OT Saints

[frost]

I have a question for my Reformed brothers and sisters. It's probably been asked many times before but thought it would be nice to get some fresh ideas. How were the OT Saints saved? Were they regenerated by the Holy Spirit and born again as was in the NT? If so, what scripture backs this up? Obviously they would never have known about Jesus so could have believed in him for their salvation as we do now. I know it was neither via their sacrifices.

blessings...

 

[frumanchu]

From ThirdMill.org:

Salvation in the Old Testament was, of course, according to the same gospel that we know today (cf. Gal. 3:8), though it was revealed less clearly. It was by grace through faith, apart from personal merit. Saving faith in the Old Testament, like saving faith in the New Testament, was faith in God himself. Most basically, it is generally presented as a belief that God exists, in submission to God especially in the form of believing that what God says is true (e.g. Gen. 15:6), and in trust in God as Savior. In the Old Testament, the idea of God as Savior did not appear in the fullness of the revelation we have in the New Testament, where we learn of God the Son as Savior. But this does not detract from the fact that in the Old Testament God is consistently presented as Savior.


The specific content of saving faith was different at different points in time because, as time went on, God said more things. The greater the revelation God had given at any point in time, the more he expected people to believe. But it was not that people had to know and to believe everything God had ever said. Even today we don't teach that a person must memorize the Bible in order to be saved. The point was that they believed that God was who he said he was (as far as they knew it), that they loved him, and that they trusted him to take care of them (especially by forgiving, saving, blessing, etc.). For example, Abraham believed God when God said he would bless Abraham, and Abraham was justified on this basis. We aren't told that Abraham understood all the theological arguments regarding the means of salvation, or that he understood the relationship of faith to works, or even that he understood that he was justified on the basis of faith alone. We are told only that he believed God's promise to bless him.

Ultimately, the Bible never tells us the absolute minimum content of knowledge required for salvation, whether in the New Testament or the Old. Perhaps one reason for this is that faith itself is simply a means by which God saves us -- it is not the reason that God saves us. Faith is like a rope that God uses to lift us out of a well. It is not God's power; it is not God's motivation. It is simply God's tool. I imagine that no two people probably have precisely the same faith content: we disagree on many things, and even when we agree we no doubt understand the concepts somewhat differently. Fortunately, our faith does not determine whether or not God saves us -- God determines that all by himself. If he wants to save us, he gives us a measure of faith as the means by which he applies grace to us. The content of our faith merely reveals whether or not God has been gracious to us.

In a very important sense, the primary referent of our faith must be the object of our faith, namely God himself, the one in whom we have faith, rather than the content of our faith. This is in no way to depreciate the imporance of recognizing all three aspects of faith: knowledge, assent, and trust. It is just to emphasize that we need knowledge of a person, not just of facts; we assent by agreeing with a person; and we trust in the truth of the gospel, but not apart from trusting the God whose gospel it is. As Calvin put it, faith is more than a "common assent to gospel history" -- nothing is worth knowing except Christ (Institutes 3.2.1).

Now, none of this is to suggest that we can be saved apart from faith that includes Christ in its content: the person who has never received Christ will not be saved. (Of course, God can work miracles, and can give faith in the gospel to whom he wishes, even apart from the normal means of preaching.) But it is Christ's divinity we worship and trust, which was present and revealed in the Old Testament as in the New, even if not with the clearer distinctions between the persons of the Godhead that we find in the New Testament.

​

 

[Jon_]

I have a question for my Reformed brothers and sisters. It's probably been asked many times before but thought it would be nice to get some fresh ideas. How were the OT Saints saved? Were they regenerated by the Holy Spirit and born again as was in the NT? If so, what scripture backs this up? Obviously they would never have known about Jesus so could have believed in him for their salvation as we do now. I know it was neither via their sacrifices.

blessings...

You'll get two different answers to this question. Fru's post accurately addresses the traditional Reformed view, which is Covenant Theology. Dispensationalists (most of which are Calvinist, though mostly 4-point at that) assert two different covenants. Instead of possibly misrepresenting their view, I'll allow them to state it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[frost]

Great article fru, thanks. That explains on what basis they were saved. But what about the means? Where they regenerated or born-again in the same way or was that something that started after Jesus?

Jon, thanks too. I have heard the dispy view but I can't seem to agree with it.

 

[frumanchu]

Great article fru, thanks. That explains on what basis they were saved. But what about the means? Where they regenerated or born-again in the same way or was that something that started after Jesus?

Jon, thanks too. I have heard the dispy view but I can't seem to agree with it.

frost, regeneration is still required. There is no difference between men in the OT and the NT in terms of the need for regeneration in order to believe. There is no change in state with respect to the fallen will in the NT times. Of course, this is not to be confused with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit after faith which is particular to the last days.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

From Romans 4:

4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

 

[reformedfan]

they looked ahead in faith to Christ, they didn't have the completed Bible like we do, but they had pictures, signs & types.

Abraham didn't 'get Isaac back from the dead, in a sense' then wonder what on earth the one had to do with the other, f'rinstance.

Immed after God pronounces judgment on the world cuzza Adam & Eve, & promises to send Christ in Gen 3:15, the whole killing the animal, & Adam naming Eve 'mother of all living' showed he had some type of faith in someact that God promised that would involve a baby & blood shed.

All of the prophetic promises through the OT the OT saints were not only able to cling to in faith, but understand on some level, maybe about as well as us & the Trinity , but nevertheless, their faith wasn't a blind faith.

Were they regenerated prior? Yup. One day old Abraham was busy with his idols & God called him away from that. Abraham then moved to the next lil idol worshipping town to wait for his daddy to die. Then he moved. He was like any sinner, God draws him, but the natural inclination is to stay a sinner. (thanx God for "I"!)

You are correct that the faithful ones knew it wasn't their animal sacrifices, it was their looking ahead in faith to Christ as they shed the blood of the animal, knowing someday God would come live with them & provide their sacrifice, just like He did with Abraham. Sure, some of the ceremonies & all that got people focused on the externals, just as today some people go to church &think this is what makes them Christian, nevertheless, in spite of the abuses, it was a perfect system. OT saints had the same faith in Christ I do, that's the only way a guilty sinner is made right with God, so obviously it couldn't be anything but that, don'tcha think?

 

[frost]

Of course, this is not to be confused with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit after faith which is particular to the last days.

Strange to think of regeneration apart from the Holy Spirit, but since it didn't come until Pentecost it must be so. Good point.

 

[reformedfan]

The Holy Spirit didn't come till pentecost the way we know it today, but the Holy Spirit isn't absent from the OT. David in Ps 51 asked God not to take the Holy Spirit away from him, why would he say that unless it were a true, God inspired utterance?

 

[frost]

The Holy Spirit didn't come till pentecost the way we know it today, but the Holy Spirit isn't absent from the OT. David in Ps 51 asked God not to take the Holy Spirit away from him, why would he say that unless it were a true, God inspired utterance?

It wasn't absent in the broad sense of the term, but when speaking of the third person of the Trinity indwelling believers, this didn't happen until Pentecost.

blessings

 

[frumanchu]

Strange to think of regeneration apart from the Holy Spirit, but since it didn't come until Pentecost it must be so. Good point.

That's the thing though...I'm not advocating regeneration apart from the Holy Spirit. The HS is every bit as involved in the regeneration of the OT saints as with the NT saints. Keep in mind that the indwelling of the HS is a completely separate thing from regeneration.

 

[frost]

Right fru, that's what I took it to mean.

blessings