-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?
- Thread starter Darrell C
- Start date
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes you certainly are, in the attacking part. I lamented the bad preaching that goes on in pulipits, for this you call me prideful, practicing behavior that isn't becoming of a Christian, that you shot 3 gooks, then alluded to your credentials, that you're a repository of truth, cry to me about showing where you actually were addressing me (which I did and to which you can't even admit). But I'm prideful...lol!!!!! Only on BB!
If anyone can return this back to the subject it would be a blessing. If anyone can demonstrate their belief that men were Born Again before Jesus died on the cross from the scriptures, it would be very helpful.
As I have previously stated, my opinion is of no less and no more value than anyone else's. Scripture is the absolute rule of measure in all Spiritual Matters and this is one Spiritual issue. I demonstrated with Matthew 27:50-53 that the Old Testament Saints were released from paradise by Jesus. Couple that with the clear teaching of scripture that "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." (John 3:13) and I find that no man was ever saved before Jesus died for him or her.
Please dispute if you can make a case without snide remarks or ad hominem attacks that do nothing for the conversation but turn it into mud slinging.
As I have previously stated, my opinion is of no less and no more value than anyone else's. Scripture is the absolute rule of measure in all Spiritual Matters and this is one Spiritual issue. I demonstrated with Matthew 27:50-53 that the Old Testament Saints were released from paradise by Jesus. Couple that with the clear teaching of scripture that "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." (John 3:13) and I find that no man was ever saved before Jesus died for him or her.
Please dispute if you can make a case without snide remarks or ad hominem attacks that do nothing for the conversation but turn it into mud slinging.
I think because of what you say here, that no man was "saved" before the Cross is why so many reject an understanding of New Birth as a New Covenant realization.
Men were "saved" in the Old Testament in the sense that by grace through faith they stood in a position of being just, as opposed to those who were not justified by faith. When they died, their eternal destiny was already decided, though they were not made perfect (complete) in regards to remission of sin, nor did they receive the eternal indwelling of God as we do in this Age.
But, we do not equate that "salvation" with the benefits of the Work of Christ, where we are reconciled to God through Christ, receive remission of sins, and are eternally indwelt.
The discussion concerning "No man hath ascended" has already come up, and while some of the commentary taking a view that this is not a reference to no man entering Heaven prior to the Cross can be viewed as reasonable, I agree with your position that this establishes a principle which is seen elsewhere in Scripture.
The latest issue I have tried to arouse interest in was/is the belief that men had spiritual life in the Old Testament, which I believe Christ makes clear was not the case.
So, anything you would like to offer concerning your view (which I share) that men were not born again before Pentecost, feel free to contribute. It is by looking at the assertions and objections that I think we benefit as the body of Christ, because we bring to the table perhaps a perspective not considered before.
God bless.
There are many compelling proofs that OT believers were regenerated.Let me supply a few.
David was a man after God’s own heart and Abraham was a friend of God. No one can please God without being regenerated (Rom 8:8-11).
How could an unregenerate person be an author of Scripture? Surely if Moses and David and the prophets were unregenerated, then there would not have been any Scripture prior to the cross. Nor would there have been any men giving true prophecies. All revelation from God would have come from angels or directly from God—not through men.
Anna and Simeon clearly represent OT saints when they rejoiced to see the baby Jesus in the temple. There can be no doubt that they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Yet according to John 6:47; 11:25-27; and 20:31, all who believe that have eternal life. Anna and Simeon and all OT believers believed in the coming Messiah for eternal life and hence they were born again.
Finally, the biggest problem with this view is that it makes OT believers unbelievers. Oh, they believed something. But they are not seen as believing in the Messiah for everlasting life. They are not seen as being sure that they are eternally secure by faith in the coming Messiah. As a result, two or more saving messages occur. If prior to Jesus people were born again by believing something less than the truth that the Messiah guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him, what is it they believed? And why, then, would Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 use Abraham as an example of one who believed the same saving proposition we believe? If Abraham was born again simply because he believed God exists, then how could he be a model for how people are born-again today?
Old Testament believers were not spiritually dead. They were spiritually alive. True, they were not part of the church. True, only some were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and that indwelling was not permanent. But all OT believers were regenerated and all were sealed. To believe otherwise is to reduce OT believers to people who were not children of God, were not spiritually alive, had no ability to please God, and who had no current relationship with God.
The reason I address this issue is because it is now a fairly common view in theological education today. It is, in my opinion, a dangerous trend. For if this is so, then it disturbs our understanding of eternal rewards, the unchanging nature of the good news, the fate of those who’ve never heard of Jesus, and ultimately of the value of the OT.
Today, one thing has been true and will be true in both the Old and New Testament economies: all who believe that the Messiah guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him are regenerate people. Regeneration bridges both Testaments.
Without having found the post that will and likely should remain in question, we do agree and likely that was when I first entered the discussion I, incorrectly responded because i had just read a long string of comments and at my age, I make mistakes about as often as I did in my twenties.
May god bless.
Thank you. I have copied your study guide but it might or might not take a couple of days to work my way through this because I fall back to sleep so often but I will work a reply.
Excellent post. This is what we need to thresh this issue out.
And did David and Abraham please God to the point the penalty for sin was removed?
We know the answer: no.
The Old Testament is in large part dealing with the temporal. Sure, they pleased God in the temporal, but, that did not remove their sins, for the blood of bulls and goats could not, hence the necessity of the Cross.
I keep posting this and hope the significance will be seen...
Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
When we impose an eternal context onto that which is temporal, we will miss the significance of the Work of the Cross.
Same way an unregenerate man could prophesy:
John 11:49-51
King James Version (KJV)
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Now where in Scripture do we see indication that Judas did not cast out demons, heal, and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom? He, like every disciple, carried out that commission by the power of the Holy GHost, not because they were born again.
This is one issue that is overlooked by most: everything accomplished by men that is ascribed to God is an accomplishment of the Ministry of the Spirit in the lives of those men.
Just as the Spirit of God empowered men in the Old Testament yet is made distinct from His ministry as the Comforter, even so this is true when He empowers the unregenerate.
This is how, Christ taught, that men are saved in this Age. That's where it all starts.
Just not a good argument.
You are ascribing Scripture...to men. Scripture is the result of Inspiration, God is the source...not men.
Are you saying that Caiaphas did not give a true prophecy? Or that this prophecy was something of himself? I know you are not.
And just like Peter...
Matthew 16:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
...that revelation was not of himself, but provided by God.
We see shortly after that Peter not only has no revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ (which is the knowledge men are given only after Pentecost), but that he stands in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for when Christ gives them the Gospel of Jesus Christ...
Matthew 16:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
...we see that the Lord dying for his sin is not something Peter wants to happen.
Further, we see Peter take up the sword to prevent the Cross, then, when his physical understanding is thwarted, he denies even knowing Christ.
We see a prophetic nature to what Christ states next:
Matthew 16:24-25
King James Version (KJV)
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Not one of them had, as of yet, taken up his cross and followed Christ.
And Peter does seek to save his life in denying Christ.
Peter was unregenerate, and it would not be until He received the Comforter, Who could not come until the Ascension (return of Christ to Heaven), that he would indeed take up his cross, follow Christ, and lose his life.
Continued...
And did David and Abraham please God to the point the penalty for sin was removed?
We know the answer: no.
The Old Testament is in large part dealing with the temporal. Sure, they pleased God in the temporal, but, that did not remove their sins, for the blood of bulls and goats could not, hence the necessity of the Cross.
I keep posting this and hope the significance will be seen...
Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
When we impose an eternal context onto that which is temporal, we will miss the significance of the Work of the Cross.
Same way an unregenerate man could prophesy:
John 11:49-51
King James Version (KJV)
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Now where in Scripture do we see indication that Judas did not cast out demons, heal, and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom? He, like every disciple, carried out that commission by the power of the Holy GHost, not because they were born again.
This is one issue that is overlooked by most: everything accomplished by men that is ascribed to God is an accomplishment of the Ministry of the Spirit in the lives of those men.
Just as the Spirit of God empowered men in the Old Testament yet is made distinct from His ministry as the Comforter, even so this is true when He empowers the unregenerate.
This is how, Christ taught, that men are saved in this Age. That's where it all starts.
Just not a good argument.
You are ascribing Scripture...to men. Scripture is the result of Inspiration, God is the source...not men.
Are you saying that Caiaphas did not give a true prophecy? Or that this prophecy was something of himself? I know you are not.
And just like Peter...
Matthew 16:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
...that revelation was not of himself, but provided by God.
We see shortly after that Peter not only has no revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ (which is the knowledge men are given only after Pentecost), but that he stands in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for when Christ gives them the Gospel of Jesus Christ...
Matthew 16:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
...we see that the Lord dying for his sin is not something Peter wants to happen.
Further, we see Peter take up the sword to prevent the Cross, then, when his physical understanding is thwarted, he denies even knowing Christ.
We see a prophetic nature to what Christ states next:
Matthew 16:24-25
King James Version (KJV)
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Not one of them had, as of yet, taken up his cross and followed Christ.
And Peter does seek to save his life in denying Christ.
Peter was unregenerate, and it would not be until He received the Comforter, Who could not come until the Ascension (return of Christ to Heaven), that he would indeed take up his cross, follow Christ, and lose his life.
Continued...
Not at all. Scripture attests to the fact that they were believers, men and women of faith, but, it is an error to equate belief with regeneration.
I would suggest to you that men can believe and reject the Spirit of God. That is the only way men can be found to be guilty of willful sin.
Regeneration is the process whereby men are baptized into Christ. That is, they are brought into union with God, and we can see when this began to happen.
And it did not happen until the Comforter came:
John 14:20
King James Version (KJV)
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
Everything Christ teaches them in John 14-16 speaks of that which will come after the Cross.
With the exception of them abandoning Christ, that is.
They did benefit from their relationship with Christ in His earthly Ministry to Israel, but, that did not forgive their sins and impart the Holy Ghost to them in the distinctive character of those who come into relationship with God through the New Covenant.
If Peter knew he had eternal life, would he have sought to save his physical life?
If he were regenerate through faith in the resurrection...would he have sought to keep Christ from the Cross?
He believed in Messiah, the problem was, the Messiah he believed in was going to bring about a physical redemption. This is true in the minds of all Jews, for the thought of Messiah dying was reprehensible to them. Abomination, for Messiah to hang upon a tree.
And the New Birth is not a matter of "believing God exists," because I suggest to you that all men believe God exists. This is without controversy, because Paul teaches that God reveals His existence to...
...all men.
Atheists, to the man and woman, all believe that God exists, yet they rebel against that knowledge, and sear their consciences against it.
Abraham was justified because of one thing: he obeyed the revealed will of God. But that does not mean his sins were forgiven, that he was reconciled to God, or that he had the Eternal Indwelling which Christ taught would begin when the Comforter came.
Continued...
Old Testament believers were spiritually dead.
John 6:49-53
King James Version (KJV)
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Regeneration is the result of the Work of Christ and demands specific faith in Christ:
1 Peter 1:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
We will need to see what men were born again in the Old Testament by/through. It was not by the Resurrection, because it had not occurred yet, and even those (the disciples, the Jews) who were told directly He would give His life that they might have eternal life...did not believe on Him.
And this is why the Comforter came, to specifically reveal to men the truth concerning Christ:
John 16:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
The Comforter reveals the Gospel to the unregenerate. We cannot view them as regenerate when they come under conviction of sin, because we see here they do not believe on Christ.
There are a number of "fairly common views" which are in error.
Rather than being a "dangerous trend," understanding the magnitude of the Work of Christ will inevitably generate a better understanding of the Bible as a whole. And I think it is because so many have missed this simple truth that embarrassment and pride forces them to kick against the goad.
The Regenerate are not pictured in disciples who abandoned and denied Christ, but in those disciples who received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit (received the Comforter and were baptized into Christ/God), and, just as Christ taught...went into all the world declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The disciples had no understanding of the very Truth by which eternal life is given. No matter how good of a light the Pre-Cross and Pre-Pentecost disciples are cast in, no-one is ever going to place them in a context of regenerate men with understanding of the Gospel.
Lst thing to consider is that this creates at least two ways men can be eternally redeemed. The first is the very consistent teaching that it is through faith in the Risen Christ, the second being, that one can be born again apart from faith in the risen Savior, which means men can be born again by unlimited means.
And that is not what the Comforter conveys to the unregenerate. He conveys only the truth of the Gospel, and this to the unregenerate, and of those that receive this truth we know only a few will yield, while the many reject.
I would agree, and when you can show who did that prior to Pentecost, and explain Paul's error in thinking that this was Mystery, then you will be well on your way to showing regenerate men in the Old Testament.
Regeneration is reduced to a renovation, when in fact it is a resurrection. One can go to self help seminar and achieve the same thing that the regeneration most teach results in.
Again, one should understand the theme of perfection in Hebrews, which makes it clear that men were not forgiven the penalty of sin in the Old Testament, though they were declared just through faith in God and His revealed will.
But what they did not receive was the Promise/s of God, and would not until Christ died:
Hebrews 11:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 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.
Hebrews 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)
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.
God bless.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Darrell C has shown from the Bible the faulty logic presented in this post, so I need not do so, but I will comment that the faith necessary for regeneration is not merely the intellectual faith that some people had in Old Testament times, and that when people have the faith necessary for regeneration, they become new people in Christ—something that we NEVER find in the Old Testament.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
The errors in these words are so serious that they demand a further refutation. Paul NEVER used “Abraham as an example of one who believed the same saving proposition we believe.” The Bible says that Abraham had sufficient faith in God in order to be justified; but the Bible does NOT say or imply that Abraham had sufficient faith to be saved and receive the new birth in Christ. Moreover, Abraham was not born again as a consequence of believing what God told him because God did not tell Abraham the message of the Gospel. Therefore, Abraham cannot possibly be a model for how people are born-again today—rather he is a model for how people are justified today in the sight of God. Justification always precedes salvation, but justification is not enough for salvation—one must be born again from above in order to be saved.
blockquote { margin-bottom: 0in; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
David was indeed a man after God's own heart but my personal study does not demonstrate he attained conversion and though we see David experiencing the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, it was not a permanent indwelling, such as is found in the saved man since and for ever after.
1 Samuel 16:13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon David.
and in 14:
Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul
I seem to also recall a Psalm where King David pleads for the return of the Holy Spirit but we see here that the Holy spirit's presence was not permanent as it is with myself and any person saved and indwelt.
And Romans 8 does nothing to establish your case, I fear. Were it not for those verses from Matt 27, establishing that, immediately, after His Death on the cross and the people such as David and Abraham being seen in the streets of the Holy City it might be possible to make such a case but let's deal with the two most graphic and well known cases for our subject matter, Elijah and Enoch. In Enoch's case he walked with God and was no more. (Gen 5:24) Now about Elijah, we must be very careful with scripture to avoid the single most common cause of common heresy... if we dare call it common. But is so very common for people to read into any text or line of thought we might come across. We see in 2Kings 2:11 As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.
We see that it is reasonable that Elisha took note and recorded this event. So being we must ask, “What heaven did Elisha see him rise up to?” In my NASB and my NJV when heaven is written with a lower case first letter it means what, today, we call the sky. If we can look at Matt. 5:17-19 we see where the heaven will melt away, surely not so! Heaven is eternal. Of course when we read further we find that there are two instances of two different heavens in the passage and the first heaven is the one Elijah was seen to rise into and the second in this case is the Saved Man's eternal home, the Kingdom of Heaven.
When we read our scriptures there is a rule that I learned from Pastor Richard Clarke of Mississippi, another Biblicist, the one that helped me to arrive here, I call it the First Rule of Hermeneutics. It states that no scripture, collection of scriptures nor any passage of scriptures can ever be properly understood without the clear light of all other scripture shining on it. This is true because of context and though I clearly divide what the Christian calls his or her Bible into two, distinctly, different God breathed or God inspired spiritual works, the Bible, the first thirty-nine books and then the God breathed Life Application Commentaries, the final twenty-seven books, the Christian Bible is still of a single context all the way from “In the beginning...” through the very last word of revelation 22.
It will take me some time but I will continue to work on the complete reply to this.
David was indeed a man after God's own heart but my personal study does not demonstrate he attained conversion and though we see David experiencing the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, it was not a permanent indwelling, such as is found in the saved man since and for ever after.
1 Samuel 16:13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon David.
and in 14:
Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul
I seem to also recall a Psalm where King David pleads for the return of the Holy Spirit but we see here that the Holy spirit's presence was not permanent as it is with myself and any person saved and indwelt.
And Romans 8 does nothing to establish your case, I fear. Were it not for those verses from Matt 27, establishing that, immediately, after His Death on the cross and the people such as David and Abraham being seen in the streets of the Holy City it might be possible to make such a case but let's deal with the two most graphic and well known cases for our subject matter, Elijah and Enoch. In Enoch's case he walked with God and was no more. (Gen 5:24) Now about Elijah, we must be very careful with scripture to avoid the single most common cause of common heresy... if we dare call it common. But is so very common for people to read into any text or line of thought we might come across. We see in 2Kings 2:11 As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.
We see that it is reasonable that Elisha took note and recorded this event. So being we must ask, “What heaven did Elisha see him rise up to?” In my NASB and my NJV when heaven is written with a lower case first letter it means what, today, we call the sky. If we can look at Matt. 5:17-19 we see where the heaven will melt away, surely not so! Heaven is eternal. Of course when we read further we find that there are two instances of two different heavens in the passage and the first heaven is the one Elijah was seen to rise into and the second in this case is the Saved Man's eternal home, the Kingdom of Heaven.
When we read our scriptures there is a rule that I learned from Pastor Richard Clarke of Mississippi, another Biblicist, the one that helped me to arrive here, I call it the First Rule of Hermeneutics. It states that no scripture, collection of scriptures nor any passage of scriptures can ever be properly understood without the clear light of all other scripture shining on it. This is true because of context and though I clearly divide what the Christian calls his or her Bible into two, distinctly, different God breathed or God inspired spiritual works, the Bible, the first thirty-nine books and then the God breathed Life Application Commentaries, the final twenty-seven books, the Christian Bible is still of a single context all the way from “In the beginning...” through the very last word of revelation 22.
It will take me some time but I will continue to work on the complete reply to this.