Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Hebrw 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-30

[Justaned]

You keep insisting that it is work of man (faith and righteousness) rather than the work of the cross that secures salvation

Actually, I keep insisting just the opposite:

"It is as plain as the Bible can make it that people then were in actual fact saved, and that they were saved by Christ. The whole point of their cermonial actions was a foreshadowing of the person and work of Jesus (Col 2.17) and they became a means by which faith in the coming Savior could be exhibited prior to his incarnation. What really saved them was the blood of Christ which was yet to be shed . . ."

The covenant does not come into effect until the death of the testator. Heb 9:16 -17

The Old Testament saints did not fully understand spiritual salvation as proven in Col 1:26. they couldn't it did not come into being until Christ's death on the Cross.

I agree with what you say but I say they could not realize their salvation until the death of Christ. They could look for it, they could hope for it, they could be assured of it but it wasn't until Jesus' death that they were able to fully realize it.

[Justaned]

FatherFisher

I think much of our contention is over the fact that there are two perspectives of Salvation for Old Testament saint. God's perspective which could clearly seen the work of the Cross yet in the future and Human perspective that knew little or nothing of spiritual eternal salvation. Certainly nothing of the Cross int he distant future.

Read these quotes over and see if we can come to a common ground on this issue.

In particular the last quote. But please read them all.

Again it is my contention that the Old Testament saints did not have full knowledge of salvation. It was their hope, it was in what they were trusting and it was assured them by God. However upon death they were still required to go to Abraham Bosom side of Hades where they resided until their Salvation was fully realized by them when Jesus appears and preached the Good News to them and took them to heaven.

The reason that Christ’s death must be the basis is stated in
Leviticus 17:11, according to which blood must be shed, if there is to be atonement for sin (cf. Heb. 9:22). But not just any blood fully and finally removes sin. If so, one could argue that the blood of sacrificial animals fully and completely removes sin. However, the writer of Hebrews
explicitly states that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, for only the blood of Christ could do that (Heb. 10:4ff.). The implications of this verse for the significance of Old Testament sacrifices will be discussed more fully later. At this point, suffice it to say that the verse implies that animal sacrifices could not in any dispensation be the ultimate basis for God’s removal of sin. Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever in Scripture that the blood of a human being would atone for sin. Therefore, since God demands the shedding of blood for removing sin, and since no human or animal blood will suffice to atone for sin fully, the ultimate ground, or basis, upon which God can offer salvation at any time in history has to be the sacrifice
of Christ.

Christ’s sacrifice is the ground, but what does that involve? First, it does not mean that at all times in human history the death of Jesus Christ was already a historical fact. Though God decreed the event prior to history, it still had to be accomplished within history. It did not become
a historical fact until it actually occurred. Second, claiming that Christ’s
death is the ground of salvation does not mean that at all times in history God had revealed that the death of Jesus of Nazareth is the sole basis for granting salvation. It is most unlikely that anyone knew that before His advent. Progressive revelation must be given its due.

What is meant by saying that Christ’s death is the ground of salvation is that from God’s perspective, the sacrifice of Christ is the objective act on the grounds of which God offers salvation in any age.

In
trying to understand how this can be so before the event occurs historically, we must distinguish between God’s perspective and man’s. God has known about Christ’s death from all eternity. Since He decreed it, it was an accomplished fact in His thinking long before it was an accomplished fact in history. Because God knows that the deed will be done (since He decreed
it), and because He sees all of history (including the completed work of Christ) at once, God can grant man salvation, even before the sacrifice is performed in history. There could never have been a time in human history when God would learn that He had been mistaken about the fact that Christ would sacrifice Himself for sin. Although there is no past, present, or future for God,
He, as an omniscient being, cannot help but know what is past, present, and future for the creatures He has made. Thus, God always sees Christ’s work as an accomplished fact. But before it was done within history God knew that the death of Jesus Christ had not been accomplished in history. Man, limited by his human perspective, did not know about the atoning work of Jesus
Christ until God revealed it and then accomplished it within human history

Exact source of the quotes is unknown to me. I feel fairly certain they came from John S. Feinberg, “Salvation in the Old Testament” Tradition and Testament. which are later found in Essays in Honor of Charles Lee
Feinberg. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981. Hbk. ISBN: 0802425445. pp.39-77.
Do to incomplete citations on my part I am unable to say for certain.

[titus213]

I know John Feinberg. He was doing post-grad work at Trinity when I was in my M.Div. program there. Good man.

But I disagree with his appraisal of the Old Testament situation on several levels.
However, let me illustrate by picking up on a comment you made: " Human perspective that knew little or nothing of spiritual eternal salvation. Certainly nothing of the Cross int he distant future."

Let me show you one problem with that assessment, using 1 Peter 1:10-12

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

Now yes, Peter says the OT prophets were scratching their heads, searching out this whole matter of salvation. But notice what they were scratching their heads about: the timing of it all, "what [time] and what manner of time. The Spirit, says Peter, had revealed to them all of the following:
1) salvation by grace
2) the sufferings of Christ
3) the glory of Christ
4) the sequence: sufferings first, glory to follow
5) that these things would happen not in their own time, but later

So for example we find Isaiah, during the time of the divided monarchy, talking about all 5 of these realities to his audience. Isaiah 53 being one obvious place where he does so. Obviously, in pre-Christian times the redemption Isaiah (and others) spoke of had not yet been historically accomplished. But God still offered the benefits of that redemption to all who would believe the Promise of its coming.

It is true, of course, that there was real historical development or progression within the basic unity of the testament as God unfolded more and more of its details in real time. For example, as part of the testament revealed to Abraham, he was told that all nations would find God's blessing "in thy seed" (Genesis 22.18). But God didn't reveal to Abraham the knowledge that his "seed" would turn out to be one individual person. So Christ was careful to say that Abraham saw his "day", but not necessarily his person (John 8.56). However, by the time of David (if not sooner) God had revealed that the Testator would be an individual man, from Davidic lineage.

But progressive revelation, or unfolding, of the testament of salvation doesn't contradict the fact that salvation has been, at all time periods, only in and through Christ (John 14.6). He is the focal point of both old and new testaments, as Peter explained to Cornelius: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10.43). It would be a pretty dull Israelite who would fail to see in the sacrificial system established by God a spiritual significance, rather than just some unfortunate external regulations required by their God much as the pagan gods around them. Salvation reaches its climax in Christ (Hebrews 1.2), but the testament and its promise of salvation began all the way back with Adam and Eve. New Testament believers are portrayed as getting in on Abraham's hope, not vice versa.

[Justaned]

I know John Feinberg. He was doing post-grad work at Trinity when I was in my M.Div. program there. Good man.

But I disagree with his appraisal of the Old Testament situation on several levels.
However, let me illustrate by picking up on a comment you made: " Human perspective that knew little or nothing of spiritual eternal salvation. Certainly nothing of the Cross int he distant future."

Let me show you one problem with that assessment, using 1 Peter 1:10-12

"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

Now yes, Peter says the OT prophets were scratching their heads, searching out this whole matter of salvation. But notice what they were scratching their heads about: the timing of it all, "what [time] and what manner of time. The Spirit, says Peter, had revealed to them all of the following:
1) salvation by grace
2) the sufferings of Christ
3) the glory of Christ
4) the sequence: sufferings first, glory to follow
5) that these things would happen not in their own time, but later

I disagree with your analysis of the 1 Peter 1:10-12. Instead I refer you to perhaps a more easily understood translation which to me conveys what this passage is relly saying.

1 Peter 1:10-12 (NLT)
10 This salvation was something even the prophets wanted to know more about when they prophesied about this gracious salvation prepared for you.
11 They wondered what time or situation the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ’s suffering and his great glory afterward.
12 They were told that their messages were not for themselves, but for you. And now this Good News has been announced to you by those who preached in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. It is all so wonderful that even the angels are eagerly watching these things happen.

In this translation which is using the language of today to express the same thoughts as the one you cited, is saying they didn't understand and that the message was not for them but for a later generation.

So for example we find Isaiah, during the time of the divided monarchy, talking about all 5 of these realities to his audience. Isaiah 53 being one obvious place where he does so. Obviously, in pre-Christian times the redemption Isaiah (and others) spoke of had not yet been historically accomplished. But God still offered the benefits of that redemption to all who would believe the Promise of its coming.

It is true, of course, that there was real historical development or progression within the basic unity of the testament as God unfolded more and more of its details in real time. For example, as part of the testament revealed to Abraham, he was told that all nations would find God's blessing "in thy seed" (Genesis 22.18). But God didn't reveal to Abraham the knowledge that his "seed" would turn out to be one individual person. So Christ was careful to say that Abraham saw his "day", but not necessarily his person (John 8.56). However, by the time of David (if not sooner) God had revealed that the Testator would be an individual man, from Davidic lineage.

But progressive revelation, or unfolding, of the testament of salvation doesn't contradict the fact that salvation has been, at all time periods, only in and through Christ (John 14.6). He is the focal point of both old and new testaments, as Peter explained to Cornelius: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10.43). It would be a pretty dull Israelite who would fail to see in the sacrificial system established by God a spiritual significance, rather than just some unfortunate external regulations required by their God much as the pagan gods around them. Salvation reaches its climax in Christ (Hebrews 1.2), but the testament and its promise of salvation began all the way back with Adam and Eve. New Testament believers are portrayed as getting in on Abraham's hope, not vice versa.

Your example of the Isaiah 53 is without support in fact Isasiah 53 is often pointed at as a bewildering prophecy that Jew could not understand. They saw an all conqueoring Messiah not a suffering Messiah. In fact Jesus' own disciples were confused over this issue. They fully expected Jesus to setup His kingdom and take control they never realized he was the Lamb of God.
Many suggest that is why Judas betrayed Jesus when he did, to force Jesus' hand and to make Him establish the kingdom they were all looking for.

On the road to Eramus Jesus opened their eyes to the truth revealed in scripture. Up to this point they were trying to figure out what had happened. The expected Jesus to be King instead he was dead. So your repeated insistance that the Prophets understood and thus the faithful followers did also is without support. Nicodemus one of the most learned had no idea, Jesus' disciples had no idea, obviously those that called for Jesus crucifixion has no idea. So who was these people that knew?

Once again you talk of salvation when I think you mean righteousness. Salvation was found in the New Covenant, the New Covenant did not exist until Jesus' death. Could they be guaranteed partakers of the New Covenant absolutely but could they be saved? Not until the Covenant exisited.

[titus213]

I disagree with your analysis of the 1 Peter 1:10-12. Instead I refer you to perhaps a more easily understood translation which to me conveys what this passage is relly saying.
1 Peter 1:10-12 (NLT)
10 This salvation was something even the prophets wanted to know more about when they prophesied about this gracious salvation prepared for you.
11 They wondered what time or situation the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ’s suffering and his great glory afterward.
12 They were told that their messages were not for themselves, but for you. And now this Good News has been announced to you by those who preached in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. It is all so wonderful that even the angels are eagerly watching these things happen.

In this translation which is using the language of today to express the same thoughts as the one you cited, is saying they didn't understand and that the message was not for them but for a later generation.

No, it isn't saying any such thing. Read it. It says they wondered about just what I mentioned previously: the timing of these things; the when and where. It does not say they couldn't understand the message. The Spirit within them TOLD THEM IN ADVANCE about the things I listed. They were told that what he showed them was not for their own day, so they wondered about "what time or situation" it was for. Even your preferred choice of translation does not say what you claim it does!!! Do you really want to insist that the Spirit tells things so poorly that people cannot comprehend what he's saying? Is your view of revelation and inspiration so shallow??

On the road to Eramus Jesus opened their eyes to the truth revealed in scripture. Up to this point they were trying to figure out what had happened. The expected Jesus to be King instead he was dead. So your repeated insistance that the Prophets understood and thus the faithful followers did also is without support. Nicodemus one of the most learned had no idea, Jesus' disciples had no idea, obviously those that called for Jesus crucifixion has no idea. So who was these people that knew?

Jesus REBUKED Nicodemus for his failure to understand. He REBUKED his disciples for their failure to understand. He REBUKED the two on the road to Emmaus for their failure to understand. As the New Living Translation you used earlier points out in that particular episode from Luke 24:

Then Jesus said to them, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures. Wasn’t it clearly predicted that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory?” Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

God was not in the habit of revealing truth to people in OT times only to have them befuddled by it. The truth he revealed was truthful and able to be understood; it was partial, to be sure, but partial truth does not equal incomprehensible truth.

Once again you talk of salvation when I think you mean righteousness. Salvation was found in the New Covenant, the New Covenant did not exist until Jesus' death. Could they be guaranteed partakers of the New Covenant absolutely but could they be saved? Not until the Covenant exisited.

This is hyper-dispensationalism at its worst. The truth is as Dake explains "men in previous dispensations had to look forward to it [the death of Christ on the cross] by faith, in order to receive the benefits of the cross. Men now have to look back to it in faith to receive its benefits". There is ONLY ONE plan of salvation, and it was in effect from the time of Adam with the blood sacrifices prefiguring the future sacrifice of Christ. That is what the New Testament itself teaches about the situation in the time of the OT saints. God's provision of redemption / salvation has been the same in all dispensations, with the Gospel being given to Adam and Eve, Abraham, Israel, David, etc.

[Justaned]

I disagree with your analysis of the 1 Peter 1:10-12. Instead I refer you to perhaps a more easily understood translation which to me conveys what this passage is relly saying.
1 Peter 1:10-12 (NLT)
10 This salvation was something even the prophets wanted to know more about when they prophesied about this gracious salvation prepared for you.
11 They wondered what time or situation the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ’s suffering and his great glory afterward.
12 They were told that their messages were not for themselves, but for you. And now this Good News has been announced to you by those who preached in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. It is all so wonderful that even the angels are eagerly watching these things happen.

In this translation which is using the language of today to express the same thoughts as the one you cited, is saying they didn't understand and that the message was not for them but for a later generation.

No, it isn't saying any such thing. Read it. It says they wondered about just what I mentioned previously: the timing of these things; the when and where. It does not say they couldn't understand the message. The Spirit within them TOLD THEM IN ADVANCE about the things I listed. They were told that what he showed them was not for their own day, so they wondered about "what time or situation" it was for. Even your preferred choice of translation does not say what you claim it does!!!

It says they wanted to know more. That they wondered about the timing. That to me tells me they didn't have a complete understanding. This also explains why they missed the suffering Messiah and were looking for the conquering Messiah. One of the main reasons they rejected Jesus.

Do you really want to insist that the Spirit tells things so poorly that people cannot comprehend what he's saying? Is your view of revelation and inspiration so shallow??

Why do you try to bring this back on me? Is your position so weak you can't defend it without trying to pull me down? In street terms this is what is know as a cheap shot.

My view of revelation says it is not always clear until after the fact. Take the Book of Revelations today there is at least 4 major views of the contents of that book and within each of those four views there are sub views that probably number into the hundreds. Now I know you think you have the correct view but 200 years ago your view was virtually unknown. I would expect that if Lord should tarry that 200 years from now there will be other views more prevalent. To deny man's failure to completely understand God revelation is to deny most of the scripture. It wasn't until man was pass the event that he completely understood it.

On the road to Eramus Jesus opened their eyes to the truth revealed in scripture. Up to this point they were trying to figure out what had happened. The expected Jesus to be King instead he was dead. So your repeated insistance that the Prophets understood and thus the faithful followers did also is without support. Nicodemus one of the most learned had no idea, Jesus' disciples had no idea, obviously those that called for Jesus crucifixion has no idea. So who was these people that knew?

Jesus REBUKED Nicodemus for his failure to understand. He REBUKED his disciples for their failure to understand. He REBUKED the two on the road to Emmaus for their failure to understand. As the New Living Translation you used earlier points out in that particular episode from Luke 24:

Then Jesus said to them, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures. Wasn’t it clearly predicted that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his glory?” Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

God was not in the habit of revealing truth to people in OT times only to have them befuddled by it. The truth he revealed was truthful and able to be understood; it was partial, to be sure, but partial truth does not equal incomprehensible truth.

By your own admission Jesus rebuked them for being befuddled by prophecy. That fact alone proves that not all prophecy was understood by everyone. Look who is being as you say rebuked one of the greatest religious minds of the era. So we see common man confused and see highly educated men equally confused. I would say that it was a common malady.

You say God is not the habit of revealing truth to people only to have them befuddled. In the story of Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice no one between the time of Abraham and Jesus Crucifixion understood this was a fore shadowing, a prophecy of Crucifixion of Christ. We only know it now because we can look back at both and see the similarity.

Further I question whether Jesus' rebuke was a rebuke or was it more a rhetorical rebuke. At the time I don't see anyone including John the Baptist that didn't question if Jesus was the Messiah because he was not the conquering Messiah they were looking for. Therefore they didn't understand much of the previous revelation given them.

Even John had to ask are you the one? Many today still misunderstand Jesus cry from the cross of the opening verse of Psalms 22.

Once again you talk of salvation when I think you mean righteousness. Salvation was found in the New Covenant, the New Covenant did not exist until Jesus' death. Could they be guaranteed partakers of the New Covenant absolutely but could they be saved? Not until the Covenant exisited.

This is hyper-dispensationalism at its worst. The truth is as Dake explains "men in previous dispensations had to look forward to it [the death of Christ on the cross] by faith, in order to receive the benefits of the cross. Men now have to look back to it in faith to receive its benefits". There is ONLY ONE plan of salvation, and it was in effect from the time of Adam with the blood sacrifices prefiguring the future sacrifice of Christ. That is what the New Testament itself teaches about the situation in the time of the OT saints. God's provision of redemption / salvation has been the same in all dispensations, with the Gospel being given to Adam and Eve, Abraham, Israel, David, etc.

I agree there is only one plan of salvation but I stipulate that for full salvation to fully receive the benefits of that cross the cross had to occur. Up until then they were promises not realized events. To have fully benefitted by the New Covenant Christ had to died. It was at that moment the Covenant came into effect up until then it was a promise. And it was at the cross death would be defeated. Before that the saints had the promise of salvation but they were not saved.

Now we know the promise of God is never broken so if you want to say they were saved by promise then okay but understand that promise was for a future event and fruition of the promise while it could be counted on was not realized until the event which was Jesus death upon the cross.

[titus213]

At the time I don't see anyone including John the Baptist that didn't question if Jesus was the Messiah because he was not the conquering Messiah they were looking for. Therefore they didn't understand much of the previous revelation given them.

You keep saying they didn't understand.
Jesus kept saying they didn't believe.

Big difference.
He would not expect them to believe what they could not have understood.

The idea of 2 Messiahs, one a conqueror and one a sufferer did not arise until the time between the OT and NT. It was not taught in anything God had revealed about the Messiah in the OT. That the Judaism of Jesus' day had corrupted the truth of the OT teaching in many areas is cetainly the case (which is why Jesus was so set against it); but that's a whole different matter than attempting to say that what God revealed in the prior dispensations was unclear, unable to be understood, and generally beyond the grasp of the OT saints.

As for what Abraham believed and what it provided to him - you might want to consult the B-I-B-L-E even more than John Feinberg. Check Galatians 3 and Romans 4, and you will find that WE are inheriting the blessings of Abraham, and not the other way around. The covenant promise which was "confirmed before of God" and "in Christ" WAS IN EFFECT, Paul says in Galatians 3, with Abraham. The Law could not disannul it. Neither can your strange doctrines.

[Justaned]

At the time I don't see anyone including John the Baptist that didn't question if Jesus was the Messiah because he was not the conquering Messiah they were looking for. Therefore they didn't understand much of the previous revelation given them.

You keep saying they didn't understand.
Jesus kept saying they didn't believe.

Big difference.
He would not expect them to believe what they could not have understood.

So your saying when John the Baptist asked for clarification it was birthed in disbelief and not confusion?

The idea of 2 Messiahs, one a conqueror and one a sufferer did not arise until the time between the OT and NT. It was not taught in anything God had revealed about the Messiah in the OT. That the Judaism of Jesus' day had corrupted the truth of the OT teaching in many areas is cetainly the case (which is why Jesus was so set against it); but that's a whole different matter than attempting to say that what God revealed in the prior dispensations was unclear, unable to be understood, and generally beyond the grasp of the OT saints.

The point is you made the statement that all of God's revelation was clearly understood by the Old Testament saints. The fact that an idea of two messiahs shows that, that statement is not a fact, that there was confusion and uncertainity.

As for what Abraham believed and what it provided to him - you might want to consult the B-I-B-L-E even more than John Feinberg. Check Galatians 3 and Romans 4, and you will find that WE are inheriting the blessings of Abraham, and not the other way around. The covenant promise which was "confirmed before of God" and "in Christ" WAS IN EFFECT, Paul says in Galatians 3, with Abraham. The Law could not disannul it. Neither can your strange doctrines.

Of course we are inheriting the blessing of Abraham we were grafted into the vine and the Old Covenant was not done away with, it was improved with the New Covenant. But all of this is after the fact. After the Covenant were made and that is my point. Abraham had the promise of the New Covenant but the New Covenant did not exist until Christ's death.

You can call that strange doctrine but it is fact to which the bible attests where it says the will is not into effect until the death of testator.

It is only strange to those that can't grasp the truth of God's word when it says there is only one way to the Father and that is through the door that Jesus Christ opened.

If my doctrine is so strange then what is Eph 4:8 talking about. Who is the captive that Jesus lead captive?

[titus213]

So your saying when John the Baptist asked for clarification it was birthed in disbelief and not confusion?

Disbelief leads to confusion. And yes, John was obviously sitting in jail, beginning to doubt his faith. But the issue did not spring from failure to understand the writings of the prophets, as you suggest. He had seen and testified to Jesus as the "Lamb of God" (wow, how did he know that??) already. And look at how Jesus answers his questioning: he does the very things which were marks of the Messiah ACCORDING TO ISAIAH and then tells John's messengers to go back and tell John what they have just seen. He basically told John to go back to the Bible.

He does not say "John, I am not surprised you are bewildered; after all, how could anyone figure any of this out with just God's Word to rely on"??

[Justaned]

So your saying when John the Baptist asked for clarification it was birthed in disbelief and not confusion?

Disbelief leads to confusion. And yes, John was obviously sitting in jail, beginning to doubt his faith. But the issue did not spring from failure to understand the writings of the prophets, as you suggest. He had seen and testified to Jesus as the "Lamb of God" (wow, how did he know that??) already. And look at how Jesus answers his questioning: he does the very things which were marks of the Messiah ACCORDING TO ISAIAH and then tells John's messengers to go back and tell John what they have just seen. He basically told John to go back to the Bible.

He does not say "John, I am not surprised you are bewildered; after all, how could anyone figure any of this out with just God's Word to rely on"??

Don't mistake my use of the confusion for not knowing anything. Of course John testified of the Jesus being the Lamb of God not by knowledge or faith but by the unction of the Holy Spirit. He still had questions because he like everyone else believed in the conquering Messiah. Though they knew of the prophecy of a humble beginning they still didn't realize that Jesus from such humble beginnings was who they looked for. I don't think John had disbelief as much as he want to make sure this new paradigm was in fact the Messiah he was looking for. Too many times man wants to equate a questioning heart as a heart of disbelief. Daivd often questioned his God not because he didn't believe but rather to better understand God.

Motive of the question is key and the condition of the heart must be observed to define the motive. The fact John asked as he did leads me and most others to believe he was confused not doubtful.