Faith Discussion
STATEMENT
The saints in the OT times were saved by grace through faith in the coming Christ. There is only one way of salvation in the Bible from the beginning to the end. Granted they were given less light and they saw many things dimly, yet the SUBSTANCE of the things they hoped for, was Christ, THE FAITH whereby Abel (even Adam and Eve, his parents), Noah, Abraham, Moses and the rest of the faithful in the OT were all saved. They had saving knowledge. It was not as explicit and full as it was later revealed by the Son Himself and then by His apostles, especially as regards the fact that Gentiles are fellow heirs with believing Israel of the same promise of salvation in the Seed / Christ.
The major point of my difference with Primitive Baptists as represented in the writings of theearstohear.com is this: the OT saints are part of the same company of the redeemed with us, of the same church, house, tree, body of which Christ is the Head. They had the same faith with us and were saved in the same way as we are. And Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the rest of them are a part of he SAME church, outside of which there is no salvation. I know Baptists generally deny this (otherwise they would not be Baptists), and I believe they are wrong on this. (Anonymous Reformed Christian)
RESPONSE
I believe you misunderstand our beliefs. Let’s dive into this in more detail.
The saints in the OT times were saved by grace through faith in [the coming] Christ.
All of God’s elect are regenerated at some point between conception and death. They receive the God-given capacity of faith as a fruit of the spirit. This faith has the true and living God as both its source and object. That said, there is great variance in the amount of revelation that God’s children across the broad span of human history. To assert that all of God’s people obtain some cognitive understanding of the mechanics of eternal salvation is an assertion that is unscriptural and impossible to substantiate.
There is only one way of salvation in the Bible from the beginning to the end.
That is true. Eternal salvation is entirely by the finished work of Christ wherein he perfected forever them that are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). This is precisely what the bible teaches and what Primitive Baptist’s believe. God’s elect are saved by what Christ has done for them plus absolutely nothing else.
Granted they were given less light and they saw many things dimly, yet the SUBSTANCE of the things they hoped for, was Christ, THE FAITH whereby Abel (even Adam and Eve, his parents), Noah, Abraham, Moses and the rest of the faithful in the OT were all saved.
Yes. They were all recipients of grace, as the bible clearly demonstrates. They all had God-given faith. But the majority of them did not embrace anything that resembles the Trinitarian mechanics of the explicit New Testament gospel.
They had saving knowledge. It was not as explicit and full as it was later revealed by the Son Himself and then by His apostles, especially as regards the fact that Gentiles are fellow heirs with believing Israel of the same promise of salvation in the Seed/Christ.
“Saving knowledge” is evidence that eternally saving grace has ALREADY BEEN IMPARTED in regeneration. It is not a requirement to obtain eternal salvation. Indeed, the spiritually dead are incapable of learning (I Corinthians 2:14, John 3:3), and the spiritually living are incapable of learning something to bring them to life, because since they are alive already. I doubt we disagree on this point.
That said, “saving knowledge” is not a requirement for either obtaining or maintaining the eternal life imparted freely by grace. It is a vital sign, not a covenantal requirement. Moreover, this notion of “saving knowledge” faces insurmountable problems where the imbecile and the infant are concerned. Truth be told, if Christ fulfilled the covenant for those who have no visible means of embracing such “saving knowledge” then he likewise fulfilled it for those who possess those means – indeed there was but ONE offering (Hebrews 10:14) “for all.” (Hebrews 10:10).
The major point of my difference with Primitive Baptists as represented in the writings of theearstohear.com is this: the OT saints are part of the same company of the redeemed with us, of the same church, house, tree, body of which Christ is the Head.
I do not deny this truth. Neither do I know any Primitive Baptists that deny this truth. But here we should be careful about our terms. It is biblical to recognize the “church universal” as the body of Christ which includes all of God’s elect family across all of time. This is the sense in which I take your reference to the “church” above. However, it is important to recognize that the vast majority of the time the bible uses the term “church” it is speaking of a local assembly of believers and the matters of conduct related therein. Simply stated, there are a great many of the Lord’s universal church (the elect) who never become members of the Lord’s local church – and this by many proofs (Luke 10:25-37, Job 9:2). Indeed, how many of the OT saints were baptized, took communion, or heard the explicit New Testament gospel? How many heard the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or believed in a Trinitarian Godhead? These observations prove my point beyond any reasonable dispute. Failure to make this distinction in how the bible employs the term “church” leads to irreconcilable observations in the word of God.
They had the same faith with us and were saved in the same way as we are.
Yes. They had God-given faith and they were saved as a result of God’s own fulfillment of the covenant on their behalf. They were NOT saved by the degree to which they understood theological truth or exercised their God given faith. There is great variance in the understanding and faithfulness of the Lord’s saints in the bible.
And Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the rest of them are a part of he SAME church, outside of which there is no salvation.
True of the “church universal” but NOT TRUE of the New Testament Church. Consider the following: Is it possible to be a member of a New Testament church apart from being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? How many of the OT saints were baptized in this fashion? To state this plainly, the New Testament church is a SUBSET of the Lord’s flock. It is a special manifestation of grace in this world – the pillar and ground of truth – but clearly all of God’s children do not become members therein. The OT is an irrefutable monument to this fact. To try and make the OT saints part of the NT church would require that one so confound the definition of the NT church as to make it meaningless. One would have to ignore its offices, ordinances, scriptures, explicit gospel, etc. So again, we must take care to notice how the term “church” is employed in scripture and not unnecessarily confound the idea of the elect (church universal) with the idea of the local NT assembly (church local).
I know Baptists generally deny this (otherwise they would not be Baptists), and I believe they are wrong on this.
I don’t know of ANY Baptists (Primitive or otherwise) who deny the concept of the church universal. Clearly the concept exists. Some might haggle over the degree to which the bible is referring to that concept when it uses the term “church.” Most, PBs would insist that term almost always designs a local assembly. Admittedly, my sample set of Baptists is not comprehensive and I don’t deny that there may be some who deny it outright.
To me the issue comes down to the observation that if one attempts to press a singular definition of “church” into every instance where that word is used in scripture, they encounter insurmountable contradictions. To ignore those contradictions is to embrace Christian Irrationalism. To reconcile them by distinguishing between universal and local church references is right division, IMO.
Perhaps the broader point of distinction between us is that you make much of the notion of “saving faith.” I suspect this arises from the reformed idea of “Justification by Faith” – the idea that a man is not justified before God until he has exercised evangelical faith in some measure of gospel truth. We do not believe that at all. God regenerates men immediately. He does not use the gospel as an instrumental means of imparting eternal life. He does not use ministers or intermediaries of any sort.
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” (John 5:25)
As such, one’s exercise of faith has no eternally saving efficacy. It is not involved in how one obtains eternal salvation. It is “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:6). One of those “things not seen” is the regeneration that preceded it and which imparted eternal life to a child of grace prior to any belief whatsoever. That’s grace. Until one embraces the notion that “faith is evidence” they will labor under the false doctrine that faith is a requirement for justification. It is not. It is simply the means whereby we can embrace the truth of our justification by Christ and experience the peace and joy thereof in the here and now.
- Elder Daniel Samons