Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

[The Biblicist]

Ok, we agree but that is the new covenant. In the OT if you never had a sacrifice for your sin what would that mean for that person? Yet today we do not need that. The reason is God deals with man differently.

However, Paul says no man was justified under the Old Covenant because the Old Covenant could not convey spiritual life (Gal. 3:20). Jesus told the Jews that "none of you" kept the Old Covenant.

Moreover, Paul said such sacrifices could "never" take away sins but were mere shadows (Heb. 10:1-4) of what does take away sin (Heb. 10:5-17). Hence, such offerings were merely gospel ordinances that were designed by God to be expressions of saving faith in the coming Christ (Heb. 11:4) and declarations that the offerer was already righteous by faith (Acts 10:43).

Salvation has always been by the "blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20 of which both the "old" and "new" were merely earthly administrations (Heb. 9:1), the latter superior to the former because of (1) the old anticipated what the new proclaimed as fulfilled; (2) because the old placed more emphasis upon the Law's definition of God's righteousness whereas the latter places more emphasis upon the provision of God's righteousness. This superiority is manifested in different and better ordinances, a different and better ministry and mission and a different and better "house of God." However, this "house of God" cannot be divorced from its new ordinances, new ministry and new mission.

No sir, this is a false dichotomy and it is a tiring debate tactic. You know full well that is not my position. It is also a redherring to say that if one does not agree with you then they must be saying the exact worst opposite. This type of debate tactic needs to come to an end.

We were discussing the dichotomy set forth by Paul in Romans 8:8-9 which provides no third category. I was kindly insisting that you had to embrace the conclusion of Paul "none of his" in his dichotomy as he offered no third option.

IMO you invented a third option to avoid his conclusion.

Ok answering a question with a question is not an answer. Please answer my question.

I did answer it. Paul emphatically claims that being "in the Spirit" is one and the same as being indwelt by the Spirit. That is factual. The contrast here by Paul is between those who are his versus those who are "none of his". That is factual. So he is not talking about two classes of those who are his but between lost and saved - that is factual or "none of his" makes no sense.

Therefore, "IN the Spirit" demands they are are in UNION with the Spirit or they are not "IN" the Spirit. Hence, being "IN" the Spirit is factually being indwelt by the Spirit as well as being "in" union with the Spirit, as he is talking about our spiritual condition rather than our fleshly condition. It is our spirit where the Spirit indwells. It is our spirit where we are "in" the Spirit not our flesh.

 

[Revmitchell]

However, Paul says no man was justified under the Old Covenant because the Old Covenant could not convey spiritual life (Gal. 3:20). Jesus told the Jews that "none of you" kept the Old Covenant.

Moreover, Paul said such sacrifices could "never" take away sins but were mere shadows (Heb. 10:1-4) of what does take away sin (Heb. 10:5-17). Hence, such offerings were merely gospel ordinances that were designed by God to be expressions of saving faith in the coming Christ (Heb. 11:4) and declarations that the offerer was already righteous by faith (Acts 10:43).

Ok again you did not respond to what I asked. What would have been the fate of someone during OT times that never sacrificed according to OT Law?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok again you did not respond to what I asked. What would have been the fate of someone during OT times that never sacrificed according to OT Law?

Your question implies that works were the means to justify/save those prior to the cross or else they would be lost or "none of his." However, we know that conclusion is false as Paul clearly says that such sacrifices "NEVER" took away sins.

Your question really demands we ask what is the divine purpose of a sacrifice. Genesis 4 is the earliest record of any human being offering up sacrifices and Paul tells us that the sacrifice by Abel was not offered to obtain righteousness or justification but was DELCARATIVE of an already righteous state PRIOR to offering up a sacrifice:

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. - heb. 11:4

Therefore, the divine design for sacrificial offering was those who already believed in the gospel (Gen. 3;15) offered up a sacrifice that "obtained witnesss" they were already righteous "by faith" in the gospel as Acts 10:43 explicitly states, and that it was faith in the gospel provision that DID literally obtained remission of sins (Acts 10:43b) BEFORE they offered up a sacrifice that gave a visible WITNESS of a saving relationship already consummated by faith in the gospel. Thus, Abraham was justified BEFORE the act of circumcision which is another divine rite. Meaning his sins were removed, forgiven (Rom. 4:6-8).

Thus, sacrifices are gospel ordinances like baptism and the Lord's Supper that convey no literal saving value but only are like a "shadow" (Heb. 11:1; Col. 2:16) which provide a LIKENESS but not the REALITY of what is the proper object of saving faith which does save.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your question implies that works were the means to justify

My question does not imply anything of the sort. You are trying to read between the lines in order to control the discussion. What you need to do is simply take my question at face value and answer it. What happened to someone who did not sacrifice according to the law in the OT?

 

[The Biblicist]

My question does not imply anything of the sort. You are trying to read between the lines in order to control the discussion. What you need to do is simply take my question at face value and answer it. What happened to someone who did not sacrifice according to the law in the OT?

I can see plainly why this particular question in this particular thread with this particular subject was asked and what the necessary implications of that particular question are, so lets not play these silly word games and that is precisely what you are doing and you know it.

However, there is no Scripture that says they are lost because they did not offer up such an offering. You can only make such a conclusion by INFERENCE only.

However, there are plenty of Scriptures that deny that salvation/justification is dependent upon divine rites. There are plenty of Scriptures that deny works justify then or now and justification, thus salvation was obtained WITHOUT them and BEFORE them.

We can ask the same question about those today who never are baptized, join a church or take the Lord's Supper. Does that mean they are lost? Well, if you believe such things are essential to salvation your answer will be yes they are lost. If not, then your answer will be no or maybe.

 

[Revmitchell]

I can see plainly why the question was asked and what the necessary implications of that particular question are, so lets not play these silly word games and that is precisely what you are doing and you know it.

No you can't. There are far more options for my asking this question than you are willing to allow.

Now I will ask one more time. If a person did not sacrifice according to the law what was their eventual fate? What was their spiritual condition?

 

[The Biblicist]

Now I will ask one more time. If a person did not sacrifice according to the law what was their eventual fate? What was their spiritual condition?

I have answered that question in detail. Just finish reading my post. However, just for you, I will spell it out again. Scripture DOES NOT say their spiritual condition is determined by offering or not offering. However, Scripture repeatedly denies that such offerings/rites are CAUSATIVE or essential to be justified in God's sight. Scriptures demand they are like baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Do you believe baptism determines your spiritual condition? Answer that question and you have answered your own question.

 

[Van]

Do you believe that Saints of Old Testament were born again the spirit of God?

I did not read the thread (at least 5 pages) because I am sure no one answered the question from scripture.

1. Do you believe or what does scripture say?
2. When were the Old Testament saints born again, before or after Christ died on the cross?
3. Why did none of the OT saints go to heaven when they died, but rather went to Abraham's bosom?
4. Why did the author of Hebrews say they had to wait to be made perfect?

The effort of Calvinism to claim the OT saints were regenerated to enable them to gain approval through faith is just another effort to present Calvinism not in the specified forum.

 

[The Biblicist]

I did not read the thread (at least 5 pages) because I am sure no one answered the question from scripture.

1. Do you believe or what does scripture say?

Say? or interpreted to say?

What is says BEFORE Pentecost is found in Aorist and present tenses in John 3:3-10 rather than any future tense according to your view which says it was in anticipation. No future tense, no subjunctive mode.

Hence, the new birth was a "must" then and there and Nicodemus understood it as such. The condemnation of Nicodemus's ignorance by Christ demands that.

3. Why did none of the OT saints go to heaven when they died, but rather went to Abraham's bosom?

No one disputes that. What is disputed is your definition of "Abraham's bosom."

4. Why did the author of Hebrews say they had to wait to be made perfect?

Because we are not yet "perfect" and they could not be made "perfect" without us.

For those who believe what the Bible says IN CONTEXT this has direct reference to the new heaven and earth on which the New Jerusalem comes down where only GLORIFIED people live as this is the "promise" that has not yet occurred and for which they looked for by faith and we still continue to look for by faith.

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

What was "the promise" they received by faith?

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Now, you do not dispute they are NOW in heaven do you? You cannot dispute this epistle was written after Pentecost can you?? Yet the writer says they still have not obtained that promise when he says "but NOW they desire a better country...an heavenly....a city"

Neither, they nor us have yet received this. We still are claiming to be strangers and pilgrims and still looking for 'heavenly" country where we will live eternally. This has not yet come and cannot come until after RESURRECTION when we are literally "made perfect." This promise is still future (Rev. 21:1-2).

For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. - Heb. 11:10

The effort of Calvinism to claim the OT saints were regenerated to enable them to gain approval through faith is just another effort to present Calvinism not in the specified forum.

Everything to you is either Calvinism or your view. You cannot even objectively read or understand Scripture without making everything a debate between Calvinism and Armninianism. You cannot respond to my posts or any post opposing your INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE without calling them some kind of name or attacking their character or insulting them.

I have not responded to you for your sake, but for those who might read what you say.

 

[Van]

[we ask for kindness and decency and this is not either. I am beyond tired of this.]

 

[The Biblicist]

More gibberish from a Calvinist.

1) The answer is what does scripture say.
2) The OT saints were born anew after Christ died on the cross, having waited to be made perfect in Abraham's bosom.
3) When the OT saints were born anew, they were made perfect. Thus they were not born anew, regenerated when they gained approval by faith.

It is a lock

Is there any reader who really take anything he says seriously??????

 

[OldRegular]

Let's be kind, brethren.

OT saints were born again (regenerated) by the holy Spirit of God.

The holy Spirit of God changed their nature.

The holy Spirit did NOT "permanently" indwell believers like He does today - that was a gift of Jesus to His Church.

I agree!

Those who are Spiritually Dead cannot have fellowship with God. Therefore, regeneration or the new birth is necessary. The question of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is more difficult but it appears that the Holy Spirit did not permanently indwell the believers during the Old Testament period!

 

[The Biblicist]

The question of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is more difficult but it appears that the Holy Spirit did not permanently indwell the believers during the Old Testament period!

Personally, I think the only reason it is "more difficult" is due to one's ecclesiastical view rather than the Biblical evidence.

For example, Romans 8:8-9 provides only two possible options. These options have salvation in view as the words "none of his" deny that those described by the other option are saved.

In addition. Paul demands that to be "IN the Spirit" is to be indwelt by the Spirit (v. 9) and therefore they are at minimum inseparable.

So can one be regenerated OUTSIDE the Spirit of God? If that is possible then so can they be without indwelling. However, if that is not possible then neither is it possible to be regenerated without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, if spiritual death is separation or alienation of the human spirit from the Spirit of God (Eph. 4:18) then what can possibly be the solution or the reversal of such a condition if is not being brought spiritually into union with the Spirit of God?? God IS life and God IS light, and God IS spirit. Therefore to be spiritually SEPARATED or "Alienated" from God is to be spiritually dead and blind.

 

[plain_n_simple]

The Old Testament was a shadow of things to come.

Abel had a better offering, he was counted righteous. Noah was counted righteous. Abraham was counted righteous because he believed. The children of Israel were blessed and counted as righteous when they focused on and glorified God. Their sins were covered yearly by the Temple sacrifices.

Even though they were counted righteous, sin still had to be paid for permanently in a way pleasing to God. A permanent answer for the payment of all their sin would come with Christ's future work on the cross.

The worlds sin is paid for, before Jesus and after.
There is no sin that is not paid for by Jesus.
God is satisfied with the payment whether men believe it or not.

Here is the key to understand the position of Old Testament people who were counted as righteous though they could not yet call on His name,

Belief

Old Testament believers in God were looking forward to the Messiah. So when Jesus rose from the dead in Matthew:

"52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Born again

 

[The Biblicist]

The Old Testament was a shadow of things to come.

No the Old Testament Covenant was a shadow not the Old Testament scriptures. The Old Covenant had no existence prior to Moses but justification by faith is based upon the PRE-Old Covenant pattern of Abraham (Rom. 4). Moreover, the Old Covenant never remitted the sins, justified or saved anyone and never was designed to.

Faith in the "blood of the everlasting covenant" was the means of salvation from Genesis 3:15 to the cross and from the cross to the present - no change but tense and fulfillment of promise.

Abel had a better offering, he was counted righteous.

That is true but that is not what Hebrews 11:4 says. It says that offering up the sacrifice only obtained a "witness" that he was ALREADY righteous by faith in the same gospel all prophets preached (Acts 10:43) and Abel is listed among those prophets by Jesus.

Here is the key to understand the position of Old Testament people who were counted as righteous though they could not yet call on His name,

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. - Acts 10:43

They did call upon his name by faith for salvation as the Psalms is literally full of this act. They did receive remission of sins (Rom. 4:7-11). They did receive imputed righteousness because of the OBJECT of their faith (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:5-6).

There is no other covenant of salvation than the "blood of the everlasting covenant" which Abraham, David, Isaiah were all included in and which was the basis of their faith.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Ok, we agree but that is the new covenant. In the OT if you never had a sacrifice for your sin what would that mean for that person?

because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Let's be kind, brethren.
.

Amen!:wavey:

 

[Jedi Knight]

We were discussing the dichotomy set forth by Paul in Romans 8:8-9 which provides no third category. I was kindly insisting that you had to embrace the conclusion of Paul "none of his" in his dichotomy as he offered no third option.

IMO you invented a third option to avoid his conclusion.

Indeed there is no third option......math it out......your in or your out.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I agree!

The question of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is more difficult but it appears that the Holy Spirit did not permanently indwell the believers during the Old Testament period!

So when you read 1 Peter 1:11 "which the Spirit of Christ in them" who do you suppose he was talking about? OT or NT believers here in this?

 

[Jedi Knight]

I did not read the thread (at least 5 pages) because I am sure no one answered the question from scripture.

No condescending here eh?:laugh: Come now lets be gentleman with one another..........and Calvin was not in my question.