PDA

View Full Version : The Old Man (Continued from Rebirth prior to the cross)



Partaker of Christ
Jan 18th 2009, 10:01 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.

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

Hi Thinker!

If we are born regenerated, then who is the old man that is crucified with Christ?

thethinker
Jan 19th 2009, 12:46 AM
Hi Thinker!

If we are born regenerated, then who is the old man that is crucified with Christ?
Partaker,
I love your question! :pp Those epistles of Paul which refer to the "old man" were written to Jewish believers. The "old man" was their manner of life under Moses. That "man" or standard was crucified in Christ. It was not about regeneration. It was about their legal deliverance from the law of Moses.

You and I had no such "old man". We were never under Moses.

bless you,
thinker

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2009, 01:02 AM
Partaker,

I love your question! Those epistles of Paul which refer to the "old man" were written to Jewish believers. The "old man" was their manner of life under Moses. That "man" or standard was crucified in Christ. It was not about regeneration. It was about their legal deliverance from the law of Moses.

You and I had no such "old man". We were never under Moses.

bless you,
thinkerPaul wrote about the old man in Romans, Colossians and Ephesians. These were written to Jewish believers?

VerticalReality
Jan 19th 2009, 02:11 AM
Partaker,
I love your question! :pp Those epistles of Paul which refer to the "old man" were written to Jewish believers. The "old man" was their manner of life under Moses. That "man" or standard was crucified in Christ. It was not about regeneration. It was about their legal deliverance from the law of Moses.

You and I had no such "old man". We were never under Moses.

bless you,
thinker

We may have not been under the law of Moses, but we were under law . . .

The Word declares that those who were without the law became a law to themselves.

So, we were in need of being set free from that law as well. Therefore, our old man should be dead also.

thethinker
Jan 19th 2009, 05:13 PM
Paul wrote about the old man in Romans, Colossians and Ephesians. These were written to Jewish believers?
Yes, the books of Romans, Colossians and Ephesians were written to Jewish believers. I know you have been taught otherwiswe as I was taught. I will give you some proof from each book:

Romans 2:17: "You call yourself a Jew...."

Rom. 7:1: I am speaking to those who know the law" (the Gentiles did not have the law, 2:14). Even if the book of Romans was written to both Jews and Gentiles it must be conceded that the section about the crucifixion of the "old man" was addressed to the Jews specifically.

Colossians 2:13:...having wiped out the handwriting of ordinances that was against US".... The Gentiles only had the revelation of God in nature. They did NOT have that revelation codified by Moses. They did not have the law in the form of "handwriting". Therefore, the expression "handwritings against US" indicates that Paul was writing to Jewish believers.

Ephesians 3:1: "For this reason, I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you nations (Greek "ethnos")...." Our modern translations erroneously translate "ethnos" as "gentiles". However, the Young's Analytical Concordance correctly renders it "nations" meaning the nations of Israel. Paul was not made a prisoner for Gentiles. Paul was made the prisoner for the nations of the Jews. Before King Agrippa Paul said this:

My manner of life from my youth, which was spent from the beginning among my own nation at Jerusalem all the Jews know....Now I stand and am judged...accused by the Jews" (Acts 26:1-11)

The Jews accused Paul of sedition because he was preaching TO the nations of Israel things that they thought were contrary to Moses (Acts 24:1-9).

Therefore, the translation "Gentiles" in Ephesians 3:1 is altogether erroneous because it has no support whatsoever in the Act's narrative! Paul was imprisoned for the nations of the Jews. So the term "old man" refers exclusively to the Jews. The "old man" had to with their manner of life under Moses. That manner of life was crucified in Christ. Paul indicated this when he said, "my manner of life from my youth"... (Acts 26:4). Paul's manner of life from his youth was strictly Moses. That was his "old man". But Christ delivered him from that "man" by abolishing the law of Moses in reference to his justification. The "new man" for Paul was living in freedom from the law of Moses.

Gentiles had no manner of life as such. Therefore, they had no "old man" to speak of. But our erroneous translations make us think so.

blessings,
thinker

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 19th 2009, 05:35 PM
How do you view Romans 6, thinker? Does Romans 6:6 not clearly tell us that "our old self was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Romans 5 prefaces this by stating that sin entered into all mankind through Adam, so none of us can say we do not fall into the category of 'without sin'. As such, we all need the treatment described in Romans 6. Whether Romans was written to the Jews or not, Paul's point in these chapters seems pretty non-exclusive: we were in sin, we were baptized into the death of Christ and raised with Him into a newness of life. My friend, we all need that newness of life - Jew or Gentile!

As for the Old Testament saints, I do not believe they were reborn in the same way we are. After all, being reborn is something closely related to the coming of the Promise from the Father - the Holy Spirit - who is the One who changes us from the inside out. God looked towards the heart of believers and the heart with which they served Him, which in the Old Testament was by keeping the Law. 2 Chronicles 16:9 is a good example of this: "the eyes of the Lord go to and fro throughout the earth to strongly support those whose hearts are completely His."

thethinker
Jan 19th 2009, 08:14 PM
How do you view Romans 6, thinker? Does Romans 6:6 not clearly tell us that "our old self was crucified with {Him,} in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Romans 5 prefaces this by stating that sin entered into all mankind through Adam, so none of us can say we do not fall into the category of 'without sin'. As such, we all need the treatment described in Romans 6. Whether Romans was written to the Jews or not, Paul's point in these chapters seems pretty non-exclusive: we were in sin, we were baptized into the death of Christ and raised with Him into a newness of life. My friend, we all need that newness of life - Jew or Gentile!

As for the Old Testament saints, I do not believe they were reborn in the same way we are. After all, being reborn is something closely related to the coming of the Promise from the Father - the Holy Spirit - who is the One who changes us from the inside out. God looked towards the heart of believers and the heart with which they served Him, which in the Old Testament was by keeping the Law. 2 Chronicles 16:9 is a good example of this: "the eyes of the Lord go to and fro throughout the earth to strongly support those whose hearts are completely His."

Brother Pilgrim,
I understand where you're coming from. I really do. You are correct that Romans 5 prefaces Romans 6 with the statement that sin entered into the world through Adam. However, in Genesis 5:1 the lineage back to Adam goes through the line of Seth alone. Israel came from Seth. The Gentiles came through Cain and so they are not a part of those who sinned "in Adam". Therefore, Paul's statement "sin entered the world through Adam" has sole reference to Israel. The rest of mankind sinned of course. But they did not sin in Adam:

"Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who sinned NOT in the likeness of Adam's transgression". So all have sinned. But Paul is talking about those who sinned in Adam [through Seth]. That's Israel! Therefore, the expression "old man" has sole reference to that manner of life which the Jewish people lived under Moses. The Gentiles didn't have Moses. Therefore, they did not have an "old man".

God bless,
thinker

reformedct
Jan 19th 2009, 08:21 PM
Brother Pilgrim,
I understand where you're coming from. I really do. You are correct that Romans 5 prefaces Romans 6 with the statement that sin entered into the world through Adam. However, in Genesis 5:1 the lineage back to Adam goes through the line of Seth alone. Israel came from Seth. The Gentiles came through Cain and so they are not a part of those who sinned "in Adam". Therefore, Paul's statement "sin entered the world through Adam" has sole reference to Israel. The rest of mankind sinned of course. But they did not sin in Adam:

"Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who sinned NOT in the likeness of Adam's transgression". So all have sinned. But Paul is talking about those who sinned in Adam [through Seth]. That's Israel! Therefore, the expression "old man" has sole reference to that manner of life which the Jewish people lived under Moses. The Gentiles didn't have Moses. Therefore, they did not have an "old man".

God bless,
thinker

wasnt Abraham a Babylonian pagan whose dad worshipped other gods besisdes yahweh before God saved him? How can those in Cain not be in Adam also? please help me out with some Scripture here

also, when the Bible says the deeds of the flesh are evident, many times it is referring to sin exactly. For example, sexual immorality is on the list of deeds of the flesh. DO you at least agree that all Christians must put to death the deeds of the flesh as listed?

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 19th 2009, 08:29 PM
Brother Pilgrim,
I understand where you're coming from. I really do. You are correct that Romans 5 prefaces Romans 6 with the statement that sin entered into the world through Adam. However, in Genesis 5:1 the lineage back to Adam goes through the line of Seth alone. Israel came from Seth. The Gentiles came through Cain and so they are not a part of those who sinned "in Adam". Therefore, Paul's statement "sin entered the world through Adam" has sole reference to Israel. The rest of mankind sinned of course. But they did not sin in Adam:

"Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who sinned NOT in the likeness of Adam's transgression". So all have sinned. But Paul is talking about those who sinned in Adam [through Seth]. That's Israel! Therefore, the expression "old man" has sole reference to that manner of life which the Jewish people lived under Moses. The Gentiles didn't have Moses. Therefore, they did not have an "old man".

God bless,
thinker
The point as far as I can see, my friend, is that everybody comes from Adam and thus sin spread to everybody through Adam. Whether Seth, Cain, Israel, Noah, or Nebuchadnezzar - everybody came from Adam and is thus tainted by the sin of Adam. As such Romans 5 and 6 applies to all of us, something that is confirmed by the very non-exclusive nature of Paul's writings.

Romans was not exclusively written to the Jews; even a quick look at Romans 11:17 will confirm that! But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

Walstib
Jan 19th 2009, 08:32 PM
Hi Thinker,

Issac had twins, Jacob and Esau.

Jacob is Israel, Esau is not.

As I understand the descendants of Esau are gentiles.

Same genetic parents, I don't see what point you are making with Seth.

Peace,
Joe

thethinker
Jan 19th 2009, 11:08 PM
wasnt Abraham a Babylonian pagan whose dad worshipped other gods besisdes yahweh before God saved him? How can those in Cain not be in Adam also? please help me out with some Scripture here

also, when the Bible says the deeds of the flesh are evident, many times it is referring to sin exactly. For example, sexual immorality is on the list of deeds of the flesh. DO you at least agree that all Christians must put to death the deeds of the flesh as listed?

Reformedct,
I did not mean to say that those in Cain were not from Adam. But Adam was not their federal head and therefore they they did not sin in Adam. They indeed sinned. Paul said that death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them who did not sin in the likensess of Adam's transgression.

Paul clearly spoke about two groups of men, those who sinned in Adam and were condemned and those who sinned not in the likeness of Adam's transgression. They were condemned too. But that which sinned in Adam was Israel. Genesis 5:1 was concerned with only the one geneaological line back to Adam through Seth. Again, that was Israel. Gentiles did not come through Seth.

And yes, I do believe that Christians must put to death the deeds of the flesh as listed in Galatians.

thethinker
Jan 19th 2009, 11:22 PM
The point as far as I can see, my friend, is that everybody comes from Adam and thus sin spread to everybody through Adam. Whether Seth, Cain, Israel, Noah, or Nebuchadnezzar - everybody came from Adam and is thus tainted by the sin of Adam. As such Romans 5 and 6 applies to all of us, something that is confirmed by the very non-exclusive nature of Paul's writings.

Romans was not exclusively written to the Jews; even a quick look at Romans 11:17 will confirm that! But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
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,

RogerW
Jan 20th 2009, 03:40 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,

Greetings Thinker,

In Romans 5:14 Paul is speaking of ALL mankind. Not two separate groups as you suppose. "Death passed upon ALL men." None can stop it or escape its power, because in Adam ALL sinned. Even those who lived before the law was given at Sinai were sinners under condemnation. But someone will argue, "Where there is no law, a man is not accountable." If this be true then why did death reign? Why did people die (even infants) who did not commit an act of rebellion like Adam? Adam was a figure of Christ (1Co 15:21,22).

Though in one sense Adam is a type of Christ, the fall in Adam and the judgment that followed are not worthy to be compared to the grace of God and the free gift of life which we have in Christ. In Adam we lost all things; in Christ we gained much more than we lost.

The effect of Christ's obedience is not to be compared to the effect of Adam's sin. Christ confers much more than we lost in the fall. Christ pardons not one sin, but all sins. Christ justifies in such a way that the believer is righteous and can never perish (Jo 10:27,28).

If through Adam death reigned over us, much more shall those who are made righteous by Christ reign with Him (Ro 8:16,17).

Many Blessings,
RW