Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

[Jedi Knight]

14 pages of absurdity

Grow up dude.

 

[Van]

Yet another effort to question the character and qualifications of those who hold differing view. The use of this sort of logical fallacy demonstrates the absence of any actual support in scripture.

1) The OTS had to wait to be made perfect.

2) No one comes to the Father except through the Son.

3) We are made holy and blameless, i.e. without fault or blemish, through Christ's death.

4) After we are put in Christ spiritually, then we are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit forever. No one is put in Christ before Christ's death, because we are baptized into His death.

5) You do not enter a room through a door until the door is created, you cannot enter a room through a door that is planned to be created.

Bottom line, the absurdity of claiming OTS were born again before Christ died is a Trojan horse, born again masquerading for regeneration, trying to support the fiction of regeneration before faith. LOL

Because the OTS were not born again before Christ died, that means they obtained approval through faith before they were regenerated. Therefore Calvinism collapses. Thus we have 15 pages of absurdity, when scripture is crystal.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Yet another effort to question the character and qualifications of those who hold differing view

Your upside down and talk out of two side of you face. You accuse others of "absurdity" but your poop don't stink? Says it all! Your rude towards others then claim victim status.

 

[Yeshua1]

14 pages of absurdity, the simple truth is the OTS were not born again before Christ died.

Claims that the OTS were indwelt are precluded by scripture. To be indwelt is to be sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit as a pledge for our bodily resurrection. Everyone put in Christ is baptized into His death. Therefore no one was put in Christ before He died. Therefore no one was indwelt before Christ died.

You can tell when the equipping by the Holy Spirit of OTS is claimed to be indwelling, that they are simply redefining the meaning of words. No truth of scripture is safe from the rewrites of liberal Calvinists pushing the inventions of men over the word of God.

Lets add to the list of redefinition of words, in them means they were indwelt. Nothing is safe, they just rewrite the entire text, and claim black means white. LOL

Are you saying that none were saved under OT times?

 

[SaggyWoman]

Semantics are of issue here.

 

[percho]

Are you saying that none were saved under OT times?

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Titus 2:11

Did salvation exist during OT?

Well yes in that the lamb was slain before even the first man Adam was created.

However did they die, and go to heaven?

Maybe they died in the faith that would that proceeded the grace that would bring the grace that authored eternal salvation.

Maybe the lamb slain from the foundation of the world is/was the faith of which the grace of God would be applied that would set forth the lamb as a propitiation. a place of mercy.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20
Whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, (Have faith of God Mark 11:22 The faith of God the Father in the blood of his Son.) to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 3:25 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:21

And that is the incorruptible word of God by which one is begotten again to be born again as a child of God incorruptible and neither to did anymore. Balance of 1 Peter and Luke 20:36 & 1 Cor 15:49-52

 

[Van]

Why does Yeshua1 wonder if the OTS were saved. Of course they were saved, set apart in Abraham's bosom based on the approval they obtained through faith from which flowed faithfulness.

Did they go to heaven when they died immediately? No, they went to Abraham's bosom. No one has ascended to heaven before Jesus died on the cross.

Since you must be born again to enter heaven, and since the OTS did not enter heaven before Christ died, it is consistent with all scripture to say they were not born again before Christ died.

Nothing, no matter how basic a biblical truth, is safe from those who seek to rewrite scripture to make it conform to man-made doctrines.

1) The OTS had to wait to be made perfect.

2) No one comes to the Father except through the Son.

3) We are made holy and blameless, i.e. without fault or blemish, through Christ's death.

4) After we are put in Christ spiritually, then we are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit forever. No one is put in Christ before Christ's death, because we are baptized into His death.

5) You do not enter a room through a door until the door is created, you cannot enter a room through a door that is planned to be created.

 

[Darrell C]

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. John 16:7

* Why? Did Jesus who was born of woman, the virgin Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit not at that moment have the Holy Spirit, the Comforter to give them?

Hello Percho, it is not really a matter of whether the Son of God Who came from Heaven "had the Comforter to give them," But a matter of would the Holy Spirit begin this particular ministry...before His time.

The answer is no, on the authority of the Lord's own words:



John 16

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.

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,** he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Acts 2:32,33

** Did that actually take place?

Absolutely, "not many days" after the Lord ascended (Acts 1:4-5).



Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Before the Comforter, the Holy Spirit could be shed/poured forth upon us did Jesus who had been born of woman, conceived by the Holy Spirit after dying on the cross for us have to be raised from the dead by God the Father and to be given the promise of the Holy Spirit?

You are equating the Lord Jesus Christ with us, my friend, something I feel is a mistake.

The Lord did not have a sin nature nor a sin debt owed, but was He that died free from sin for those who did and do.

I do not view the Son of God as having been born again (because He did not possess a sin nature, being God) which would include (though not limited to) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.

As I said in a previous post, He made possible that the promises of God (the promise of the Spirit being, I believe, the most significant among them) might be fulfilled.

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through the faith. Gal. 3:14

Do we receive the promise of the Spirit because Jesus received it first?

No. We receive the Promise because the Lord died, resurrected, ascended, and sent the Comforter. We know that this ministry could not take place while the Lord remained here, that He had to return to Heaven or, as He said Himself, the Comforter could not come.


John 16

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.

Could it have been shed on us if Jesus had not first received it?

If by "it" you mean the promise, I do not see that the Lord "received the Promise" as we do, but that it was granted to Him to accomplish that which would make it possible that men might receive the Promise.

Remember that when the Comforter, the Spirit of Promise came, the Lord was already glorified and returned to Heaven.



Luke 24:49

King James Version (KJV)


49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Did Jesus receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through the faith of God?

Again...He is the Promise. Again...He was already returned to Heaven when the Promise is given, that is, the Comforter (in regards to the Spirit of Promise).

Jesus said in Mark 11:22 Have faith in God - Literally, “Have the faith of God.” per Barnes.

Not sure I see the relevance, could you perhaps expand on this?

Did Jesus become faith, the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen, because by being raised from the dead God the Father accepted Jesus's death for us?

Not in a personified sense, which is what this implies somewhat. Our faith in Christ takes into consideration all aspects of the Ministry of Christ unto man. In Hebrews 11, as well as in Mark 11, faith in God is not something new, nor was the Lord implying there was a need for the disciples to wait until after His death, resurrection, and ascension to have faith in God. But He did say "wait for the Promise."

Consider 1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
V17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Paul deals with a denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Had the Father not raised Jesus from the dead there would be no faith and we would still be in our sins for there would not have been acceptance of his death for our sins.

Hebrews 11 would argue that point, for there were many great men (and a few women (listed)) of faith before Christ's death.

However, a general faith in God was not the intended permanent redemptive plan of God, but specific faith in Christ and His vicarious death. If it were so that the Lord had at this time not already have come, then we would have available to us the grace and mercy of God afforded the Old Testament Saints, but...we would not, like they, have been made perfect concerning Atonement.

The importance of that one point cannot be underestimated.

I miss applied in a previous post.

You would have to be more specific.

Salvation is by the Grace of God the Father through the faith in the blood of his Son Jesus, born of woman.

Agreed.

Now, to attempt to put what you suggest in perspective...did Christ have faith in Himself? Was that a necessary thing?

In the Father raising the Son from the dead the Son becomes the faith of God by which we receive salvation.

The Son becomes the object, the focal point...of our faith. He is not a commodity placed within believers, but effects faith in those that believe.

Christ in you the hope of glory.

Which refers to the indwelling of God in the believer.

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

John 1:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:



The new birth comes about through faith in Christ. We must receive Him to receive from Him.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Think the new Covenant was something totally new and different!

For the most part, I agree. The Lord said "I will do this," and one of the aspects about the New Covenant that stands out is the Ministry of the Comforter, which I believe we see promise of here:



Ezekiel 36:27

King James Version (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


This passage gives us a picture of the New Birth I believe:


Ezekiel 36:22-27

King James Version (KJV)

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


It is significant to recognize that God said He would do this, not "for their (our) sakes, but for His holy name's sake.

Under the Old One, believers in God and his promised messiah were credited/theirpersonal sins owed to God remitted/placed upon calvary to come,

Agreed. I would suggest that until their sins were paid, however, they were not made complete, or perfect.

but they were NOT born again, as in indwelt by HS, as that had to wait until mesiah came!

That is the position I take myself.

I tend to see them in same state as say babies/infants, as they were saved by act of God thru the Cross of christ, but not "born again"

I don't think we have to take a position that Old Testament Saints were somehow deficient in regards to faith in God, as Hebrews 11 would attest to their great faith. However, I think it should be noted that the Lord Jesus Christ said He came to give life, and this life I believe to refer to the indwelling of God whereby we partake of His life. The Lord said that the fathers in the wilderness ate manna...and were dead, but those that ate the Bread that came down from Heaven (Jesus) would never die. The comparison cannot be denied, and is significant I believe.

The new birth is a spiritual rebirth, whereby we are made new creatures. See the promise of God above again, and we see cleansing, a new heart, a new spirit, and...His Spirit within us, causing us to walk in His statutes. We know that the ministry of the Comforter did not start until after the Ascension of Christ, thereby separating it from any ministry previously performed by God in the lives of men. That cannot be denied. We can see the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the Old Testament Saints, but this ministry stands apart, and is said to be a fulfillment of the promise of God. Something that is promised has a period, after it is given, of the time before it comes, and the time after it has come. Before that Day of Pentecost, the time when the Promise is given, it is impossible that this promise was fulfilled.

While the New Birth is not just the indwelling of the Spirit of God, His indwelling is a significant, and probably the most significant aspect of the New Birth in my opinion.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

So they didn't need the Holy Spirit to believe? Sorry I believe they were sealed the moment they believed and as it says in Romans abounded in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. You guys act as the Holy Spirit had nothing to do till The Lord came first. Anyways as I study scripture 1 eter 1:11 says they had the Spirit in them....not just upon them. BTW it was the Holy Spirit that moved Peter to write that down.

But what did they believe, JK?

Could they place absolute confidence in Jesus Christ as their Savior?

The answer is no. Not even the disciples did that.

As far as "You guys act as the Holy Spirit had nothing to do till The Lord came first," it has been mentioned numerous times that the Holy Spirit ministered in and through the Old Testament Saints, and one particular ministry which He performed you allude to in your next statement:

Anyways as I study scripture 1 eter 1:11 says they had the Spirit in them....not just upon them. BTW it was the Holy Spirit that moved Peter to write that down.

Your last statement, "BTW it was the Holy Spirit that moved Peter to write that down," targets the work of God in men to bring about scripture, but I would remind you that we know without shadow of doubt that the ministry of the Comforter did not begin until after the Lord's ascension, that cannot be disputed.



1 Peter 1:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.


Here we see the Spirit of Christ synonymous with the Spirit of God, as we do in Romans 8:9. This speaks of the inspiration of God concerning the word of God, but does not mean they were born again. That conclusion is forced on the text. The ministry of the Holy Spirit can be seen to be an internal work in the hearts of men prior to Pentecost but, just as we would not ascribe the new birth to those that hear the Gospel and reject the Comforter's attempt to bring them to repentance, even so we need not ascribe something that has a definite point of beginning in scripture from where we can see a distinctive difference. That is...the coming of the Comforter.

1 Peter 1:11 Who were Indwelt it says. Your argument is now with the Bible and not me!

Again, we are dealing with inspiration, not the New Birth, not the indwelling of the Comforter. A note of interest would be that the same word used that is translated "Comforter" in John is translated "Advocate" here:


1 John 2:1

King James Version (KJV)

2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

This, coupled with the Lord's words "I will not leave you comfortless...I will come to you," point to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being One. We can say "Christ lives in me, the Father lives in me, and the Holy Spirit lives in me," because they are One.

My Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Third Edition) translates this verse thus:

11 searching for what, or what sort of time the Spirit of Christ made clear within them; testifying beforehand of the sufferings (belonging) to Christ, and the glories after these.


Peter will go on to write...



2 Peter 1:19-21

King James Version (KJV)

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


This again deals with the inspiration of God concerning prophecy. The Spirit of God moved them to speak (as well as record) but that does not mean they were born again.

The Spirit of God left Saul, so if we say that men indwelt by God in the Old Testament were born again, the obvious conclusion we would have to draw is that men can be born again...and then lose the Spirit of God.

Is that the position you take?

Joseph Genesis 41:38 Then Pharaoh said to his servants, "Can we find anyone like this, a man who has God's spirit in him?" Joshua Num. 27:18 Select Nun's son Joshua. The Spirit is in that man," the LORD answered Moses. "You are to lay your hand on him. Daniel 4:8 But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods:

Again, the Spirit of God was in Saul. I take the position that the Spirit of God did indeed come upon men to empower them for ministry, but again we can see that the Ministry of the Comforter has a starting point that beings after the ascension.

Even the Pagan Kings had better discernment then that. 1 Corinthians 10:4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

No, actually they didn't. Because we see a few show discernment from time to time we do not confuse that with being led of God as we as born again believers are.

For one thing...it was not revealed until after Christ's death:



1 Corinthians 2:5-8

King James Version (KJV)

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

its just that God did not indwel/seal them with HS at that time, but sis remit, holding not their sins debtowed him at that time...

So now it's a buffet of pick and choose? 1 Peter 1:11 say inside "indwelt" them.

But we cannot ignore the fact that 1) the Comforter had not come and 2) atonement for sin had not been accomplished.

Every man, before the death of Christ, was bound by the Law to offer up sacrifice for his sin, and the writer of Hebrews, and ultimately the Holy Spirit Himself tells us that those sacrifices could not take away sins.

Which means that they still, as Yeshua 1 has just stated, owed a debt for their sin. That debt was paid only by Jesus Christ dying in the place of sinful man, forever rendering the sacrifices of the Law...obsolete.

Originally Posted by Yeshua1
inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.


They were OT prophets though...

the HS had a special work with them, on them in the OT, as he did the Kings...

NOT with everyday common isrealite!

That has nothing to do with it. Just because you we're an Isrealite did mean you were saved. Obviously you cannot tell the difference between upon and dwelt. Says they were INDWELT!

When the Holy Spirit "Came upon" men prior to Pentecost, we still view that as an internal work. However, what is in view is not so much how the Spirit of God worked within the hearts of men (which we know He did) but how He currently indwells men (which is a permanent indwelling, according to the word of Christ, whereas as we see this not true of all men in the Old Testament) and how that relates to salvation in Christ, which was not revealed to men until the appointed time.



Romans 16:25-26

King James Version (KJV)

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

God bless.

 

[Van]

Your upside down and talk out of two side of you face. You accuse others of "absurdity" but your poop don't stink? Says it all! Your rude towards others then claim victim status.

Yet another personal attack, devoid of on topic content.

The reason the OTS did not go directly to heaven, for no one had ascended to heaven, the abode of God, before Christ died is because they had not been born anew, yet. They had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect, blameless and holy upon Christ's death. QED

 

[Jedi Knight]

Yet another personal attack

Pot calling the kettle black.:sleeping_2: Grow up.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Men would not follow the Lord unless something on the inside changes.....no matter what time it is.

 

[Jedi Knight]

But what did they believe, JK?

Could they place absolute confidence in Jesus Christ as their Savior?

The answer is no. Not even the disciples did that.

As far as "You guys act as the Holy Spirit had nothing to do till The Lord came first," it has been mentioned numerous times that the Holy Spirit ministered in and through the Old Testament Saints, and one particular ministry which He performed you allude to in your next statement:




Your last statement, "BTW it was the Holy Spirit that moved Peter to write that down," targets the work of God in men to bring about scripture, but I would remind you that we know without shadow of doubt that the ministry of the Comforter did not begin until after the Lord's ascension, that cannot be disputed.



1 Peter 1:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.


Here we see the Spirit of Christ synonymous with the Spirit of God, as we do in Romans 8:9. This speaks of the inspiration of God concerning the word of God, but does not mean they were born again. That conclusion is forced on the text. The ministry of the Holy Spirit can be seen to be an internal work in the hearts of men prior to Pentecost but, just as we would not ascribe the new birth to those that hear the Gospel and reject the Comforter's attempt to bring them to repentance, even so we need not ascribe something that has a definite point of beginning in scripture from where we can see a distinctive difference. That is...the coming of the Comforter.





Again, we are dealing with inspiration, not the New Birth, not the indwelling of the Comforter. A note of interest would be that the same word used that is translated "Comforter" in John is translated "Advocate" here:


1 John 2:1

King James Version (KJV)

2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

This, coupled with the Lord's words "I will not leave you comfortless...I will come to you," point to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being One. We can say "Christ lives in me, the Father lives in me, and the Holy Spirit lives in me," because they are One.

My Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Third Edition) translates this verse thus:

11 searching for what, or what sort of time the Spirit of Christ made clear within them; testifying beforehand of the sufferings (belonging) to Christ, and the glories after these.


Peter will go on to write...



2 Peter 1:19-21

King James Version (KJV)

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


This again deals with the inspiration of God concerning prophecy. The Spirit of God moved them to speak (as well as record) but that does not mean they were born again.

The Spirit of God left Saul, so if we say that men indwelt by God in the Old Testament were born again, the obvious conclusion we would have to draw is that men can be born again...and then lose the Spirit of God.

Is that the position you take?




Again, the Spirit of God was in Saul. I take the position that the Spirit of God did indeed come upon men to empower them for ministry, but again we can see that the Ministry of the Comforter has a starting point that beings after the ascension.




No, actually they didn't. Because we see a few show discernment from time to time we do not confuse that with being led of God as we as born again believers are.

For one thing...it was not revealed until after Christ's death:



1 Corinthians 2:5-8

King James Version (KJV)

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.



But we cannot ignore the fact that 1) the Comforter had not come and 2) atonement for sin had not been accomplished.

Every man, before the death of Christ, was bound by the Law to offer up sacrifice for his sin, and the writer of Hebrews, and ultimately the Holy Spirit Himself tells us that those sacrifices could not take away sins.

Which means that they still, as Yeshua 1 has just stated, owed a debt for their sin. That debt was paid only by Jesus Christ dying in the place of sinful man, forever rendering the sacrifices of the Law...obsolete.




When the Holy Spirit "Came upon" men prior to Pentecost, we still view that as an internal work. However, what is in view is not so much how the Spirit of God worked within the hearts of men (which we know He did) but how He currently indwells men (which is a permanent indwelling, according to the word of Christ, whereas as we see this not true of all men in the Old Testament) and how that relates to salvation in Christ, which was not revealed to men until the appointed time.



Romans 16:25-26

King James Version (KJV)

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

God bless.

Darrell C I know you have a good argument unlike the other guy who just rants and acts like he is arguing with a cult member.lol Nevertheless it's like the ones who are convinced you can fall away and those who don't. BOTH claim they stand on the word but have totally different views. You put forth your view and feel it correct but I see it differently from my view....I agree to disagree. Thanks buddy!:wavey: I've kicked this can around a lot "two threads" and almost 6,000 views says it's an interesting topic.....wouldn't you agree?

 

[DHK]

Yet another effort to question the character and qualifications of those who hold differing view. The use of this sort of logical fallacy demonstrates the absence of any actual support in scripture.

1) The OTS had to wait to be made perfect.

Your favorite "proof text" for this, one taken out of context, is in Hebrews.

Hebrews 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Note:
"better thing for us."
"they without us should not be made perfect."

This does not refer exclusively to OT saints. It includes "us," that is, NT saints. You take this out of context not realizing it refers to us, NT saints as well.

"They, without us should not be made perfect."

 

[Jedi Knight]

Your favorite "proof text" for this, one taken out of context, is in Hebrews.

This is a stumbling block for him........... so he just goes round and round.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C I know you have a good argument unlike the other guy who just rants and acts like he is arguing with a cult member.lol

I think we all sometimes have the tendency to show condescension towards those that don't agree with us, lol. I mean, don't they know that it is the Lord Himself that has enlightened us and sent us to...straighten everybody else out? lol

To be honest, I believe that as we grow in knowledge alongside that growth comes the training program. The Lord can show us truth yet if we are unable to communicate that truth, what good will it do?

Of course, one thing that never seems to change in a family is sibling rivalry, lol. So the training program, I believe, includes a course on how to change an argument to a discussion, and even before that, to keep a discussion from becoming an argument.

We can be sure that the word of God never fails, though the spokesman may. If we present the word of God, who can argue with it? As we present our views among other professing believers, our own are challenged and we are able to see where we may have taken a wrong perspective or simply just missed (or forgotten, lol) something that changes everything. A preacher once said, "Everybody has a little bit of heretic in them," lol, and looking at my own course of study and considering views or thoughts I once had (especially when I was first saved), I can see where I held views that would have had me being rebuked by those that had a better grasp on the word of God. I try to keep that in mind when I run across those that hold to views that are not my own.

Nevertheless it's like the ones who are convinced you can fall away and those who don't. BOTH claim they stand on the word but have totally different views.

I am sure you would agree that this particular argument has only one side that is correct.

Here is my view: there is no question one can fall away, the real question is...is that possible for the born again believer? And the answer is emphatically...no.

And it is interesting that you mention this, JK, in this thread, because our understanding of what the Lord brought about through His Work on the Cross and carried on by the Comforter is, in my view, absolutely essential in our understanding of the salvation we possess, and more importantly, our belonging to God by more than our profession of faith. The salvation effected by God in the life of the believer goes beyond that which we invest and actually goes outside of our involvement. Most of us, before salvation, were likely exposed to the Gospel, and that without effect. The disciples themselves were given the Gospel yet at the appointed time, the Lord went alone to the Cross, having not one ally among men.

When we consider the New Birth we look at the changes made which we had no control over:

1. Atonement: we do not contribute to paying the wage of sin, only the Lord could pay that debt.

2. Life: those physically alive are termed "dead" by the Lord before the New Covenant is established. He came to give life, and the conclusion must be that this life was previously unavailable. We receive life through union with God, this is the only means.

3. New Creature: we are made new. Paul goes so far as to call the new creature a different man.

And there are those that boast, "I repented, I believed..." and view themselves to have contributed to their salvation. When the truth is that God made it possible for them to yield to God, and to acknowledge truth.

You put forth your view and feel it correct but I see it differently from my view....I agree to disagree.

My friend, this is something that I have been considering for years, so I can understand. Even now I try to make it clear that while I take this view, there is an array of great minds that hold to the opposite view, that the new birth has been possible for all of the faithful throughout redemptive history. This does not make us enemies, it simply means we disagree about this particular doctrine. Likely we are in full agreement on a number of primary doctrines and at the very least, we both (and all) look to Jesus Christ as the One that saves us.

Thanks buddy!:wavey: I've kicked this can around a lot "two threads" and almost 6,000 views says it's an interesting topic.....wouldn't you agree?

I am like a kid in a candy store in this thread. I have began this thread a number of times and only here on BB has it actually been discussed. Usually, it draws no interest, which amazes me because it is similar to the OSAS debate...one must answer one way or another, and there are only two answers. So yes, it is interesting, and a difficult question to ponder, if you ask me. Which is why many will stay out of the conversation.

Okay, sorry for the length here, but I am just a little talkative this morning and I actually have to work, so just getting in a little before heading out.

Thanks for the discussion, my friend, I have enjoyed this thread more than you know. I was disheartened when the other thread was closed and thrilled to see this one start. I hope that we can get down into the finer points of discussion as this thread progresses.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Your favorite "proof text" for this, one taken out of context, is in Hebrews.

Hebrews 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Note:
"better thing for us."
"they without us should not be made perfect."

This does not refer exclusively to OT saints. It includes "us," that is, NT saints. You take this out of context not realizing it refers to us, NT saints as well.

"They, without us should not be made perfect."

Hello DHK, just wanted to touch on the theme of perfection which threads it's way through the Book of Hebrews. It is, I believe, one key which unlocks this book for us, and the importance is tremendous in relation to the establishment of the New Covenant, which I believe we, the Church, are under. So I will just present one passage for your consideration and I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on it.


The Levitical Priesthood is compared to Melchisadec and his priesthood in the beginning of ch.7, the writer's point to ultimately compare the Levitical Priesthood to the Priesthood of Christ. The Lord is said to be "after the order" of Melchisadec rather than the order of Aaron, to which Israel was beholden to. The writer throughout the book is making the argument that Israel is now compelled to "go on unto perfection," that is...to embrace Christ and forsake the Levitical economy as a means of remission of sins.

Not an easy task for a people that were born and bread religious adherents to the God-given religion of the Jews. Even a lowly fisherman, Peter, could proclaim that he had never eaten any unclean animal (and this to the Lord Himself, as though the Lord was unaware of Peter's past, lol).

The writer states:


Hebrews 7

King James Version (KJV)

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


Keeping in mind that the writer first begins to tell his brethren about the Priesthood of Christ in ch.5, and takes a detour of rebuke concerning their understanding of the Oracles of God. So his comparison of the Priesthoods is significant and here we see that perfection was not something that the Levitical Priesthood could effect. We see also that the Law itself needed to be changed of necessity, seeing that the Law prescribed the services of the Levitical Priesthood and to depart from it would have been a serious matter to All who formerly adhered to that commanded concerning the services provided by the Levitical Priesthood.

Question: is the perfection here the same perfection the writer urges his brethren to "go on unto" in Hebrews 6:1?


13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.


He makes it clear that the Lord is not of the Tribe of Levi.


15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,


His (the Lord's) Priesthood is compared to Melchisadec's (and I myself take the view that Mechisadec was a man, not a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ, and that the comparison here is for the purpose of making it clear that Christ's Priesthood is separate from the Levitical Priesthood).



16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.


His Priesthood is inherent in His Person and Work, not associated with the Law which was a picture of His Priesthood and Work.


17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.


The writer mentions on a number of occasions that the Law could not bring about completion in that which it was established for, that is, concerning atonement for sin. It should be noted that the writer makes it clear that the fault was not due to the Law itself, but due to man's inability which, I believe, is due to the fact that man was not yet made new according to the Promise of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:8).

It is interesting to note that the word "disannulling" used here is found only in one other place in scripture:





Hebrews 9:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.



For those that wonder about the role of the First Covenant and whether it has been made obsolete, we can see here that just as the Lord "put away" sin, even so the disannulling of the Law in regards to the believer's position is not debatable.


19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.



What I would suggest is that the writer makes it clear that the Law, a parable of the Better Things, could not make anything perfect. The bringing in of a better hope did, and it is this by which we draw nigh unto God. He will go on to make it clear that through His sacrifice, the Lord has made perfect forever them that are sanctified.

How this ties in to a discussion of the New Birth is important, in my view. When we consider that we trust Christ to have died in our place, taking upon Himself the penalty for our own sins, and understand that His sacrifice makes complete atonement for that sin, and that prior to that sacrifice the faithful of the Old Testament were not brought to completion, we see a huge difference between the two groups.

They were declared righteous, but not perfect. They received a good report, but were not made perfect. The reason is that the means for complete remission were not yet available. Until He died on the Cross, they still awaited with expectation, in faith, for that completion.

We can see that those under the Law, and even those prior to the Law, could not be made perfect because the Law could not make perfect, and it was necessary to change the Law. It was changed, and the writer devotes four chapters to convince his brethren of this fact (7-10), and we can see it throughout the entire book. So we see a difference presented between the believers under and before the Law, and those after the Work of Christ (as well as including His Priestly role).

Okay, hope this makes sense, brother, and I hope you don't mind me fielding a post not addressed to me. Like the discussion of the New Birth, the discussion of Perfection in Hebrews is another discussion that few rarely engage in, which is a shame as it is one of great importance (I believe). Look forward to getting your thoughts on this DHK.

God bless.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Here is my view: there is no question one can fall away, the real question is...is that possible for the born again believer? And the answer is emphatically...no.

Agreed but what started me personally to rethink it through was a Pastor friend said in the OT believers could loose their salvation but NT believes could not. He used Psalm 51 for his example when David said "do not take your Holy Spirit from me". That got me thinking and found others who hold a different view like John Piper for example.(Listen to this) http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...evers-experienced-the-spirit-before-pentecost Anyways I like to check if the Pastor is right on an issue or should I find out for myself.:type: I remember even John MacArthur said he had his view challenged on things before.

 

[DHK]

Hello DHK, just wanted to touch on the theme of perfection which threads it's way through the Book of Hebrews. It is, I believe, one key which unlocks this book for us, and the importance is tremendous in relation to the establishment of the New Covenant, which I believe we, the Church, are under. So I will just present one passage for your consideration and I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on it.

The Levitical Priesthood is compared to Melchisadec and his priesthood in the beginning of ch.7, the writer's point to ultimately compare the Levitical Priesthood to the Priesthood of Christ. The Lord is said to be "after the order" of Melchisadec rather than the order of Aaron, to which Israel was beholden to. The writer throughout the book is making the argument that Israel is now compelled to "go on unto perfection," that is...to embrace Christ and forsake the Levitical economy as a means of remission of sins.

I don't view Hebrews that way. I believe he was writing to believers, as every epistle was written to. They had already forsaken the Levitical system. They already had remission of sins.
One's outlook on Hebrews from the outset is key on how he interprets this book and makes the conclusions that he comes to. I believe the author is writing to Hebrew Christians, among whom some were very discouraged, having gone through intense persecution. It was difficult for them, and they were thinking of turning back toward "Temple worship," once again. By doing that they could avoid further persecution by their families and others. They had already faced great loss. The writer tells them "Take the spoiling of your goods joyfully."
In this context the writer always uses the first person plural: "we," "us" etc. He includes himself with them. "Let us go on..." "We have a better..." The contrast between the two systems is there. What we have is better. It is a letter of encouragement; a letter to show why, what we have now is much better than what they had before. They could never return.

Thus if vs. 40 of chapter 11 the word "perfect" is used in the same context as it is for every believer.
"that they without us should not be made perfect."
The "they" and "us" together will be made "perfect" at the same time. The verse is clear about that.

Not an easy task for a people that were born and bread religious adherents to the God-given religion of the Jews. Even a lowly fisherman, Peter, could proclaim that he had never eaten any unclean animal (and this to the Lord Himself, as though the Lord was unaware of Peter's past, lol).

The writer states:

Hebrews 7:11-12

Keeping in mind that the writer first begins to tell his brethren about the Priesthood of Christ in ch.5, and takes a detour of rebuke concerning their understanding of the Oracles of God. So his comparison of the Priesthoods is significant and here we see that perfection was not something that the Levitical Priesthood could effect. We see also that the Law itself needed to be changed of necessity, seeing that the Law prescribed the services of the Levitical Priesthood and to depart from it would have been a serious matter to All who formerly adhered to that commanded concerning the services provided by the Levitical Priesthood.

Question: is the perfection here the same perfection the writer urges his brethren to "go on unto" in Hebrews 6:1?

He is not speaking of "perfection" per se, but of maturity, spiritual growth. Look at Darby's translation here:

Hebrews 6:1 Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ, let us go on [to what belongs] to full growth, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in God,

13-14
He makes it clear that the Lord is not of the Tribe of Levi.


15
His (the Lord's) Priesthood is compared to Melchisadec's (and I myself take the view that Mechisadec was a man, not a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ, and that the comparison here is for the purpose of making it clear that Christ's Priesthood is separate from the Levitical Priesthood).

16
His Priesthood is inherent in His Person and Work, not associated with the Law which was a picture of His Priesthood and Work.


17
18
The writer mentions on a number of occasions that the Law could not bring about completion in that which it was established for, that is, concerning atonement for sin. It should be noted that the writer makes it clear that the fault was not due to the Law itself, but due to man's inability which, I believe, is due to the fact that man was not yet made new according to the Promise of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:8).

True, the law itself was perfect, and still is. It is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. It is so "perfect" that no man can keep it (see Gal.3:10).

It is interesting to note that the word "disannulling" used here is found only in one other place in scripture:

Hebrews 9:26

For those that wonder about the role of the First Covenant and whether it has been made obsolete, we can see here that just as the Lord "put away" sin, even so the disannulling of the Law in regards to the believer's position is not debatable.

The "disannulling" of the commandment. It simply means "to set aside" as is translated in some other translations. The law shows us our sinfulness.

19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

What I would suggest is that the writer makes it clear that the Law, a parable of the Better Things, could not make anything perfect. The bringing in of a better hope did, and it is this by which we draw nigh unto God. He will go on to make it clear that through His sacrifice, the Lord has made perfect forever them that are sanctified.

This was the whole thrust of Hebrews.
A better sacrifice, a better priesthood, a better intercessor, a better rest, a better high priest, etc. It was all better.

How this ties in to a discussion of the New Birth is important, in my view. When we consider that we trust Christ to have died in our place, taking upon Himself the penalty for our own sins, and understand that His sacrifice makes complete atonement for that sin, and that prior to that sacrifice the faithful of the Old Testament were not brought to completion, we see a huge difference between the two groups.

They were declared righteous, but not perfect. They received a good report, but were not made perfect. The reason is that the means for complete remission were not yet available. Until He died on the Cross, they still awaited with expectation, in faith, for that completion.

I am not sure I agree. The English word "perfect" has different meanings. It often means "maturity" or "completion." In these various meanings it has no reference to the new birth at all. Using the Book of Hebrews to justify this position is difficult, for one has to realize that the audience has already been born again, "made perfect," as you would use the term. The book was written ca. 70 A.D. well after the cross. It was written as a letter of encouragement to suffering Hebrew Christians.

We can see that those under the Law, and even those prior to the Law, could not be made perfect because the Law could not make perfect, and it was necessary to change the Law.

Even in the OT the Law never made anyone perfect. Salvation is justification by faith and always has been.

It was changed, and the writer devotes four chapters to convince his brethren of this fact (7-10), and we can see it throughout the entire book. So we see a difference presented between the believers under and before the Law, and those after the Work of Christ (as well as including His Priestly role).

Okay, hope this makes sense, brother, and I hope you don't mind me fielding a post not addressed to me. Like the discussion of the New Birth, the discussion of Perfection in Hebrews is another discussion that few rarely engage in, which is a shame as it is one of great importance (I believe). Look forward to getting your thoughts on this DHK.

Going on to perfection, for these believers simply means, IMO, to go on to maturity, leaving the basic doctrines behind which they should have already learned by now. They needed meat by now, and not simply milk.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
--And the next verse: Let us go on to perfection (maturity), not laying again the foundation...