Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

[DHK]

I think the poll is flawed from the beginning.
It assumes there are only two positions.
Salvation is by justification by faith.

That being said, Nicodemus was told by Jesus that "He must be born again."
This was pre-cross. Then he told him, "Art thou a teacher in Israel and knowest not these things?"
If anything, Nicodemus should have known "how to be born again," according to what Jesus said. He didn't have to wait for the resurrection to occur.

Again, I like the poll to this:
Are you:
1. Calvinist.
2. Arminian.
3. Not sure.

I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. But I am sure of my stand in the Bible. The Calvinist uses this paradigm to conveniently shove all that are not Calvinist into the Arminiast camp which is a form of slander. It is not true. There are more options. Most are not Arminians. The same is true with this poll. There are more than just the two options.

 

[Darrell C]

I think the poll is flawed from the beginning.
It assumes there are only two positions.
Salvation is by justification by faith.

That being said, Nicodemus was told by Jesus that "He must be born again."
This was pre-cross. Then he told him, "Art thou a teacher in Israel and knowest not these things?"
If anything, Nicodemus should have known "how to be born again," according to what Jesus said. He didn't have to wait for the resurrection to occur.

Again, I like the poll to this:
Are you:
1. Calvinist.
2. Arminian.
3. Not sure.

I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. But I am sure of my stand in the Bible. The Calvinist uses this paradigm to conveniently shove all that are not Calvinist into the Arminiast camp which is a form of slander. It is not true. There are more options. Most are not Arminians. The same is true with this poll. There are more than just the two options.

Hello DHK, I would just pose a question in response to this statement...

That being said, Nicodemus was told by Jesus that "He must be born again."
This was pre-cross.

The question is did not the Lord teach that men were to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood prior to the Cross as well?

Could they?

I think this where seeing perfection in Hebrews helps us to distinguish between the difference of what was prophesied and the realization of that prophecy.

Here is a verse I would appreciate your views on:

Luke 22:32

King James Version (KJV)

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

Hello DHK, I would just pose a question in response to this statement...


The question is did not the Lord teach that men were to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood prior to the Cross as well?

Could they?

At that point many stopped believing him; stopped following him. Being a disciple wasn't their pot of tea. He was then left with a smaller group of disciples. The phrase was used metaphorically to believe on him. But the believe had to come from the heart and would involve counting the cost. Yes they could follow him. The disciples had, even though they did not fully understand how Christ would have to die and rise again. Christ had explained it many times, but they still did not understand. We would never question Peter's salvation, for Christ Himself attested to it in Matthew 16 when he gave his great confession.

I think this where seeing perfection in Hebrews helps us to distinguish between the difference of what was prophesied and the realization of that prophecy.

Here is a verse I would appreciate your views on:

Luke 22:32

King James Version (KJV)

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

This English word has nothing to do with conversion, as related to the New Birth.

Young's Literal Translation:

Luke 22:32 and I besought for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and thou, when thou didst turn, strengthen thy brethren.'

Context:
Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, `Simon, Simon, lo, the Adversary did ask you for himself to sift as the wheat,

Christ knew that Peter would deny him.
When he would turn again, or repent from from his discouragement, then he would be in the place where he could go and strengthen his brethren.

 

[percho]

Hello Percho, thanks for the reply, and sorry to take so long to get back to you.

The answer to the first and last questions in my view would be an emphatic no.

I do not think that we will sin again, but at the same time, ascribing a perfection which is held by God is going a little too far, in that we would in some manner be likening the glorification of the saint to deification, which is not what scripture presents, I believe. In other words, there is and only ever will be One God, and only He is perfect in the sense of never having been imperfect which include the Son of God Who is said to "be made perfect" which refers to His role as the sacrifice for sins and Captain and Author of our salvation, rather than His nature.

Hope that makes sense.

The middle question I will let you arrive at your own conclusion based on this view.




The removal of our fallen nature which we are still tied to through the physical body.

But understand that perfection is taught in at least three different contexts in scripture: 1) maturity, which deals with progressive sanctification while we are in the body; 2) glorification, which deals with our being made like Him; 3) completion concerning salvation in regards to forgiveness of sins, which the Law (First Covenant or Covenant of Law) was but a shadow, a parable of.

And it is this last that the writer of Hebrews deals with. And I think that is what is in view in the context of this discussion.





I don't believe so, myself. However, that does not negate the fact that the perfection not granted to the Old Testament Saints "without us" can be seen to be a completed process concerning salvation. This is why there "is no more sacrifice for sins," and to reject salvation in Christ leads to judgment. They "do despite unto the Spirit of Grace," just as Stephen charged the "fathers," however, the importance of Hebrews 11:39-40 shows a change from not receiving the promise to receiving it.



Because we have had that which causes us to sin removed: the flesh we were born in.





Hebrews 11:35-40

King James Version (KJV)


35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:



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.


Okay, let me ask you a question: do we receive something different than they? In v.40 we "God having provided some better thing for us," does this mean that there are two different promises obtained?

The answer is no. What it means is that in their lifetime, while they received a good report, they did not receive the promise. In our lifetime, we do.

In v. 35 we see that they sought to obtain a better resurrection, which does not imply two different types for saints, but contrasts the First Resurrection with the resurrection unto damnation. That is the difference. But the promise was not received by them, and perfection is just one part of the Promises of God to Israel and the Old Testament Saint.





Are you suggesting that this resurrection is a new concept in scripture? It is a basic, fundamental truth throughout scripture that there are two resurrections, one unto life, and one unto "death," or, damnation.

The saints of 11:35 did that which they did because they understood that. And it does not impact the surety of their resurrection, but neither does it allow for them to have been perfected.

Perfection is through the coming of that which the Law foretold in figure, such as forgiveness of sins being complete, making it unnecessary for further sacrifice to be offered.



Properly the Author and Completer of our faith. This is the completion spoken of in Hebrews.

And He will finish that which He has begun in us. He begins our faith, He finishes it.


Continued...

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?

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? 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?

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? Could it have been shed on us if Jesus had not first received it? Did Jesus receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through the faith of God? Jesus said in Mark 11:22 Have faith in God - Literally, “Have the faith of God.” per Barnes.

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?

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.

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.

I miss applied in a previous post.

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

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

Christ in you the hope of glory.

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.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I think the poll is flawed from the beginning.

Again, I like the poll to this:
Are you:
1. Calvinist.
2. Arminian.
3. Not sure.

Cannot please all people all the time. Perhaps start a thread that makes you feel better.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Don't polls also say that 75% of Americans are Christians?

lol

God bless.

You feeling lonely on the low end?

 

[DHK]

Cannot please all people all the time. Perhaps start a thread that makes you feel better.

That was only an example.
There are many non-Cals that are not Arminians.
In this poll, I think that there could be more than just the three choices. But that is only my opinion.

 

[Darrell C]

At that point many stopped believing him; stopped following him. Being a disciple wasn't their pot of tea. He was then left with a smaller group of disciples.

Hello DHK, this will be very brief as I have much to do, so I hope you will keep that in mind, lol.

I think it is safe to say that the many "followers" of Christ were not truly believers, even in the Old Testament sense that I feel we see belief in those disciples. With the 12, though, apart from Judas, I think we see an Old Testament belief like unto those of faith that came before them.

Perhaps if I ask the question, "If it had been Peter on the road to Emmaus, would the Lord have failed to rebuke 'O fools and slow of heart to believe,' " and refrain from expounding Himself from the Law, Prophets, and Psalms?

Would those disciples have been of better understanding than the general disciples?

The phrase was used metaphorically to believe on him.

But would we not see a specific reference to His death? Which Peter denied?

Is it not a metaphor for precisely that? When we read of the Blood of Christ, doesn't it refer to His death? Rather than physical characteristics?

But the believe had to come from the heart and would involve counting the cost. Yes they could follow him.

Follow Him, yes, I agree. But it is Peter's rebuke of the Lord as well as his denial of knowing Christ that I think gives us a picture of Peter's understanding. And again in Acts 1 we see the disciples' wondering about the Restored Kingdom of Israel.

The disciples had, even though they did not fully understand how Christ would have to die and rise again.

Even after His resurrection we see that they still do not understand. Luke 24 is a good example of that. We see mourning rather than joy, and it is interesting that it seems that the ministry they carried out under the Lord for three years seems to have come to a halt.

And again, I am rushing through this, brother, and probably should have just waited because I hate having to rush.

Christ had explained it many times, but they still did not understand.

I would suggest that at the very least, the revelation of the Mystery of Christ had to await fulfillment of the Lord's death. But I take the view that beyond that, it was not until the coming of the Comforter that they would in fact understand Christ's ministry. The Lord implies this in His teaching in John 14-16, and with the events that took place after the Lord's resurrection and prior to His Ascension it still seems to hold true.

We would never question Peter's salvation, for Christ Himself attested to it in Matthew 16 when he gave his great confession.

Concerning the fact that Peter belonged to the Lord, no, we would not question that. He, like all Old Testament saints, had faith, and belonged to the Lord. What I do question, though, was whether he was born again at this point.

While I understand that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in itself is not the New Birth, I do believe that apart from that indwelling of the Comforter men are not born again. All natural men are brought under the conviction of the Holy Spirit that they might come to saving faith and be born again, but, until the New Birth, I believe, at which time the indwelling of God takes place per New Covenant standards, I do not believe men are born again.

And that is what is in view, here, rather than whether one is Arminian or Calvinist, lol.

This English word has nothing to do with conversion, as related to the New Birth.

Young's Literal Translation:
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
Luke 22:32 and I besought for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and thou, when thou didst turn, strengthen thy brethren.'

Context:
Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, `Simon, Simon, lo, the Adversary did ask you for himself to sift as the wheat,

I have to confess I am not a fan of the YLT, as some of the translation does not properly carry out the intent of the verse. Not that I would say this is relevant in this verse, but, I think that at times it loses what we understand scripture to teach in it's dryness.

Does "when thou didst turn" really convey the Lord's words?

Concerning conversion, and it's usage in scripture, we can see that there is more than just a "turning around" to be found. For example:


Matthew 13:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


In relation to Israel I think we need to keep in mind that their "returning" speaks, I believe, of them as a people, rather than the current individuals were at one time faithful to the Lord, suffered a period of sin, and are now in need of returning to the faithfulness that once they had. That is a significant issue to consider, I believe.

I think we see that same principle here:


Mark 4:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.


I gave the link for this word and here it is again: converted. I will have to limit this post to one more verse to consider (which I am sure some will appreciate, lol):

Acts 3:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.


Those preached to here are in need of conversion, that is, they need to be saved.

While I do recognize the particular role of the disciples in scripture, we do see the Lord speak of Peter's conversion, and I believe that this refers more to than just Peter's denial of the Lord, as though he just kind of slipped up for a moment and then repented.

Like Israel as a whole, who was in need of conversion, I think that we could safely say that Peter as well was in need of that conversion.

The question is...when did this take place?

At this point I believe that Peter's conversion took place in full on the Day of Pentecost, and like certain disciples that had heard the Gospel but had not received the Holy Spirit, as this was a time when confirmation of Gentiles was important, even so I believe Peter, before receiving the Comforter, was as of yet not born again.

Saved in the sense of his salvation could not be questioned, but still in need of receiving the Comforter and through that coming to an understanding of the work of Christ.

Christ knew that Peter would deny him.
When he would turn again, or repent from from his discouragement, then he would be in the place where he could go and strengthen his brethren.

But he went fishing, lol. The events in that forty day period are very curious.

Okay, I said I was not going to come on this morning but did want to get to your post, if only briefly. Thanks for the reply, DHK.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You feeling lonely on the low end?

Yes, it is lonely being one of the few.

:tongue3:

God bless.

 

[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?

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? 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?

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? Could it have been shed on us if Jesus had not first received it? Did Jesus receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through the faith of God? Jesus said in Mark 11:22 Have faith in God - Literally, “Have the faith of God.” per Barnes.

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?

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.

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.

I miss applied in a previous post.

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

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

Christ in you the hope of glory.

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.

Great post, Percho, and I look forward to responding, but I am out of time for now. This will be the first one I get to when I get back.

God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Great post, Percho, and I look forward to responding, but I am out of time for now. This will be the first one I get to when I get back.

God bless.

Think the new Covenant was something totally new and different!

Under the Old One, believers in God and his promised messiah were credited/theirpersonal sins owed to God remitted/placed upon calvary to come, but they were NOT born again, as in indwelt by HS, as that had to wait until mesiah came!

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"

 

[Yeshua1]

So let me get this straight...... they somehow had a little Island of righteousness in their heart to DESIRE after God and didn't need the Holy Spirit to indwell?

No, God chose them out beforehand to receive His grace and be able to belive Him, its just that they believed in the One promised to come, so God remitted their sins, applied them to the Cross of Christ, much as he does to save a baby/infant who dies, saves them, yet they were not "born again!"

 

[Jedi Knight]

No, God chose them out beforehand to receive His grace and be able to belive Him,"

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

NOT saying that the HS had nothing to do with that, he HAD to enable them to be able to put faith in God and his promises, its just that God did not indwel/seal them with the HS at that time, but sis remit, holding not their sins debtowed him at that time...

 

[Jedi Knight]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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, as they had to go to god thru the sacrifcal system and priests!

 

[Jedi Knight]

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

Prophets and Kings under Old Covenant, for those specific offices, not all believers!

 

[Jedi Knight]

Prophets

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

 

[Van]

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