Martin posted that my view of justification by the blood of Christ was "mad." His view is that people who gained approval through faith under the Old Covenant, were fully justified by the "promised" blood of Christ. Their faith "looked forward" to Christ. This view is as mad as a mad hatter. In order for the nameless doctrine advocates to force their man-made doctrines into scripture they must resort to redefining words (i.e. draw always means compel rather than attract by lovingkindness.) They nullify scripture, Matthew 23:13 does not really say that men who were entering heaven were blocked. No that cannot be true because it demonstrates their mistaken doctrine is bogus. But the most egregious misuse of scripture is to ignore the given sequence, and claim the opposite sequence occurred. They put the cart before the horse again and again. How? By the use of time travel. Folks can be washed by the blood of Christ before Christ died. Mad and as ludicrous as this view is, they put it forth again and again, as if repeating an obvious falsehood somehow makes it less of a falsehood. I kid you not. Abraham had as James would say, "live faith" rather than dead faith. From his faith flowed works, such as offering up Isaac. Now the bone of contention, if we sidestep all the person insults and misrepresentations of the views of others, is whether we should use the term "justified" when OT saints gain approval through "live faith." Or, the alternate view, should we reserve the term "justified" to only refer to those washed by the actual blood of Christ. This alternate view is the one I advocate. I believe where we see translations use the term justified for OT Saints, that the translation should read "acted righteously." Thus we do not use the term "justified" to mean two very different things, which creates confusion.