Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

Yes.




Acts 17:29-31

King James Version (KJV)

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.


Hebrews 9:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

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

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

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

14 How 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?

15 And 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.





The Bible as a Whole teaches a very simple lesson, which is that God judges according to the revelation provided to men. Rejection of Christ will receive a far more severe penalty than rejection of the Covenant of Law (Hebrews 10:26-29, and sorry for not posting the Scripture for you, but out of time).

Take Passover, for example, in which we see God pass over those who were obedient. We do not ascribe eternal redemption or remission of sins in completion, because that sacrifice offered only pictured the Sacrifice of Christ, and would for centuries be offered until Christ came and offered Himself.

So when we apply the grace of God to children babies, and unborn babies, we see the same just and righteous dealing of God with mankind, in that He will judge according to the revelation provided to men in whatever Era or Age that revelation is found. Under Law one was to be obedient to the picture, figure, shadow, or parable of Redemption as found in the Law, but when the True came...they were to progress from that understanding formed by the revelation of that Age to that which was made perfect, or complete.

And we can draw a line in the sand in the sands of time, and agree with Christ that that time was when the Son of God stepped out of eternity and veiled His glory in human flesh. That flesh, the writer of Hebrews states, is the "veil" we go through in order to come into the presence of God.

So the question "Do babies go to Hell?" becomes moot in light of God's grace, because of course God will not penalize those who have not received revelation, and in regards to babies, and small children, and those mentally incapacitated...not even the internal witness of God and the testimony of Creation can fully (or at all) be realized by those individuals.

We serve a Righteous and Holy God, Who is Just. There is not one reason His Character can be compromised, or man seek to elevate themselves to a superior moral position (as atheists often do in their ignorance).

In the Old Testament this was a promise not yet fulfilled, and we see at every turn this realized in the pages of Scripture.

Eternal life is associated with the indwelling of the Comforter here:


John 7:38-40

King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.


The living waters are a contrast to physical water, without which one cannot sustain physical life. So too, apart from the indwelling of God, which could not take place as long as man was separated from God by their sins, eternal life cannot be attained to. John chapter 6 makes this contrast very well, between the physical and eternal provision of Old and New. And again we see that these promises were prophetic until fulfilled. They remained promise until fulfilled.

Those living waters are clearly stated to await the "giving of the Holy Ghost," and that event would not fall until Christ was glorified. Few will argue that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost preceded Pentecost, as they come into conflict with Christ's teaching in Act's 1:4-8.

And when they do, the arguments are weak, and they cannot find one person said to trust in the Gospel, or, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. I can give them the one who came closest, John the Baptist, but even he was not, just prior to his death...sure that Jesus was the One they awaited, though he was used of God to prophesy "the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world."


God bless.

 

So we have at least common ground on not seeing men born again before Pentecost. That's actually huge, in light of the many who feel the new birth has always been available.

Paradise is only mentioned three times, and I will admit that it does seem to speak of Heaven in two of those references, which is when Paul was called up to the third Heaven, Paradise, and the mention of the paradise of God which is clearly the Eternal State.

However, I would suggest to you that the new birth, again, is something that happens when someone is alive physically.

The Old Testament Saints who were dead at that time were in fact made perfect, and I believe this is a result of Christ's time during physical death prior to His Resurrection, but that is another matter altogether.

And I will be limited in my use of Scripture because for some reason the sizing is not working. After I post this response I will pull up firefox and see if it works there.

Anyway, a few indicators that men did not go to Heaven prior to the Cross:

The first being of course Christ's teaching of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The Rich man said to be in Hades, Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham, which is a traditional Jewish belief to be the compartment of Sheol/Hades for the just. Paradise is also a traditional name for that compartment. We might say Jewish tradition doesn't count, but I would remind you that Christ did not use the term sheol, but hades, showing that He was okay with using the current name for that concept, which was the resting place of the dead.

That is not Heaven, though, and we can make a good case that men could not come into God's presence until their sin was atoned for.

Secondly, we see in Hebrews...



Hebrews 9:23-24

King James Version (KJV)

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


The basic teaching underlying this truth is that men could only enter into God's presence through that earthly tabernacle made with hands. We could argue "This doesn't apply after death," but is that a valid argument?

We go on to chapter Ten:


Hebrews 10:18-20

King James Version (KJV)

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;



The "Holiest" in view here is that same Holiest," that is...Heaven.

The basic thrust is that man's entrance to God was accomplished by the Death of Christ (His flesh).

The Old Testament contained shadow, or, figure, or, parable. It only pictured the True, that is, that which was not made with hands, but the true. This fits with what is being taught, and man having obtained eternal redemption which allowed, not access to God by one man once a year who offered the blood of animals, but Christ Himself opening the way through that veil...which was His death on the Cross.

And just one more on that topic:


Ephesians 4:7-10

King James Version (KJV)

7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)


I see this as also speaking of Christ liberating those spirits that did not go into Heaven when they died, but went into Sheol, or, Hades.

Highly debatable, I know, but we would have to find a Scriptural presentation to show men entering Heaven at death before we dismiss it out of hand.

And again, there is nothing to prevent the thief from going to Heaven that day, as we are post-Cross at this point. Christ died that day, so nothing preventing him from going.

That doesn't mean he was born again, as we would have to say, if he was, then he was born again after death, and while the perfecting of the Old Testament saints is similar, new birth takes place while one is dead. The statement was made prior to Christ's death, and that could be used to support new birth before the Cross, but that is contrary to your position and reasoning, right?

I agree, but that is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, which takes place at salvation, and that is how we are "immersed" into Christ.

We are in Him because He is in us, just as the Father is in Christ and Christ in the Father.

It is a spiritual resurrection and that is a result of He Who is Eternal indwelling us.

Agreed, which is why we then look at the new birth as an event for those physically alive. The thief was not born again on the cross, but was among those of faith of the Old Testament Saint.

And sorry, Van, a little tired and running out of time, just started addressing the points as I went.


God bless.

 

Sorry, but I saw this statement...

...as being in conflict.

And I gave a brief reasoning as to why. I would agree that penalty is relieved at the time of salvation, but clarify that in view is eternal redemption, as opposed to the positional justification of the Old Testament Saint.

Perhaps I have assumed you meant to say that eternal redemption was granted prior to the Cross, and you didn't say that, and if that is the case then I apologize, my error.

But I will address the rest of your points and see if I can better understand the context of your statement.

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

Not all of them. IT also speaks of the Old Testament Saint, these ar those who are the "spirits of just men made perfect," which we see in previous chapters both explicitly and implicitly were not made perfect until Christ died.

Now every believer who is born again is made perfect, but the Old Testament Saint was not, that awaited Christ's Sacrifice for sin before they could be made perfect (complete, in regards to eternal salvation and remission of sins).

That is correct, we agree on that as well. While atonement for sin was granted through vicarious sacrifice, it was not on an eternal basis as the Writer of Hebrews makes clear.

This is where we disagree, for God does not credit a person's faith as righteousness in the new birth, but imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account. Our righteousnesses still lay in that category of filthy rags, and do not apply to salvation in Christ.

In other words, the thief had faith by which he could be credited as righteous, but that is not what saved him. He was, like as we were, saved by the grace of God through faith, and there is a distinction to be made there.

He did not understand Christ was dying for his sins, any more than any other of faith in Old Testament Eras, or Ages, or Economies. He did have faith that Jesus was the Christ, but the New Birth falls under that economy whereby the Comforter enlightens men to the Person of Christ and His Work.

It happens at the same time, Van. The New Birth is the result of salvation, not the means of it.

You can't "place one in Christ" and not also place them in the Spirit. So it is actually you having the order reversed, lol.

This is why Paul equates the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, for He is One.

We are saved by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, one salvation, one event. Nothing subsequent.

I would disagree as to their faith not being "credited as righteous," because they had faith according to the revelation they were privy to. They believed Jesus was the Christ, this was revealed to them. But what they did not understand, hence were not yet born again, was that Christ would not be the temporal Savior they looked for, but the Eternal Savior dying for their sins.

Acts 1, we see the Lord tell them "you will be Baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Their response?

"Wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom unto Israel?"

Not born again, not believers according to New Testament Revelation, but, believers under the Old Testament Economy.

The thing to keep in mind is that one can believe without being regenerated. This is evidenced in 2 Peter Chapter Two and Hebrews 10:


2 Peter 2:20-22

King James Version (KJV)

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Fair enough. Aside from a few items of discussion I think we are for the most part on the same page.

I think I just looked at this wrong and having been debating the distinction of redemption and Eternal Redemption quite a bit, lately, probably read into it that men were redeemed prior to the Cross. That happens sometimes when I have a lot going on and trying to get as many posts as I can before getting out of here.

I will reiterate that the Thief on the Cross was not born again on the cross, primarily because he was not Baptized with the Holy Ghost, hence had not yet partaken of eternal life in his physical frame as we do. Your view of the order of the new birth in relation to the indwelling may lead you to this conclusion, but we cannot create a subsequence that isn't there.

Consider:


Ezekiel 36:21-27

King James Version (KJV)

21 But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.

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.



Salvation is a singular event which is the result of being Baptized into Christ, as you say, which is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. Above we see all aspects of the New Birth with the indwelling of God which causes us to do His will.

That New Birth is a spiritual resurrection achieved by the entrance of God, Who is the Source of the Eternal Life we are given. Eternal Life is not a substance poured into us, but is God Himself indwelling us.

Again, I apologize if I have misread your statement, and glad for these issues being raised, as they are not only relevant but critical to our understanding of the New Birth, so thanks for the participation.


God bless.

 

We have two events in the passages above, entrance to the Kingdom of God in an eternal sense, where one is inducted into that spiritual rule and reign of God which takes place while one is alive, and entrance to that earthly Kingdom that Israel awaited based on God's promise to restore them to their land in fellowship with Himself.

Paul is speaking about glorification, not new birth in 1 Corinthians 15:50. That is a separate issue from the demand that men be born again, which must take place while on is alive.

Not in New Covenant perspective.

Old Testament Saints, at the time of Christ's Atoning Death, were made what the writer of Hebrews (in the King's English) calls perfect. That is not a perfection as we would,in our modern use understand it, which would imply sinlessness on the part of those made "perfect," but it speaks of being made complete. One aspect of perfection, or completion, is in regards to remission of sins. No Old Testament Saints was made complete in regards to sins, thus the writer's contrast of the Sacrifice of Christ (and all that accomplished) with the sacrifices that preceded it, which was the God prescribed method for atonement for sin for those Ages.

So while they were in fact made perfect which enabled them to be reconciled on an eternal basis, they were not born again, as again...this is something that takes place when one is physically alive.

It cannot happen after one dies, for one either obeys the Gospel while alive, or, when they die, their fate is sealed.

We may have expectancy of an inheritance, but until the Testator dies we do not receive that inheritance. Chapter 9 of Hebrews makes it clear that what was promised was obtained through the offering of Christ. That is...eternal redemption.

That means that the New Covenant, which promised that God would "be merciful to their (Israel and all men under that New Covenant) unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more," was not in effect until Christ's death.

We further understand that as natural men, which is what we contrast to being born again, we cannot understand the spiritual things of God. Understanding is, therefore, accomplished only through the divine intervention of God ministering to unbelievers through the Comforter, the Holy Ghost. And Christ makes it clear that the Comforter's ministry would begin when He came, which can easily be seen by most as occurring on the Day of Pentecost.

So to inherit the promises can be seen to corresponding to seeing and entering, as long as we do not have a view of glorification and actually being caught up to Heaven in view. Paul's point is that in our current corrupt (contrasted with incorruptible glorified bodies) physical body...we cannot go to Heaven. That does not negate the fact that Christ in His glorified form clarified a physical nature to His resurrected (glorified) form:



Luke 24:37-39

King James Version (KJV)

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.



All Paul is making clear is that no man goes to Heaven in natural bodies. The glorified Body of Christ is clarified to consist of flesh and bone (not flesh and blood, a significant distinction I think), which testifies of our understanding of the resurrection that occurs at the Rapture. The same bodies we have will be raised from the dead, Whether we have physically died or not it is still a resurrection.

Yes, I think that goes without saying, for they were made perfect at the time of the Cross, and are assuredly reconciled to God through the Atonement.

Again we have to clarify context, so in regards to the Kingdom which is eternal, yes; in regards to the Millennial Kingdom, which I believe underlies many of Christ's exclusive teaching to Israel...no.

I think we can assume that (for those who enter Heaven now who have done well, not saying everyone will hear that, because we know that God physically ends the lives of sinning Christians, and would not expect them to be praised for their lives), but the context has in view the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom. Matthew 25, in particular, is a consistent follow-up of Matthew 24, where we see the Tribulation described, then in ch.25 we see the gathering foretold, and the judgment of nations foretold taking place. It is interesting that in Daniel 12 we see a 75 day discrepancy (so to speak) between the 3 1/2 year periods that we see describing the two periods of the 7 year Tribulation. I believe that this 75 days in the period in which that Kingdom is established, which also allows for a brief period for Satan to unite the ungodly at the end of the Millennial Kingdom. He is cast in the bottomless pit at the end of the Tribulation, and released for a 75 day period at the end of the Kingdom, then cast into the Lake of Fire.

No, they died in faith still in need of the perfection, or, completion that Christ brought. One aspect of that which has been a popular topic in a number of threads is in regards to atonement. Their atonement was temporary according to the God ordained method of vicarious death which utilized animals as the sacrifice. Eternal Redemption was obtained by Christ on the Cross, and the transgressions of the Old Testament Saint (described in Hebrews 11 and contrasted with those who are now made perfect at the time of salvation) still remained in need of being redeemed.

Christ did that, and it has a particular point in time when it occurred, and that was on the Cross.

The New Birth occurs while we are alive, not after we are dead. The Old Testament Saint stands in direct contrast (as testified by Hebrews) with those brought into relationship with God through the New Covenant. The New Covenant was not available to the Old Testament Saint, but stood in Prophecy and Promise, and was the expectation of Israel, and now the reality for both the faithful of Israel as well as Gentiles (which is also something clearly taught as having changed).


God bless.

 

Do you believe what this man spoke...


John 11:49-53

King James Version (KJV)

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.



Was Caiaphas a born again believer because he was used of God to prophesy the truth, and in fact...the very Gospel of Christ?

How about John, who prophesied of Christ, the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. Would a born again believer do this...


Matthew 11

King James Version (KJV)

11 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?



Just because God spoke through the Prophets doesn't mean they were born again.

No-one is born again apart from trusting in Christ, and not one person can be found in the Gospels that trusted in the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ.

Not even the disciples, of whom it is written in regards to their "belief" in Christ and His Resurrection:


Luke 24:5-11

King James Version (KJV)

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.



Mark 16:12-14

King James Version (KJV)

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.




The Disciples were not sitting around waiting for the Lord's Resurrection, which He clearly told them would take place. And when He was raised from the dead, and they were told, they believed them to be idle tales and they did not believe...the Lord had risen from the dead.

But that did not stop God from revealing to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. But neither does it negate the fact that Peter was in opposition to the Gospel, denied Christ, and even after he was raised he was still unbelieving.

One more passage:



Matthew 16:15-17

King James Version (KJV)

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


Matthew 16:20-23

King James Version (KJV)

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.




That one prophesies does not equate to being born again, or, for that matter, that one is even a believer.

And we cannot ignore the many passages that make it clear the Gospel of Christ was not revealed prior to Pentecost. The disciples can be seen to still savor the things which be of men in Acts 1, where they ask, after being told they would be Baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence...

"...wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom unto Israel?"

It would not be until they are Baptized in the Holy Ghost, the very time when they are indwelt by God, that they would begin preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel revealed to them by the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven, the Comforter.


God bless.

 

In the eternal sense, yes, perfection is a resurrection on a spiritual level, though that is not all perfection deals with, as mentioned before it is a matter of making complete that which was foretold in Old Testament Economies in regards to Eternal Redemption.

But to be precise the "better resurrection" spoken of the writer in v.35 refers to the foundational teaching which was a root element of the faith of the Old Testament. In other words, they did not forsake their faith in God because they knew there would be a resurrection of the just and the unjust, so death (physical) was not something they feared.

However, the foundational teaching of resurrection of the dead in the Old Testament is a good example of the difference between foundational teachings and that which is made perfect.

Consider:


Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.



The writer is basically preaching to the Hebrew people who were first century Jews who were under the Law (First Covenant). The Law provided foundational principles which the writer states they are not to lay again, but to go on unto perfection (of the Doctrine of Christ0>

Now this was not possible for the Old Testament Saints spoken of in Ch.11:


Hebrews 11:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)

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.



They were perfected "with us" in that perfection comes through He Who made complete those foundational principles about Himself.

They had faith in God, we have specific faith in the Cross of Christ and Christ Himself as revealed by New Testament writers (thus by God Himself).

They had washings (baptisms) that were for external cleansing (john's Baptism fitting into that category as well), we have the Baptism which is both spiritual and eternal, the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

In regards to foundational teaching of resurrection of the dead, they knew all men would be resurrected, but they did not understand the Rapture (which was mystery) and the glorification of the saint.

And so our understanding of resurrection can be imposed only in retrospect by the Biblical Writer of Hebrews. Perfection deals in the eternal, whereas glorification deals with the physical realm as well, because no death will occur for some who are Raptured. They would not have understood that more complete understanding, as it was not presented, or revealed to them.


God bless.

 

This has been addressed, as far as the concept presented. You can find that in posts #s 29 and 31.

We need only go to the next verse to dismantle the argument that Christ is speaking of something that was already available to men, which is the heart of the argument altogether:


John 3:10-12

King James Version (KJV)

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?



No past tense in regards to His teaching to Nicodemus, as what has not been received involves the earthly things.

His point being "...how are you, the Teacher of Israel, going to understand heavenly teachings when you do not understand what you have already been given?"

What Christ was teaching that Nicodemus should have known is found in Old Testament Prophecy. This is that "which we know and do testify of a having seen."

But if you will notice...the new birth is made clear to be something not seen:




John 3:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.



We contrast this truth with Nicodemus' confusion, and his asking "...can a man enter into his mother's womb again."

Christ states one must be born from above, which is no different than saying "Born of God," yet Nicodemus implies a physicality to the new birth.

And when we see commentary on the New Birth, that is, being Born of God, we see how men reacted:



John 1:11-13

King James Version (KJV)

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

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:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.



"His Own" refers to Israel on a National basis. We know that, because Israel was His Own People, not just because He was born a Jew, but because He was their Creator. And we know that while Israel rejected Christ on a National basis, there were Jews who were saved, and were in fact instrumental to establishing the Church.

But it is a fair argument, though I think when we do examine the text in detail we will see that Christ is not saying they could be born again at that time, simply stating they had to be in order to enter or see the Kingdom of God.

This point is better addressed in Post #s 29 and 31, but be glad to discuss it further.


God bless.

 

Percho, we have talked on this before: you are declaring that Christ was not fit for Heaven, that he was a sinner, and out of relationship with God.

Because the body is the "vehicle" of the spirit.

What you are missing is that man has a spirit, but needs a new one:


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.



Now consider with me the resurrection of the body.

Was there no body prior to it's being raised again?

So too, with the spirit of man, it is dead, and that is precisely what Christ teaches in John 6, that apart from Him men have no life in them. They must trust in the Cross of Christ in order to obtain eternal life.

So just as there is a body prior to bodily resurrection and glorification, even so there is a spirit within man prior to it's resurrection.

That has application to the lost only, Christ was not born again.

Again, the New Birth does not apply to people who are dead physically, but is an event that takes place while one is yet physically alive.

Christ is the Firstborn from the Dead, but that is in reference to His bodily resurrection and implies no salvific application in regards to His Person.

Have to get going, but will quickly mention that when the Son was begotten that does not negate the fact that the Son is Eternal God and pre-existed the Incarnation. Another thing to consider is that the sufferings of Christ all took place while He was alive, and refer to the Body He dwelt in only.


God bless.

 

This is what you said, percho:

Again, the New Birth is not physical resurrection into glorified form.

The only death that can be ascribed to the Bread of Heaven, Who is the Source of Life itself, because He is God...is the physical death on the Cross.

Next you say...

What you are doing is denying His Deity, and making Him a man only.

That is incorrect.

The Lord was not born again, He had no need to be.

He was resurrected physically in glorified form.

He is the Firstborn from the Dead, not the Firstborn of the Born Again.

In view is glorification, not New birth.

That is precisely what you say when you say Christ was only a man Who had to be born again.

Doesn't negate what else you said.

As I said, we have discussed this before. I had hoped you would have settled this error by now.

You are confusing New Birth which applies to sinful man to Christ Jesus our Lord. That is your error.

New Birth is not a physical resurrection. That is why the Rapture is distinguished as a resurrection.

No, His soul was not resurrected from Hades. His Body lie in the grave, His Spirit went to Hades.

The Lord clarifies man's disposition after death here:


Luke 24:37-39

King James Version (KJV)

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


So we can the Lord's word for it that when He died, His spirit was separated from His flesh. Here, He shows He is not still dead, and only a spirit, but alive, having both body and spirit, and that is what a man consists of...spirit and body.

That makes one a soul. God created the body of Adam, breathed the breath of life into him, and he became a living soul, not...received a soul.

He went and preached to the spirits in prison when He died. The Spirit separated from the body and He went and preached.

Talk about making good use of down time.


1 Peter 3:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;


What that tells us it this...

...conflicts with what is actually stated in regards to Christ at the time of physical death.

I have shown you two passages that do.

The only death He endured was physical, and that death marked the finishing of the Work on the Cross. It was finished.

And that is error.

You can't have God renewing His relationship to Himself.

That is what the New Birth does: it is an aspect of Reconciliation.

The Son of God was not in need of Reconciliation, and He was not in need of the New Birth.

This suggests that Christ was separated from God, and at no time was He. Christ is not a descendant of Adam that He would be in such a state of separation, but is the Eternal God...the Creator Himself.

Galatians 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead



It's not surprising God would raise God from the dead:


John 10:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Acts 2:31

King James Version (KJV)

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.




Simply means that unlike David, where there is no distinction between spirit and body, and that David was left in Hades (until the Cross), Christ was not left dead. It refers to the Person of Christ, not just the spirit, not just the body, but the man in totality. The simple point is made that His time in Hades was not long enough for decay to set in on his flesh (body).

Acts 13:34

King James Version (KJV)

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.



Still nothing about Christ being born again. Still referring to His resurrection.

1 Peter 3:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

So we see the reverse of what you propose, that Christ was not...

Romans 1:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:




Simply states that because He was resurrected...there is no question that He is the Son of God.

And we are still dealing with resurrection which is bodily resurrection, not spiritual resurrection of New Birth.

To imply Christ needed to be born again implies sin.

Do you think there was a need for Christ to be born again in order to perceive or enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

The Son of God came to Heaven, so consider that what you are suggesting is that the Son was fit for Heaven, but because He came here He then needed to be born again.

Also, you are forgetting that believers go to be with the Lord at physical death now, and only Christ is glorified. No other will be glorified until the Rapture.


God bless.

 

Why does it matter if you are not responding anymore? lol

I post how I post, you post how post.

So since we are critiquing styles, I think your posts are way too short and need to have both quotations of what you are responding to as well as the relevant Scriptures posted, rather than vague references made. Not saying you are, but it implies a laziness and lack of interest in what is being discussed.

Not really, because I place the new birth as only possible with the indwelling of God, which began on an eternal basis when the Comforter came, which is clearly on the day of Pentecost.

We don't agree completely, because I see Paradise in the context of the thief as possibly Hades, rather than Heaven.

Both destinations are equably viable meanings in the Lord's statement.

And neither impact whether or not the thief was born again or not, which I see as he was not. Made perfect after death, but not born again under New Covenant Standard.

Again, the primary issue you seem to be imposing is that new birth can take place after death. We could speculate the thief was born again on his cross before he died, but we open the doors to a dichotomy of believers, those who are born again, and those eternally indwelt by God, and I see that as erroneous.

Agreed.

But we do not have the new birth apart from He Who gives that Life. In other words, no indwelling of God...no new birth.

The thief was not born again, nor were any of the disciples.

Agreed.

I told you, I misread your post. I was tired and in a hurry and I make mistakes like that sometimes, and...I apologized in advance for that, if I remember correctly.

The thief was not born again after death.

I have done many posts in this thread that address the issue of not even the disciples being born again until after Pentecost.

If you do not want to address the reasoning and the Scripture in those posts, we can start all over.

But the fact is that the New Birth occurs while one is alive, not after they are dead.


And I will continue this since you don't like long posts, lol.


Continued...

 

Your point is in error:


Romans 5:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.



The New Birth cannot be separated from the Reconciliatory Work of Christ, just as it cannot be separated from the eternal indwelling of God at conversion.

While I agree it was not until Pentecost that men were actually Baptized into Christ, thus benefitting from His Atonement which is synonymous with reconciliation, the very means itself, your statement lends the implication that reconciliation is still pending. If you simply mean it was not a reality until they were placed in Christ, that I would agree with.

Which supports the view that regeneration began at Pentecost thus, in New Covenant terms, the disciples were not saved. Much less the thief.

Speaking of critiquing how one posts, you expect your antagonist to go research a previous post? How about quoting so one doesn't have to search for what it is you are talking about?

Okay, having now found the statement in question...

...and comparing that to what you are saying here, you still do not convey exactly what you mean clearly.

The fact is that the penalty for sin was removed for every Old Testament Saint, and that took place when Christ died on the Cross. Because of that, those Saints were made perfect in regards to their redemption.

But that doesn't mean they were born again. Is regeneration involved, yes, but, regeneration in today's Era refers to regeneration which takes place when one is alive.

The perfecting of the spirits of just men is not an identical issue, and has to be distinguished from what takes place in those who come under the Ministry of the Comforter and are saved.

I said that.

What you said was...

Had you said what was above I would have said "fair enough" as I did to the other points. You have changed your statement dramatically.

It does talk about New Testament Saints as well as Old, but there is a definitive distinction between the two groups.

Both are made perfect, but only one of those groups is made perfect when faith arises. The Old Testament Saints were not made perfect without us.

The Old Testament Saints were not born again in their physical frame, but were perfected, that is, their redemption made complete in regards to Atonement and remission of sins, which is the basis for Reconciliation.

I don't claim it...Scripture makes it clear.

John 3 states you must be born again to enter into the Kingdom of God, and we see in Christ's teachings that in view is primarily the Millennial Kingdom, and that is the Kingdom Nicodemus would have been expecting.

The Kingdom that has been revealed to us through revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel...was unknown to Nicodemus.

The Old Testament Saints were made perfect, and that does not necessitate new birth.

Now if you will simply answer a question which is relevant to everyone that is saved with the exception of the Old Testament Saints being made perfect...

...does the new birth occur when one is alive or can it occur after death?

Some of this is in dispute.

Whether you respond or not is not up to me. If you want to leave your statements in the thread without defending them, that is your choice.

And when you say the Old Testament Saints were born again, I see you making an error. They were made perfect. Show me any Scripture that shows them being born again, or the new birth said to occur after death.

You won't find it.

And that cannot be supported by Scripture.

Salvation is a one time event which includes all aspects that we are taught.

We are ministered to by the Comforter Who enlightens our natural minds, and if we come under obedience (rather than rejecting) we are saved. We are at that time indwelt, which is the source of the eternal life Christ promised those who believe, and at that same time we are regenerated.

You do understand that being born of God cannot be separated into events that take place at different times, right?

You are creating a false dichotomy among Christians. One group is born again. One group is born again and indwelt.

Both take place simultaneously.


God bless.