Some shall depart from the faith.

This is a good point.

Why did Nicodemus not know?

If in fact being born again was taking place before the current ministry of the Holy Spirit, wouldn't a teacher be one to know?

Also, we know the Lord would not expect Nicodemus to know unless there were scripture (which he taught) that spoke of this.

Here I believe we see exactly what the Lord spoke of, and it is found in the promise of the New Covenant.

Ezekiel 36:22-27 (King James Version)

22Therefore 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.

23And 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.

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

25Then 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.

26A 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.

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

Consider this passage, and then consider the characteristics of the new birth...they are found within these verses.

The promise that God would put His Spirit within us and cause us to walk in His statutes is fulfilled in the promise that the Lord spoke of, when He would send the Spirit of God.

God bless.

 

Hello Dr. Walter

To view the New Covenant as merely the Old Covenant made better, is, I think, why there is so much confusion surrounding salvation today.

I am not necessarily saying you are doing this, Dr. Walter, but I do see it as a problem in doctrine today.

The Old Covenant was a picture, a shadow of those things that were to come.

The Covenant of Law is not made better, it is fulfilled and replaced by the "Better" Covenant.

This is the Covenant which is everlasting, and you can't say that about something that is passed away and made obsolete.

That would be like trading your car which you drive to work back in for the matchbox cars you played with as a child.

The everlasting Covenant is entered through the everlasting Gospel, and that could not take place until Christ had died.

Of course I do not.

But I do not see that men were born again until the New Covenant was brought into operation.

The saints of Hebrews 11 were declared just, and in that sense they were saved (man has always been saved by grace through faith).

But I would not see them as having been made complete in salvation, in the sense that their sins were as of yet not atoned for, even as we might say our salvation in the temporal sense is not complete, seeing as we await the redemption of our bodies.

The Old Testament saints were declared just, and enjoyed this standing before God, but they awaited the atonement for their sins.

In the New Covenant, God's indwelling is promised, and we know this to be different than His ministry to the saints of Old...why else would Jesus speak of this?

But this doesn't reflect the change of Covenant promise, which came about by the bringing in of the New Covenant.

The Children of Israel heard the gospel, Hebrews tells us, but they did not know that Christ would die for their sins.

The disciples of Christ, though they walked with Him, did not know this, though they were told.

The death of Christ, and belief in Him is God's last word on salvation, and what was unknown to the Old Testament saint is made clear in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is the message we bring today, and it could not be given until Christ died, and was resurrected, and the Spirit of God was given.

If anyone would have been born again, it would have been Christ's disciples.

And they were not, it seems, because Peter, at least, denied the very One that must be confessed as Savior, which cannot be done apart from the Spirit of God.

And this was accomplished after Christ died.

Ephesians 1

13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Pre-Cross believers knew Messiah would come, but they did not have the specific gospel of salvation.

Faith in God for salvation was made specific in faith in Christ.

Please show scriptural support for this statement.

Because Hebrews tells us that the New Covenant replaces the Old.


Hebrews 8

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Hebrews 7

22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Until Christ died, the New Covenant could not replace the Old. The Covenant of Law was active during Christ's ministry, and having fulfilled the purpose of the Law, He brought in the New Covenant through His blood.

The mystery of the Church is that this Covenant would be granted to Gentiles, despite the fact that it is promised to Israel.

In this way, we are grafted into the Covenant promises of God.



Continued in the next post.

God bless.

 

Continuation

In this next passage, in order to save time, you can reference the first part of ch. 9 to pick up the context.

We see the description of the Holy of Holies (earthly "picture" of the presence of God, which men were excluded from...they could not come into His presence because their sin was not atoned for, merely "covered temporarily by the Temple sacrifices"):

Hebrews 9

7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Rightly did the one say, "Hebrews is the Holy of Holies of the New Testament."

The Covenant of Law was brought in with the sprinkling of blood.

The New Covenant was brought in with the blood of Jesus Christ.

Man was not able to enter into God's presence under the Old, but we can.

We no longer need a mediator to carry sacrifice into the Holy of Holies (earthly), but Christ has done this, and we now have access to God.

The saints of old were still under the transgressions of the first Covenant, but Christ redeemed them (v.15).

Acts makes it clear that there were three options.

Cornelius was declared just, as the saints of Old were, but he was as of yet not born again.

He had the ministry of the Holy Spirit, without doubt, for otherwise he would not have feared God.

But consider:

Acts 11

13And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

The beginning is Pentecost, when the promise of the Comforter is given.

Cornelius is told to go to Peter, that he might be saved (v.14).

He receives the Holy Spirit...he is born again.

Until that time, he may have been clean through the word, set apart unto God, as all who are saved are, because the Holy Spirit leads them to belief, repentance, and faith.

Exactly.

How can the new birth happen apart from the indwelling of God?

Cornelius received it after meeting with Peter.

Please elaborate.

Can we separate this event from the New Covenant relationship with God?

I think that is a mistake that denies the promises of the New Covenant altogether.

You would have to of necessity make the "baptism of the Spirit" subsequent to salvation in order to make Cornelius saved.

The New Covenant is fulfilled in the Church, and God's indwelling cannot be separated from it.

You cannot be born again without the Spirit, and you are not God's until you are born again.

We are talking about salvation of the lost, not the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church.

Do you not see the difference in God's presence in the lives of the Children of Israel, and in the lives of believers today?

Were they not forbidden to come into the representation of God's presence on earth?

Now, God says, I will be in you.

Acts 1:8 (King James Version)

8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.



John 16:8-11 (King James Version)

8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.


Shows the giving of the Spirit to yet be future.

The other references are post-Pentecost, and do not see that they prove pre-pentecost regeneration.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Again, the New Covenant cannot be likened to the Old, which was just a picture.

I agree that man has always been saved by grace through faith, but we must see the difference between the Old (which was a shadow only, and did not take away sins, thereby making man acceptable to come into the presence of God)...and the New, through which we receive the permanent indwelling of God, and are able to come before the Father through Christ, our mediator.

God bless.

 

I never said he was superman. I said that he wasn't afraid of what man would do to him as he was before the resurrection. Sure, he messed up from time to time. He didn't cease from being a man, and that's what man does - he messes up. The point was before the resurrection Peter was so afraid of being arrested and killed that he denied the Lord 3 times. A little later he is telling the same men he was previously afraid of that he would obey God rather than them. They told him to quit preaching and beat him, but he went right out and started preaching again. This is a remarkable change. What brought it on? Obviously, the understanding of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

Actually the text from 1 Peter was 1 Peter 1:3. You referred to it and I disagreed with your interpretation. You never responded.

 

You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

 

how do you have the first without the latter?

 

Actually I did, but apparently was not clear, I apologize.

You said:

To which I said:

I will try to clear up what I meant.

As I said before, I would draw your attention to:


1 Peter 1

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,


It is by Christ's resurrection whereby we have life, because His death has paid the penalty of sin for us, and we are imputed righteousness based upon that alone.

You also say:

One thing I am not mistaken about is that we are born again unto eternal life and spiritual life.

Peter also says:

1 Peter 1

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


My hope is the hope Peter is speaking about...living hope.

Colossians 1:5 (King James Version)

5For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

My hope is laid up and reserved in heaven, not merely a desire of my own.

This conclusion is arrived at because you are mixing two different topics.

The Old Testament saints were at times filled with the Spirit, and performed under His power, but that is what the discussion is about...were they born again?

The disciples of Christ did not cast out demons, heal, or even preach without the power of the Holy Spirit, but that does not give ample evidence that they were born again.

Look at the rich young man.

By what means did the Lord tell him he could gain eternal life?

Matthew 19

16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.


Was Jesus advocating the keeping of the law for eternal life?

Or is it as simple as this: the Old Covenant, still in effect at that time, was what Jesus came to fulfill.

If you look at this with this in mind, Jesus said two things here: He did not deny the validity of the law for making one righteous (and this is what the one asking would have expected, being under the law), but in no wise does He say that one could do so and be perfect.

The overpowering statement He makes is, "Come, and follow me."

To which the young man refuses.

Notice it is the man who lists the commandments which he thinks are the most important.

If he wanted to be honest, he would have needed to list...all of them.

To break one was to be guilty.

There was no expectation of life in the here and now for those under the law, but of a general resurrection, some to life, some to shame.

But we have been born again unto a lively hope, and this, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Until that occurred, I don't see that men were born again, made new creations in Christ, because they could not follow Jesus Christ Who had come in the flesh.

God bless.

 

Peter was afraid of what men would do, at least, think.

Was this a "big deal?"

I think so.

Galatians 2

11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.


12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Dissimulation is:


5272. hupokrisis hoop-ok'-ree-sis from 5271; acting under a feigned part, i.e. (figuratively) deceit ("hypocrisy"):--condemnation, dissimulation, hypocrisy.


Can one deny that Peter and Barnabus were Christians?

Was their hypocrisy sin?

Lets see where this goes:



14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,


16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are
found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Those who understand what Paul is saying understand that we are not justified by anything other than Christ.

Not by the law, which is what Peter and Barnabus were afraid of "transgressing."

Paul says plainly, they were transgressors.

His point in v. 17, and don't miss it, is this:

If the doctrine of the Judaizers is correct, then Paul, Peter, and Barnabus are all sinners...because they ate with gentiles.

Making the doctrine of Christ sinful and placing Judaism above the doctrine of Christ.

He ends with some of my favorite verses:

20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


Paul did what was right, and confronted a born again believer who was placing the law, and what others would think of his actions, above Jesus Christ.

Though he was born again, Peter was still liable to be weak at times, as we all are.

Though indwelt by the Spirit of God, Peter at this time was not walking in the Spirit.


God bless.

 

Hello Thinkingstuff,

I just wanted to ask you to consider something, and this is in referrence to John 15 and Romans 11:

Christ says, "I am the true vine."

What is the Old Testament cross reference?

Also, He said to abide in me...did those to whom He spoke this, do that?

I would suggest that because they were as of yet not new creations in Christ, they could not abide in Him, as they did not have the Spirit of God to cause them to do so.

They all scattered to the wind when the Shepherd was smitten.

God bless.

 

I don't have a specific cross referrence to the OT with regard to the true vine other than agricultural terms were often used to explain consepts. I do have an OT referrence for the latter point Which in john 15:w is

I can relate this to Ezekiel 15:1-5 which states

emphasising the total destruction for one not abiding in Christ. Note the connotation of the greek term "to abide" can also be to be "held in" with the view of a continual abiding.

Jesus is speaking to his disciples and through them to the greater body of those who believe in him note John 15:5

And further in the verse we can see its not a discourse on "preconversion" but rather a discussion of "post conversion". to indicate as you have here

that you seem to believe the disciples are not regenerate prior to Pentecost or at least post this point which would be after the ressurrection. However, For Peter to makes such a statement in Matthew 16:16

Where Jesus response is

Shows a regenerating heart or one opened by the Father in heaven. Otherwise Peter could not have made this confession as Jesus points out. So I would disagree with your analysis of the Apostles spiritual condition at the time of Jesus' discource in John 15.

And so they were which is not inconsistant. Note peters other convession in John 6

Expressing a faith that could not have occured save from some regeneration. This isn't a general expression even as Matthew 16:16 is not. This is a sound faith prior to the Ressurection of the Lord.

 

Of course you don't have the former without the latter. I wasn't listing order.

There were some men who had the indwelling Holy Spirit, but didn't have the peculiar gifts until later.

 

Which is fine. So one is entirely reliant on the other and one is based on the operation and will of the Holy Ghost? Right?

 

Hello Thinkingstuff,

Thank you for your reply.

As I said, it is something to consider.

I understand some believe men were regenerated before Pentecost, and it will be hard to sway one from that belief.

And to be honest, there are things that are probably more important to address, but, this is actually a "break" from the forum I am usually on, and this discussion is interesting.

But, you know I have to try...right?

Try not to get upset with me, just looking for discussion.

I can supply that, though you may or may not see the conceptual correlation:

Psalm 80:8-16 (King James Version)

8Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.

9Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land.

10The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars.

11She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river.

12Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her?

13The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it.

14Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine;

15And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself.

16It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance.

Those who are in Christ will abide.

Those who are not of the true vine will not.

Note that this use of vine is saying that the vine is altogether useless.

Here the context is judgement, and the punished are likened to vines which are useless for anything other than kindling.

 

Agree, steaver. Our pastor has been preaching through the book of Hebrews for the past few months on Sunday morning and night. Deep book yes, but so worth the study.

 

I never get upset with some one wanting a debate or conversation on a topic. Or for disagreeing with me. I only become upset when my character is maligned or accusations are levied unjustly. And unfortunately, when that happens instead of ignoring it I jump into the frey with my own additions. A conversation I like to have.

what I see with this passage is that it is primarily about Israel departure from Egypt yet I can see a correlation with Christ but only to an extent.

I can not argue against this point. Except to say: How do you mean it? I believe that a Christian must engage their will in order to abide and become christ like. I do not believe that in some etherial sense that because, similar to the laws of physics, one will automatically submit to abiding in Christ daily. A desire, an exercise of the will and a performance will occur.

Not a very comforting thought for those just reliant on a single proclimation of faith is it?

for those not abiding though note the passage shows that they too are branches off the vine. The difference is lack of fruit.

Exactly! and they were branches off the same vine.

I see this in an ecclesiastical sense rather than personal.

We all need to grow in our faith.

I remember my early years with Christ it was an emotional thing as well as a cognizant one. I've made many proclimations based on my emotional state.

What visual proof? Jesus was being lead to die.

I disagree the new covenant was instituted the night before. or Earlier that night when Jesus communed with his disciples.

Not in an ecclesiastical sense no however, personally with peter yes or how else would Peter have the spiritual insight to identify Jesus? As he did previously?

Because he is a man and could be discouraged like the rest of us Keep in mind William Carey. He almost gave up the work as well, but God kept working with him.

And none were lost even in a time of fear and doubt.

you too.

 

Hey brother, thank you for the kind words.

It would seem to me that much confusion is cleared up when one views the New Covenant as being brought in with the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Hebrews is probably the very book that we need to be in, and I agree, it seems a little daunting at first.

When newly converted, I avoided it, but, it bothered me.

Hearing a message by a preacher on Conference Pulpit, he said this..."Before you attempt to teach out of any book of the bible, read it fifty times, and you will be amazed at how things begin to clarify themselves..."

Worthy advice.

That was what made me set down with the intent of understanding the book (not that I am done), and what the book contains is absolutely amazing.

It makes one see the ministry of Christ in its many, superior aspects.

Have to get going, but I am thoroughly enjoying the conversation.

Hope all have a blessed weekend,

God bless.