StephenMartyr
Puritan Board Freshman
My Dad and I got into a heated discussion last night about two things: how OT saints got saved and the revelation some had. He didn't flesh out his stance about question 2 (it was late) so I'm only going by what I believe he meant. I'll elaborate.
1: How did the OT saints get saved?
2: Did some saints receive more revelation about the gospel than scriptures talk about?
My answers to clarify where I stand (in short form):
1: They were saved by looking to a "Messiah to come".
2: I can't see it.
Our talk revolved more around question 2. My Dad brought up about this verse how Enoch walked with God:
Gen 5:22 "And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:..."
Aside from that verse, there could be other men that "talked with God": Adam, Moses and maybe a few more. My Dad went on to say, "What did they talk about?". This came from my stance that they only knew about the Messiah to come in "little bits":
Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
He didn't seem to like that "little bits" stance.
If you came across someone that held to the notion that God revealed more of the gospel (the good news of the Messiah to come) than what scripture says, what would you say to them? My guess is what my Dad was trying to say was God could have revealed more than Genesis 3:15 to say Enoch. Scripture doesn't say it, but God could have said, "Enoch I'm going to send my Son to die for the sins of my people.". Scripture doesn't say that, but since he "walked with God", since Moses spent a lot of time talking with God, it would follow in their discourses (God with the person) a lengthier, more developed back-and-forth discussion of the things to come. What else would they be talking about?
I think that's my Dad's stance. It's not a good time at the moment to bring it up, but I hope to soon to see if my understanding of his position is right.
To me that is very dangerous because you're adding to scripture (Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.) something that scripture does not say. To me, it's dangerous ground to go on.
I hold to God giving "little bits" of information to Adam and on, getting fuller in the time of Isaiah to the full revelation at the time of Paul. I hold that Enoch and Moses didn't know what Paul and Peter knew. Am I wrong? Is this view to narrow?
I'm asking both to talk with my Dad and for my own understanding, hope to bounce what I'm thinking to people here to see if I'm on the right track. I'm open to rebukes or corrections.
1: How did the OT saints get saved?
2: Did some saints receive more revelation about the gospel than scriptures talk about?
My answers to clarify where I stand (in short form):
1: They were saved by looking to a "Messiah to come".
2: I can't see it.
Our talk revolved more around question 2. My Dad brought up about this verse how Enoch walked with God:
Gen 5:22 "And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:..."
Aside from that verse, there could be other men that "talked with God": Adam, Moses and maybe a few more. My Dad went on to say, "What did they talk about?". This came from my stance that they only knew about the Messiah to come in "little bits":
Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
He didn't seem to like that "little bits" stance.
If you came across someone that held to the notion that God revealed more of the gospel (the good news of the Messiah to come) than what scripture says, what would you say to them? My guess is what my Dad was trying to say was God could have revealed more than Genesis 3:15 to say Enoch. Scripture doesn't say it, but God could have said, "Enoch I'm going to send my Son to die for the sins of my people.". Scripture doesn't say that, but since he "walked with God", since Moses spent a lot of time talking with God, it would follow in their discourses (God with the person) a lengthier, more developed back-and-forth discussion of the things to come. What else would they be talking about?
I think that's my Dad's stance. It's not a good time at the moment to bring it up, but I hope to soon to see if my understanding of his position is right.
To me that is very dangerous because you're adding to scripture (Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.) something that scripture does not say. To me, it's dangerous ground to go on.
I hold to God giving "little bits" of information to Adam and on, getting fuller in the time of Isaiah to the full revelation at the time of Paul. I hold that Enoch and Moses didn't know what Paul and Peter knew. Am I wrong? Is this view to narrow?
I'm asking both to talk with my Dad and for my own understanding, hope to bounce what I'm thinking to people here to see if I'm on the right track. I'm open to rebukes or corrections.