The OT and NT have different topics.

[RabbiKnife]

Oh I believe that without qualification.

[Sojourner]

just because it uses a word doesn't make it a topic of significance. I've been here a long, long time. Standard Christian theology as has been taught to me is that all our deeds are meaningless and only faith saves. In other words, the topic of the NT is "salvation". By way of contrast, the OT says that our actions are extremely consequential, and God expects us to abide by His covenant with us by sanctifying ourselves. I cited an entire chapter, above.

Fenris, I know your extensive exposure to Christian theology has given you a working knowledge of the fundamentals. But saying our deeds are meaningless reveals a skewed perception. Yes, Christians look for atonement for sins in the blood of Jesus, and we trust in His righteousness rather than relying on our personal works for justification. But our actions are certainly not inconsequential. James declares that a profession of faith without good works is empty, like a body without a spirit. Acts of benevolence and altruism are evidence that one's faith is sincere. Beyond James' treatment of the topic, numerous passages speak of the importance of our actions. Here are just a few:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad. (2 Cor 5:10)

And I heard a voice from heaven telling me to write, "Blessed are the dead--those who die in the Lord from this moment on." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labors, for their deeds will follow them." (Revelation 14:13)

“Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to what he has done. (Revelation 22:12)

For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life. (Ephesians 2:10)

Pursue peace with everyone, as well as holiness, without which no one will see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14)

In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)

But to those of you who will listen, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:27-28)

And our people must also learn to devote themselves to good works in order to meet the pressing needs of others, so that they will not be unfruitful. (Titus 3:14)

The sins of some men are obvious, going ahead of them to judgment; but the sins of others do not surface until later. In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even the ones that are inconspicuous cannot remain hidden. (1 Timothy 5:24-25)

The works of all believers will be examined and assessed at the judgment seat of Christ, with the good being rewarded, and the bad being burned up. If there is nothing to rewarded for, the believer will "suffer loss," but will be still be saved. (1 Cor 3:11-15). The death angel passed over the households in Goshen that had the Passover lamb's blood on the doorposts. In the same way, God's judgment passes over Christians that have the blood of Jesus applied to them through faith. As Paul described it, we are clothed with Christ's righteousness like a garment, and are justified before God because of His righteousness. But we're still expected to live a holy, sanctified life just as Judaism teaches.
 
Don't forget that Christianity is not a Gentile contrivance. It originated with devout, law-keeping Jews who simply believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah and God's Passover lamb. With the exception of Luke and Acts, the NT was written by Jewish believers. You may, as did the first century Jewish authorities, believe our faith to be an errant sect. But, like Judaism, it has its roots firmly in Abraham, whom God accounted righteous because of his faith  --  hundreds of years before the law was even established.

[Athanasius]

Oh I believe that without qualification.

I'm leaning heavily in that direction, having spent a lot of time over the last year thinking, praying, studying, reading on, etc., the more 'traditional' propitiatory model. Actually, I was thinking of that in relation to Genesis 3 more recently:

- Adam and Eve eat the fruit
- Let's assume the fruit doesn't impart knowledge, but A&E instead experience guilt with respect to "what did we just do?"
- When asked where they were, Adam and Eve hide, cast blame, deflect, don't take personal responsibility, etc.
- A&E are kicked out of the garden and are cursed/are told what it means to be away from God i.e. 'cursed'

Were they kicked out specifically because of their sin, or because the realisation that followed their act meant that it simply wasn't relationally possible for them to maintain their relationship with God, i.e., it would now be anxious, guilt-ridden, filled with self-blame, regret, etc. That is, if Christ died for the sins of the world then their sin was already paid for, but what that paying for can't account for is the relationship dynamic.

[ProDeo]

It's how I understand (the much discussed) Eph 2:8 and I am not even sure but it certainly is in line with my previous post.

8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Without grace [Jesus] no one is saved [John 14:6].

Not even by faith.

And he/she remains under the curse of the garden, separation from God.

As such I read the rest of the passage and is in context with v1-v7.

But because of God's gift (Jesus) by faith we are saved (John 3:16) from the curse of the garden.

It's maybe a bit farfetched to put so much emphasis on the curse of the garden but it is the point when things went wrong and maybe restoration starts where things went wrong.

Sure, but this doesn't exclude (3). Faith is still salvific, and Jesus is still the object. What others lack is faith, not the payment of their debt (I suppose).

Isn't faith a sign (or even proof) of a relationship?

Yes, and (3) relies on the relationship for salvation, but not the act of forgiveness of sin. I'm suggesting the possibility that damnation is possible even where sin has been paid for, because what would matter is the relationship, not this-or-that sin. I'm not saying I believe that, it's just something to think about.

I believe so too, a relationship is based on dedication, if there never was any or dedication is lost during time the relationship is worth not much. If any. But that's up to the Lord.

[Sojourner]

I'm leaning heavily in that direction, having spent a lot of time over the last year thinking, praying, studying, reading on, etc., the more 'traditional' propitiatory model. Actually, I was thinking of that in relation to Genesis 3 more recently:

- Adam and Eve eat the fruit
- Let's assume the fruit doesn't impart knowledge, but A&E instead experience guilt with respect to "what did we just do?"
- When asked where they were, Adam and Eve hide, cast blame, deflect, don't take personal responsibility, etc.
- A&E are kicked out of the garden and are cursed/are told what it means to be away from God i.e. 'cursed'

Were they kicked out specifically because of their sin, or because the realisation that followed their act meant that it simply wasn't relationally possible for them to maintain their relationship with God, i.e., it would now be anxious, guilt-ridden, filled with self-blame, regret, etc. That is, if Christ died for the sins of the world then their sin was already paid for, but what that paying for can't account for is the relationship dynamic.

Several passages illustrate how critical a personal relationship with Jesus is to the Christian faith, one of the most emphatic being recorded in Matthew 7. Jesus first teaches that one's spiritual integrity is clearly manifested in his life just as the quality of a tree is revealed by the quality of its fruit. He then relates a chilling scenario that will take place at the judgment.

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’  (Mat 7:21-23)

The individuals Jesus refers to clearly demonstrated some degree of faith in Him, since they prophesied, cast out demons, and performed miraculous acts in His name. (Though they were seeking to justify themselves by laying claim to actions made possible only by the power and authority of His name). They exhibited at least an intellectual assent regarding who Jesus was, or they would not have done things in His name. What is clearly missing however, is a personal relationship, without which there is no redemption or communion.

When Jesus says, "I never knew you," He speaks of the absence of intimacy between them and Himself, using the same sense of the Greek ginosko that denotes sexual relations in Matthew 1:25. Clearly, Jesus is drawing a parallel between the genuine relationship a believer must have with Him to be saved, and the sexual union between a husband and wife, which represents the greatest degree of intimacy possible. Just as a couple are joined together physically to become one flesh, so too, a believer must be united with Jesus spiritually.

Just as a couple can have an empty, loveless marriage, lacking fidelity, and essentially married in name only, it's possible to hold a shallow belief in Jesus without being in an intimate relationship with Him. One day, many lukewarm and pseudo-Christians will be shocked to find themselves standing with the goats instead of among Jesus' sheep. Such people can fool others with their spiritual facade, but the Lord knows who belongs to Him and who does not.

[Fenris]

"Speak up and present your case—yes, let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago? Who announced it from ancient times? Was it not I, the LORD? There is no other God but Me, a righteous God and Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:21-22)

Maybe I'm missing something, but if God calls Himself a Savior, and exhorts all to turn to Him to be saved, I see the concept of salvation. You might maintain the Hebrew there means to be "rescued" or "delivered", rather than "saved", but it all boils down to the same concept of redemption and protection.

OK, So the revelation at Sinai takes place sometime around 1300BC. The five books of Moses are written sometime between then and the Hebrews reaching the promised land. Isaiah is prophesizing a minimum of 600 years later. I'd argue even later, since this selection comes from Deutero Isaiah.  That means for almost a thousand years, Judaism did not have this verse. Because "salvation" is not central to Judaism. Certainly not in the Christian sense of being "saved from sin". This verse is speaking of the Jewish salvation from exile, which had already occurred by the time of this prophecy. 

Come on, fenris. If Eve had believed God's warning instead of the serpent's lies, she would not have eaten the fruit.

It was her actions that got her into trouble. Not her lack of faith which the bible does not even mention.

But then again you probably see the whole convo with the serpent as allegory, anyway, right?

I have not ventured an opinion on this, nor have you asked me for one.

"The righteous shall live by faith." (Habakkuk 2:4)

The book of Habakkuk was again, written hundreds of years after Sinai. And it mentions much more than just half of verse 2:4 that you quote. To wit-

Why do You show me iniquity and look upon mischief; and plunder and violence are before me; and the one who bears quarrel and strife endures. Therefore Torah is slackened, and justice does not go out forever, for a wicked man surrounds the righteous; therefore, justice emerges perverted.


Woe to him who builds a city with blood and establishes a city with injustice.

What did a graven image avail that its maker has graven it? A molten image and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusted in it to make dumb idols? Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it.

Because of iniquity I saw the tents of Cushan; the curtains of the land of Midian quaked.


 

Also, Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith

This is the worst, most out of context quote. And I see many. Let's give it context.

Genesis 15

After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:

“Do not be afraid, Abram.
    I am your shield,
    your very great reward.”

God is promising Abram a great reward.

But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”

Abram says, what good is a reward? I won't have descendants to inherit me!

Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.”  He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

God responds, don't worry. You will have a son to inherit you. In fact, your descendants will be very numerous! 

Now comes your verse.

Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Now, I have mentioned this here before. It's not clear from the verse, in Hebrew or English, who is crediting whom. Is Abram crediting God for being righteous by giving him descendants? Possibly. Is God crediting Abram for believing Him? Also possible. In either case, Abram is happy with God making a specific promise to him. This has nothing to do with "having faith". Abram obviously believes in God, otherwise who is he having a conversation with?

long before the giving of the law.

God's promise to Isaac in Genesis 26:

I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.

As Neo would say, Whoa.

And Jews would not obey the law unless they believed in God to begin with. Don't act like faith is a foreign concept in the torah.

We're getting off topic here. The discussion is about "salvation", not "faith".

[Fenris]

Matt 5:48 - You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Lev 19:2 - You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.

Does it mean the same or not?

No, it doesn't.

First of all, the whole idea of abstract perfection doesn't even exist in Judaism. It's a Greek concept, which is why we first encounter it in the (Greek) NT.

Secondly, the Hebrew word for "holy" has the root KDSh which means "to separate" not "perfect". It perfectly fits into Lev 19 and 20, which begins with God commanding us to "Be holy" and then giving a long list of things we are to do that make us holy, and ends with the verse "You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own"

[Fenris]

Fenris, I know your extensive exposure to Christian theology has given you a working knowledge of the fundamentals. But saying our deeds are meaningless reveals a skewed perception. Yes, Christians look for atonement for sins in the blood of Jesus, and we trust in His righteousness rather than relying on our personal works for justification.

Saying that we "need salvation" is not a Jewish concept. It has nothing to do with the covenant at Sinai or what it means to be a Jew. Saying that we need to "be holy", because God explicitly commanded it is the core of the Jewish bible and hence Judaism itself.

Don't forget that Christianity is not a Gentile contrivance. It originated with devout, law-keeping Jews who simply believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah and God's Passover lamb. With the exception of Luke and Acts, the NT was written by Jewish believers.

We actually don't know who wrote the NT. Or when. Or where. And even if it was written by Jews, so what? Jews can be as wrong as anybody else. I'm not going to become a Marxist just because Karl was a Jew.

But, like Judaism, it has its roots firmly in Abraham, whom God accounted righteous because of his faith  --  hundreds of years before the law was even established.

I addressed this in the post above.