Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

[blackbird]

Me too but I totally disagree with you......man in the flesh cannot please God for starters. I believe they were and Jesus was reiterating that fact to Nick @ Night "Are you a teacher of Israel and don't know these things?"

Absolutely YES----they had to be born again----what did Jesus say----Unless a man be born again---he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!!

Being born again is a Jewish term for repenting of the old sin nature and receiving the NEW nature of the coming Messiah-----ole Nic didn't have a clue until the Kingdom's King opened his eyes!!:saint::saint:

 

[Jedi Knight]

Absolutely YES----they had to be born again----what did Jesus say----Unless a man be born again---he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!!

Being born again is a Jewish term for repenting of the old sin nature and receiving the NEW nature of the coming Messiah-----ole Nic didn't have a clue until the Kingdom's King opened his eyes!!:saint::saint:

Blackbird did ya vote the poll? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[blackbird]

Blackbird did ya vote the poll? :smilewinkgrin:

Mercy!!!! I forgot!!! Next thing on my agenda!!:laugh::laugh:

 

[Sapper Woody]

Absolutely YES----they had to be born again----what did Jesus say----Unless a man be born again---he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!!

Being born again is a Jewish term for repenting of the old sin nature and receiving the NEW nature of the coming Messiah-----ole Nic didn't have a clue until the Kingdom's King opened his eyes!!:saint::saint:

They could not enter into the Kingdom when they died. Exactly. They weren't born again. They had to wait for the messiah to enter.

 

[Jedi Knight]

. They weren't born again. They had to wait for the messiah to enter.

The spirit of Christ was in them...they were born again. 1:11 Peter Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Scripture tells us:

James 2:23: And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Genesis 15:6. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

So we have an unregenerate man, one who is Spiritually dead, declared righteous and the Friend of God. Remarkable!

Close but mistaken. Abraham was not declared righteous.

Your ability to detect sarcasm is also Remarkable! Please notice I quoted scripture. i am not in the habit of disputing Scripture.

It was Abraham's belief in the LORD, i.e. his faith, that was reckoned as righteousness.

So you claim that one who is spiritually dead can stand justified before God. Very Remarkable! So why did Jesus Christ endure the Cross?

So yes, Abraham was spiritually dead, yet put his faith in God.

And what did that faith do for Abraham?

If Abraham had been regenerated, then the blood of Christ would have removed his sin, and he would have been holy, blameless and perfect.

Can all on this Forum assume that you are holy, blameless and perfect. I was under the impression that only God was HOLY! Anyhow if a spiritually dead person can stand before God justified I ask again: So why did Jesus Christ endure the Cross?

Not how scripture actually reads.

Then present the Scripture!

 

[OldRegular]

Yes it does. It proves that justification was in possession and already "had" (Rom. 4:11) while he was in "uncircumcision" proving justification was not only actually obtained prior to the cross but prior to any divine rites in the life of the justified before Calvary.

As I have said twice already circumcision has NOTHING to do with JUSTIFICATION.

Were you ritually circumcised before you were justified? I was not!

 

[percho]

Your question implies that works were the means to justify/save those prior to the cross or else they would be lost or "none of his." However, we know that conclusion is false as Paul clearly says that such sacrifices "NEVER" took away sins.

Your question really demands we ask what is the divine purpose of a sacrifice. Genesis 4 is the earliest record of any human being offering up sacrifices and Paul tells us that the sacrifice by Abel was not offered to obtain righteousness or justification but was DELCARATIVE of an already righteous state PRIOR to offering up a sacrifice:

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. - heb. 11:4

Therefore, the divine design for sacrificial offering was those who already believed in the gospel (Gen. 3;15) offered up a sacrifice that "obtained witnesss" they were already righteous "by faith" in the gospel as Acts 10:43 explicitly states, and that it was faith in the gospel provision that DID literally obtained remission of sins (Acts 10:43b) BEFORE they offered up a sacrifice that gave a visible WITNESS of a saving relationship already consummated by faith in the gospel. Thus, Abraham was justified BEFORE the act of circumcision which is another divine rite. Meaning his sins were removed, forgiven (Rom. 4:6-8).

Thus, sacrifices are gospel ordinances like baptism and the Lord's Supper that convey no literal saving value but only are like a "shadow" (Heb. 11:1; Col. 2:16) which provide a LIKENESS but not the REALITY of what is the proper object of saving faith which does save.

Is not what you are saying found in Psalms 51? Especially v's 10-14.

David had the Holy Spirit and did not want God to take it away. God did not want an animal sacrifice but a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart.

My question would be. Why did David have the Holy Spirit and someone else, let's say Saul before him or even his son Absolom may not have had the Holy Spirit?

Is it because God choose David for purpose? As in Rom 8:28.

 

[kyredneck]

Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

Absolutely! But it literally is NOT 'born again', it's 'born from above', as in:

....It behoveth you to be born from above; the Spirit where he willeth doth blow....thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit. Jn 3:7,8 YLT

...as in:

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4

..were Saints in the OT indwelt by the spirit?

When I consider passages such as this:

I rejoice at thy word, As one that findeth great spoil. Ps 119:162

or this:

But his delight is in the law of Jehovah; And on his law doth he meditate day and night. Ps 1:2

or these:

16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word. GIMEL.
18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold Wondrous things out of thy law. Ps 119

...and then consider that those OT Saints had only a fraction of the scriptures that we have; it was incomplete and lacking the fulfillment/revelation of the NT, and yet they were able to derive great joy and delight from meditating in the law. I don't think the natural man void of the Spirit could derive that sort of pleasure from those incomplete writings (or even in the Bible we have today for that matter), the Spirit had to be the source of the joy.

 

[The Biblicist]

As I have said twice already circumcision has NOTHING to do with JUSTIFICATION.

Were you ritually circumcised before you were justified? I was not!

Look, my post from which you first made this comment about NEVER said that circumcision was inclusive of justification. I brought in circumcision in the case of Abraham to prove just one point and one point only which YOU HAVE IGNORED and then attempted to change the subject to something I HAVE NEVER SAID.

That ONE POINT for which I brought in circumcision is the very SAME POINT that Paul brought in circucmision in regard to justification of Abraham, to prove justification HAD ALREADY OCCURRED, was a PAST TENSE REALITY in the life of Abraham BEFORE he was circumcised. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT???? Because it proves that Old Testament saints were not only fully justified BEFORE the cross, BEFORE Pentecost, but even WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE and BEFORE and WITHOUT dependence upon Divine rites, sacrifices, circumcision or any other divine rite. THAT WAS MY POINT and that is a valid point since this thread is dedicated to prove the NEW BIRTH occurred in their lives prior to the cross BECAUSE God cannot justify (impute righteousness, remit sins) SPIRITUALLY DEAD persons. Moreover, the very same argument that denies NEW BIRTH occurred previous to Pentecost is the VERY SAME ARGUMENT that denies anything else about salvation occurred before the cross. The point is that new birth, justification, sanctification, indwelling, sealing, etc. all were existent previous to the cross and without dependence upon divine rites/ceremonies IN THEIR OWN LIFE time.

Now, that was my point for introducing Romans 4 and circumcision in connection with justification as Abraham is the PATTERN for all believers and if this pattern was JUSTIFIED in his own life time PRIOR to the cross or Pentecost AND without dependence upon divine rites (circumcison/sacrifices) then it proves their salvation was identical to our salvation and remission of sins was actual and applicable then and there just as Acts 10:43 explicitly states.

Therefore, if you come back with this same nonsensical question, then either you can't understand English or you have yet to read the post that you are complaining about, because if you read the initial post you are drawing your complaint from you would never have asked this question in the first place, as the context of my post makes it extremely clear why I brought in circumcison in connection with justification. JUST READ IT!

 

[The Biblicist]

Is not what you are saying found in Psalms 51? Especially v's 10-14.

David had the Holy Spirit and did not want God to take it away. God did not want an animal sacrifice but a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart.

My question would be. Why did David have the Holy Spirit and someone else, let's say Saul before him or even his son Absolom may not have had the Holy Spirit?

Is it because God choose David for purpose? As in Rom 8:28.

Just as then, so it is now, that sin breaks the fellowship of a believer with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, his sin was as the acting King or God's annointed over Israel. God had given him a special measure of the Holy Spirit to RULE over Israel so as to be able to lead his people. So his sin affected more than just himself. He did not want that special annointing to rule Israel to be withdrawn as it was from the previous King Saul who willfully sinned, and the special annointing to rule over Israel had been withdrawn from Saul.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just as then, so it is now, that sin breaks the fellowship of a believer with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, his sin was as the acting King or God's annointed over Israel. God had given him a special measure of the Holy Spirit to RULE over Israel so as to be able to lead his people. So his sin affected more than just himself. He did not want that special annointing to rule Israel to be withdrawn as it was from the previous King Saul who willfully sinned, and the special annointing to rule over Israel had been withdrawn from Saul.

The OT does not seem to indicate to us though that all who were "saved" by God under the Old covenant had the indweling of the Spirit as all of us saved today have Him, as that was reserved for just those with a specific position and task, such as prophet/Priests/Kings!

So not all had the fullness of the indwelling Holy spirit as we do now, as jeremiah stated unto us that would await the coming new covenant relationship between Man and God!

 

[kyredneck]

Just as then, so it is now, that sin breaks the fellowship of a believer with the Holy Spirit.....

...and I think that is a good articulation of a valid pertinent point concerning this topic.

The OT does not seem to indicate to us though that all who were "saved" by God under the Old covenant had the indweling of the Spirit as all of us saved today have Him, as that was reserved for just those with a specific position and task, such as prophet/Priests/Kings!

...we..as Isaac was..children of promise...born after the Spirit...

So which was Isaac? Prophet, priest or king?

[add]

...the joy of Jehovah is your strength. Neh 8:10

What do you suppose was the source of their joy? I say it was exactly the same source as our's:

for the kingdom of God is....righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Ro 14:17

 

[The Biblicist]

The OT does not seem to indicate to us though that all who were "saved" by God under the Old covenant had the indweling of the Spirit as all of us saved today have Him, as that was reserved for just those with a specific position and task, such as prophet/Priests/Kings!

So not all had the fullness of the indwelling Holy spirit as we do now, as jeremiah stated unto us that would await the coming new covenant relationship between Man and God!

First, where can you show that ANYBODY was ever saved "under the Old Covenant"???? I know of no one that obtained salvation "under" the Old Covenant? The Old Covenant could not convey life eternal according to Paul and "no flesh" has ever been justified under the old Covenant.

If NNE can be justified/saved/etc. under the Old Covenant then what covenant were they saved under?

I suggest that all who were saved between Genesis and Pentecost were saved under "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" - Heb. 13:20

David was saved under the everlasting Covenant - 2 Sam. 23:5

Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.


All individuals were saved under the everlasting covenant - Isa. 55:3

Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.


We are saved under the everlasting covenant - Acts 13:34

And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

This is the "EVERLASTING" covenant it is not a dispensational covenant or a temporary covenant or a covenant between Genesis and Acts, but the EVERLASTING covenant between Genesis and Revelation and the ONLY covenant of salvation ever given by God under which anyone can be saved.

The "old" versus the "new" covenants are merely EARTHLY ADMINISTRATIONS of the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 9:1). The "old" emphasized the holiness of God by law which pointed to those who attempted and failed to keep the law to the gospel of the coming Christ (everlasting covenant) which was a primary JEWISH covenant, whereas the "new" covenant emphasizes the grace of God by emphasizng the fulfillment of the gospel promise (the everlasting covenant) which is primary a GENTILE covenant.

 

[Yeshua1]

First, where can you show that ANYBODY was ever saved "under the Old Covenant"???? I know of no one that obtained salvation "under" the Old Covenant? The Old Covenant could not convey life eternal according to Paul and "no flesh" has ever been justified under the old Covenant.

If NNE can be justified/saved/etc. under the Old Covenant then what covenant were they saved under?

I suggest that all who were saved between Genesis and Pentecost were saved under "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" - Heb. 13:20

David was saved under the everlasting Covenant - 2 Sam. 23:5

Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.


All individuals were saved under the everlasting covenant - Isa. 55:3

Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.


We are saved under the everlasting covenant - Acts 13:34

And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

This is the "EVERLASTING" covenant it is not a dispensational covenant or a temporary covenant or a covenant between Genesis and Acts, but the EVERLASTING covenant between Genesis and Revelation and the ONLY covenant of salvation ever given by God under which anyone can be saved.

The "old" versus the "new" covenants are merely EARTHLY ADMINISTRATIONS of the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 9:1). The "old" emphasized the holiness of God by law which pointed to those who attempted and failed to keep the law to the gospel of the coming Christ (everlasting covenant) which was a primary JEWISH covenant, whereas the "new" covenant emphasizes the grace of God by emphasizng the fulfillment of the gospel promise (the everlasting covenant) which is primary a GENTILE covenant.

God worked to save sinners thru the same means/basis as us now, the Cross and His resurrection, but until jesus actually came, the Holy spirit did not "work" insame fashion as under the new covenant, as he was not sent to seal and indwel personal perm basis all that had their sins forgiven them!

God forgave their sins, but they still had the flesh, and they needed to wait for the promised coming of the Holy spirit unto them under the new Covenant...

 

[TCassidy]

Jesus says the object of new birth is the "spirit" of man not the flesh. There was no quickening of the flesh in Ephesians 2:1! The body is not even mentioned in Matthew 19 where "regeneration" is found outside of "spirit" context. The scriptures call the change in the flesh as glorification and removal of "corruption" by putting on incorruption but not new birth.

Old Testament saints were born of the Spirit - meaning their spirit was quickened so they no longer in spiritual death or existing spiritually "in the flesh."

Yes, that is my point. The 3-fold nature of our salvation/regeneration or being "born again."

Our present status is spiritual. We are saved from the penalty of sin. Positional sanctification.

Our future status will be our salvation from the power of sin. Progressive sanctification.

Our ultimate status will be our salvation from the presence of sin. Permanent sanctification (sometimes called "glorification").

We have not yet arrived at the fullness of our salvation/regeneration. As it stands now only the (spiritual) heart has been regenerated. The soul (mind, will, and emotions) still struggle with sin, and the body is still the old man of flesh. But one day the soul and the body will be fully regenerated. Thus our salvation/regeneration is positional, progressive, and one day, total and permanent.

 

[OldRegular]

The question of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is more difficult but it appears that the Holy Spirit did not permanently indwell the believers during the Old Testament period!

Personally, I think the only reason it is "more difficult" is due to one's ecclesiastical view rather than the Biblical evidence.

For example, Romans 8:8-9 provides only two possible options. These options have salvation in view as the words "none of his" deny that those described by the other option are saved.

In addition. Paul demands that to be "IN the Spirit" is to be indwelt by the Spirit (v. 9) and therefore they are at minimum inseparable.

So can one be regenerated OUTSIDE the Spirit of God? If that is possible then so can they be without indwelling. However, if that is not possible then neither is it possible to be regenerated without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, if spiritual death is separation or alienation of the human spirit from the Spirit of God (Eph. 4:18) then what can possibly be the solution or the reversal of such a condition if is not being brought spiritually into union with the Spirit of God?? God IS life and God IS light, and God IS spirit. Therefore to be spiritually SEPARATED or "Alienated" from God is to be spiritually dead and blind.

Scripture tells us:

James 2:23: And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Genesis 15:6. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

So we have an unregenerate man, one who is Spiritually dead, declared righteous and the Friend of God. Remarkable!

Paul says he was justified PRIOR TO being circumcised rather than "in" circumcision part of his life and that is a long ways BEFORE Pentecost.

I have no idea what point you are attempting to make. I did not mention circumcision which has nothing to do with justification!

Circumcision is an external type of the new birth. It is a divine ordinance or type, just as sacrifices were a divine ordinance or type. NEITHER obtained literal remission of sins and righteousness which are the essence of justification (Rom. 4:6-8) or the "blessedness" obtained by faith. Abraham was justified, his sins fully remitted and righteousness fully imputed by the object of his faith which is the promise of the coming Christ and it was obtained NOT IN CIRCUMCiSION or that part of his life occuring after being circumcised (Rom. 4:11).

Note the choice Paul provides "in circumcision" or "in uncircumcision" when actual justification was obtained (Rom. 4:9-10).

As I said circumcision has nothing to do with justification!

Yes it does. It proves that justification was in possession and already "had" (Rom. 4:11) while he was in "uncircumcision" proving justification was not only actually obtained prior to the cross but prior to any divine rites in the life of the justified before Calvary.

As I have said twice already circumcision has NOTHING to do with JUSTIFICATION.

Were you ritually circumcised before you were justified? I was not!

Look, my post from which you first made this comment about NEVER said that circumcision was inclusive of justification. I brought in circumcision in the case of Abraham to prove just one point and one point only which YOU HAVE IGNORED and then attempted to change the subject to something I HAVE NEVER SAID.

That ONE POINT for which I brought in circumcision is the very SAME POINT that Paul brought in circucmision in regard to justification of Abraham, to prove justification HAD ALREADY OCCURRED, was a PAST TENSE REALITY in the life of Abraham BEFORE he was circumcised. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT???? Because it proves that Old Testament saints were not only fully justified BEFORE the cross, BEFORE Pentecost, but even WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE and BEFORE and WITHOUT dependence upon Divine rites, sacrifices, circumcision or any other divine rite. THAT WAS MY POINT and that is a valid point since this thread is dedicated to prove the NEW BIRTH occurred in their lives prior to the cross BECAUSE God cannot justify (impute righteousness, remit sins) SPIRITUALLY DEAD persons. Moreover, the very same argument that denies NEW BIRTH occurred previous to Pentecost is the VERY SAME ARGUMENT that denies anything else about salvation occurred before the cross. The point is that new birth, justification, sanctification, indwelling, sealing, etc. all were existent previous to the cross and without dependence upon divine rites/ceremonies IN THEIR OWN LIFE time.

Now, that was my point for introducing Romans 4 and circumcision in connection with justification as Abraham is the PATTERN for all believers and if this pattern was JUSTIFIED in his own life time PRIOR to the cross or Pentecost AND without dependence upon divine rites (circumcison/sacrifices) then it proves their salvation was identical to our salvation and remission of sins was actual and applicable then and there just as Acts 10:43 explicitly states.

Therefore, if you come back with this same nonsensical question, then either you can't understand English or you have yet to read the post that you are complaining about, because if you read the initial post you are drawing your complaint from you would never have asked this question in the first place, as the context of my post makes it extremely clear why I brought in circumcison in connection with justification. JUST READ IT!

TB

I have carefully laboriously gone through this thread and extracted the pertinent posts by me and your response. I did not introduce the subject of circumcision, You Did! Why remains a mystery!

I still maintain that circumcision has nothing to do with justification and your long diatribe above is meaningless as far as I am concerned.

 

[The Biblicist]

God worked to save sinners thru the same means/basis as us now, the Cross and His resurrection, but until jesus actually came, the Holy spirit did not "work" insame fashion as under the new covenant, as he was not sent to seal and indwel personal perm basis all that had their sins forgiven them!

God forgave their sins, but they still had the flesh, and they needed to wait for the promised coming of the Holy spirit unto them under the new Covenant...

As usual you completely ignore everything I said because you cannot respond. This is not a discussion, this is like me talking to a wall. I USED SCRIPTURE TO PROVE MY POINTS and what do you do? You provide YESHUA OPINION! Why waste my time?

He MUST have worked in the very same way before Pentecost as after Pentecost in regard to PERSONAL SALVATION as the problem after Pentecost is the very same problem before Pentecost in regard to salvation - depraved humanity that is spiritually dead. The dead cannot serve God but your theory demands they can.

You don't understand what quickening is. You don't understand what spiritual death is. You don't understand what indwelling is BECAUSE you believe in CHURCH SALVATION, even though you deny that, that is what your belief system must and in fact does embrace.

 

[Van]

Your ability to detect sarcasm is also Remarkable! Please notice I quoted scripture. i am not in the habit of disputing Scripture.

If I insulted you as you just insulted me, I would receive an infraction.

So you claim that one who is spiritually dead can stand justified before God. Very Remarkable! So why did Jesus Christ endure the Cross?

If I misrepresented by you said, as you misrepresented what I said, I might receive an infraction. Did I say Abraham was justified before Christ died? Nope. I said his faith was credited as righteousness.

And what did that faith do for Abraham?

Faith that is reckoned as righteousness gains approval. Hebrews 11:2

Can all on this Forum assume that you are holy, blameless and perfect. I was under the impression that only God was HOLY! Anyhow if a spiritually dead person can stand before God justified I ask again: So why did Jesus Christ endure the Cross?

Everyone who God transfers into Christ, and undergoes the circumcision of Christ, and is made alive together with Christ, is made holy and blameless and perfect. Colossians 1:22

 

[The Biblicist]

TB

I have carefully laboriously gone through this thread and extracted the pertinent posts by me and your response. I did not introduce the subject of circumcision, You Did! Why remains a mystery!
.

There is no mystery! You were the first to bring Abraham into this discussion in regard to new birth. I responded to your mention of Abraham to prove that salvation was actually applied to Abraham BEFORE the cross and thus BEFORE Pentecost. I pinpointed the precise time it was applied to Abraham and that was BEFORE circumcision (Rom. 4:11). Thus circumcision was brought into this discussion by me in response to you bringing Abraham into the discussion in regard to the new birth prior to Pentecost. God cannot justify the SPIRIUTALLY DEAD and his justification BEFORE circumcision proves he was regenerated not merely prior to Pentecost but prior to circumcision IN HIS OWN LIFE TIME.

Here is my quote, read it carefully:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Biblicist View Post
Paul says he was justified PRIOR TO being circumcised rather than "in" circumcision part of his life and that is a long ways BEFORE Pentecost.

If you cannot understand this, I cannot help you.