-
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 Old Tesament Saints Born Again?
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
- Status
beameup
Member
Of course I use the whole Bible.
I will use a clumsy illustration:
Think of Paul's Epistles as a pair of glasses.
You put on the "glasses" first before reading the rest of Scripture.
In this way, you are able to "focus" on those portions of Scripture
that pertain to you specifically as a Gentile Believer in the Church Age.
Additionally, you will easily recognize those portions of Scripture that
pertain specifically to genetical Israelites (ie: Jews) and NOT to you.
As long as Christians ignore the fact that Paul was the sole Apostle to the Gentiles, you will have your
Branch Dividians and David Koreshs and all manner of false doctrine being spread around. Paul will "set you straight".
I have given you Biblical proof that the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled, and you respond by saying that your position is based on the beliefs of unsaved Jews? The Israelites rejected Christ for the very reasons you have stated. They seek after an earthly Messiah who will give them an earthly kingdom with political power & rule over other nations. Christ corrected this false belief 2,000yrs ago. His kingdom is a present day eternal spiritual kingdom; not a brief earthly kingdom in the far future. Read Luke 17:20-21 & John 18:36, meditate on it, let the truth wipe away the false doctrine of an earthly kingdom for a political power. Read the verses I posted on the fulfillment of the promises, accept the truth of Scripture. Read every reference to His kingdom in the gospels, & you will see that He is never speaking of some brief earthly kingdom in the far, far future. A thousand year kingdom makes God into a liar. Christ's throne is eternal over an eternal kingdom.
I frequently see you correcting others for not being led by the Spirit because they disagree with your views. The Spirit will never lead you to a false doctrine that is contrary to the plainly written truths in Scripture. God, through the prophets, has told us that He kept His promises to Abraham & that they are fulfilled. If you reject God's Word, then you are not being led of the Spirit, but of your own spirit. I understand how hard it is to come to terms with having believed falsely, but that is the natural part of growing in the knowledge of God's Word. As we mature & study His Word with the understanding that we do not have perfect knowledge, He will reveal the truths of Scripture to us if we have a spirit of humility. It is pride which will not allow us to admit when we have believed a lie.
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:15)
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. (Mark 9:1)
Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. (Mark 11:10)
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21)
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36)
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (2Samuel 7:12-13)
Last edited by a moderator:
Instead of refuting it with Scripture, you made a silly accusation of dispensationalism on my part. That was a statement rooted in ignorance of my beliefs.
The passage is referring to the promised seed of Abraham, through whom his children would number as the sands of the sea from every tribe, tongue, & nation. We obtain eternal life when we become a part of spiritual Israel & heirs of the promises through Christ. All who died in faith under the law went to Sheol to wait for Christ to take them to the Father.
If you read the inspired writings of David, you will see that he understood that his soul would be in Sheol, not heaven, when he died. Sheol is the place of the dead; the correct name for the place which was occupied by both hell & paradise before Christ's sacrifice. This word was sadly mistranslated as "hell" in many Bibles, which has contributed to a misunderstanding of Scripture. King David believed in Sheol, Christ described it when speaking of the rich man & Lazarous. It is a truth of Scripture, not a construct of the human mind.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I'm not meaning to label you as a dispensationalist. I was merely stating that I've seen and heard that argument before and I've seen and heard it from dispensationalists--hence the word "typically." A bit touchy, aren't we?
Is that all? The passage refers to many promises made and to many others besides Abraham.
But, then we're not talking about David here, are we? Of course I know that Sheol is the place of the dead. But, the Old Testament has very little to say about eternal life, heaven, etc. The thoughts of such things are not well developed in the Old Testament.
The Rich man an Lazarus thing is, after all, a parable. You're reading a New Testament parable, making presuppositions, making those presuppositions universal, and then reading those presuppositions into the Old Testament.
But, the question remains: Was the author of Hebrews, in the passage you cite, meaning to say that "eternal life" was the promise?
The Archangel
It is not wise to ignore the OT teachings on the afterlife. They are as inspired as the NT writings.
It was not a parable, but a historical narrative. Christ gave the name of the beggar, & related a conversation between the rich man & Abraham. The rich man is still in torment to this day.
Eternal life, remission of sins, salvation; these are all part & parcel to the seed promise to Abraham. The passage says "promise" not "promises". It is referring to the seed promise to Abraham. Eternal redemption (life) was not obtained until after Christ offered His own shed blood before God in the true holy of holies. Until that time, all men were still in their sins. There was no eternal life/salvation before the eternal redemption. I really don't understand why this is such a difficult truth to accept, other than the fact that it contradicts your own preconceived beliefs.
I'll give you more Scriptural proof, but you really should study Hebrews for yourself. It would clear up much of your misunderstanding in this area.
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Heb 5:9)
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. (Heb 7:19)
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 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. (Heb 9:9-12)
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (Heb 10:1-4)
And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Heb 11:39-40)
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Not ignoring them...Just pointing out that there is not much written in the Old Testament about the afterlife. And, what is there is not well-developed. The New Testament, on the other hand, is very well-developed.
This is quite a stretch. Furthermore, it is an assumption on your part, considering Luke constructs the chapter, it is a parable.
We know that Christ was, ultimately, the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham. But, Abraham didn't know that.
It's "difficult" to believe because so much of what you say goes against the clear reading of the text and because you proof-text with verses that are not talking about what you say they are talking about.
You know....I have a Master's degree in this stuff...I've studied Hebrews, thank you very much.
You really need to learn how not to proof-text. What the author of any give book was intending to say really matters. All of what you posted, from Hebrews, demonstrates that Christ is superior to the Law--which is the point of Hebrews. The unknown author of Hebrews is not writing about what you are saying--nowhere does he say that the Old Testament saints were not in "heaven" before Christ's death on the cross. And, nowhere does he intend to imply that.
In fact, it would seem that Paul (whom I believe is the "preacher" of Hebrews, but that's another discussion) in Romans 3 makes the opposite case. Sins in the past were "passed over." Abraham's faith, we are told, was "counted as righteousness." That means that God "passed over" Abraham's sins, of which there are many.
Abraham was "counted" as righteous, which means he wasn't, but he was granted "righteous" status--based on the upcoming cross of Christ (which only God can do, since He transcendently stands above time). But, again, the text of the Old Testament says that "atonement" was made--based, again, on the upcoming cross of Christ.
Your issue here, likely, is time and the transcendence of God. Romans 3 tells us clearly that God put Christ forward as a propitiation, foremost, because He had passed over former sins. The blood of bulls and goats, which cannot take away sin, can only make "atonement" if the Cross is coming. It is as if the "atonement" of the Old Testament was provisional, awaiting full payment in Christ.
The Archangel
The Rich Man and Lazarus is NOT a parable.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is...
When ever Luke introduces a parable of Jesus, he uses the phrase "A certain man," which is exactly what the Greek here says.
There are many other indicators, but that first one should suffice, not that it will....
The Archangel
The discussion between the rich man and Abraham is not consistent with the parabolic style found in the Scriptures.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
But, we're not talking about the rest of scripture at this point, are we? It is Luke's use of "Parable" that determines what parts of Luke are parable and which are not, doesn't' it? And Luke's usage here, is clearly that of a parable.
The Archangel
beameup
Member
edited for brevity
I noticed that as usual you go to the Gospels to make your point.
Lets go to the Apostle to the Gentiles:
Rom 11:11-12
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? [rhetorical question, indication of future promise to be fulfilled to Jews]
Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? [rhetorical question, indication of future promise to be fulfilled to Jews]
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. [future promise to genetic Israel yet to be fulfilled]
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
I know how hard it is for some to accept that the Gentile Bride of Christ (ie: "Church") was God's "Plan B".
God makes his promises to his people, genetic Israelites, and he will accomplish his goal, and the blindness of Jews (genetic Israel) will be lifted.
Now as to the 1,000 years, why is that a hard concept to understand? God has his "economy" oikonomia established to bring glory to himself.
If that requires a 1,000 year period of true Peace on Earth then so be it. Eventually there will be a "new heavens and new earth" wherein dwells righteousness and it will be ETERNAL.
*Strong's Greek: 3622. οἰκονομία (oikonomia), otherwise known as "dispensation".
Rom. 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: ["Jacob" is genetic Israel and can be no other]
It is "clearly" in your mind so I will leave it as such.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
It is--clearly--in the text itself.
And...I might add, the "story" wasn't original to Jesus. A very similar story is told in Jewish folklore about a man named Bar Ma‘jan. The folk tale is Egyptian in origin. Jesus makes certain, important, changes in the story--like giving Lazarus a name and denying the rich man a name (the rich man in the Egyptian tale was named Bar Ma‘jan). It's likely that the folk tale had "evolved" a bit from it's original Egyptian roots and had become more Jewish sounding.
But, make no mistake...it is a parable.
The Archangel
No it's not.:smilewinkgrin:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you should research it for yourself, as it appears you will not consider arguments made by those trained in such things.
And...after your research...you should make your case as to why it is not a parable. That would be a step-up from the "liar liar pants on fire" tactic you've employed here.
The Archangel
Condesending......not a fruit of the spirit.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Whatever. You get to do whatever you want...then when you're called on it you label someone as "condescending" and call into question their walk with Christ.
You're not worth the keystrokes...
That's ok.....some on here love me.
I have not read this thread, only skimmed a few responses and last few posts.
1) I agree with your Pastor friends, indwelling only occurs under the New Covenant. Why couldn't OT saints be indwelt? Because they had not be washed with the blood of Jesus.
2) What does the term "born anew" mean. I believe we are conceived and born spiritually dead, i.e. in a separated from God state, for we are conceived in iniquity. Therefore to be born anew means we are made alive, i.e. in a united with God state. When God puts us spiritually in Christ, where we undergo the circumcision of Christ and we arise in Christ a new creation, we are "born anew. This is our "regeneration" which means to be originated again. Thus "made alive" regenerated, and born anew all refer to exactly the same thing, our conversion from a spiritually dead, separated from God, by nature a child of wrath person to be saved by the blood person. God transfers us from the realm of darkness, metaphorically "in Adam" to the kingdom of His Son, i.e. "in Christ" and transforms us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing by the Holy Spirit. This refers to us being indwelt. So indwelling only occurs after a person is spiritually in Christ. Therefore we are in Christ and Christ is in us.
3) Thus no OT saint was born anew before Christ died and He became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. They gained approval through faith, but why did they go to Abraham's bosom and not heaven. Because they were still separated by their unholiness from God.
4) After Christ died, then He took the "captives" held in Abraham's bosom to heaven. Now when a person dies they either go to Hades, or to be present with the Lord in heaven.
This is the only view that is consistent with all scripture. Calvinists reject this rather obvious view because according to their mistaken doctrine, the OT saints had to be regenerated (meaning enabled to respond to God by irresistible grace). So in their view, OT saints must be born anew and indwelt. Not according to scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status