies that we have transgressed His moral code. This general revelation is enough to show us our guilt, but does not impart to us the knowledge of how to be saved.
A scheme which I find brings more continuity to the OT/NT begins with Hab 2:4 'the just live by faith' ['faith' is emunah (Strong's #530)].
Again I ask, faith in what? I asked you before if you believed that a person could be saved by simply believing in whatever faith system / worldview they chose. Your response that "it can be no other way since the church is sleeping" falls flat in the light of numerous other verse passages that call us to faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Might I suggest another "scheme" that brings Old and New Testament doctrine into conformity which each other? Why not let Paul the apostle, well learned in the scriptures from his youth, according to the law blameless, and commissioned by Jesus to write about and propagate the Gospel, give us his inspired commentary on the Old Testament? It appears to me that you have things a bit backwards. You are imposing your interpretation of the Old Testament upon the New, instead of allowing the inspired writers of the New Testament explain the Old. The latter seems a far better and safer course.
Emunah is used in 1 Sa 26:23 'YHWH render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness (emunah #530).' This appears to be universal rather than 'any Israelite' and the idea is continued (after the preaching of the resurrection) as per He 2:2-3 'if the [former] word was steadfast, and every transgression … received a just recompense … how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation.'
There is a difference between narrative and doctrine. Paul's words concerning the universal guilt of mankind and our salvation by grace through faith are very explicit. On the other hand, 1 Samuel 26 is a narrative passage describing Saul's pursuit of David. Verse 23, on which you hinge your argument, is simply a prayer / declaration of David. It seems rather tenuous ground on which to build a doctrine, especially when this doctrine seems to conflict with clear scriptural teaching elsewhere. Aren't we better off following those "Thus saith the LORD" sections when formulating a doctrine?
I don't understand how you think Hebrews 2:23 supports your view. This passage is simply stating that under the Mosaic Law, infractions were clearly defined and punishments were carried out without with exactitude (for example, Numbers 15:32-36, which describes the stoning of a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day).
The salvation granted by the New Covenant is greater because:
The Mosaic law was given to Israel (Romans 3:2, 9:4); the New Covenant offers salvation to all mankind
The Mosaic Law promised earthly blessings, success (Josh 1:8) whereas the New Covenant promises treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:19-20, 1 Peter 1:3-4)
The Mosaic Law brought knowledge of sin, but no power to overcome it. The New Covenant brought freedom from the Law and sin (Romans chapters 7 & 8)
Accordingly, I would say that Paul preaches an 'obedience of faith' (Ro 1:5) rather than 'an obedience which is faith.'
Note the content of the gospel here in Ro 1:1-5 which corresponds to 1 Co 15:1ff). I would interpret Jesus 'seek first the kingdom … and its righteousness' (Mt 6:33) to be a summary of what he had taught before (i.e. 'when thou doest thy [mercies #1654] let not your left hand [et al]' (v 2-3). Thus, the 'reward' (v 4) is consistent with the OT idea of 1 Sa 26:23. A correspondence can then be drawn between this passage and Ro 12:20 en loc where Paul exhorts his audience to good works (cf. Eph 2:10 'created for good works').
We could also note Paul's message to Felix (Acts 24:25) where he 'reasoned of righteousness [et al].'
In Corinthians, 'the greatest … is love' (1 Co 13) and they are to 'examine [themselves] whether [they] be in the faith' (2 Co 13:5).
James also echoes this idea: 'hold not the faith … with respect of persons' (Ja 2:2). Both Paul and James affirm that 'love fulfills the law' (Ro 13:10 cf Ja 2:8).
None of these passages proves your point, even with your intentional omission of Ephesians 2:8-9, which clearly declares that salvation is achieved without our effort. "Not of works, lest any man should boast", is a very clear statement. It takes a lot of linguistic and philosophical maneuvering to get around this one.
Again, linking Matthew 6:33 with 1 Samuel 26 seems tenuous at best. In the same chapter (Matthew 6:19-20) Jesus tells us to store up treasure in heaven. The idea is that our reward is waiting for us in the life to come. The idea is echoed in Luke 14:14, "…for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Paul explains that this will take place at the "Judgement Seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10). The nature of this judgement is spelled out for us in no uncertain terms in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. No if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."
The passage could not be clearer. We are saved when we place our trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Our works will be judged and rewards met out accordingly. The fact that we are saved even if our works are burned up dovetails perfectly with Paul's clear statement in Romans 4:5 "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Also note 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, where a fellow Christian is described as so back slidden that Paul recommends he be delivered unto Satan "for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." There can be no doubt that our faith alone saves us, though faith that saves us should not be alone (i.e. it should prompt us to perform good works).
The only difference between the OT and NT is the preeminence of Jesus as Lord.
I mildly disagree. Proverbs 30:4 speaks of God's Son, and hints that his name may be known (notice that Yeshua [Salvation] the Hebrew rendering of Jesus, is personified in Isaiah 62:11). Psalm 2 also speaks of the Son as the preeminent one in whom we must place our trust:
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Psalm 2:12
Thus, I would suggest that all men are under a covenant (Noahic, Abrahamic and Mosaic) which is ratified when they fulfill its terms (i.e. Ge 9:9 'I [ratifiy] my covenant with you and with your seed after you'). Those terms include, for the New Covenant, acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord but only when the preaching of the cross has been heard by the individual.
God's declarations to Noah recorded in Genesis 8 support the clear teachings of Paul concerning the universal guilt of mankind:
"…I will not again curse the ground for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nether will I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done." Genesis 8:21
God's covenant with all mankind beginning at 9:9 was His promise that He would never again flood the earth. Why? Because our problem, as noted in 8:21 is a heart problem, that neither global catastrophe nor the Mosaic Law could fix (Galatians 2:21: "For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.). Only by placing our trust in Christ can we receive a new heart, one that desires to follow God. But notice that we first need to hear about Christ before we can place our trust in Him. This is the great impetus for missionary work as Paul's words in Romans 10:13-15 make abundantly clear.
Thus, the remnant's preaching seals the doom of all men as did the preaching of Noah. The remnant are those who follow the manual vs. those merely promoting the manual. Everyone who 'understandeth [the word]; which also beareth fruit' (Mt 13:23) is those of the NT and those spoken of by the prophets (cf. Isaiah 6:9-13 quoted by Jesus in explanation of this parable in Mt 13:15).
Notice that the parable of the sower in Matt 13 supports the argument that the revealed word of God is central to salvation. The seed is the word, which argues against the notion that people may be saved without it. IMHO, people who have never heard the name of Jesus will still be guilty before God because of their suppression of the truth they did have (i.e. evidence of God in creation, and their conscience). Those that do not suppress what God has given them in general revelation, I firmly believe will have the name of Jesus Christ preached to them one way or another. So while I simply cannot believe that a person can be saved without calling upon the name of the Son of God, I reject the idea that millions of people around the world won't be given a fair opportunity to be saved. As Romans 1 tells us, however, the sad fact is, most people do suppress the truth they are given.
IMO, John, we are standing on far better ground to 'prove' the resurrection empirically (i.e. the Road to Emmaus story and other appearances) which then affirms the historicity of Gen 1-11 and, then, to apply its meaning in terms of bearing fruit; rather, than affirming the historicity of the Gen 1-11 account as a 'faith' in and of itself as opposed to a faith evidenced by obedience.
I agree that the focal point of our evangelistic efforts needs to be Jesus. From an apologetic standpoint I have an easier time defending the historicity of the New Testament than that of the Old. However, if I can bring a person to a place where they trust what the New Testament has to say, then a trust in the Old must certainly follow because of the New Testament's constant affirmation of it as reliable history.
The great conflict between evolutionism and creation is, however, enviable. Sooner or later people will realize that the Jesus of the New Testament is anchored inextricably to the Genesis account of creation. It's no secret that evolutionism is the dominant worldview in the west, and it totally contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture. The tension in peoples' minds is enormous, and many are honestly seeking answers. In these cases it becomes necessary to proclaim the authority of the word of God no matter what men's opinions may be. Secondly, to show folks that there are no observable facts in this universe which can be said to refute the Genesis account. On the other hand, there are plenty of facts that can be interpreted in a way that does not insult the intelligence, which conform very well to the Genesis record.
In terms of the special revelation: Through Enoch (cf. Jude 14 'the Lord cometh') all nations have the terms of the covenant revealed to them which, according the extant writings attributed to Enoch, includes a reward for righteousness (i.e. 'if ill-requitals befall you, do not return them to neighbor or enemy, because the Lord will return them for you' 2 Enoch). Thus, IMO all nations begin with a special revelation as well as the natural revelation of Ro 1-2.
There are a few thoughts here that need to be teased apart. First, though the prophecy quoted by Jude is found in I Enoch (1:9), it is doubtful that everything contained in the books of I & II Enoch is God inspired. Since they came to be rejected by both Jews and Christians as inspired Scripture, it is more likely assume that the prophecy quoted by Jude may be regarded as genuine, though the body of text from which it was extracted (I Enoch) should not.
Secondly, every source that I consulted gives a first century AD date as most likely for II Enoch. Again, since it came to be rejected as inspired Scripture by both the Jews and the church, it is highly questionable that the text you cite from it was ever "preached to the nations" as you suppose.
Third, the prophecy Jude attributes to Enoch was given in the pre-flood world, and was undeniably garbled and lost since the dispersion at Babel. It exists, as does all God- inspired Scripture, because it was entrusted to the Jews for its preservation. So once again, the special revelation of God pertaining to coming judgment (and God's redemptive plan of salvation) must come by way of God's chosen people "for Salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22