Featured Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Both Abraham and David speak about being justified by faith.
"Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God."
If there is no justification there is no salvation.

OT or NT, salvation is the same: justification by faith.
Leave the rest up to God.
No need to accuse anyone here of cruel deception or their position as a hoax.

 

Question is NOT were any int he OT time before Chrsit came saved, they were, same way you and I were, its if thy had the SAME working of the HS as we do now under the New Covenant...

 

There was no doubt 'saved' persons in the OT period, and there saved saved by grace of god, NOT due to keping the law, but still think was a big difference between the work of the HS in times before jesus, and now after Him!

they were saved by the Cross, but NOT indwelt as we are, for that aspect had to wait until he came/died/rose and released the HS to come in and usher in New Covenant Age!

 

Paul life does not speak that he believed as same as others today. If you look at Paul's life you will know why Paul said that.

He isn't going to be here forever and Paul was torn on wanted to stay here to continue what he was doing or to be with the Lord.

He said that, so we can seek them. He is saying no one seeks God telling us to go seek them. That no one is righteous praise God, Jesus came to save sinners and i am the worst.

He was calling for more workers in the field. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit and out of us will flow streams of living water for the dead.

Quit letting men to tell you what Paul meant and look at Paul life and he spent his life seeking those who do not seek Him being Jesus.

As Jesus said birds have nest, foxes has holes, but the Son of man has no place to lay His head. There was so much work, Jesus could not rest and as a man he could not reach everyone by Himself. That is why He called disciple's to continue His work that Jesus started.

That is why Paul said what he said not that they can't come, but to go to them.

We can build temple's on the tallest mountains and worship Jesus, Paul, who ever you desire to do.

The people who need Jesus is in the valley.

Save the saved, when they are already are is a waste of time, they need to learn about righteousness, the people in the valley need saved. It is the sick and the dead who need the cure.

 

Hello Van, thank you for the reply, as this is a topic I love to discuss, however, few will take the time to thresh it out.

I have never made the statement that "people are...physically born again when Christ returns," as I do not view glorification as a "new birth." at least, not the new birth which is in view in this thread. I can understand that view and would not dismiss the radical change when we are changed physically as a recreation which is physical, whereas the view that some hold that the new birth does not take place until glorification I view to be not just error, but serious error which scripture easily clarifies, showing that the new birth takes place upon salvation and that believers are spiritually recreated, at which time they receive the LIFE of God. Before that, they are spiritually dead and without relationship to the LIFE of God.

I agree for the most part, as many will come to "believe" the truth which is imparted to them by the Holy Spirit as He seeks to bring them to salvation.

However, I made this statement according to the word of God as imparted by John, which you yourself have quoted:

Keeping in mind that 1 John is written to believers, the Church that is, we can in the context of his writing very much say with him that "Whosever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."

I didn't say it, John did, and that by inspiration of God.

There is no leeway for easy-believism here, nor does John write to rebuke as does the writer of Hebrews, but speaks to those that believe in truth.

John goes on to say:



1 John 5

King James Version (KJV)

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


John does imply that simply believing causes one to overcome the world, either, but speaks of those genuinely believing, their authentic faith and belief indicated by loving other believers and keeping the commandments of God (1 John 5:2-3).

I agree. You, like John, are talking about genuine believers.

However, would you acknowledge that it is possible for the unsaved to believe?

Is there not a period in which the unbeliever is brought to saving faith, and that before he is born again...he is a believing unbeliever?

The unbeliever has the word of God made understandable, he/she incapable (being natural) of understanding apart from the Holy Spirit's ministry. At this time the unbeliever has two paths to follow: 1) repentant reception of the truth the Holy Spirit imparts; 2) rejection.

It does not happen immediately. The Spirit of God may minister to men for years, I believe, before they make their final decision. I know of those that have sit in a congregation for years, believing themselves to be saved, only to come to the realization that they were not.

Would you agree with that?

Well, I do not take that view, as the Comforter's ministry is to convict the natural man and to bring him understanding concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment.

So in this we agree...I think, lol.

I simply look at it as a clear statement of John concerning genuine believers.

Consider:



John 20:30-31

King James Version (KJV)


30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


When John writes his Gospel he is writing for the benefit of all, and the audience is expanded to both believers and unbelievers.

However, in 1 John...


1 John 5:13

King James Version (KJV)


13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


...he makes a dogmatic declaration of, "I am writing to you who do believe."



1 John 5:12

King James Version (KJV)


12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.


Here again the statement is clear: "He who has the Son has life, He who does not does not have life. One either has life in Christ, which is due to our union with Him, not simply that God has placed this upon us. We are in Him, and He in us, and for that reason we have LIFE.

This is going to be one of the most important issues involving the discussion of the New Birth, which involves our spiritual resurrection as well as our union with God through His indwelling. By which I contend that one cannot be born again apart from the indwelling of God, as some teach concerning subsequence.


Continued...

 

I think that sometimes our grammar scholars can get a little carried away, but let us not make the same mistake and offer an opposing argument that might resemble their own.

In short, forget the tense and absorb the simplicity of the statement within the context of the book.

It would be equally true of a genuine believer that this can apply to an action in the past as well as apply to the present. The priority is that...it is true either way.

A genuine believer, as John writes to and highlights in his writing, believed both in the past as well as currently believes. This is illustrated by his love for God, his love for those that belong to God, and keeping the commandments of God. And I would say that sometimes we can fall short in being examples of these characteristics.

But it would be true concerning a genuine believer, wouldn't it? Do they not believe in the present tense?

This is true, and I believe that in view is not so much the beginning, but the current state of the believer. John says "This cannot be denied," basically, "This is going to be true of those that believe.

Could be, but we should not let that distract us from the focus of the study. Those that seek to argue around the topic show they are incapable of dealing with the topic, right?

So we reset the focus and direct attention to the underlying truths that accompany salvation, and in doing so, an argument like that becomes irrelevant as we conclude truths proclaimed in scripture.

And all of this is part of the salvation experience, where if we forego one aspect we can question the genuine nature of that salvation.

Natural man cannot understand the spiritual things of God, thus the ministry of the Holy Spirit. God does not flip a switch, so to speak, and boom, your a believer, but presents the truths of God's word to the unbeliever whereby he can then determine the course he will take: receive or reject.

That "right," that power, comes only after the natural mind has had been enlightened to understand the reality of the Gospel.

That comes about through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of the unbeliever.

Unbelievers can come to believe and then reject Christ, and this before they are born again.

When a person is born again they have already become children of God.

I cannot say I agree with the view that there is a distinction in scripture concerning physical resurrection. The change of the body does not impact whether one is a child of God, that is a reality at the time of salvation.

I would view this as more the believer's assessment, or better, acknowledgement of the truth shown to him by God. Many will, as illustrated in the Lord's teaching, come to a form of belief yet not yield to God, thereby being saved. Acknowledgement of truth does not equate to receiving truth.

But those that do receive Him have not only acknowledged truth, but have turned to Him in faith, which faith is generated by God through His ministry in their lives.

Agreed. Salvation is wholly the work of God, from the first verse He introduces to the natural man to regeneration, to continued ministry as He convicts young believers and instructs them through progressive sanctification.

From start to finish.

Again, thanks for the reply, Van, this is a great topic.

God bless.

 

This is true: no-one was ever saved by the works of the Law. Only faith in God can do that.

However, the Law (the Covenant) was the means which God gave by which He gave the shadow of better things to come, and I think that on this side of the Cross we have a tendency to despise this Covenant, which is not a good thing. This is due to legalistic teaching that merges the two Covenants, and it is just my opinion that by understanding the work of God post-Cross and post-Pentecost, especially in relation to the New Birth, such blurring of the lines becomes not only difficult, but it is made clear that the plan of salvation in this era is distinct from God's ministry under the (Covenant of) Law.

This is something that I think should be apparent to us in the New Testament: completion did not take place until 1) Christ fulfilled the Law (and that which it pictured) and died on the Cross; 2) the New Covenant (ratified by the blood of Christ) was established and the promises of God in relation to that Covenant brought to bear, of which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Ezekial 36:27) being of utmost importance.

Old Testament Saints had only the shadow of the Mystery of Christ, and while they placed their faith in God, could not, as you and I, place specific faith in the shed blood of Christ.

They were saved by grace through faith, yet, they were not made complete, as that had to await the fulfillment of the Law through the Person of Christ.

The writer of Hebrews makes this abundantly clear:



Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)


1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


Notice that the Law could not make the comers thereunto (those that offered sacrifice according to the Law) perfect, or, complete. The writer asks, "Wouldn't they have ceased if it/they could?" The answer is...yes, they would have ceased. However, it was not until THE sacrifice was offered that they ceased. That is...Christ.

It could not cleanse the conscience. In other words, we have faith, and supreme faith that the sacrifice of Christ did in fact cover the sin debt we owed, we need not fret that another sacrifice, either by Christ or, I might add, ourselves, need ever be offered up. It is the Once accomplished sacrifice for sin which has opened for man entrance to the Holiest, that is, God's true presence, not a shadow of our meeting with Him (Hebrews 10:19-20), which was accomplished by only the High Priest under the Law, and that only once a year.

And those sacrifices could not...take away sin. The sacrifice of Christ both takes away the penalty for sin but through the sanctification process removes sin from our lives as we grow in Him.

That is something to shout about, is it not?

I think this is why there is so much contention on the subject, because we tend to overlook the fact that the Spirit of God ministered through many men in the Old Testament, both before and after the Law. If we want to argue whether this should be called indwelling or not makes no difference, really, let it suffice to note that He did in fact indwell men.

The difference, though, that I think we can readily see is that unlike then, the union formed between God and those saved is permanent, and one aspect that I see as vitally important to consider is that Christ said He came to give LIFE, and that is through His indwelling I believe.

We would not think that there was absolutely no-one that found favor with God prior to the Cross, however, when Christ spoke of their "fathers," He said they were dead:



John 6:47-51

King James Version (KJV)


47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


That LIFE came down from Heaven, that is...the Son of God. That LIFE came about through His sacrifice. That LIFE is called Eternal, which is possessed by God alone, and that LIFE is given to us when we are brought into union with Him.

And it appears that this LIFE has a starting point in time, which is when Christ offered Himself up, and, I believe, specifically at Pentecost, when the Comforter came and began indwelling believers.

(capitols for emphasis only)

Thanks for the reply, Y1.

God bless.

 

Hi Darrel C, thanks for your thoughtful effort to understand scripture and come to the truth. Let me try to clear up a few points, where it seems you misunderstand my view of scripture.

First, to be born again, is a spiritual event, not a physical event, as the term, best translated born anew, is used in scripture. Percho refers to being born again to our bodily resurrection. Not how that transaction is described in scripture. However, when we are given the right to become children of God, this refers to being born again, where we become spiritual children of God. However, we now have the Spirit of Adoption, which refers to the pledge of our physical resurrection where we become physical children of God. In summary I think we actually agree on this point.

However, comma, we do disagree about natural men of flesh not being able to understand "some" spiritual things, i.e. milk. If you reread 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 you will see that the "things of the Spirit" does not say "all things of the Spirit" or "some things of the Spirit." To to discern the scope, we must look at context. In the passage, Paul draws a distinction between spiritual meat, stuff learned only through the leading of our indwelt Holy Spirit, and spiritual milk, stuff babes in Christ can understand, having not yet learned anything from the Spirit concerning spiritual meat. But Paul says he speaks to them, babes in Christ as men of flesh, thus teaching men of flesh can understand spiritual milk. Bottom line, Paul says you must be indwelt to understand spiritual meat, but men of flesh, natural fallen men, can understand spiritual milk.

The grace of God's revelation of the gospel of Christ is needed beforehand, i.e. to provide the milk needed to accept or reject, and this gospel does convict all men, for all have sinned and fallen short.
The only people unable to taste this gift from the Holy Spirit, the gospel of Christ, are those who have been hardened like the first soil of Matthew 13.

If we make the statement whoever is believing is born of God, and that some who think they are believing, i.e. Matthew 7, are not born of God, we must accept the statement refers to those who are believing, not in their own assessment, but in God's assessment.

Now if when God credits a person's faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5, 24, He without delay causes them to be born again, then we can say whoever is believing, according to God, has been born again. That is my understanding of 1 John 5:1 and it is consistent with the structure and the grammar. I never knowingly violate my understanding of the underlying grammar.

Yes, I agree some people believe they are saved, but God has never credited their faith as righteousness, like the people of Matthew 7. Many times people rededicate themselves when in fact, in my opinion, they are saved for the first time, because they grow to trust in Christ fully, and therefore God credits their faith as righteousness and causes them to be born again.

 

First I do not recall accusing anyone of a cruel deception. But I certainly said the title of this thread is deceptive, because is asks were the OTS born again, rather than were the OTS born again before Christ died. Why is this deceptive, because it states a truth, but implies a falsehood. Could it have been an innocent mistake? Yes.

Next, yes both the OTS and the NTS were justified through faith, but again this sidesteps the issue. When the OTS gained "approval" through faith, were they justified, made perfect, holy and blameless right away, i.e. before Christ died? Nope, they had to wait to be made perfect, Hebrews 11:39-40. Did they enter heaven right away because they had been born anew? No, no one had ascended to heaven, John 3.

Calvinists like to attack others, like myself, and not address issues, like the OTS were not born anew when they obtained approval through faith, but scripture teaches that their view of the issue, i.e. OTS were born anew before Christ died, is mistaken.

 

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

You are wrong. Abraham never had to wait. This is past tense. He WAS counted for righteousness. The Abrahamic covenant was given to Abraham because he was already justified, not because he was going to be justified.

 

No, you are wrong!

Abraham was in Abraham's bosom, for no one had ascended to heaven, John 3. Hebrews 11:39-40 says all the OTS had to wait to be made perfect, holy and blameless.

So what does Romans 4:3 actually say?

What does the "it" refer to? Abraham's faith! Thus Abraham was not made righteous, perfect and holy, but his faith was credited to Abraham as or for righteousness. God accepted Abraham's faith is what the verse says. See verse 5 if you think I missed the mark.

Thus Abraham gained approval through faith. He was not made righteous, justified, perfected or born anew. All these promises were kept with the propitiation of Christ.

Christ's death provided the justification of life to all men, including Abraham. Only those God puts spiritually in Christ are covered with His blood, justified.

 

Who does God choose it sure isn't the wise and learned the Father hides the truth from those who are wise in their own eyes. It sure isn't those who are just following a crowd like in John chapter 6.

Jesus tells us in John chapter 6 who the Father draws.

John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.


Peter got it right

John 6:68
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Our good before God is dirty rags, we are only left with

Ezekiel 18:32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

Proverbs 3

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.[Or will direct your paths]
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the Lord and shun evil.

 

Hello Van, I will have to get back to this when I have more time, but will address a few points:

At this time I would just mention that which precedes the passage mentioned:


1 Corinthians 2

King James Version (KJV)

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

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

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

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.


How often do we hear v.9 quoted to refer to Heaven, when in actuality it is a reference to the Mystery of Christ, which, had it been revealed, would have kept the princes of this world from crucifying the Lord of Glory.

This knowledge, for both saved and unsaved alike, is revealed to man by the Spirit of God.

In short, that sets the stage for the following teaching, and again, saved and unsaved alike, no man knows (and we would make this mean an intimate knowledge rather than acquired facts which one might quote) anything apart from God first enlightening that person.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

I would take this to mean that the natural man knows the things of man, and that it is clear that no man knows the things of God apart from the Spirit of God. In other words, a natural man can come to understand spiritual things as the Spirit ministers to him in His convicting ministry, for this is the case with every man and woman who comes to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

So I am not so sure we are in total disagreement on this point, either, lol.

On this I do not view this parable to represent New Covenant salvation in the sense that it teaches anything apart from the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit. Just as in Hebrews we see people come to a knowledge (and this I believe through the ministry of the Spirit) of Jesus Christ, going so far as to associate with them in the assembling of the brethren. Their departure is not a result of a saved individual walking away from their salvation, but rather those under conviction who have not saving faith walking away from the conviction they are under, specifically returning to the Covenant of the Law (the First Covenant) and rejecting Christ and the New Covenant.

Continued...

 

Again, John writes to those of genuine faith, there is no room to include a general audience. But that has been addressed already, and I don't think I can say any more than I already have in the last post.

Something we have to consider is that for the natural man to, in reality, reject Christ, he must first have something to reject. I believe there are people that do in fact believe the Gospel, yet reject Christ regardless.

Peter, without doubt, believed in Jesus Christ, yet Peter denied he knew the Lord. Why? Because at that time it was not given unto Peter to have an understanding concerning Christ and the ministry He performed both to Israel as well as the world. For Peter, Messiah was, as the Lord Himself said, for Israel (Matthew 10:6; Matthew 15:24). That Messiah would extend that ministry to the world was not only not understood, it was simply not the heart's desire of the typical Jew, I believe. Rather, restoration of the Kingdom was priority for them.


Continued...

The question is, do we not ultimately view our righteousness as not our own? Is it not the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer which is our only righteousness? My faith apart from God's ministry would be non-existent. He died, He arose, He made the Gospel understandable to my heart, He provided me the faith that arose when I heard the Gospel, and this because He provided the Gospel by which faith arose.

I am not saved because I have faith, I am saved because Christ died to take upon Himself the penalty for my sin, and I believe that. Had He not made this known to my heart I would still be the man I was before salvation, and in all probability dead, lol.

All in all, I do not discount the possibility that one can believe and yet not be born again. Belief precedes the New Birth, as it is required. There is a point where belief must result in yielding to the Lord in repentance. Demons believe, right? So too, there is a belief, I believe, that arises in the hearts of men under conviction of the Holy Spirit, yet that does not mean they have been saved.

And I am hurrying in this Van, so I hope that makes sense.

As far as grammar goes, could you tell me in the history of the word of God where grammar became the final word in the preaching of the Gospel?

I agree with this. I would say that when it comes to faith, I view faith as something that continually grows as we mature, that it is progressive as we learn of God and better understand how we are saved. I have more faith now than when I first believed, and I credit that to my study of scripture in large part.

And that is what I mean about those that have a certain amount of belief concerning Christ. I believe there are those that have enough to go to a church every Sunday, because they are being ministered to by God, yet, have not as yet been saved. Salvation can, for some, take years. I doubt that one hears the Gospel for the first time and is immediately saved happens very often. In scripture, particularly in Acts, we see great numbers come to the Lord, however, we keep in mind that many of them (Jews) were not ignorant of Christ (such as the woman at the well) and that they had a previous knowledge which contributed to their salvation. In our culture, that is not always the case.

Okay, sorry to rush this, Van, and I look forward to this discussion. I think one thing I appreciate about you is your recognition of the importance of perfection and how that plays into the discussion of the New Birth. You are one of the few that introduces that into their discussion, and for that I am glad.

Have to get going, and hope you can make sense of this post, lol.

God bless.

 

As I said, this is a great discussion, and one that, I believe, gets us to put on our thinking caps, lol.

This is one of few things that I find myself in disagreement with some excellent theologians, but, as I have studied it, it just seems very apparent to me. If I am in error, God will show me, I believe, but, so far I have yet to see a scriptural presentation that presents the New Birth in the Old Testament and apart from the promises of God in relation to the New Covenant.

But, I am "young," lol. So for now, discussion of the issue is a great way to measure my views, and I always appreciate good conversation.

:thumbs:

God bless.