The New Birth is a Pre-Pentecost Reality

[percho]

I obviously do not know what new birth is. Is to be born again the ultimate destiny of man? If not, what is his ultimate destiny?

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Acts 2:29

Would you say that this Old Testament saint of whom this was spoken of on the Pentecost of the OP on this day had been born again? Had this saint, named David, who on this day was still dead and buried, been born again?

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

If it was the resurrection from the dead that declared Jesus, the child which had been in the virgin Mary conceived of Spirit is holy, as the Son of God, with power; What declared David as the Son of God?

 

[The Biblicist]

I obviously do not know what new birth is.

Do you know the difference between a "spirit" and a "body"? One is immaterial substance and the other is material substance. Jesus says a spirit hath not flesh and bone but a body does. Do you know the difference???? The New birth is about your spirit while resurrection is about your body.

The new birth is about your "spirit" not you body as Jesus clearly and explcitly says "what is born of Spirit IS SPIRIT" - Jn. 3:6 But in regard to the body he says what is born OF FLESH IS FLESH" Do you know the difference between a "spirit" and a fleshly body?

The new birth is not about the resurrection of David's body or of Christ's body. Think about what I am about to say. Nicodemus was told that he must be born again, and yet Nicodemus was existing in a LIVING FLESHLY BODY that was not dead and did not need to be resurrected.

The New birth has to do with QUICKENING that which was DEAD but in LIVING BODIES (Eph. 2:1). The Ephesians were not dead bodies that had been quickened. They had "dead" spirits in living bodies that had been quickened. If you don't understand what a "dead" spirit is then let me explain. A "dead" spirit is not a non-existent spirit but an existing spirit that is SEPARATED SPIRITUALLY FROM GOD.

Do you know what a dead body is? A Dead body is not a non-existent body but the material substance of man SEPARATED from his immaterial substance at physical death.

Do you know what eternal death is? It is not non-existence but eternal SEPARATION of man, spirit, soul and body from God in a place called Gehenna.

DEATH = SEPARATION but it does not equal - non-existence.

It is the "spirit" of man that needs to be born again, because SEPARATION of the spirit of man from God is the consequential cause of both PHYSICAL death (separation of the material and immaterial human nature) and then eternal death - eternal separation of the whole man from God forever.

The spirit must be quickened, meaning separation from God must be reversed so that there is UNION between your spirit with God's Spirit. Why? Because God's Spirit IS life and IS light and IS holiness. That is why the unregenerated but physically alive man (Eph. 2:1) is described as "alienated from the LIFE of God" and in DARKNESS and in UNCLEANESS because he is SEPARATED from the Spirit of God which IS life and IS light and IS righteousness (Eph. 4:24).

Resurrection of the body is making the PHYSICAL BODY alive AFTER it has been laid to rest in the grave. The Ephesians had not been laid to rest in the grave (Eph. 2:1) and they were still PHYSICALLY alive in their bodies but yet they had been "quickened"! Hence, that proves your view is complete nonsense and you do not understand the new birth at all. Reread what I have said until you at least comprehend what I have said. Your view makes the Bible a book of complete contradictions and confusion simply because you don't know the difference between what a "spirit" is versus a "body" and Jesus tells a man in a LIVING BODY he needs to be born again, and if that is not plain enough, he tells him "what is born of Spirit IS SPIRIT"! Can't spell it out much clearer than that but he does as he goes on to deny the new birth is about his body as he says "what is born of flesh IS FLESH" and so no, he does not have to go back into his mother's womb and come out in a new BODY because the new birth IS NOTHING ABOUT THE BODY.

Dead bodies in the grave is called RESURRECTION not new birth!

Is to be born again the ultimate destiny of man? If not, what is his ultimate destiny?

Listen, if you are not born of the Spirit BEFORE YOU PHYSICALLY DIE you will not "see" or "enter" His kingdom. If you think new birth is the resurrection or something AFTER you die physically you are going straight to hell. That will be the ultimate destiny of all whose "spirit" is not born again BEFORE physical death. Is that clear enough for you to understand??????

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Acts 2:29

Would you say that this Old Testament saint of whom this was spoken of on the Pentecost of the OP on this day had been born again? Had this saint, named David, who on this day was still dead and buried, been born again?

Why do you take the words of Christ directed toward a man still living in his body (Nicodemus) and try to apply them to David's body still in the ground???? Don't you get it? Nicodemus is not physically dead but physically alive. The Ephesians were not physically dead but were SPIRITUALLY DEAD and that was what was QUICKENED! This is simple abc's unless you don't know the difference between a "spirit" and a "body"?????

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

If it was the resurrection from the dead that declared Jesus, the child which had been in the virgin Mary conceived of Spirit is holy, as the Son of God, with power; What declared David as the Son of God?

What Jesus told Nicodemus and what Paul told the Ephesians had to do with quickening something that was dead OTHER THAN THEIR BODIES. These verses have to do with a DEAD BODY. Don't you know the difference between a "spirit" and a "body"? Apparently not! Don't you know that the Ephesians were PHYSICALLY ALIVE IN THEIR BODIES and yet still had been QUICKENED which should obviously tell you it had nothing to do with their bodies!

The new birth has to do with bringing your SPIRIT into UNION with the SPIRIT of God so that you share SPIRITUAL LIFE and SPIRITUAL LIGHT and SPIRITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESSS. It has NOTHING to do with the resurrection of your body. God will resurrect the bodies of both the righteous and the wicked but the wicked are NEVER born again so it cannot have anything to do with the body or else the wicked will be as much born again as the righteous! Think about it!

 

[Robert William]

Well, the argument is a time issue rather than the nature of regeneration. The issue is whether or not the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit preceded Pentecost. There are some on this forum who deny regeneration occurred before Pentecost. However, those who deny regeneration prior to Pentecost obviously do not understand the nature of regeneration or they would never take such a position.

The set time of regeneration is decided by the Holy Spirit who is still regenerating since the fall to the end of time, otherwise nobody would ever believe God or embrace the gospel.

 

[Van]

Was Abraham made righteous, or was his faith credited to him as righteousness? Abraham was not made righteous, was not born anew, was not sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever. None of this has been rebutted, only evaded.

Did the OT Saints have to wait to be made perfect? Yes, see Hebrews 11:39-40. Thus they were not made perfect before Christ died, did not enter heaven before Christ died (John 3:13) and the new birth therefore did not occur before Christ died.

As far as the mistaken view the fall made men unable to respond to the gospel, that is simply unbiblical. Take a look at Matthew 23:13 where unregenerate men were "entering heaven." How could they be entering heaven if they were not seeking God and His righteousness? Want more evidence, consider Ephesians 2:8 where we are saved by grace through faith. Thus we receive the grace of salvation through faith. Picture a room called salvation and the room is filled with grace. Now go through the door of faith. Thus your faith preceded your salvation or the grace of salvation.

 

[Robert William]

To say faith alone is the sin of idolotry.

Was Abraham made righteous, or was his faith credited to him as righteousness? Abraham was not made righteous, was not born anew, was not sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever. None of this has been rebutted, only evaded.

Did the OT Saints have to wait to be made perfect? Yes, see Hebrews 11:39-40. Thus they were not made perfect before Christ died, did not enter heaven before Christ died (John 3:13) and the new birth therefore did not occur before Christ died.

As far as the mistaken view the fall made men unable to respond to the gospel, that is simply unbiblical. Take a look at Matthew 23:13 where unregenerate men were "entering heaven." How could they be entering heaven if they were not seeking God and His righteousness? Want more evidence, consider Ephesians 2:8 where we are saved by grace through faith. Thus we receive the grace of salvation through faith. Picture a room called salvation and the room is filled with grace. Now go through the door of faith. Thus your faith preceded your salvation or the grace of salvation.

Here are some scriptures to help you understand, no Grace from God (unmerited favor) no faith, faith is a work an action done by someone who has been regenerated by Grace, to say faith alone is the sin of idolatry.

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

 

[The Biblicist]

Was Abraham made righteous, or was his faith credited to him as righteousness? Abraham was not made righteous, was not born anew, was not sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever. None of this has been rebutted, only evaded.

My oh my. I am not permitted to call you a liar. So I will just say it has been pointed out to you at least on THREE different occassions that the nature of faith in Romans 4:5-8 is defined both at the beginning of this topic in Romans 3:24-26 and at the conclusion of this topic in Romans 4:23-5:2.

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

What justifies us is "the redemption that is IN Christ Jesus" which must be the object of faith "through faith IN HIS BLOOD...."beleiveth IN JESUS".

Hence, abstract faith justifies no one nor is abstract faith imputed for righteousness. What is imputed for righteousness is faith that has for its sole object the glad tidings that redemption is provided for in the redemptive person and work of Christ. Faith does not need to be regarded as righteous because faith has not sinned. GET IT??? It is Abraham that needs justification! It is Abraham that has sinned? It is Abraham that needs to be made righteous or can't you read Romans 4:5 "justifieth THE UNGODLY" not "justifies his faith." So what you are saying is patently FALSE!

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe ON him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:


God does not impute righteous due to ABSTRACT faith. God imputes righteousness to faith that has CHRIST and His redemptive work as ITS SOLE OBJECT for justification. So again, what you are saying is absolute baloney.

The "faith" that justifies has been defined both before and after Romans 4:5-11 and so there is no excuse for the absolute ignorance you are promoting. God does not reckon abstract faith as righteous, he reckons the believer as righteous due to the OBJECT of his faith - which is Jesus Christ.

Jesus tells you plainly that Abraham "saw" him and Paul tells you how he saw him - by faith in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-8). Paul tells you plainly that God's covenant with Abraham was made "IN CHRIST" - Gal. 3:17. Peter tells you plainly that the gospel of Christ was preached by all the prophets and Abel was the first prophet (Acts 10:43).

God does not reckon "faith" to be righteous, as faith does not need to be made righteous as faith has never sinned. It is the PERSON "the ungodly" that is justified - made righteous. He reckons Abraham, "the ungodly" to be righteous due to the OBJECT of his faith, that is how faith justifies. So stop repeating your nonsense that no one has direclty addressed your assertion. Stop ignoring the definition of the character of faith both before and after the text you are PERVERTING, due to the fact you are ignoring the contextual definition of that faith.

One more thing. The same text says that "ABRAHAM" his person as the "UNGODLY" was "jusitified by faith" as well as "his faith was imputed for righteousness". You interpret the latter to contradict the former!!!

 

[The Biblicist]

My oh my. I am not permitted to call you a liar. So I will just say it has been pointed out to you at least on THREE different occassions that the nature of faith in Romans 4:5-8 is defined both at the beginning of this topic in Romans 3:24-26 and at the conclusion of this topic in Romans 4:23-5:2.

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

What justifies us is "the redemption that is IN Christ Jesus" which must be the object of faith "through faith IN HIS BLOOD...."beleiveth IN JESUS".

Hence, abstract faith justifies no one nor is abstract faith imputed for righteousness. What is imputed for righteousness is faith that has for its sole object the glad tidings that redemption is provided for in the redemptive person and work of Christ. Faith does not need to be regarded as righteous because faith has not sinned. GET IT??? It is Abraham that needs justification! It is Abraham that has sinned? It is Abraham that needs to be made righteous or can't you read Romans 4:5 "justifieth THE UNGODLY" not "justifies his faith." So what you are saying is patently FALSE!

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe ON him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:


God does not impute righteous due to ABSTRACT faith. God imputes righteousness to faith that has CHRIST and His redemptive work as ITS SOLE OBJECT for justification. So again, what you are saying is absolute baloney.

The "faith" that justifies has been defined both before and after Romans 4:5-11 and so there is no excuse for the absolute ignorance you are promoting. God does not reckon abstract faith as righteous, he reckons the believer as righteous due to the OBJECT of his faith - which is Jesus Christ.

Jesus tells you plainly that Abraham "saw" him and Paul tells you how he saw him - by faith in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-8). Paul tells you plainly that God's covenant with Abraham was made "IN CHRIST" - Gal. 3:17. Peter tells you plainly that the gospel of Christ was preached by all the prophets and Abel was the first prophet (Acts 10:43).

God does not reckon "faith" to be righteous, as faith does not need to be made righteous as faith has never sinned. It is the PERSON "the ungodly" that is justified - made righteous. He reckons Abraham, "the ungodly" to be righteous due to the OBJECT of his faith, that is how faith justifies. So stop repeating your nonsense that no one has direclty addressed your assertion. Stop ignoring the definition of the character of faith both before and after the text you are PERVERTING, due to the fact you are ignoring the contextual definition of that faith.

One more thing. The same text says that "ABRAHAM" his person as the "UNGODLY" was "jusitified by faith" as well as "his faith was imputed for righteousness". You interpret the latter to contradict the former!!!

It is amazing how anyone can read Romans 3:24-5:2 which is the complete section on justification and come to the conclusion that it is "faith" which is regarded as righteous when faith was never regarded as unrighteous and never sinned and never needs to justification.

The subject is about justification of "the ungodly" and that is THE PERSON, as it is THE PERSON who is "ungodly" and it is THE PERSON who has sinned.

Justification is to declare righteous and it is THE PERSON who is being declared righteous. His "faith" is counted for righteousness because of the object of that faith, which is the substitutionary redemptive work of Jesus Christ in the behalf of Abraham. Faith unites that redemptive provision to HIS PERSON, so that he is no longer regarded "UNGODLY" but "RIGHTEOUS" in the sight of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is amazing how anyone can read Romans 3:24-5:2 which is the complete section on justification and come to the conclusion that it is "faith" which is regarded as righteous when faith was never regarded as unrighteous and never sinned and never needs to justification.

The subject is about justification of "the ungodly" and that is THE PERSON, as it is THE PERSON who is "ungodly" and it is THE PERSON who has sinned.

Justification is to declare righteous and it is THE PERSON who is being declared righteous. His "faith" is counted for righteousness because of the object of that faith, which is the substitutionary redemptive work of Jesus Christ in the behalf of Abraham. Faith unites that redemptive provision to HIS PERSON, so that he is no longer regarded "UNGODLY" but "RIGHTEOUS" in the sight of God.

1. Is it the PERSON who is being justified or is it his FAITH that is being justified???

Where does it ever say it is the person's faith that is being justified?

2. Is it the PERSON who has sinned and is "ungodly" or is it his FAITH that has sinned and is ungodly?

Where does it ever say faith has sinned or is ungodly and needs justification???

3. Is Justification by definition either declare or make righteous? Hence, is it the PERSON who is declared or made righteous or is it FAITH that is declared or made righteous???


4. Does God regard righteous what he does not justify or declare or make righteous?

5. If it is the PERSON who is "ungodly" and is a "sinner" and is "condemned" then how can God "justify" the person and yet only regard his faith as righteous instead of him???????

What use is it to impute to faith righteousness if it is the PERSON who is unrighteous?

The truth is that the PERSON is JUSTIFIED declared or made righteous due to the OBJECT of His faith. The OBJECT of his faith is the good news that Jesus Christ died IN HIS PLACE FOR HIS SINS and that faith obtains the death and life of Christ to his account.

NOTE: I mention both "declare" and "made" but I personally believe justification is the legal declaration of righteousness in God's sight due to the substitutionary atonement which faith embraces.

 

[Van]

Here are some scriptures to help you understand, no Grace from God (unmerited favor) no faith, faith is a work an action done by someone who has been regenerated by Grace, to say faith alone is the sin of idolatry.

The issue is so simple, can unregenerate fallen men seek God and trust in Christ? Matthew 23:13 clearly indicates the answer is yes. And Romans 4:1-15 does not say or suggest otherwise. Abraham believed God and His faith was credited to him as righteousness. Irresistible grace is nowhere to be found.

 

[The Biblicist]

The set time of regeneration is decided by the Holy Spirit who is still regenerating since the fall to the end of time, otherwise nobody would ever believe God or embrace the gospel.

regeneration and gospel conversion are inseparable simultaneous events just as repentance and faith are inseparable events. Both are in a proper cause and effect relationship. For example, Ephesians 2:8 says we are "saved" (quickened, see verse 5) "through faith." The word "saved" is a perfect tense of completed action that continues as a completed action. Thus if we were "saved....through faith" faith had to occur within that perfected action or we were not "saved...through faith" but saved before faith.

This whole phrase "by grace are ye saved through faith" is then defined "for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus" as quickening is a creative action by God but God does not create UNBELIEVERS in Christ Jesus as that is an oxymoronic statement. Hence, there is no such thing as an regenerated unbeliever any more than there is a unregenerated believer - neither exist.

Conversion is the completion of regeneration, regeneration the cause, conversion the effect. It is like the Old Testament prophet "turn us o God and we shall be turned" It is God that turns (regeneration - power - cause) but if he turns we are turning (conversion - turning from unbelief to belief, turning from resistance to submission, turning from love of darkness to love of light).

 

[Van]

I see the reposter, who is not allowed to call anyone a liar, is at it yet again. Over and over, the same bogus arguments with no merit are posted. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

1) Did I say our faith is justified, or did I say, as Romans 4:4-5 says, our faith is credited as righteousness. If God accepts our faith, He puts us spiritually into Christ, where we are justified by the blood of the Lamb.

2) Did I say our faith sinned and is ungodly? Nope. On and on this poster posts irrational arguments, railing against his own strawman arguments. LOL

3) Did I say God does not justify the ungodly? Nope. On and on this poster posts irrational arguments, railing against his own strawman arguments. LOL

4) Did I say that all our works of righteousness are other than filthy rags to God? Nope. On and on this poster posts strawman arguments. LOL

Folks, just read Romans 4, and note that it says Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. It does not say, repeat, it does not say, that Abraham was made or declared righteous. He had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect like all OT Saints. Hebrews 11:39-40.

 

[The Biblicist]

The issue is so simple, can unregenerate fallen men seek God and trust in Christ? Matthew 23:13 clearly indicates the answer is yes. And Romans 4:1-15 does not say or suggest otherwise. Abraham believed God and His faith was credited to him as righteousness. Irresistible grace is nowhere to be found.

Again, you ignore the response to your previous arguements, and no doubt will later claim no one has ever responded to them - that is your MO.

Again, you simply turn to other arguments that have already been completely exposed and answered, which again you NEVER respond to those answers but ignore them and then later claim no one has ever answered them. I can't call you a liar but I will let the readers come to their own conclusions.

Matthew 23:13 teaches no such thing. He is speaking about those who receive a FALSE GOSPEL that makes them two-fold more children of hell. They were seeking entrance into heaven BY ANOTHER GOSPEL or the BROAD WAY as that is the same religious plight of the Hindu's, the Moslems, the Budhists, the Pharisees and Saduccess, the Roman CAtholics and every other false religion and children of darkness. However, you just don't get it, you continue to ignore the context. They no more sought or entered heaven or began to enter heaven than those who preached the false gospel to them. Neither can your false gospel save anyone. And you do not preach the gospel of Jesus Christ but "another gospel." You use the Biblical langauge but deny the Biblical content just like the famous ETC agreement about the gospel.

 

[Robert William]

"Receiveth NOT"

The issue is so simple, can unregenerate fallen men seek God and trust in Christ? Matthew 23:13 clearly indicates the answer is yes. And Romans 4:1-15 does not say or suggest otherwise. Abraham believed God and His faith was credited to him as righteousness. Irresistible grace is nowhere to be found.

Van, scripture tells us the natural man considers the gospel to be foolishness so why would he choose it?


1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

 

[The Biblicist]

1) Did I say our faith is justified, or did I say, as Romans 4:4-5 says, our faith is credited as righteousness.

If faith is "credited as righteous" then faith is justified as the very meaning of justification is to declare or make righteous. You have Abraham being justified WITHOUT being declared or made righteous because you make his "faith" the recipient of righteousness not his person.

If God accepts our faith, He puts us spiritually into Christ, where we are justified by the blood of the Lamb.

But you deny Abraham was put "spiritually into Christ" and therefore you deny God accepted his faith or justified him by the blood of Christ BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION ABOVE! Or have you changed your mind now and agree that faith of Old Testament saints are accepted by God, thus placed "spiritually into Christ"????????? (BTW I don't believe faith makes one acceptable to placed in Christ Jesus, but am simply following your own logic).

2) Did I say our faith sinned and is ungodly? Nope. On and on this poster posts irrational arguments, railing against his own strawman arguments. LOL

3) Did I say God does not justify the ungodly? Nope. On and on this poster posts irrational arguments, railing against his own strawman arguments. LOL

4) Did I say that all our works of righteousness are other than filthy rags to God? Nope. On and on this poster posts strawman arguments.

Yes, that is exactly what you are teaching! You do not credit the PERSON with righteousness but you credit faith with righteousness but it is the PERSON exercising that faith that is "ungodly" and "Condemned" and "sinned" and so it is the Person who NEEDS to be justified = declared/made righteous THROUGH faith rather than abstact faith being credited righteousness.

You don't understand the preposition "through" do you? The preposition "through" does not refer to a terminating point but something that transverses from one side to the other side. "Through" faith the righteousness of Christ is brought to the PERSON of the believer - meaning the person is justified as faith is the transitionary means to make Christ's righteousness Abraham's righteousnss (2 Cor. 5:21). Your doctrine has faith as the TERMINATING point thus making it impossible for any PERSON to be justified

To say the PERSON is justified but it is his abstract "faith" that righteousness is attributed to means the person is still UNJUSTIFIED still UNGODLY still CONDEMNED and will remain so until his PERSON is declared/made righteous.

The context defines the faith as inseparable from the PERSON and redemptive work of Christ, as it is through faith Abraham embraces the substitionary atoning work of Christ IN HIS PLACE thus that substitionary work is regarded, counted to abraham's account as though he has lived a righteous life, died for sin and is now free from the law - thus declared rightous in God's sight. That is exactly what Romans 4:23-25 spells out in black and white. That is exactly the "likeness" provided in baptism in Romans 6:4-5.

You repudiate the substitutionary atonement of Christ by making abstract faith IN DISTINCTION FROM the person to be justified - regarded as righteous in God's sight!

You do not understand the meaning of the PERSON being justified THROUGH faith, as you limit righteousness to merely faith leaving the PERSON still ungodly, still condemned and thus not justified in God's sight.

 

[The Biblicist]

Van, scripture tells us the natural man considers the gospel to be foolishness so why would he choose it?


1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Robin, he does not believe that man comes into the world in a sinful state or condition. He does not believe Romans 3:9-18 refers to every human being but only to those who later choose evil. He does not believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ as a substitutionary atonement that THROUGH faith justifies the PERSON. He leaves the PERSON still "ungodly" and "condemned and in "sin" while crediting only his "faith" as righteous while his PERSON remains WITHOUT RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. He makes faith the basis for acceptability to be placed spiritually "in Christ" while at the same time denying Abraham or any other Old Testament saint could be spiritually in Christ. He uses the Biblical terms but denies the Biblical definition of the terms.

 

[The Biblicist]

Folks, just read Romans 4, and note that it says Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. It does not say, repeat, it does not say, that Abraham was made or declared righteous. He had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect like all OT Saints. Hebrews 11:39-40.

We are justified "THROUGH" faith (Eph. 2:8 "dia" preposition). You make faith the TERMINATING point of righteousness, whereas God's word makes faith the TRANSITIONARY means between the provision of the righteous life and death of Christ UNTO the PERSON exercising the faith. However, you deny the "through" and make faith the terminating point so that the redemption provision is never actually applied to the Person. Thus you deny the gospel of Jesus Christ and deny the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1. He did not say one is an unbeliever and the other is a believer but he is referring to the SOURCE of their birth - "children OF THE FLESH" versus "children OF GOD"


2. The "children of the flesh" refers to NATURAL or PHYSICAL born children of Abraham but we are explicitly told these are not the children of promise, nor the "children of God". What other alternative is possible to "children of the flesh" if natural birth was the ONLY possible birth prior to Pentecost???


3. How could Paul even make a distinction between "children of the flesh" and "children of God" if the only possible kind of birth prior to Pentecost was physical birth??? The only other alternative is to suggest no children of promise (children of God) existed prior to the cross, but then, what is the point of contrast here then as the focus is before the cross????


Gal. 4:28-29 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.


1. If all prior to Pentecost were "born after the flesh" and none were born "after the Spirit" then what is the basis for making a comparison by the words "as then" and "so it is now" if now is not as then in regard to "born after the flesh"? If there were no other alternative to being "born after the flesh" prior to Pentecost then he has made no point at all between "as then" and "so it is now"???????

2. However, Romans 9:7-8 demands there were "children of God" prior to the cross who were not "born of the flesh." Hence, what were they "born of" to be "CHILDREN of God" if they were not "BORN OF the flesh"??? What other option is there to being "BORN OF flesh" if not "BORN OF Spirit"??????

3. John 3:3; Ezek. 44:7 also demand there were those born of God prior to Pentecost or circumcised IN HEART, which is a synonym of the new birth even in the New Testament (Col. 2:11-12).

4. If one removes the illipses "born after the Spirit" then one also denies there is an meaningful contrast being made "born after the flesh" "THEN" with "NOW"!

5. If the children of the flesh are not the children of promise either then or now then what other alternative is there then or now to be children of promise other than by new birth??????

6. Again, Paul is referring to the SOURCE of birth "born" whether than "belief" or "unbelief". He is not referring to faith or lack of faith but the NATURE of birth between "children of God" versus natural born human beings who are not "children of God." What other possible alternative is there to being "born after the flesh" in order to be "children of God" THEN or NOW if not "born of the Spirit"!

This is the OP and van has not dared to address THE SPECIFICS that I have explicitly highlighted to refute his denial that pre-pentecost saints were regenerated.

Let me tell you a little secret! Van will NEVER address THE SPECIFICS simply because he can't and he knows he can't. So he will attempt to change the subject, redirect, ridicule as that is his MO when he is boxed in a corner. Or better yet, he will make the claim he has already answered THE SPECIFICS!!! However, he will NEVER be able to produce a post where he has because he has never yet done it. Of course on this forum you can't call a spade a spade.

 

[DHK]

The issue is so simple, can unregenerate fallen men seek God and trust in Christ? Matthew 23:13 clearly indicates the answer is yes. And Romans 4:1-15 does not say or suggest otherwise. Abraham believed God and His faith was credited to him as righteousness. Irresistible grace is nowhere to be found.

This is actually a Roman Catholic interpretation. Faith is not credited to Abraham.
Look at the verse again:

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
What was counted for righteousness?
Not faith; but rather the fact that he "believed in God," or "faith in God."
Faith always has an object. It doesn't stand alone.

Here is what Jamieson, Faucett and Brown say:

3. For what saith the, Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it--his faith.
was counted to him for righteousness-- (Ge 15:6). Romish expositors and Arminian Protestants make this to mean that God accepted Abraham's act of believing as a substitute for complete obedience. But this is at variance with the whole spirit and letter of the apostle's teaching. Throughout this whole argument, faith is set in direct opposition to works, in the matter of justification--and even in Ro 4:4-5. The meaning, therefore, cannot possibly be that the mere act of believing--which is as much a work as any other piece of commanded duty (Joh 6:29; 1Jo 3:23)

--was counted to Abraham for all obedience. The meaning plainly is that Abraham believed in the promises which embraced Christ (Ge 12:3; 15:5, &c.), as we believe in Christ Himself; and in both cases, faith is merely the instrument that puts us in possession of the blessing gratuitously bestowed.

Faith always has an object.
The object of the faith of the believer is Christ.
JFB distinguishes between the two different positions. The RCC believes that God accepted Abraham's act of "believing."
But the true meaning, he says, is that Abraham believed in the promises of which embraced Christ.
--His faith had an object.

The chapter ends with the same conclusion:
Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Faith is being fully persuaded that what God has promised he is able to perform. No better definition of faith than right here.

And so Paul comes to the same conclusion as the premise that he started with:
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

 

[Van]

Good Grief

Of course it was faith in God, faith that God would keep His promises.
So faith (in God) was credited to Abraham as righteousness.
Did I say Abraham's faith was a subsitute for complete obedience? Nope.
Was the object of Abraham's faith Christ? Nope, Christ was a mystery.
Yes, the promises to Abraham "embraced Christ" i.e. the world would be blessed through his Seed. But the revelation of Christ had not occurred.

And yet again, the issue is not the definition or object of faith, the issue is Abraham's faith in God's promises was credited to Abraham as righteousness, but nowhere does scripture say Abraham was made or declared righteous before Christ died, he had to wait in Abraham's bosom.

And btw, I have address all of the reposter's bogus arguments. Recall, Galatians 4:28-29 where the reposter reposts that I did not address the specifics, but the second "born" in the reposters version does not appear in the actual text. I addressed this before. Instead of adding "born" the text could be translated by adding "influenced." Ring a bell?

 

[Van]

Van, scripture [1 Co. 2:14] tells us the natural man considers the gospel to be foolishness so why would he choose it?

It says no such thing. It says "the things of the Spirit of God." It does not say "some" things, or "all" things. But if you read it in context, through 1 Co. 3:3 from 2:14, you will see that men of flesh can understand spiritual milk, but not meat.

So rather than moving on and referring to more and more references, why not address the two I have addressed, Matthew 23:13 and 1 Corinthians 2:14. Both, in context indicate that fallen unregenerate man can seek God and believe in Christ.

And again, Galatians 2:16-21 does not say nor suggest that fallen man cannot seek God or trust in Christ. In fact it says we believed in Christ before we were justified by Christ's faithfulness.