Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I'm interested to see where this goes. :)

I often make the statement, "I reserve the right to be wrong." I mean it when I say it.

With that said, this is my understanding...

  1. Regeneration (being born again) is an immediate one-time act.
  2. Sanctification is also an immediate one-time act...but it is also a continuous act; in that, we grow in our knowledge, acts, and understanding (2 Timothy 2:19-21)...he is continuously working in our lives...making us more into his image.

Both require the Spirit's work in the life of man. Only one of them requires the indwelling Spirit. Regeneration only requires a single act by the Spirit. Sanctification is both immediate and life-long, which requires the Holy Spirit's working in the life of man...requiring his indwelling presence. With that, and the words of the Lord himself in John 3, regeneration was not only possible, it was available, needed, and called for prior to Pentecost.

I would agree that from my understanding, Old Testament saints didn't have the indwelling Holy Spirit; however, also from my understanding, regeneration isn't required by the Spirit's permanent indwelling. It's a single act that takes place at one single time.

I reserve the right to be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Is it your normal way to come to a new forum and then proceed to take a teaching role without establishing yourself in the community?

It seems a little........ presumptuous, is all.

It is "normal" for me to come to a new Forum with the intent of serious Doctrinal Discussion and Debate which I don't just think will edify the Body of Christ, but know that it will, because I firmly believe in the power of the Word of God to help us grow, and in having a better understanding of the Word of God (and you can impose arrogance or ego in that if you like, I just ask you to focus on the Doctrine discussed before you draw any conclusions) will help us to be better stewards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, hence better ministers to a lost and dying world.

 

Malachi 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

 

;)

 

8 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Most people join, chat, comment in some threads, add to some discussions.......

 

I am not "most people," and to be honest, if I wanted to "chat" I would go to facebook.

 

I am not here to make people like me, I am here seeking members of the Body of Christ who have a love for God's Word and want to discuss Doctrinal matters.

 

8 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Not just take charge and offhandedly dismiss the comments of others whom you know basically nothing about.

 

"Take charge?" Because I respond to posts?

 

8 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I don't mean to offend you

 

No worries, mate, that is simply not possible to do.

 

9 minutes ago, DaveW said:

but historically people who start as you have, end up being troublemakers. 

 

Well, it is true that often I am not a popular fellow, but that is primarily because (and again this may sound arrogant) the issues I discuss are usually controversial and sometimes go against the grain of popular pulpit Theology that people have a tendency to get offended. For example, most Christians view the disciple as Christians, and the thought that they were not (until being born again at Pentecost, of course) is a foreign concept to them.

 

The big question is will those who tend to be offended when "their Forum" seems threatened actually look at what is being said?

 

 

9 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I actually have a feeling that you are NOT one of them, but it is an unusual entrance in that regard.....

 

Could you show me where Forum Etiquette dictates that new members must first be siocially accepted then...they can discuss Doctrine?

 

My friend, my advice on that note would be that anyone that first seeks to ingratiate themselves into a community, then seeks to discuss doctrine, is far more likely to cause trouble, lol.

Just give the topic some serious consideration, Dave, that's all I ask. let's not interject anything personal into the discussion.

 

 

God bless.

4 minutes ago, Salyan said:

Goodness gracious - I'm not going to have the time to work through that for a while. Next time, would you mind giving a short response to a short statement? It really helps keep things flowing around here.

 

Sorry Salyan, I am still getting used to the control functions of the Forum, and I know they do look voluminous, lol. Basically, I try to get certain points across at the beginning because most members who "check out threads" often look at the first page, so I am just trying to get enough there so that it will stir the interest of those who may look in.

 

Once the discussion begins to address the points with singular focus on certain aspects, usually it gets a little more manageable, because we establish base-lines which both sides are familiar with. I will, though, for those who request, break down the address to one point per post, but, I tend to address response in detail, trying not to leave any statement unanswered.

 

So if there is a singular point you might disagree with, feel free to post that and we can narrow the focus for the time being. No need to try to address each point right now, most of the points will be looked at through the course of the discussion.

 

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not a matter of dictated etiquette, rather just plain, old fashioned good manners.

If you walked into church and just started trying to teach stuff (anything) without first allowing us to get to know you, you wouldn't find a welcome reception. (And I know this isn't a church but the principle is not that different.)

 

Whatever, you act as you like. Unless you DO cause trouble or act offensively, the mods will let you play.

But you might consider that basic good manners go a long way.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you; And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"  John 20:21-22.

Without the indwelling Holy Ghost, you cannot be truly born again.

 

This is absolutely true, men cannot be born again apart from the Eternal Indwelling of God.

God came upon numerous men that we have good reason to question whether they were saved or not, King Saul (where we see what cannot happen in Eternal Salvation under New Covenant conditions, the Spirit departing from Saul) and Judas, who was empowered to preach the Kingdom Gospel like as the rest of Christ's disciples during His earthly Ministry (which was specific to Israel, not the world (Matthew 10:4-6; Matthew 15:24)).

 

17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

This is the first example of anyone receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, the first example of someone being born again.

 

And I respectfully disagree, giving as a Scriptural Basis this...

 

John 16:7

King James Version (KJV)

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.

 

...and this...

 

Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

 

They could not possibly have "received the Spirit" promised by God in Prophecy in the Old Testament (under Old Testament Covenants) and taught about by Christ, because the Spirit did not come until after Christ's Ascension.

 

And in the course of this discussion one passage we will consider is this one:

 

Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

 

 

Christ is the "Baptizer," and the Spirit is what He baptizes the wheat (believers) with. He baptizes the chaff (unbelievers) with fire.

 

The statement in John 20 is best looked at in the same way that Christ's command to believe on the Resurrection and His teaching that men must be born again. In other words, "When He comes...receive Him."

 

17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

At this point the sin debt had been paid in full, the blood offering received by the Father. After this, which was before Pentecost, people could be born again/regenerated.

 

As you started your post with, which is absolutely true...

Without the indwelling Holy Ghost, you cannot be truly born again.

 

17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

There is no difference, both happen simultaneously, despite what Calvinism says.

 

And I would agree. Calvinism errs in that it teaches that God regenerates the natural man that he might understand the Gospel and then express faith in Christ which is how men are saved. Arminian teaching is equally erroneous in that they teach God has given the natural man the ability to understand apart from regeneration.

 

The simple solution to this centuries old debate is that the natural man, as Scripture conclusively teaches, has no ability to perceive the spiritual things of God, so, we simply let the Word of God explain it:

 

John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

 

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.

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

 

The Ministry of the Comforter is specific to convicting unbelievers. Natural men are enlightened that they might know the truth, and it is within that ministry they either reject or yield to the truth.

 

Here is the thing we have to consider, Scripture makes it clear that unregenerate men have received the truth, but, that they are in fact unregenerate. We know that Salvation is eternal, and one cannot lose their salvation, because salvation is a man being immersed into God, and God into the believer. Neither can one dispute that remission of sins is given in totality according to the Writer of Hebrews, which is the very promise of God to mankind in the Promise of the New Covenant. The single greatest affirmation of Eternal Security in Scripture (and this is just my opinion, mind you) is seen here:

 

Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

 

This contrasts what the Covenant of Law could not do:

 

Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

 

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

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

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

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

 

The (Covenant of) Law could not take away (the penalty for) sins (and bring Atonement on an eternal level) hence it could not make the "comer thereunto" (the worshiper) "perfect," which in the Greek means c"completion," a "bringing to an end.

 

However, the Sacrifice of Christ not only makes the comer thereunto complete in regards to remission of sins (the purpose vicarious animal death was provided (Leviticus 17:11)), it makes them compete in regards to remission of sins...for ever.

 

God bless.

 

 

17 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Not a matter of dictated etiquette, rather just plain, old fashioned good manners.

If you walked into church and just started trying to teach stuff (anything) without first allowing us to get to know you, you wouldn't find a welcome reception. (And I know this isn't a church but the principle is not that different.)

 

Whatever, you act as you like. Unless you DO cause trouble or act offensively, the mods will let you play.

But you might consider that basic good manners go a long way.......

 

It seems it is just a matter of interruption of a serious subject, so if you don't mind, address the topic of the OP and place your opinions on how a Christian Doctrinal Discussion and Debate Forum should work in an appropriate Thread in an appropriate Board.

 

I would love to have you join the discussion, Dave, but I really don't have time to get involved in personal issues.

 

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I directly answered your question about etiquette. 

I doubt very much that I will join your discussions for the simple fact that I do not much care for your manner. 

You might consider such things if you wish people to discuss with you.

But I will now leave 'your' thread so you can be as uncivil and bad mannered as you please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

One more verse...John 3:8...

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

In this, the Lord continues speaking in the present tense. He didn't say, "So will be every one that will be born of the Spirit."

 

 

Thanks for the contributions, NN, these are the very objections that need to be looked at.

 

Again, that Christ is teaching of what will take place in a future time is not denied grammatically, because see this over and over in Scripture, a good example being...

 

John 3:14-16

King James Version (KJV)

 

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

There is no distinction that believing on Christ is not demanded throughout the Lord's earthly Ministry, yet not one person, not even from among the disciples...believed on Christ and His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. It does not say "Whosoever believes on Him...after the Son of Man is lifted up," but simply states those who believe on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

 

Now here is something I would ask you to consider: does your argument presented deny certain aspects which I have pointed out, such as the basic truth that the Comforter did not come until after Christ returned to Heaven, or, that we know that the disciples in John 14 were not indwelt eternally by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? BEcause what usually happens is the numerous clear statements are not always examined and certain arguments (such as those already rpesented) are given merit that for some outweighs certain clear statements.

 

let's look at another one:

 

John 1:11-13

King James Version (KJV)

 

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

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

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

 

This marks the Timeline of events very distinctly. The "power to become the sons of God, to be born of God...began with the Incarnation. When we couple that with the fact that in the Old Testament Eras/Ages what takes place under the New Covenant remained Prophecy and Promise we are hard pressed to impose these elements of the New Covenant within the periods where other Covenants remained in effect (specifically the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants).

 

So I will admit that "The Lord would not have demanded men be born again if it were not possible" is at first glance a good argument, but, this is a statement that seems to be personally directed at a Teacher of Israel, rather than a congregational delivery. And just as we do not create Christian Doctrine from the Lord telling one man he must  "Go, sell all he owns, and then come and follow Christ," and try to impose that as a concrete means by which men obtain everlasting life, and, we do not bring conflict to the Word of God by having "two means" by which men can obtain everlasting life, neither do we take this teaching and try to impose something repeatedly shown to be Prophecy and Promise into a period which is clearly within the Age of Law.

And sorry, I know that is a long sentence, lol.

 

God bless.

 

 

16 hours ago, DaveW said:

So you are saying nobody was saved before this verse?

 

From the op:

And to be clear, I am not asking if men were "saved" before Pentecost, I am asking if men were regenerated prior to Pentecost.

 

God bless.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
53 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm interested to see where this goes. :)

I often make the statement, "I reserve the right to be wrong." I mean it when I say it.

With that said, this is my understanding...

  1. Regeneration (being born again) is an immediate one-time act.
  2. Sanctification is also an immediate one-time act...but it is also a continuous act; in that, we grow in our knowledge, acts, and understanding (2 Timothy 2:19-21)...he is continuously working in our lives...making us more into his image.

 

It is important that we identify passages dealing with the progressive sanctification of the believer and Sanctification from the salvific level, meaning, the point where God sets apart the believer unto Himself, and we are "made holy," not by what we do, but by the very act of God saving us.

 

Positional Sanctification is seen here...

 

Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

 

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

 

The "for all" is an insertion of the Translators, but appropriate, because when one is sanctified by the Blood of Christ it is, as you say, a one-time event.

 

Secondly, we are made "perfect," or, "complete" in regards to the remission of sins the Sacrifice of Christ brings...for ever (which is not an insertion, it is in the text).

 

54 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Both require the Spirit's work in the life of man. Only one of them requires the indwelling Spirit. Regeneration only requires a single act by the Spirit. Sanctification is both immediate and life-long, which requires the Holy Spirit's working in the life of man...requiring his indwelling presence. With that, and the words of the Lord himself in John 3, regeneration was not only possible, it was available, needed, and called for prior to Pentecost.

 

I would suggest that neither positional or progressive sanctification occurs apart from the Ministry of the Holy Spirit. One is positionally sanctified by the revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel to the individual being ministered to.

 

In order for regeneration to take place, I think most would agree that the Eternal Indwelling of God is necessary, and we know when that began: after Christ's Ascension.

 

No man believed on Christ prior to His death, and we can find no man that actually believed on Him after He rose again. He is forced to rebuke them for their unbelief, because they did not understand that He would, as He said, rise from the dead.

 

But more importantly, in regards to regeneration, is the simple truth that man is born outside of relationship to God on a spiritual and eternal level. The New Birth is in fact part and parcel with our being Baptized into God at salvation, which is why we have a "new heart" and a "new spirit."

 

54 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I would agree that from my understanding, Old Testament saints didn't have the indwelling Holy Spirit; however, also from my understanding, regeneration isn't required by the Spirit's permanent indwelling. It's a single act that takes place at one single time.

I reserve the right to be wrong.

 

Can we, with David, implore God to "Take not His Spirit from us?" Not at all.

 

The significance of the Eternal Indwelling in relation to the very New Birth Christ demands men must undergo cannot be stressed enough.

 

The significance of Atonement on an eternal level, rather than the temporal provision given to men in every Age prior to the Age of Grace/Church Age cannot be stressed enough either, for from Adam unto the Cross animal sacrifice was the only means of atonement for sin, which was temporary and temporal, rather than Eternal.

 

Out of time, but a couple verses to consider:

 

Genesis 4

King James Version (KJV)

 

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

 

 

Hebrews 12:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

 

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

One thing I ask any that might give this topic consideration to think about is what were the promises contained in the Prophecy of the New Covenant, and can we impose those elements into Ages prior to the New Covenant being established? Throughout the Book of Hebrews a contrast is drawn between the Covenant of Law (called "The First Covenant" and "Moses' Law") and the New Covenant, and there is an imploring of this Hebrew to his Hebrew brethren to "go on unto perfection," or in other words, the completion Christ brought about in regards to God's promises given unto men, beginning with Genesis 3:15.

 

This is why Christ could state "...it is finished."

Again, thanks to you, and all, who have contributed to the discussion so far.

 

God bless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Stop. Just ... stop. For heaven's sake, listen to yourselves.  Has anyone actually stepped back and looked at the pointless, inane basis for this "discussion" started by a complete stranger, a stranger that possesses an arrogance of the kind instrumental in destroying so many good churches today? Being doctrinally right does not put one on an automatic moral high ground. It's like Tyndale all over again. You keep feeding these guys by responding to them, because they crave attention and need to feel important.

The OP said "And to be clear, I am not asking if men were "saved" before Pentecost, I am asking if men were regenerated prior to Pentecost". Pages and pages of discussion that turns out to be regarding nothing but silly semantics and  childish word games over a basic 1st grade Bible doctrine. Because some dude walked in off the street and decided he was going to ... what? 

Where does he attend church? Does he attend church? Does he have a history of faithful service? 

Never trust a man who is "impossible to offend". Even Christ was offended. A man who is impossible to offend (look at Tyndale's posts) is a man wrapped up so tight in his own intellectualism he cares nothing for people, nor even for the actual subject he's touting itself. Think about it. Offense comes from passion, a passion for people and a passion for truth. A man with no offence is a man with no passion. These guys don't care about you, and they don't care about the truth. They care about being the one holding an intellectually superior position, and are constantly beating you over the head with it in order to maintain that superiority, if you'll stand there and let them. Again, actually step back and look at the shallowness of this subject, and compare it to all of the ...words... the OP has put into it. The same with the effort Tyndale has put into saying ,,, nothing. There is no substance. They're sucking all of the air out of the room, a man can't even breath in here any more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
25 minutes ago, S.T.Ranger said:

So I will admit that "The Lord would not have demanded men be born again if it were not possible" is at first glance a good argument, but, this is a statement that seems to be personally directed at a Teacher of Israel, rather than a congregational delivery. And just as we do not create Christian Doctrine from the Lord telling one man he must  "Go, sell all he owns, and then come and follow Christ," and try to impose that as a concrete means by which men obtain everlasting life, and, we do not bring conflict to the Word of God by having "two means" by which men can obtain everlasting life, neither do we take this teaching and try to impose something repeatedly shown to be Prophecy and Promise into a period which is clearly within the Age of Law.

I agree with the premise, but in my view and understanding...what the Lord is telling Nicodemus is a universal truth that applies to all (ye must be born again). Whereas, in telling the one man to go, sell all that he owns, and then follow Christ...the Lord was trying to get the man to see that though he claimed to have kept the law from his youth, he had actually not kept the law and was trying to earn salvation by works. In his simple statement, the Lord exposed his folly. 

The law wasn't given as a means of salvation; rather, it was given to show men that they were sinners in need of salvation.

35 minutes ago, S.T.Ranger said:

Now here is something I would ask you to consider: does your argument presented deny certain aspects which I have pointed out, such as the basic truth that the Comforter did not come until after Christ returned to Heaven, or, that we know that the disciples in John 14 were not indwelt eternally by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

I don't deny that by any means; however, the Lord was clear that regeneration was needed prior to Pentecost. It was available, and it was offered through the Spirit...just as it is the Spirit who does the work in regeneration in the "Church Age". In my studies, I haven't seen anything that says that the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit is required for regeneration (or being born again). It is a one-time act. His indwelling (from my studies) pertains to his work in our lives after regeneration.

20 minutes ago, S.T.Ranger said:

I would suggest that neither positional or progressive sanctification occurs apart from the Ministry of the Holy Spirit. One is positionally sanctified by the revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel to the individual being ministered to.

Perhaps you may have misunderstood what I said...or more likely...I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that (in my view) sanctification is required by the indwelling Spirit, but regeneration isn't. I think we agree about sanctification (?). 

23 minutes ago, S.T.Ranger said:

No man believed on Christ prior to His death, and we can find no man that actually believed on Him after He rose again.

John 2:11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

John 2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

John 4:39
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

John 4:41
And many more believed because of his own word;

John 7:31
And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

John 8:30
As he spake these words, many believed on him.

John 8:31
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

John 10:42
And many believed on him there.

John 11:45
Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

John 12:11
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

John 12:42
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

33 minutes ago, S.T.Ranger said:

The New Birth is in fact part and parcel with our being Baptized into God at salvation, which is why we have a "new heart" and a "new spirit."

I agree that we are made new (regenerated - born again) at the moment of salvation.

35 minutes ago, S.T.Ranger said:

Can we, with David, implore God to "Take not His Spirit from us?" Not at all.

Definitely not; however, as I've said earlier...I don't see that regeneration requires the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's a one-time and immediate act...and would therefore be available and needed for man prior to Pentecost.

With all of that said, I think it's important to point out that Christ's death, burial, and resurrection were known in the Old Testament. However, the Israelites had become so indoctrinated into the works of the law that they couldn't see the law's purpose. The knowledge of Christ and his sacrifice was there; they just couldn't see it...

Luke 24:25-27
25   Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26   Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27   And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44-46
44   And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45   Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46   And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Knowledge of Christ, his death, burial, and resurrection were there for them to see...

As I look at every reference you've given, and I hope you take this in the respectful way that I mean it...I still don't see that regeneration requires the indwelling Holy Spirit. I understand your concerns about the Lord speaking only to Nicodemus, but to me, it's clear that regeneration was available, needed, and offered prior to Pentecost...and it was done through the Spirit.

I reserve the right to be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 1:20 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

I see what you're saying, but I would slightly disagree with that. Would God show partiality to Nicodemus? Why is this account written for all to see? Was God offering regeneration only to Nicodemus?

Also, the word "ye" of John 3:7 is plural; therefore, the Lord was widening the scope from only Nicodemus to everyone.

For example...

Romans 1:7-11
7   To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8   First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
9   For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
10   Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
11   For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

Paul is addressing "all" in Rome. In this address, he refers to the "all" as you, you all, your, and ye...showing the plurality of those words...which is one of the benefits of the King James version. You, your, ye are plural. Thee, thou, and thine are singular. So, while the Lord was addressing Nicodemus personally, he then included everyone in John 3:7...everyone must be born again (regenerated).
 

NN, just a thought to consider. Our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus continues well past verse 7 and in it please notice the context indicates our Lord was referring to the new birth in a near-future way and perhaps not as something that could happen at the time of His conversation with Nicodemus.

In verses 13 and 14 of this context our Lord references His Ascension and His Crucifixion indicating to me that He was referring to an imminent event and not of one that could occur prior to His death, burial and resurrection. The context of the whole conversation indicate Jesus is tying the New Birth directly into His Gospel and that the former was fully dependent on the latter.  Please note John 16:7. I think Bro Mike hits the nail on the head in his post.

What the ranger fella is talking about does make allot of sense to me but if anyone recalls, Bro. Markle and I have gone round and round of this same subject on at least two occasions so this thread is veja-vu to me and the reason I haven't chimed in. Here is a link (I think) to the last time this topic came up.

Ranger does come off as arrogant but to be fair, I can count on one hand the number of people on here who don't come off that way from time to time (and I am NOT one of the fingers on that hand). I do agree that it is not a good way to introduce yourself though.

Ok, chiming out.......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I agree with the premise, but in my view and understanding...what the Lord is telling Nicodemus is a universal truth that applies to all (ye must be born again). Whereas, in telling the one man to go, sell all that he owns, and then follow Christ...the Lord was trying to get the man to see that though he claimed to have kept the law from his youth, he had actually not kept the law and was trying to earn salvation by works. In his simple statement, the Lord exposed his folly. 

The law wasn't given as a means of salvation; rather, it was given to show men that they were sinners in need of salvation.

 

The Lord is clear, when asked how one could obtain everlasting life, and He prescribes what the man must do. It is most reasonable to view that this is dealing with the nature of this man's sin on a personal level. Still, we don't create a doctrine out of it and go around telling people to sell all they own, follow Christ, and they will receive everlasting life. This actually came up last night on a call when I was witnessing to an Atheist customer. HE said he would see validity in Christianity when he saw someone do that, lol.

 

So I agree it is a universal truth, but so is...

 

John 3:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

Now, while you have posted a number of verses that show people "believed," you still have not addressed the Scripture which shows, without controversy...that not even the disciples believed in the Resurrection of Christ, both before and after He died and rose again. The Atheist I spoke with said clearly "I believe in Christ," but, his belief was centered on how men can "be good" and treat others with "respect," and care/love their neighbors. So can we say that the "belief" this fellow has constitutes the belief demanded of Christ concerning Himself?

 

I ask you, NN, who, when v. 18 is stated above by Christ...could believe in something that had not yet happened? Or can we say that one does not have to believe in the resurrection in order to be saved according to conditions of this Age under the New Covenant?

 

1 minute ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I don't deny that by any means; however, the Lord was clear that regeneration was needed prior to Pentecost. It was available, and it was offered through the Spirit...just as it is the Spirit who does the work in regeneration in the "Church Age". In my studies, I haven't seen anything that says that the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit is required for regeneration (or being born again). It is a one-time act. His indwelling (from my studies) pertains to his work in our lives after regeneration.

 

He was clear men had to believe on His death prior to His Death. Doesn't mean that anyone did, and we see from clear statements by Christ and the Gospel Writers that they did not. Again, while I recognize this argument sounds good on the surface, it cannot contradict what is made clear in the Gospels, as well as by the Apostles in the Epistles.

 

The Gospel was a Mystery not revealed in past Ages, and the Age of Law was right up unto the Cross of Christ, so we have to account the teachings respective to the Age they are found in. For example, In Luke 16 in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham does not say "They have the Gospel of Christ, let them hear that," he states "They have the Law and the Prophets, let them hear them." Christ ministered under the Law for a reason, that He might fulfill the Law.

 

1 minute ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Perhaps you may have misunderstood what I said...or more likely...I wasn't clear enough. I was saying that (in my view) sanctification is required by the indwelling Spirit, but regeneration isn't. I think we agree about sanctification (?). 

 

Which establishes a dichotomy in the Body of Christ which doesn't exist: those who are saved but not indwelt by God, and those who are. It also equates the Church, which began on Pentecost, with believers from the Old Testament. It also denies that there is a distinction between the Spirit of God being with the disciples forever, being in them, rather than with them, which is made by Christ Himself.

 

No sanctification takes place apart from the indwelling of God. One is set apart unto God by the very event of the believer being reconciled to God and immersed into God in restoration of the union man is born without, which was lost in Adam.

 

2 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

John 2:11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

John 2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

John 4:39
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

John 4:41
And many more believed because of his own word;

John 7:31
And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

John 8:30
As he spake these words, many believed on him.

John 8:31
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

John 10:42
And many believed on him there.

John 11:45
Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

John 12:11
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

John 12:42
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

 

There is no argument from me, the disciples, and many, believed on Christ within the capacity of the revelation they had received and had been and were being enlightened to. That is why they could believe Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (which was revealed to them by God Himself), but immediately after we see Peter deny the very Gospel of Christ:

 

Matthew 16:13-18

King James Version (KJV)

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?

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

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

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

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

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

Now the response when Christ gives one of the few teachings of the Gospel:

 

Matthew 16:20-23

King James Version (KJV)

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

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

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

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

 

Peter could not understand because the Gospel of Christ, though foretold in Prophecy, and clearly stated to men by Christ HImself, was not given to men to understand yet.

 

Romans 16:24-26

King James Version (KJV)

24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

 

1 Corinthians 2:6-9

King James Version (KJV)

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

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

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

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

 

 

2 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Definitely not; however, as I've said earlier...I don't see that regeneration requires the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

The Indwelling is the very cause of Regeneration. What is new is that we receive the eternal life of God through God indwelling us on an eternal level. That is what the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is, immersion into God.

 

2 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

It's a one-time and immediate act...and would therefore be available and needed for man prior to Pentecost.

With all of that said, I think it's important to point out that Christ's death, burial, and resurrection were known in the Old Testament. However, the Israelites had become so indoctrinated into the works of the law that they couldn't see the law's purpose. The knowledge of Christ and his sacrifice was there; they just couldn't see it...

Luke 24:25-27
25   Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26   Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27   And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44-46
44   And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45   Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46   And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Knowledge of Christ, his death, burial, and resurrection were there for them to see...

 

Doesn't mean they understood it:

 

John 20:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

 

Colossians 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)

25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

 

 

3 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

As I look at every reference you've given, and I hope you take this in the respectful way that I mean it...I still don't see that regeneration requires the indwelling Holy Spirit. I understand your concerns about the Lord speaking only to Nicodemus, but to me, it's clear that regeneration was available, needed, and offered prior to Pentecost...and it was done through the Spirit.

I reserve the right to be wrong

 

You also reserve the right to be right, lol. In fact, I would suggest we are commanded to be right, when it comes to Biblical Doctrine (Hebrews 5:10-14).

Now, on this point, what I would ask you is this: do the passages presented to you (earlier in the thread) from John 14 and 16 show that the Lord is teaching that the disciples would be eternally indwelt and that was not happening at the time of the teaching?

 

Can you really impose a concept of "born again" on people who do not believe in the Resurrection, who deny Christ, and who refuse to believe when told the Lord has risen?

 

If someone did that today, would a possibility that they were born again believers even enter your mind? Or would you view them as rejecters of Christ?

 

Once more, I will point out...

 

John 14:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

 

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

 

John 14:22-23

King James Version (KJV)

 

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

 

What, if not the indwelling of God, would you suggest brings about the New Birth? Show me Scripture that indicates Regeneration in any Biblical person you choose (prior to Pentecost), and show where they are "born again," which I would remind you, is synonymous with being born of God, born of the Spirit, and born from above. Then, show how one can be "born again" without being born of God.

 

Only those born of God are sons of God, and John makes it clear that this cannot be imposed prior to the Incarnation...

 

John 1:11-13

King James Version (KJV)

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

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

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

 

...so, if one wants to argue that men could be born again, that is, born of God after the Birth of Christ, that is one thing, but, still raises the difficulty of trying to show from Scripture why it began at that point. In John 3 "born from above," which is synonymous with being born of God, is the literal translation. It is from Peter's writings that we actually see "born again." And Peter makes it clear how we are "born again:"

 

1 Peter 1

King James Version (KJV)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

 

 

It is a basic conclusion that if we are born again unto a living hope by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead, then that makes men being born again by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ prior to the Resurrection taking place an unreasonable conclusion.

Have to get going, so one more passage and another point:

 

Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

What is in view when Paul makes the statement "But after the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared?"

 

Is it not that His mercy is shown by saving us? By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost? When did that happen?

 

Last point to consider: what exactly does Paul mean by...the renewing of the Holy Ghost? While it is reasonable to view this as renewing which is effected in the life of a believer in Progressive Sanctification, I would suggest to you that this is speaking about Reconciliation. In other words, man is conceived and born out of relationship with God, not having the Spirit of God, and that relationship is renewed through the washing of regeneration, and it is the renewal of that relationship which is the cause of regneration.

 

Okay, have to go, and it looks like two more responses have come in, so not sure I should answer them at this time, as I really don't have the time. Thanks again for the participation, I am enjoying the discussion thoroughly.

 

God bless.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, wretched said:

What the ranger fella is talking about does make allot of sense to me but if anyone recalls, Bro. Markle and I have gone round and round of this same subject on at least two occasions so this thread is veja-vu to me and the reason I haven't chimed in. Here is a link (I think) to the last time this topic came up.

 

The fact that you have even discussed this issue makes you a valuable participant in the discussion, so I would encourage you to join in. That is how we all learn, by discussing from our studies those things we feel God has shown us, and it may be that something you have studied can have great impact on any given discussion, because there may be something that you know or understand that has not been interjected into the discussion.

 

As far as coming off as arrogant, lol, sorry. That is just going to be a charge laid to anyone who has the utter gall to think they know what they're talking about.

 

;)

 

And for the record, it doesn't seem as though my approach is keeping me from meeting and interacting with the members here. So to each his own.

 

God bless.

Really do not like the merging function. Any way to dismantle that?

 

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, weary warrior said:

Stop. Just ... stop. For heaven's sake, listen to yourselves.  Has anyone actually stepped back and looked at the pointless, inane basis for this "discussion" started by a complete stranger, a stranger that possesses an arrogance of the kind instrumental in destroying so many good churches today? Being doctrinally right does not put one on an automatic moral high ground. It's like Tyndale all over again. You keep feeding these guys by responding to them, because they crave attention and need to feel important.

The OP said "And to be clear, I am not asking if men were "saved" before Pentecost, I am asking if men were regenerated prior to Pentecost". Pages and pages of discussion that turns out to be regarding nothing but silly semantics and  childish word games over a basic 1st grade Bible doctrine. Because some dude walked in off the street and decided he was going to ... what? 

Where does he attend church? Does he attend church? Does he have a history of faithful service? 

Never trust a man who is "impossible to offend". Even Christ was offended. A man who is impossible to offend (look at Tyndale's posts) is a man wrapped up so tight in his own intellectualism he cares nothing for people, nor even for the actual subject he's touting itself. Think about it. Offense comes from passion, a passion for people and a passion for truth. A man with no offence is a man with no passion. These guys don't care about you, and they don't care about the truth. They care about being the one holding an intellectually superior position, and are constantly beating you over the head with it in order to maintain that superiority, if you'll stand there and let them. Again, actually step back and look at the shallowness of this subject, and compare it to all of the ...words... the OP has put into it. The same with the effort Tyndale has put into saying ,,, nothing. There is no substance. They're sucking all of the air out of the room, a man can't even breath in here any more.

 

 

More to beware is a man that ignores the Scripture presented in a Theological Discussion and jumps straight to an attack on someone. Do you suppose Christianity is not evidenced by those who discuss Theological Issues but is evidenced by spewing vitriol?

 

Address the topic if you care to join in, but if you want to attack people do it somewhere else.

 

And I would like to know what this Forum's policy is on questioning the salvation of another member.

 

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 minutes ago, S.T.Ranger said:

Now, while you have posted a number of verses that show people "believed," you still have not addressed the Scripture which shows, without controversy...that not even the disciples believed in the Resurrection of Christ, both before and after He died and rose again. 

Well, actually I did cover the "after"...

58 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

John 2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

 

As to the "before"...

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.
 

The Lord seemed pretty sure that they were his...

I don't have time to address everything right now, but I wanted to address that one issue quickly. I'm at work, and I have many things going on in my family life that deserves my attention. Please forgive me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
30 minutes ago, S.T.Ranger said:

And for the record, it doesn't seem as though my approach is keeping me from meeting and interacting with the members here. So to each his own.

 

NP friend, I have enjoyed the conversation and you can't find a better Christian example than NN to discuss topics with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...