PDA

View Full Version : Rebirth prior to the cross



LookingUp
Jan 18th 2009, 07:00 AM
During the Lord's ministry, He offered eternal life to any who believed (John 5:24; John 6:47). This was before the church age. Many did believe and according to the Lord, they had eternal life at the time of their belief. Notice that the Lord tells them that if they believe they have eternal life, not that they will have eternal life. Once one has eternal life, it doesn’t stop; it’s eternal. Sounds to me like these people who lived before the cross were regenerated. How can one have eternal life without it? These people who believed and died prior to the cross were OT saints just like David and Abraham.

David was a man after God’s own heart and Abraham was a friend of God. No one can please God without being regenerated (Rom 8:8-11).

How could an unregenerate person be an author of Scripture?

thethinker
Jan 18th 2009, 10:57 AM
During the Lord's ministry, He offered eternal life to any who believed (John 5:24; John 6:47). This was before the church age. Many did believe and according to the Lord, they had eternal life at the time of their belief. Notice that the Lord tells them that if they believe they have eternal life, not that they will have eternal life. Once one has eternal life, it doesn’t stop; it’s eternal. Sounds to me like these people who lived before the cross were regenerated. How can one have eternal life without it?
Looking up,
You have to go back to John 3 when Jesus said that "God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him has eternal life". The present tense has eternal life is the result of believing in Christ whom God gave. Therefore, there was no salvation before Christ died. If so, then it would not have been necessary for Christ to die.

These people who believed and died prior to the cross were OT saints just like David and Abraham.
No one who believed before the cross was saved without those who believed after the cross. Speaking about all pre-cross saints Hebrews says this:

"And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did NOT receive the promise, God having provided something better through us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us" (Hebrews 11:39).

It says that they merely had received a "good testimony" through faith. But they did NOT have the promise. It says so. And it says that they had to receive the promise through post-cross saints and not apart from them.

David was a man after God’s own heart and Abraham was a friend of God. No one can please God without being regenerated (Rom 8:8-11). How could an unregenerate person be an author of Scripture?
First, your understanding of the term "regeneration" is incorrect. Regeneration does not mean "re-birth". It means to be "born from above". A regenerated man is simply a man who has been born from above and he is born from above at his pyhsical birth. Paul taught this principle in Galatians 4. He said that Isaac was born according to the spirit when Sarah gave birth to him. Paul likened Isaac's physical birth of Sarah as being born from the Jerusalem that is from above.

Conversly, Ishmael was born according to the flesh from his physical birth of Hagar. Paul likened his birth to being born of the earth, that is from beneath.

Jesus said that a man is either born from above, that is, according to the spirit or he is born according to the flesh. Paul said that this occurs regarding each man when he is born. In other words, men are born regenerated or unregenerated and it is irreversible. But the man who is born regenerated must still believe no matter what and he necessarily will believe.

Second, your supposition that a man must be regenerated in order to author Scripture cannot stand. God spoke His word through a jack-ass.

God bless,
thinker

LookingUp
Jan 18th 2009, 06:53 PM
Looking up,

You have to go back to John 3 when Jesus said that "God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him has eternal life". The present tense has eternal life is the result of believing in Christ whom God gave. Therefore, there was no salvation before Christ died. If so, then it would not have been necessary for Christ to die.

No one who believed before the cross was saved without those who believed after the cross. Speaking about all pre-cross saints Hebrews says this:

"And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did NOT receive the promise, God having provided something better through us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us" (Hebrews 11:39).

It says that they merely had received a "good testimony" through faith. But they did NOT have the promise. It says so. And it says that they had to receive the promise through post-cross saints and not apart from them.But Heb. 10:36 says that we await the promise also. We have need of endurance so that when we have done the will of God we may receive what was promised.


First, your understanding of the term "regeneration" is incorrect. Regeneration does not mean "re-birth". It means to be "born from above". A regenerated man is simply a man who has been born from above and he is born from above at his pyhsical birth. Paul taught this principle in Galatians 4. He said that Isaac was born according to the spirit when Sarah gave birth to him. Paul likened Isaac's physical birth of Sarah as being born from the Jerusalem that is from above.


Conversly, Ishmael was born according to the flesh from his physical birth of Hagar. Paul likened his birth to being born of the earth, that is from beneath.

Jesus said that a man is either born from above, that is, according to the spirit or he is born according to the flesh. Paul said that this occurs regarding each man when he is born. In other words, men are born regenerated or unregenerated and it is irreversible. But the man who is born regenerated must still believe no matter what and he necessarily will believe.I would say that regeneration (Titus 3:5) includes the following: to pass from death into life (John 5:23); to be alive from the dead (Rom. 6:13); to be born of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:4-5); to be born of the Spirit (John 3:8); to be born again/from above (John 3:3-7); to be born again (1 Peter 1:3, 23); and to be a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).


Second, your supposition that a man must be regenerated in order to author Scripture cannot stand. God spoke His word through a jack-ass.Interesting point, but the jack-ass wasn’t carried along by and inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the word of God.

thethinker
Jan 18th 2009, 07:42 PM
But Heb. 10:36 says that we await the promise also. We have need of endurance so that when we have done the will of God we may receive what was promised.
It does not say that 21st century saints are waiting for the promise. The "we" were the "firstfruit" Christians in that time. THEY were waiting for the promise. But we today have received it.


I would say that regeneration (Titus 3:5) includes the following: to pass from death into life (John 5:23); to be alive from the dead (Rom. 6:13); to be born of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:4-5); to be born of the Spirit (John 3:8); to be born again/from above (John 3:3-7); to be born again (1 Peter 1:3, 23); and to be a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).
No! The regenerated man is simply born from above. The proof texts you offer speak of justification and not regeneration. If you were born from above at your physical birth then you would necessarily come to believe and pass from death to life, that is, be justified.


Interesting point, but the jack-ass wasn’t carried along by and inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the word of God.
I believe that all the Biblical authors were regenerated. I was just trying to show you that God is not limited. The regenerated man before the cross did not possess the promise. Christ had to come and die in the "fulness of time" for any man to possess the promise. Your view infers that it was not necessary for Christ to die. What is your reply to this?

your friend,
thinker

LookingUp
Jan 18th 2009, 08:55 PM
It does not say that 21st century saints are waiting for the promise. The "we" were the "firstfruit" Christians in that time. THEY were waiting for the promise. But we today have received it.Why did 1st century saints have to wait but we receive it? With whom or at what time was the cut off point in the 1st century?


No! The regenerated man is simply born from above. The proof texts you offer speak of justification and not regeneration. If you were born from above at your physical birth then you would necessarily come to believe and pass from death to life, that is, be justified.


I believe that all the Biblical authors were regenerated. I was just trying to show you that God is not limited. The regenerated man before the cross did not possess the promise. Christ had to come and die in the "fulness of time" for any man to possess the promise. Your view infers that it was not necessary for Christ to die. What is your reply to this?I agree that the regenerated man is born from above. Here, maybe this will help…my friend proficient in Greek shared with me…

“We should begin with some basic definitions. Our old friends, the KJV translators, did us a bit of a disservice by being somewhat inconsistent in their rendering of the relevant terms. John 3 uses the expression gennethenai anothen. What's a bit tricky about the word anothen is that it can mean either 'again, anew' or 'from above.' KJV went with 'born again' rather than 'born from above,' but both translations are entirely correct. Again, my tendency in such a situation is to see both shades of meaning. The author could have easily chosen an expression that unequivocally means 'from above' or 'again/anew;' that he chose one amenable to both understandings seems to me is deliberate. (He does the same thing in 1:5, describing the light which the darkness can neither comprehend nor overtake.) So Jesus is speaking of being 'born again from above' is how I see it. KJV probably went with "again" because of Nicodemus' response ("How can a person re-enter his mother's womb?"). This response is quite remarkable in that Nicodemus should easily have understood our Lord's idiom. In rabbinic Judaism, the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism is called a rebirth. The Gentile enters the miqveh (pool of water) and emerges from the water as a newborn emerges from the waters of his mother's womb. He takes upon himself a new (Jewish) name, and from that point onward is known no longer as "son of so-and-so" (his earthly Gentile father) but as "Son of Abraham" because he has now begun his new life as a Jew. That Nicodemus was baffled by this can, to me, mean only that he found it simply unimaginable that a Jew would need rebirth in order to enter God's kingdom just as much as would any Gentile. (Nicodemus, of course, eventually does come to grips with this reality, but apparently just can't get his head around it here.) Jesus Himself in this passage equates being born again from above with being born of the Spirit, and the frequent use of the expression being 'born of God' in John indicates to me that it is also the same phenomenon.

Peter uses the verb anagennao to describe the new birth. This verb is a simple compound of ana (like anothen, it means both 'up' and 'again') and gennao (as in John 3). So it's quite literally the same expression as we've seen in Jesus' talk with Nicodemus, just with a different grammatical inflection. He tells us we that God has "borned you again" (I know that sounds goofy in English, but it's the only way to make the sense clear) by His great mercy. The figure of God giving birth may seem a bit startling, but Paul applies a similar figure to himself in Galatians 4:19 (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:7). Peter follows this up by saying "you have been born again, not of corrupt seed but of incorruptible seed, through God's word which lives and remains forever."

Paul does not use the word 'born' in a spiritual sense, with the exception of Galatians 4:29, where he implicitly contrasts the body of Christ with the nation of Israel; the church parallels Isaac, who was "born according to the Spirit." In this verse, the expression "born according to the Spirit" simply refers to Isaac's miraculous birth in contrast to Ishmael's natural birth, but one could argue that "born according to the Spirit" describes our salvation as well. The expression Paul does use is the noun palingennesia, which quite literally translates as "again-birth" (Titus 3:5). The meaning of this word is so identical to that of the verbal expressions in John and Peter, I find it simply impossible to imagine the realities so described are not essentially the same.

In numerous places the NT speaks of those who do not know God as being "dead." Christ tells us that knowing God = having eternal life (John 17:3). Various texts inform us that we possess eternal life (1 John 5:11), that one who believes in Christ has passed from death into life (John 5:23), that we who believe are alive from the dead (Romans 6:13). Since life begins with birth, it seems self-evident to me that those who are alive spiritually have been born spiritually; in other words, those who have a relationship with God through faith in Christ have been born again from above by the Spirit into Christ. This probably underlies Paul's teaching in 2 Corinthians 5:17 about us being a new creation. Interestingly, the apostle's wording here is unusually concise: "If anyone in Christ, new creation." Paul's normally not quite so sparing with his words. Some have interpreted this to the effect that it is not the individual but the body of Christ which is the new creation. Again, I don't think we're forced to choose one against the other. Truly the body of Christ is a new creation of God, but so is each and every one of us. As Jesus in John 3, Paul is likely indulging in some Jewish terminology here. The rabbis taught that Abraham at some point (in one understanding, at his circumcision) became a "new creation." How cogent of Paul to appropriate a Pharisaic description of Abraham entering the covenant of circumcision and apply it to all of us who are in Christ, regardless of whether we're circumcised or uncircumcised! It's faith in Christ, not circumcision, that makes one a new creation (cf. Galatians 5:6). So I would take "new creation" and "new birth" as synonymous. Slightly different emphasis, perhaps, but the same essential concept. Paul connects the new creation (we are "created in Christ Jesus") with being made alive in Christ in Ephesians 2:5-10.

Paul extends the "new creation" metaphor of 2 Corinthians in his presentation of the "one new person" (Greek anthropos, while grammatically masculine, denotes a human being regardless of sex) in Ephesians 2. The new creation of Corinthians doesn't so much emphasize the elimination of the Jew/Gentile barrier (although Paul certainly taught the unity of the body regardless of one's Jewish or Gentile background; e.g., in 1 Corinthians 7), but that's the central truth of the one new human -- the new Adam, one might say -- of Ephesians 2. The primary focus here is indeed collective -- it's the body of Christ rather than the individual who is the "one new person" -- but Paul clearly extends this metaphor to the individual in 4:22-24, where he introduces a parallel character -- "the old person" (one might say, "old self" or "old identity" -- although I like to avoid "old nature" because it's been somewhat abused over the years). The emphasis here is no longer on the eradication of the Jew/Gentile barrier (note the absence of the qualifier "one") but on the contrast between our old life, when we did not know God (2:12; 4:18) and our new life in Christ, which results from our having been born again. One who is reborn truly is a new person! Paul uses similar terminology in Colossians 3:10, declaring that we have taken off the old person and put on the new (the metaphor is of changing one's clothing). The Ephesians reference to taking off the old and putting on the new is taken by most as a mandate, but (especially in light of Colossians) could also be taken as a statement of fact. Because we have been changed from the old to the new, we can walk in the newness of life.

These ideas all flow marvelously together. Rebirth is connected to cleansing in Titus; cleansing is connected to the word of God in Ephesians 5; the word of God is connected to rebirth in 1 Peter. Many more such connections could be noted.”

thethinker
Jan 19th 2009, 12:38 AM
Why did 1st century saints have to wait but we receive it? With whom or at what time was the cut off point in the 1st century?

I agree that the regenerated man is born from above. Here, maybe this will help…my friend proficient in Greek shared with me…

“We should begin with some basic definitions. Our old friends, the KJV translators, did us a bit of a disservice by being somewhat inconsistent in their rendering of the relevant terms. John 3 uses the expression gennethenai anothen. What's a bit tricky about the word anothen is that it can mean either 'again, anew' or 'from above.' KJV went with 'born again' rather than 'born from above,' but both translations are entirely correct. Again, my tendency in such a situation is to see both shades of meaning. The author could have easily chosen an expression that unequivocally means 'from above' or 'again/anew;' that he chose one amenable to both understandings seems to me is deliberate. (He does the same thing in 1:5, describing the light which the darkness can neither comprehend nor overtake.) So Jesus is speaking of being 'born again from above' is how I see it. KJV probably went with "again" because of Nicodemus' response ("How can a person re-enter his mother's womb?"). This response is quite remarkable in that Nicodemus should easily have understood our Lord's idiom. In rabbinic Judaism, the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism is called a rebirth. The Gentile enters the miqveh (pool of water) and emerges from the water as a newborn emerges from the waters of his mother's womb. He takes upon himself a new (Jewish) name, and from that point onward is known no longer as "son of so-and-so" (his earthly Gentile father) but as "Son of Abraham" because he has now begun his new life as a Jew. That Nicodemus was baffled by this can, to me, mean only that he found it simply unimaginable that a Jew would need rebirth in order to enter God's kingdom just as much as would any Gentile. (Nicodemus, of course, eventually does come to grips with this reality, but apparently just can't get his head around it here.) Jesus Himself in this passage equates being born again from above with being born of the Spirit, and the frequent use of the expression being 'born of God' in John indicates to me that it is also the same phenomenon.

Peter uses the verb anagennao to describe the new birth. This verb is a simple compound of ana (like anothen, it means both 'up' and 'again') and gennao (as in John 3). So it's quite literally the same expression as we've seen in Jesus' talk with Nicodemus, just with a different grammatical inflection. He tells us we that God has "borned you again" (I know that sounds goofy in English, but it's the only way to make the sense clear) by His great mercy. The figure of God giving birth may seem a bit startling, but Paul applies a similar figure to himself in Galatians 4:19 (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:7). Peter follows this up by saying "you have been born again, not of corrupt seed but of incorruptible seed, through God's word which lives and remains forever."

Paul does not use the word 'born' in a spiritual sense, with the exception of Galatians 4:29, where he implicitly contrasts the body of Christ with the nation of Israel; the church parallels Isaac, who was "born according to the Spirit." In this verse, the expression "born according to the Spirit" simply refers to Isaac's miraculous birth in contrast to Ishmael's natural birth, but one could argue that "born according to the Spirit" describes our salvation as well. The expression Paul does use is the noun palingennesia, which quite literally translates as "again-birth" (Titus 3:5). The meaning of this word is so identical to that of the verbal expressions in John and Peter, I find it simply impossible to imagine the realities so described are not essentially the same.

In numerous places the NT speaks of those who do not know God as being "dead." Christ tells us that knowing God = having eternal life (John 17:3). Various texts inform us that we possess eternal life (1 John 5:11), that one who believes in Christ has passed from death into life (John 5:23), that we who believe are alive from the dead (Romans 6:13). Since life begins with birth, it seems self-evident to me that those who are alive spiritually have been born spiritually; in other words, those who have a relationship with God through faith in Christ have been born again from above by the Spirit into Christ. This probably underlies Paul's teaching in 2 Corinthians 5:17 about us being a new creation. Interestingly, the apostle's wording here is unusually concise: "If anyone in Christ, new creation." Paul's normally not quite so sparing with his words. Some have interpreted this to the effect that it is not the individual but the body of Christ which is the new creation. Again, I don't think we're forced to choose one against the other. Truly the body of Christ is a new creation of God, but so is each and every one of us. As Jesus in John 3, Paul is likely indulging in some Jewish terminology here. The rabbis taught that Abraham at some point (in one understanding, at his circumcision) became a "new creation." How cogent of Paul to appropriate a Pharisaic description of Abraham entering the covenant of circumcision and apply it to all of us who are in Christ, regardless of whether we're circumcised or uncircumcised! It's faith in Christ, not circumcision, that makes one a new creation (cf. Galatians 5:6). So I would take "new creation" and "new birth" as synonymous. Slightly different emphasis, perhaps, but the same essential concept. Paul connects the new creation (we are "created in Christ Jesus") with being made alive in Christ in Ephesians 2:5-10.

Paul extends the "new creation" metaphor of 2 Corinthians in his presentation of the "one new person" (Greek anthropos, while grammatically masculine, denotes a human being regardless of sex) in Ephesians 2. The new creation of Corinthians doesn't so much emphasize the elimination of the Jew/Gentile barrier (although Paul certainly taught the unity of the body regardless of one's Jewish or Gentile background; e.g., in 1 Corinthians 7), but that's the central truth of the one new human -- the new Adam, one might say -- of Ephesians 2. The primary focus here is indeed collective -- it's the body of Christ rather than the individual who is the "one new person" -- but Paul clearly extends this metaphor to the individual in 4:22-24, where he introduces a parallel character -- "the old person" (one might say, "old self" or "old identity" -- although I like to avoid "old nature" because it's been somewhat abused over the years). The emphasis here is no longer on the eradication of the Jew/Gentile barrier (note the absence of the qualifier "one") but on the contrast between our old life, when we did not know God (2:12; 4:18) and our new life in Christ, which results from our having been born again. One who is reborn truly is a new person! Paul uses similar terminology in Colossians 3:10, declaring that we have taken off the old person and put on the new (the metaphor is of changing one's clothing). The Ephesians reference to taking off the old and putting on the new is taken by most as a mandate, but (especially in light of Colossians) could also be taken as a statement of fact. Because we have been changed from the old to the new, we can walk in the newness of life.

These ideas all flow marvelously together. Rebirth is connected to cleansing in Titus; cleansing is connected to the word of God in Ephesians 5; the word of God is connected to rebirth in 1 Peter. Many more such connections could be noted.”
LookingUp,
I have provided a simple statement from Paul that shows that Isaac's birth of Sarah amounted to being born form above. Paul said that this was birth according to the spirit. And Ishmael's birth of Hagar amounted to being born according to the flesh.

This is simple. But you reply with stuff which nobody can understand which you got from a friend who is allegedly a Greek scholar. Men are born from above or from beneath from the womb. Those who are born from above will believe in Jesus. Those who are born from beneath will not.

thinker

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2009, 12:53 AM
LookingUp,
I have provided a simple statement from Paul that shows that Isaac's birth of Sarah amounted to being born form above. Paul said that this was birth according to the spirit. And Ishmael's birth of Hagar amounted to being born according to the flesh.

This is simple. But you reply with stuff which nobody can understand which you got from a friend who is allegedly a Greek scholar. Men are born from above or from beneath from the womb. Those who are born from above will believe in Jesus. Those who are born from beneath will not.

thinkerI'm sorry you can't understand the post. I thought it would be helpful. I don't know that I'd call my friend a Greek scholar, but he is proficient and enjoys the language. Perhaps read through it slowly while looking up the verses given.

VerticalReality
Jan 19th 2009, 02:12 AM
As far as the OP is concerned I do believe the Old Testament saints were born again.

Vhayes
Jan 19th 2009, 02:21 AM
As far as the OP is concerned I do believe the Old Testament saints were born again.
I agree. They were born again in exactly the same way we are - by faith in Christ. While we look "back" at His sacrifice, they looked "forward" to The Promise.

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2009, 02:49 AM
As far as the OP is concerned I do believe the Old Testament saints were born again.I lean that way too, but then I wonder what the cross was for if not to make it possible for us to be born again/have eternal life?

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2009, 02:49 AM
I agree. They were born again in exactly the same way we are - by faith in Christ. While we look "back" at His sacrifice, they looked "forward" to The Promise.I have the same question for you as verticalreality above... what do you think?

Vhayes
Jan 19th 2009, 04:13 AM
I guess I'm not sure what you're asking - they were saved by faith in the coming Messiah.

Genesis 26
3 - "Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4" - I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;
5 - because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."


Romans 4
9 - Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10 - How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11 - and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12 - and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
13 - For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 - For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;
15 - for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

Does that help any?
V

VerticalReality
Jan 19th 2009, 06:33 AM
I lean that way too, but then I wonder what the cross was for if not to make it possible for us to be born again/have eternal life?

I agree with Vhayes. The Old Testament saints looked forward in faith for the same thing we look back in faith for.

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2009, 06:51 AM
I guess I'm not sure what you're asking - they were saved by faith in the coming Messiah.


Genesis 26
3 - "Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4" - I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;
5 - because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."


Romans 4
9 - Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10 - How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11 - and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12 - and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
13 - For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 - For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;
15 - for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

Does that help any?
VWell that shows me that OT saints were righteous but it doesn’t show me that they were saved. Righteous does not equal saved.

I'm just trying to get a grasp on what exactly the cross brought to us that it did not bring to the OT saints when they were living. If living OT saints were regenerated/born again, what was the cross needed for?

Sirus
Jan 19th 2009, 07:46 AM
Why did Jesus blow on them and say receive the Holy Ghost after the resurrection? They were completely clean by faith before that. Why after the resurrection?

tgallison
Jan 19th 2009, 07:00 PM
[quote=LookingUp;1949993]Well that shows me that OT saints were righteous but it doesn’t show me that they were saved. Righteous does not equal saved.

It is true righteous doesn't equal saved, unless it is God's righteousness. There is a righteousness of man, and there is the righteousness of God.

In Ezekiel 3:20 God says that a mans righteousness is only good as long as he doesn't sin. Once he sins, all his righteousness will be forgotten.


I'm just trying to get a grasp on what exactly the cross brought to us that it did not bring to the OT saints when they were living. If living OT saints were regenerated/born again, what was the cross needed for?

An Old Testament saint that has his name written in the book of life is like one who purchases a theater ticket for an event in the future. He will cash in that ticket when the event is scheduled. In the case of the Old Testament saint, it will be at the resurrection. The cross is part of the preparation for that event.

God presented us a physical picture of the rebirth of an Old Testament saint in the book of Job. Elihu is telling Job that God will be gracious to him, and deliver him from the pit, for God has found a ransom. And then Elihu describes Job's rebirth. "His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth." (Job 33:24-25) There is no way for a man's flesh to be fresher than a child's, except to be in the mother's womb.

"Nicodemus saith unto him, how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8) The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Time may be relevant to man, but it is not relevant to God.

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2009, 08:07 PM
It is true righteous doesn't equal saved, unless it is God's righteousness. There is a righteousness of man, and there is the righteousness of God.So you are saying the OT saint was saved? He was saved without being born again? Or would you say he looked forward to salvation and looked forward to his rebirth because he had the righteousness of God?

[quote]In Ezekiel 3:20 God says that a mans righteousness is only good as long as he doesn't sin. Once he sins, all his righteousness will be forgotten.So you are saying that the OT saint’s hope was conditional, is that right?


An Old Testament saint that has his name written in the book of life is like one who purchases a theater ticket for an event in the future. He will cash in that ticket when the event is scheduled. In the case of the Old Testament saint, it will be at the resurrection. The cross is part of the preparation for that event.


God presented us a physical picture of the rebirth of an Old Testament saint in the book of Job. Elihu is telling Job that God will be gracious to him, and deliver him from the pit, for God has found a ransom. And then Elihu describes Job's rebirth. "His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth." (Job 33:24-25) There is no way for a man's flesh to be fresher than a child's, except to be in the mother's womb.

"Nicodemus saith unto him, how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8) The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Time may be relevant to man, but it is not relevant to God.
Interesting comparison. Sounds like we are reborn today but the OT saint had to wait (& still waits) for his rebirth.

So OT saints had a ticket for the future, but we get to experience the future reality in the Spirit even now, isn’t that right? According to Paul, we are a new creature in the present – even though Paul also teaches we await the fullness of this reality at the redemption of our bodies.

What you seem to be saying is that the OT saint was not really born again like we are (i.e. living as a new creature even now). The OT saint simply had some kind of assurance (being in the book of life) that he would be born again at the redemption of his body. Additionally, you believe the OT saint’s hope was conditional upon his faithfulness to God?

Did OT saints walk in the Spirit or in the flesh? If in the Spirit, how can an unregenerated person walk in the Spirit (he just had the ticket - he wasn't actually regenerated)? The OT saints were dead in their sin but walked in the Spirit and then died in their sin?

tgallison
Jan 19th 2009, 09:21 PM
[quote=LookingUp;1950478][quote=tgallison;1950416]So you are saying the OT saint was saved? He was saved without being born again? Or would you say he looked forward to salvation and looked forward to his rebirth because he had the righteousness of God?

He was saved when he repented and accepted the righteousness of God, who is Jesus Christ, the arm of God, the light of God, the Lamb of God, the Rock of God, and etc.

David said, "The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence." (2 Samuel 22:3) "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." (2 Samuel 23:3)

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that speritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4)


So you are saying that the OT saint’s hope was conditional, is that right?

It was the same as ours. It was based on their repentance and acceptance of God's righteousness. The Rock of God.


Interesting comparison. Sounds like we are reborn today but the OT saint had to wait (& still waits) for his rebirth.

We purchase the ticket with our repentance and faith. We all are awaiting our redemption. There is no difference. Our rebirth is both spiritual, and physical. All that have the ticket have the spiritual rebirth, and are all awaiting the physical rebirth.


So OT saints had a ticket for the future, but we get to experience the future reality in the Spirit even now, isn’t that right? According to Paul, we are a new creature in the present – even though Paul also teaches we await the fullness of this reality at the redemption of our bodies.

They too had the spiritual rebirth, there is no difference. One looking forward to the work of the cross, and one looking back at the work of the cross.


What you seem to be saying is that the OT saint was not really born again like we are (i.e. living as a new creature even now). The OT saint simply had some kind of assurance (being in the book of life) that he would be born again at the redemption of his body. Additionally, you believe the OT saint’s hope was conditional upon his faithfulness to God?

He was reborn identical. Job was but a picture of rebirth for all of us to observe. Just as Noah's ark was a picture of Christ.


Did OT saints walk in the Spirit or in the flesh? If in the Spirit, how can an unregenerated person walk in the Spirit (he just had the ticket - he wasn't actually regenerated)? The OT saints were dead in their sin but walked in the Spirit and then died in their sin?

If they are not, then we are not. Please explain your regeneration in contrast to Noah or Job.

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2009, 11:10 PM
[quote=tgallison;1950571][quote]


He was saved when he repented and accepted the righteousness of God, who is Jesus Christ, the arm of God, the light of God, the Lamb of God, the Rock of God, and etc.

David said, "The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence." (2 Samuel 22:3) "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." (2 Samuel 23:3)It is clear that the OT saint repented and received the righteousness of God. It is even possible that he was saved (in the hope of eternal life). But the verses you shared with me show that his rebirth actually takes place at his resurrection.

If being saved = possession of eternal life, then OT saints could not have been saved. Eternal life was only a hope until the cross.

I am thinking that with the definition of saved, one must be saved from or for something. I imagine that we and they are saved from the wrath of God for eternal life. It seems to me that after the cross, it is clear that we are saved and have possession of eternal life at the same time. NT Scripture teaches we actually have possession of eternal life right now. But the OT saint lived before the cross. I imagine he could have been saved in hope of eternal life, but that is still different than our experience.

By the way, all the verses in the OT about salvation are regarding physical salvation when taken in context, and that is why it is difficult to prove the OT saint experienced the kind of salvation we experience today.


"And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that speritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4)


It was the same as ours. It was based on their repentance and acceptance of God's righteousness. The Rock of God.

We purchase the ticket with our repentance and faith. We all are awaiting our redemption. There is no difference. Our rebirth is both spiritual, and physical. All that have the ticket have the spiritual rebirth, and are all awaiting the physical rebirth.Paul tells us that we get to experience the reality of new birth now – we don’t have to wait. There is no teaching of this in the OT that I can find.

Besides, if the living OT saints received the same exact thing before the cross that we get after the cross, what was the purpose of the cross? Why did Christ have to die? What you are saying is that the living OT saints already had everything we have now. Do you see what I'm saying?


They too had the spiritual rebirth, there is no difference. One looking forward to the work of the cross, and one looking back at the work of the cross.That’s just it, I can’t find OT scripture to verify they experienced rebirth. The closest I've seen so far is the passage you offered in Job which shows us that they will experience rebirth at the time of their resurrection.


He was reborn identical. Job was but a picture of rebirth for all of us to observe. Just as Noah's ark was a picture of Christ.But Job said he would see rebirth at his resurrection.


If they are not, then we are not. Please explain your regeneration in contrast to Noah or Job.Why do you say “if they are not, we are not”?

Here is what the NT has to say about regeneration (previously posted)…

“There are a number of different expressions used in the NT to describe the transformation from death to life that's involved in our redemption:

· to pass from death into life. John 5:24
· to be alive from the dead. Romans 6:13
· to be born of God. John 1:12; 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:4-5
· to be born of the Spirit. John 3:8
· to be born again/from above. John 3:3-7
· to be born again. 1 Peter 1:3, 23
· to be a new creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17
· to be regenerated. Titus 3:5

We should begin with some basic definitions. Our old friends, the KJV translators, did us a bit of a disservice by being somewhat inconsistent in their rendering of the relevant terms. John 3 uses the expression gennethenai anothen. What's a bit tricky about the word anothen is that it can mean either 'again, anew' or 'from above.' KJV went with 'born again' rather than 'born from above,' but both translations are entirely correct. Again, my tendency in such a situation is to see both shades of meaning. The author could have easily chosen an expression that unequivocally means 'from above' or 'again/anew;' that he chose one amenable to both understandings seems to me is deliberate. (He does the same thing in 1:5, describing the light which the darkness can neither comprehend nor overtake.) So Jesus is speaking of being 'born again from above' is how I see it. KJV probably went with "again" because of Nicodemus' response ("How can a person re-enter his mother's womb?"). This response is quite remarkable in that Nicodemus should easily have understood our Lord's idiom. In rabbinic Judaism, the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism is called a rebirth. The Gentile enters the miqveh (pool of water) and emerges from the water as a newborn emerges from the waters of his mother's womb. He takes upon himself a new (Jewish) name, and from that point onward is known no longer as "son of so-and-so" (his earthly Gentile father) but as "Son of Abraham" because he has now begun his new life as a Jew. That Nicodemus was baffled by this can, to me, mean only that he found it simply unimaginable that a Jew would need rebirth in order to enter God's kingdom just as much as would any Gentile. (Nicodemus, of course, eventually does come to grips with this reality, but apparently just can't get his head around it here.) Jesus Himself in this passage equates being born again from above with being born of the Spirit, and the frequent use of the expression being 'born of God' in John indicates to me that it is also the same phenomenon.

Peter uses the verb anagennao to describe the new birth. This verb is a simple compound of ana (like anothen, it means both 'up' and 'again') and gennao (as in John 3). So it's quite literally the same expression as we've seen in Jesus' talk with Nicodemus, just with a different grammatical inflection. He tells us we that God has "borned you again" (I know that sounds goofy in English, but it's the only way to make the sense clear) by His great mercy. The figure of God giving birth may seem a bit startling, but Paul applies a similar figure to himself in Galatians 4:19 (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:7). Peter follows this up by saying "you have been born again, not of corrupt seed but of incorruptible seed, through God's word which lives and remains forever."

Paul does not use the word 'born' in a spiritual sense, with the exception of Galatians 4:29, where he implicitly contrasts the body of Christ with the nation of Israel; the church parallels Isaac, who was "born according to the Spirit." In this verse, the expression "born according to the Spirit" simply refers to Isaac's miraculous birth in contrast to Ishmael's natural birth, but one could argue that "born according to the Spirit" describes our salvation as well. The expression Paul does use is the noun palingennesia, which quite literally translates as "again-birth" (Titus 3:5). The meaning of this word is so identical to that of the verbal expressions in John and Peter, I find it simply impossible to imagine the realities so described are not essentially the same.

In numerous places the NT speaks of those who do not know God as being "dead." Christ tells us that knowing God = having eternal life (John 17:3). Various texts inform us that we possess eternal life (1 John 5:11), that one who believes in Christ has passed from death into life (John 5:23), that we who believe are alive from the dead (Romans 6:13). Since life begins with birth, it seems self-evident to me that those who are alive spiritually have been born spiritually; in other words, those who have a relationship with God through faith in Christ have been born again from above by the Spirit into Christ. This probably underlies Paul's teaching in 2 Corinthians 5:17 about us being a new creation. Interestingly, the apostle's wording here is unusually concise: "If anyone in Christ, new creation." Paul's normally not quite so sparing with his words. Some have interpreted this to the effect that it is not the individual but the body of Christ which is the new creation. Again, I don't think we're forced to choose one against the other. Truly the body of Christ is a new creation of God, but so is each and every one of us. As Jesus in John 3, Paul is likely indulging in some Jewish terminology here. The rabbis taught that Abraham at some point (in one understanding, at his circumcision) became a "new creation." How cogent of Paul to appropriate a Pharisaic description of Abraham entering the covenant of circumcision and apply it to all of us who are in Christ, regardless of whether we're circumcised or uncircumcised! It's faith in Christ, not circumcision, that makes one a new creation (cf. Galatians 5:6). So I would take "new creation" and "new birth" as synonymous. Slightly different emphasis, perhaps, but the same essential concept. Paul connects the new creation (we are "created in Christ Jesus") with being made alive in Christ in Ephesians 2:5-10.

Paul extends the "new creation" metaphor of 2 Corinthians in his presentation of the "one new person" (Greek anthropos, while grammatically masculine, denotes a human being regardless of sex) in Ephesians 2. The new creation of Corinthians doesn't so much emphasize the elimination of the Jew/Gentile barrier (although Paul certainly taught the unity of the body regardless of one's Jewish or Gentile background; e.g., in 1 Corinthians 7), but that's the central truth of the one new human -- the new Adam, one might say -- of Ephesians 2. The primary focus here is indeed collective -- it's the body of Christ rather than the individual who is the "one new person" -- but Paul clearly extends this metaphor to the individual in 4:22-24, where he introduces a parallel character -- "the old person" (one might say, "old self" or "old identity" -- although I like to avoid "old nature" because it's been somewhat abused over the years). The emphasis here is no longer on the eradication of the Jew/Gentile barrier (note the absence of the qualifier "one") but on the contrast between our old life, when we did not know God (2:12; 4:18) and our new life in Christ, which results from our having been born again. One who is reborn truly is a new person! Paul uses similar terminology in Colossians 3:10, declaring that we have taken off the old person and put on the new (the metaphor is of changing one's clothing). The Ephesians reference to taking off the old and putting on the new is taken by most as a mandate, but (especially in light of Colossians) could also be taken as a statement of fact. Because we have been changed from the old to the new, we can walk in the newness of life.

These ideas all flow marvelously together. Rebirth is connected to cleansing in Titus; cleansing is connected to the word of God in Ephesians 5; the word of God is connected to rebirth in 1 Peter. Many more such connections could be noted.”

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2009, 11:53 PM
Pilgrim,
I do not accept the conventional wisdom on this matter. In Romans 5 Paul said that there were two groups of men. Those who sinned in Adam and were condemned and those who sinned but NOT in the likeness of Adam's transgression. On the first group God imputed the original sin of Adam. The second group is guilty and condemned also but not with Adam's original sin.

Romans 11 is about the grafting in of the "nations" of Israel who had been cast out of the covenant. Don't get me wrong here. Salvation is for the Gentiles too. But that's not what Rom. 11 is about. All the remnant of the nations of Israel of that generation had to come into salvation FIRST. Paul said, "to the Jew FIRST".

thinker,I appreciate your passion for your thoughts on this, but can you start another thread to discuss it? I'd like to keep this on topic -whether the OT saints experienced rebirth as the NT saints do.

Thanks.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 20th 2009, 01:46 PM
Let's keep this thread on track. Any discussion concerning 'the old man' has been moved to a new thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=155449).