Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Backslide, Backslider, Backsliding, etc. not found in N.T.


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Kleptes,

I believe that you will find that Brother "Wretched" does NOT believe that Old Testament believers were born again (regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God).  Eternally justified by faith alone?  Yes.  Eternally saved through that justification?  Yes.  Eternally regenerated (born again)?  No.

As such, I believe that you will that in his position Brother "Wretched" believes that Old Testament believers could "fall away" from the Lord "more easily" than New Testament believers, specifically because they were NOT born again (regenerated) as we are.

Spoken like a scholar and a gentleman whether you agree or not :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 minutes ago, wretched said:

Spoken like a scholar and a gentleman whether you agree or not :)

Indeed, Brother "Wretched,"

As you are aware, I do NOT agree with your position on this matter.  Yet it is certainly appropriate for me to be honest and precise when seeking to understand and to handle your position, whether I agree with it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brethren,

Paul the Apostle, in dealing with the backslidden saints at Corinth, said, concerning the saints in the Old Testament, "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples [ NOTE:The King James word ensample is more accurate than the modern word example]: and are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Corinthians 10:6-11

The wise New Testament  saint will look at the samples (or examples), of the Old Testament saint and understand that when he backslides (backslidden saints are the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament), God will  punish them: the biblical word is, "destroy." God's "intent," is to produce a fear of sin, and produce holiness and righteousness in the life of the saint in either Testament. 

God is a Holy and Righteous God and He wants His saints, not only in salvation, but in everyday living, to be Holy and Righteous.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Alan said:

Brethren,

Paul the Apostle, in dealing with the backslidden saints at Corinth, said, concerning the saints in the Old Testament, "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples [ NOTE:The King James word ensample is more accurate than the modern word example]: and are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Corinthians 10:6-11

The wise New Testament  saint will look at the samples (or examples), of the Old Testament saint and understand that when he backslides (backslidden saints are the same in the Old Testament as the New Testament), God will  punish them: the biblical word is, "destroy." God's "intent," is to produce a fear of sin, and produce holiness and righteousness in the life of the saint in either Testament. 

God is a Holy and Righteous God and He wants His saints, not only in salvation, but in everyday living, to be Holy and Righteous.

Alan

Still wrong Bro Alan. You inserted the word backslidden. Certainly you can see how wrong that is, can't you?? :)

There is not a single passage or mention in the NT which demonstrates a believer turning from the Living God back to or unto idols in their heart. It is quite impossible. You Scripture is not demonstrating this and is out of context.

The evidence in the OT is clear to any wise NT saint. As soon as the memory of the signs, voices, miracles or wonders faded in Israel's mind, so did their faith.

Sadly for some reason you and others insist on doctrine that is not there but be my guest and stay wrong on it.

 

Edited by wretched
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is Peters denial just a carnal sin, or was it also rejecting his Saviour?  If you follow the narrative of Peter.  He follows a far off.  He denies saying "I know not what thou sayest." He is again asked. Peter responds by saying " I do not know not the man"  He then is approached the third time. This time instead of only saying this fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth. They also say that his speech is evident that  he is a follower of Jesus. Notice Peter begins cursing and swearing to show a bit of carnality, to try and prove that he knew not the man. In two instances, of denying Jesus Christ,he says I know not the man.  Calling him a man in this context shows that he takes away not only Jesus's  Deity, but  that He also is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  Peter is the one who revealed that.  This denial shows no acknowledgement at all of Jesus.  That looks like a pretty backslid state. Paul indeed turned his back on the Lord.  Was Peter lost or did he lose his salvation. God forbid.  Peter weeping bitterly shows He knew he what he did was wrong.  Jesus never forsook him. He was however commanded to strengthen the brethren,which was told to him prior to his denial of Jesus. In that very context Jesus told Peter that he would thrice deny that he knows him.  Jesus also commanded Peter to feed his  lambs and sheep.

Matthew 26 :57 And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

Matthew 26 :58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Matthew 26 :59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;

Matthew 26 :60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,

Matthew 26 :61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Matthew 26 :62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

Matthew 26 :63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Matthew 26 :64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26 :65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Matthew 26 :66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Matthew 26 :67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,

Matthew 26 :68 Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

Matthew 26 :69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

Matthew 26 :70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

Matthew 26 :71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.

Matthew 26 :72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

Matthew 26 :73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.

Matthew 26 :74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

Matthew 26 :75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Matthew 16 :13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Matthew 16 :14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Matthew 16 :15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

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

Matthew 16 :17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 22 :31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

Luke 22 :32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Luke 22 :33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

Luke 22 :34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

John 21 :15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

 

John 21 :16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

John 21 :17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

John 21 :18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

 

Judas Iscariot on the other hand shows a dark contrast to Peter. This man was called a traitor.  Jesus even says he is lost and labels him the son of Perdition.  Peter by evidence throughout the New testament show a man who turned to God. Whereas Judas Iscariot shows a man who turned to himself.  Peter lived for Christ.  Judas Iscariot lived for himself.  Peter died for the sake of Christ.  Judas Iscariot died for the sake of conscience, in which he hung himself.  Peter shows a believer who did a terrible sin and had  Godly sorrow.  Judas Iscariot shows a man who was counted as on of the twelve, lived a lie, a betrayer, and a thief with worldly sorrow.  Peter was backslid and Judas Iscariot a lost man.

 
Matthew 10 :1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Matthew 10 :2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Matthew 10 :3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

Matthew 10 :4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.


Matthew 26 :20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

Matthew 26 :21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

Matthew 26 :22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?

Matthew 26 :23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

Matthew 26 :24  The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Matthew 26 :25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.


Matthew 26 :45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Matthew 26 :46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.

Matthew 26 :47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Matthew 26 :48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.

Matthew 26 :49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.

Matthew 26 :50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.


Matthew 27 :1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

Matthew 27 :2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

Matthew 27 :3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Matthew 27 :4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

Matthew 27 :5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Matthew 27 :6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

Matthew 27 :7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Matthew 27 :8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Matthew 27 :9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Matthew 27 :10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.


Acts 1 :15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Acts 1 :16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Acts 1 :17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Acts 1 :18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Acts 1 :19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Acts 1 :20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Acts 1 :21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Acts 1 :22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Acts 1 :23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Acts 1 :24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Acts 1 :25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Acts 1 :26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

John 17 :1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

John 17 :2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

John 17 :3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

John 17 :4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17 :5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 17 :6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

John 17 :7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

John 17 :8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 17 :9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

John 17 :10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

John 17 :11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17 :12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

John 17 :13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

John 17 :14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

John 17 :15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

John 17 :16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

John 17 :17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

John 17 :18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

John 17 :19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Kleptes said:

Is Peters denial just a carnal sin, or was it also rejecting his Saviour?  If you follow the narrative of Peter.  He follows a far off.  He denies saying "I know not what thou sayest." He is again asked. Peter responds by saying " I do not know not the man"  He then is approached the third time. This time instead of only saying this fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth. They also say that his speech is evident that  he is a follower of Jesus. Notice Peter begins cursing and swearing to show a bit of carnality, to try and prove that he knew not the man. In two instances, of denying Jesus Christ,he says I know not the man.  Calling him a man in this context shows that he takes away not only Jesus's  Deity, but  that He also is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  Peter is the one who revealed that.  This denial shows no acknowledgement at all of Jesus.  That looks like a pretty backslid state. Paul indeed turned his back on the Lord.  Was Peter lost or did he lose his salvation. God forbid.  Peter weeping bitterly shows He knew he what he did was wrong.  Jesus never forsook him. He was however commanded to strengthen the brethren,which was told to him prior to his denial of Jesus. In that very context Jesus told Peter that he would thrice deny that he knows him.  Jesus also commanded Peter to feed his  lambs and sheep.

 

First, please understand that I am not attacking you in any way. I just feel the need to make points from a sensible perspective. You see my friend. It is pretty clear Peter was unconverted prior to Pentecost because Christ had not yet ascended and He had not yet sent the Spirit.

If anyone could have been born again prior to this then CHRIST DIED IN VAIN but the false traditions of men keep reasonable people from seeing these things for some reason.

It is all in black and white and plain English and if you study the Word front to back in the sequence of history that God laid it out in, it makes much more sense than pulling precepts out of historical context to match what you have been falsely taught. Or, even worse trying to imagine passages say something they clearly do not.

Since you bring up Peter, lets see what Jesus said to him: I disagree with your commentary in regard to Peter my friend from a sequential Bible perspective.

Luk 22:32, But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Peter's conversion did not occur until after Christ's ascension, ie. Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out upon the earth.

Although Peter and all the apostles had eye-witnessed Christ's Power for nearly 3 years, they were still unregenerate. Their faith was by sight only and not from the new birth yet. Hence as soon as Christ was out of sight, so was Peter's faith.

Time and again this was the case throughout the OT with Israel.

Mat 13:15, For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mat 18:3, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mar 4:12, That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Joh 12:40, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Act 3:19, Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 28:27, For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Of the Holy Spirit, Jesus had this to say:

Joh 14:16, And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:26, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Joh 15:26, But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Joh 16:7, Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Acts 2: 1, And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Acts 2:17, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

I shocks me that intelligent reasonable people are so scared of being labeled dispensational or reformed that they ignore the truths of both groups that meet in the middle in most cases. I personally could care less who labels me this or that. I will not ignore what is clearly detailed and also omitted from the Word to embrace men's fables.

I understand where you get your stand friend, I do. I have heard it for 30 plus years from all over IFB circles but it is simply wrong because it is based on precept.

This is how I determine what is truth and what is imagined by even well intentioned men: If the OT does not say "born again"; "regenerated"; born of the Spirit: new birth, converted. Then it did not exist.  Pretty simple if you think about it.

If the NT does not say "backslide"; backslidden, backslidings, backslider. Then it does not exist for us nor can it; pretty simple if you think about it.

Not sure why folks have to cloud and blend everything together when clearly God never intended for us to or He would have laid it out just as clearly in either Testament.

That is all I am saying, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Concerning the doctrine of "backsliding," a number of points must be considered:

1.  It should be recognized that the words "backslide," "backslider," "backslidden," "backsliding," etc. are not found at all in the New Testament.  However, it should also be recognized that the point of discussion and debate is not simply over the usage of a set of words in the New Testament, but is over the presence of a particular doctrinal truth in the New Testament.  Although the words themselves are NOT found in the New Testament, is the doctrinal truth found in the New Testament in relation to New Testament believers?

2.  In order to discern correctly if the doctrine of "backsliding" is found in the New Testament, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary that one begin with a determination of the Biblical definition for "backsliding."  Since the doctrine of "backsliding" is first found in the Old Testament, and since the specific terminology of "backsliding" is only found in the Old Testament, it also necessary that an individual discern and determine the Biblical definition for "backsliding" from the Old Testament teaching on the subject.

3.  The discussion and debate of the matter itself actually is over the correct definition, for in this is the differing premises upon which the two opposing sides are built.  The side which holds that the doctrine of "backsliding" IS found in the New Testament for the New Testament believer will define "backsliding" simply as a turning away backward from the Lord in an individual's daily walk and service unto any way that is not the way of the Lord.  The side which holds that the doctrine of "backsliding" is NOT found in the New Testament for the New Testament believer will also define "backsliding" as a turning away backward from the Lord, but will indicate that it is a turning unto a way that is not at all possible for a genuine New Testament believer to engage.  (Note: Brother "Wretched" has indicated this in his definition for "backsliding" as a turning unto idolatrous worship of a false god.)

Now, I myself would hold to the position that the doctrine of "backsliding" is INDEED found in the New Testament for New Testament believers and that it is to be Biblically defined as a turning away from the Lord in an individual's daily walk and service unto any way that is not the way of the Lord.  Furthermore, I would contend that narrowing the definition and doctrine of "backsliding" in the Old Testament only unto a turning away from the Lord unto an idolatrous worship of a false god is not accurate to the whole counsel of God's Word on the subject in the Old Testament.  Finally, I would recognize that many (although not all) who would deny the doctrine of "backsliding" in the New Testament for New Testament believers hold in some manner to the doctrine of "perseverance of the saints," wherein it is spiritually impossible for a genuine New Testament believer ever to depart from a walk of faithful growth and obedience.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
23 minutes ago, wretched said:

If the NT does not say "backslide"; backslidden, backslidings, backslider. Then it does not exist for us nor can it; pretty simple if you think about it.

So then, Brother "Wretched," is it just as simple to recognize that the doctrine of the "tri-unity of God" is not a true Biblical doctrine, since the terminology of "trinity" is not to be found anywhere throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures at all?

Or, is it just as simple to recognize that New Testament believers should NOT be disciplining their children with the rod (spanking), since that instruction is NOT found as such anywhere throughout the New Testament as an instruction for the New Testament believer, but is only found in the Old Testament?
 

29 minutes ago, wretched said:

This is how I determine what is truth and what is imagined by even well intentioned men: If the OT does not say "born again"; "regenerated"; born of the Spirit: new birth, converted. Then it did not exist.  Pretty simple if you think about it.

So then, Brother Wretched, are you then indicating your belief that the word family of "converting" has a specific doctrinal reference unto the doctrine of regeneration?  (Note: I myself do NOT agree with this position; however, for the sake of the argument, I shall grant it to you in relation to the following.)  If you do hold to this position, then please consider the following Old Testament passages:

Psalm 19:7 -- "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."

Psalm 51:13 -- "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee."

It seems to me that the "converting" of "the soul" could INDEED occur in the Old Testament, specifically through the power of God's Holy Word.

Furthermore, the New Testament also employs the terminology of "quickening" for the doctrine of regeneration, as per Ephesians 2:1-10.  So then, is the terminology of "quickening" to be found in the Old Testament?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

So then, Brother "Wretched," is it just as simple to recognize that the doctrine of the "tri-unity of God" is not a true Biblical doctrine, since the terminology of "trinity" is not to be found anywhere throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures at all?

Or, is it just as simple to recognize that New Testament believers should NOT be disciplining their children with the rod (spanking), since that instruction is NOT found as such anywhere throughout the New Testament as an instruction for the New Testament believer, but is only found in the Old Testament?
 

So then, Brother Wretched, are you then indicating your belief that the word family of "converting" has a specific doctrinal reference unto the doctrine of regeneration?  (Note: I myself do NOT agree with this position; however, for the sake of the argument, I shall grant it to you in relation to the following.)  If you do hold to this position, then please consider the following Old Testament passages:

Psalm 19:7 -- "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."

Psalm 51:13 -- "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee."

It seems to me that the "converting" of "the soul" could INDEED occur in the Old Testament, specifically through the power of God's Holy Word.

Furthermore, the New Testament also employs the terminology of "quickening" for the doctrine of regeneration, as per Ephesians 2:1-10.  So then, is the terminology of "quickening" to be found in the Old Testament?

Wow, what a stretch in every part of this post Scott. I am sorry you feel like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

Wow, what a stretch in every part of this post Scott. I am sorry you feel like this.

Brother "Wretched,"

No need for you to feel sorry for me, since I was simply following the logic of your own argument.

In your posting above, you presented the following argument:

 

If the NT does not say "backslide"; backslidden, backslidings, backslider. Then it does not exist for us nor can it; pretty simple if you think about it.

(emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

The foundational logic for your above argument is then as follows -- If the terminology of "backsliding" is not in the New Testament, then the doctrine of "backsliding" does not apply to the New Testament.

I then presented two examples of doctrines where in the terminology does not exist, in God's Word at all in the first case and n the New Testament in the second case, in order to illustrate the inconsistency of your argument, as follows:

 

So then, Brother "Wretched," is it just as simple to recognize that the doctrine of the "tri-unity of God" is not a true Biblical doctrine, since the terminology of "trinity" is not to be found anywhere throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures at all?

Or, is it just as simple to recognize that New Testament believers should NOT be disciplining their children with the rod (spanking), since that instruction is NOT found as such anywhere throughout the New Testament as an instruction for the New Testament believer, but is only found in the Old Testament?

If we follow the foundational logic of your argument above with consistency, we would then get the following:

1.  If the terminology of "tri-unity" is not in the Scriptures, then the doctrine of "trinity" is not Scriptural.  Yet we would not accept this logic, since the doctrine IS in the Scriptures, although the specific terminology of "trinity" is not present.

2.  If the terminology of instruction to "spank" with the rod is not in the New Testament, then the instruction to "spank" with the rod does not apply to New Testament parenting.  Yet again we would not accept this logic, since the doctrine of parenting that IS presented in the New Testament is built upon the foundation of the doctrine of parenting that is presented in the Old Testament.

Even so, I would reject your the foundational logic of your argument against the doctrine of "backsliding" for the New Testament.  Although the specific terminology of "backsliding" is not in the New Testament, the doctrine is indeed taught in the New Testament and that New Testament doctrine is built upon the foundation of the doctrine of "backsliding" that is presented in the Old Testament.

________________________________________________________

Furthermore, in your above posting you presented the following argument against the reality of regeneration in the Old Testament, as follows:

 

This is how I determine what is truth and what is imagined by even well intentioned men: If the OT does not say "born again"; "regenerated"; born of the Spirit: new birth, converted. Then it did not exist.  Pretty simple if you think about it.

(emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Again, the foundational logic of your argument is as follows -- If the terminology of regeneration is not in the Old Testament, then regeneration did not exist in the Old Testament.

Involved in your argument, you listed a series of terminology that you appear to view as the terminology of regeneration, as follows:

1.  Born again

2. Regenerated

3. Born of the Spirit

4. New birth

5.  Converted

I then focused my attention upon the fifth listing from your list of terminology, the word "converted;" and revealed that such terminology does indeed exist in the Old Testament, as follows:

 

So then, Brother Wretched, are you then indicating your belief that the word family of "converting" has a specific doctrinal reference unto the doctrine of regeneration?  (Note: I myself do NOT agree with this position; however, for the sake of the argument, I shall grant it to you in relation to the following.)  If you do hold to this position, then please consider the following Old Testament passages:

Psalm 19:7 -- "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."

Psalm 51:13 -- "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee."

It seems to me that the "converting" of "the soul" could INDEED occur in the Old Testament, specifically through the power of God's Holy Word.

So then, Brother Wretched,

1.  Does the Old Testament teach the converting of the soul through the Law of the Lord, as per Psalm 19:7?

2.  Does the Old Testament teach the converting of sinners unto the Lord, as per Psalm 51:13?

3.  Even so, does the Old Testament teach the doctrine of conversion?

4.  Do you believe that the terminology and doctrine of conversion is Biblically equivalent to the doctrine of regeneration?

If you do believe this, then in accord with Psalm 19:7 & Psalm 51:13 you should acknowledge that conversion/regeneration is INDEED in the Old Testament.


Finally, in my above posting, I presented another terminology listing that the New Testament employs for regeneration (which you did not list in your own listing), as follows:

 

Furthermore, the New Testament also employs the terminology of "quickening" for the doctrine of regeneration, as per Ephesians 2:1-10.  So then, is the terminology of "quickening" to be found in the Old Testament?

The terminology that I added was that of "quickening," and the Biblical support for my claim was Ephesians 2:1-10.  So then, does Ephesians 2:1-10 use the terminology of "quickening" for regeneration?  If it does, then we can follow the foundational logic of your argument again and ask -- Does the Old Testament use the terminology of "quickening"?  If it does, then it could be further argued that quickening/regeneration is INDEED in the Old Testament.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

So then, Brother "Wretched," is it just as simple to recognize that the doctrine of the "tri-unity of God" is not a true Biblical doctrine, since the terminology of "trinity" is not to be found anywhere throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures at all?

Or, is it just as simple to recognize that New Testament believers should NOT be disciplining their children with the rod (spanking), since that instruction is NOT found as such anywhere throughout the New Testament as an instruction for the New Testament believer, but is only found in the Old Testament?
 

So then, Brother Wretched, are you then indicating your belief that the word family of "converting" has a specific doctrinal reference unto the doctrine of regeneration?  (Note: I myself do NOT agree with this position; however, for the sake of the argument, I shall grant it to you in relation to the following.)  If you do hold to this position, then please consider the following Old Testament passages:

Psalm 19:7 -- "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."

Psalm 51:13 -- "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee."

It seems to me that the "converting" of "the soul" could INDEED occur in the Old Testament, specifically through the power of God's Holy Word.

Furthermore, the New Testament also employs the terminology of "quickening" for the doctrine of regeneration, as per Ephesians 2:1-10.  So then, is the terminology of "quickening" to be found in the Old Testament?

Sorry I could not respond to this post properly but don’t you think you are comparing doctrine with incidentals?
The new birth with spanking? Although in this example of spanking the NT does address it but not verbatim.
It would be impossible to repeat every subject in the OT again in the NT. The OT is at least ten times the volume.
What is repeated in both Testaments however is important and it is doctrine: Creation, Adam and Eve, their sin, The Law (although the NT is clear to indicate that the Law is done away in the NT), the coming Messiah, the Virgin birth, the death, burial and resurrection; Salvation by faith through Grace; Even the coming new birth is indicated in Joel (but careful to explain it as future, in the last days and NOT presently in the OT).
 
 

Brother "Wretched,"

No need for you to feel sorry for me, since I was simply following the logic of your own argument.

In your posting above, you presented the following argument:

The foundational logic for your above argument is then as follows -- If the terminology of "backsliding" is not in the New Testament, then the doctrine of "backsliding" does not apply to the New Testament.

I then presented two examples of doctrines where in the terminology does not exist, in God's Word at all in the first case and n the New Testament in the second case, in order to illustrate the inconsistency of your argument, as follows:

If we follow the foundational logic of your argument above with consistency, we would then get the following:

1.  If the terminology of "tri-unity" is not in the Scriptures, then the doctrine of "trinity" is not Scriptural.  Yet we would not accept this logic, since the doctrine IS in the Scriptures, although the specific terminology of "trinity" is not present.

2.  If the terminology of instruction to "spank" with the rod is not in the New Testament, then the instruction to "spank" with the rod does not apply to New Testament parenting.  Yet again we would not accept this logic, since the doctrine of parenting that IS presented in the New Testament is built upon the foundation of the doctrine of parenting that is presented in the Old Testament.

Even so, I would reject your the foundational logic of your argument against the doctrine of "backsliding" for the New Testament.  Although the specific terminology of "backsliding" is not in the New Testament, the doctrine is indeed taught in the New Testament and that New Testament doctrine is built upon the foundation of the doctrine of "backsliding" that is presented in the Old Testament.

________________________________________________________

Furthermore, in your above posting you presented the following argument against the reality of regeneration in the Old Testament, as follows:

Again, the foundational logic of your argument is as follows -- If the terminology of regeneration is not in the Old Testament, then regeneration did not exist in the Old Testament.

Involved in your argument, you listed a series of terminology that you appear to view as the terminology of regeneration, as follows:

1.  Born again

2. Regenerated

3. Born of the Spirit

4. New birth

5.  Converted

I then focused my attention upon the fifth listing from your list of terminology, the word "converted;" and revealed that such terminology does indeed exist in the Old Testament, as follows:

So then, Brother Wretched,

1.  Does the Old Testament teach the converting of the soul through the Law of the Lord, as per Psalm 19:7?

2.  Does the Old Testament teach the converting of sinners unto the Lord, as per Psalm 51:13?

3.  Even so, does the Old Testament teach the doctrine of conversion?

4.  Do you believe that the terminology and doctrine of conversion is Biblically equivalent to the doctrine of regeneration?

If you do believe this, then in accord with Psalm 19:7 & Psalm 51:13 you should acknowledge that conversion/regeneration is INDEED in the Old Testament.


Finally, in my above posting, I presented another terminology listing that the New Testament employs for regeneration (which you did not list in your own listing), as follows:

The terminology that I added was that of "quickening," and the Biblical support for my claim was Ephesians 2:1-10.  So then, does Ephesians 2:1-10 use the terminology of "quickening" for regeneration?  If it does, then we can follow the foundational logic of your argument again and ask -- Does the Old Testament use the terminology of "quickening"?  If it does, then it could be further argued that quickening/regeneration is INDEED in the Old Testament.

I think you are still stretching bro Scott. I understand your opinion on it and think it is the predominant view of most fundamental Bible colleges but I still think it is wrong.

Been a busy day and week, I will answer your questions tomorrow, thanks

I

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Pastor Scott,

Just to be clear, I have agreed in the past that Scripture does indicate the Spirit’s work in the OT, not only in the inspiration of the writing through the human authors God chose but also the fact that the Spirit did on occasion temporarily indwell both believers and those God wanted to make example of (such as Saul). However, I see nothing that indicates true belief equals the new birth (regeneration) generally speaking in the OT including all the way through the Gospels and up to Pentecost in Acts.

 

The passages you site in Proverbs and Psalms are not compelling to me. IMO, they are unclear and do not match the clear explanations of the new birth as given in the NT. I do not discount Psalms or Proverbs but believe that both these books transcend the Testaments and contain doctrine that is applicable to each Testament but not necessarily to both. Both Law and Grace have equal representation without command to either. God’s fundamental principles that apply to all humanity are contained within both (whether believer or not). I have no wonder as to why they are included in most printings of the NT? I cannot be alone in thinking this way and I think you are more than smart enough to understand why I believe it.

 

I still believe the term backsliding cannot apply to anyone born again.  The term is synonymous with repentance away from God in the heart and does not apply to mere carnal sins. The reason it was an issue in those days was due to the fact that regeneration of the Spirit, His sealing, security and indwelling did not yet exist.

I see nothing clear or nearly conclusive that shows me otherwise in the OT.

 

I think the OT proves throughout that God showed Himself to people in those days through signs, wonders and miracles of all sorts. Including and up through the completion of His written Word and the pouring out of His Spirit over the earth after His Ascension. After these however, all signs, wonders and miracles along with the gifts ceased and do not exist during our times. I think Bible study, reason and common sense prove to us that God does not show Himself physically to us during this age.

 

Think of it this way brother Scott and if you still do not understand or agree, I will let it go.

 

Imagine yourself with all you know through the Spirit and the Word because you are born again and indwelt and have the Spirit which guides you in all truth; imagine yourself as one of the apostles walking with Jesus as Peter did for nearly 3 years, witnessing all the signs, wonders and miracles of our Lord first hand. Knowing (not just from sight but because you are born again and Spirit indwelt) that Jesus is God Almighty….could you possible deny Him as Peter did? Think hard on that please.

 

In addition, please consider the end of each Gospel. Consider how these apostles who walked with our Lord and witnessed all they witnessed first hand, who then hid themselves when Christ was buried. The Bible makes it pretty clear that every single one of them thought in their hearts it was over. Every single apostle believed He was dead and the hopes of the kingdom were shattered. They were all in shock, perplexed and lost their faith almost immediately. Not one of them even believed the Marys when they came and told them the tomb was empty.

 

These men were not born again yet my friend. I know it in my heart.

 

I think you display brilliance in your analysis many times from what I have read but I am still compelled to challenge you on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Psalms 51 :1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

Psalms 51 :2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

Psalms 51 :3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

Psalms 51 :4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Psalms 51 :5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalms 51 :6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

Psalms 51 :7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Psalms 51 :8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

Psalms 51 :9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

Psalms 51 :10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Psalms 51 :11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not  thy holy spirit from me.

Psalms 51 :12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Psalms 51 :13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

Psalms 51 :14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.

Psalms 51 :15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.

Psalms 51 :16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Psalms 51 :17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Psalms 51 :18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.

Psalms 51 :19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother "Wretched,"

You two above posting have put me into a small difficulty.  I have various responses that I desire to make unto various of your comments; however, I am a little uncertain as the correct order in which to present them.  Allow me to begin with a response to the concluding comment of your second posting, since it is a bit more personal, and less doctrinal in nature.

 

I think you display brilliance in your analysis many times from what I have read but I am still compelled to challenge you on this.

1.  I wish to express appreciation for your commendation of my postings over-all.  I simply pray that they will ever bring glory unto my Lord and that they will be good to the use of edifying.

2.  I believe that it can be recognized by most that I am not afraid to be challenged in my position.  However, I believe that it can also be recognized that I am not adverse to defending my position forcefully and thoroughly against those challenges.
 

 
Sorry I could not respond to this post properly but don’t you think you are comparing doctrine with incidentals?  The new birth with spanking?

1.  I do not at all believe that the doctrine of the "tri-unity" of the Lord our God is an incidental.  Nor do I at all believe that the doctrine of godly parenting, of which the doctrine of spanking is an integral part, is an incidental.

2.  Actually, I was not seeking to compare doctrines with one another at all.  Rather, I was seeking to apply the foundational logic of your argument unto various doctrines in order to observe the consistency of that logic.  As I have mentioned above, the foundational logic of your argument was -- If the specific terminology (verbatim) of a doctrine is not found in the New Testament, then that doctrine is not to be applied for the New Testament believer.  Specifically, you demonstrated this foundational logic by claiming that since the specific terminology (verbatim) of "backsliding" was not found in the New Testament, then the doctrine of "backsliding" was not to be applied for the New Testament believer.

Yet in relation to one of my examples, that of the doctrinal instruction to "spanking," you did not follow this same foundational logic with consistency, as follows:

 
The new birth with spanking? Although in this example of spanking the NT does address it but not verbatim.

Indeed, this is exactly the same thing that I would contend for the doctrine of "backsliding" in relation to the New Testament -- The New Testament DOES address "backsliding," but not verbatim.

Furthermore, you presented another argument in order to support your assertion concerning the example of "spanking, as follows:

 
It would be impossible to repeat every subject in the OT again in the NT. The OT is at least ten times the volume.

Indeed, this is exactly the same thing that I was contending when I indicated that the doctrine of "backsliding" in the New Testament, although not presented verbatim, is built upon the foundation of the doctrine of "backsliding" in the Old Testament.
 

 
I think you are still stretching bro Scott. I understand your opinion on it and think it is the predominant view of most fundamental Bible colleges but I still think it is wrong.

Actually, the fundament Baptist Bible college that I attended did NOT teach that Old Testament believers were regenerated.  In fact, this is not the position of most of the fundamental Baptist pastors with whom I have spoken concerning the subject.  Most of those held to a similar position as yourself, that until the Holy Spirit was given for permanent indwelling on the Day of Pentecost, spiritual regeneration did not occur for believers.  Indeed, until the forum I believed that I was in a significant minority by holding to the position that Old Testament believers were regenerated.

(Note: I have more responses to the comments of your second posting above; however, I believe that what I have presented herein is enough for this posting.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

Brother "Wretched,"

You two above posting have put me into a small difficulty.  I have various responses that I desire to make unto various of your comments; however, I am a little uncertain as the correct order in which to present them.  Allow me to begin with a response to the concluding comment of your second posting, since it is a bit more personal, and less doctrinal in nature.

1.  I wish to express appreciation for your commendation of my postings over-all.  I simply pray that they will ever bring glory unto my Lord and that they will be good to the use of edifying.

2.  I believe that it can be recognized by most that I am not afraid to be challenged in my position.  However, I believe that it can also be recognized that I am not adverse to defending my position forcefully and thoroughly against those challenges.
 

1.  I do not at all believe that the doctrine of the "tri-unity" of the Lord our God is an incidental.  Nor do I at all believe that the doctrine of godly parenting, of which the doctrine of spanking is an integral part, is an incidental.

2.  Actually, I was not seeking to compare doctrines with one another at all.  Rather, I was seeking to apply the foundational logic of your argument unto various doctrines in order to observe the consistency of that logic.  As I have mentioned above, the foundational logic of your argument was -- If the specific terminology (verbatim) of a doctrine is not found in the New Testament, then that doctrine is not to be applied for the New Testament believer.  Specifically, you demonstrated this foundational logic by claiming that since the specific terminology (verbatim) of "backsliding" was not found in the New Testament, then the doctrine of "backsliding" was not to be applied for the New Testament believer.

Yet in relation to one of my examples, that of the doctrinal instruction to "spanking," you did not follow this same foundational logic with consistency, as follows:

Indeed, this is exactly the same thing that I would contend for the doctrine of "backsliding" in relation to the New Testament -- The New Testament DOES address "backsliding," but not verbatim.

Furthermore, you presented another argument in order to support your assertion concerning the example of "spanking, as follows:

Indeed, this is exactly the same thing that I was contending when I indicated that the doctrine of "backsliding" in the New Testament, although not presented verbatim, is built upon the foundation of the doctrine of "backsliding" in the Old Testament.
 

Actually, the fundament Baptist Bible college that I attended did NOT teach that Old Testament believers were regenerated.  In fact, this is not the position of most of the fundamental Baptist pastors with whom I have spoken concerning the subject.  Most of those held to a similar position as yourself, that until the Holy Spirit was given for permanent indwelling on the Day of Pentecost, spiritual regeneration did not occur for believers.  Indeed, until the forum I believed that I was in a significant minority by holding to the position that Old Testament believers were regenerated.

(Note: I have more responses to the comments of your second posting above; however, I believe that what I have presented herein is enough for this posting.)

Good enough Bro. Scott, thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...