Old Covenant - New Birth?

[msortwell]

1. Were Old Covenant believers born again?

2. Does being a dispensationalist (i.e., application of the dispensational hermeneutic) require a particular answer to the question posed above?

 

[prov1810]

1. Were Old Covenant believers born again?

No. We see that Old Covenant believers who lived in the time of the New Testament had not yet been born again. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again." Paul said to Titus, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Tit. 3:5). So we are talking about something new.

(Matt. 11:11) Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

 

[msortwell]

No. We see that Old Covenant believers who lived in the time of the New Testament had not yet been born again. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again."

We lack scriptural warrant to presume that Nicodemus was NOT born again - not from the discourse in John 3. Rather, it seems that Jesus chides him for being a teacher of Israel yet being ignorant of the new birth.

Paul said to Titus, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Tit. 3:5). So we are talking about something new.

It isn't clear to me which aspect of the cited text describes what you believe is new. There has been no dispensation wherein a man was saved on the basis of deeds that they have done.

(Matt. 11:11) Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

All men have been born of a woman (with the exceptions of Adam and Eve), so how does this contribute to the conclusion that no persons were born again prior to the advent of the NT Church?

I am not saying that these Scriptures teach that OT saints WERE born again. But I don't see within them evidence that they were not. The proof, it would seem, would have to come from elsewhere.

And I am MOST interested in how widely held your position (i.e., that OT saints were NOT born again) is among dispensationalists.

 

[prov1810]

We lack scriptural warrant to presume that Nicodemus was NOT born again - not from the discourse in John 3. Rather, it seems that Jesus chides him for being a teacher of Israel yet being ignorant of the new birth.



It isn't clear to me which aspect of the cited text describes what you believe is new. There has been no dispensation wherein a man was saved on the basis of deeds that they have done.



All men have been born of a woman (with the exceptions of Adam and Eve), so how does this contribute to the conclusion that no persons were born again prior to the advent of the NT Church?

I am not saying that these Scriptures teach that OT saints WERE born again. But I don't see within them evidence that they were not. The proof, it would seem, would have to come from elsewhere.

And I am MOST interested in how widely held your position (i.e., that OT saints were NOT born again) is among dispensationalists.

I am taking Jesus' statement "you must be born again" to mean that Nicodemus had not yet been born again.

Agreed that no one has been saved on the basis of deeds. What seems new to me in Paul's statement is regeneration. He did not experience this before conversion to Christianity.

Being born again IS conversion. But in the Old Covenant most Jews were not converts, they were born Jewish and God expected them to be faithful. So we have two kinds of birth: natural birth within a covenant community, and the spiritual birth of individuals who then join the church. I think this is the comparison between John the Baptist and members of the Kingdom of Heaven.

I do not know how these thoughts of mine compare with the teachings of dispensationalist theologians. On this topic I'm just a layman thinking out loud.

 

[msortwell]

I am taking Jesus' statement "you must be born again" to mean that Nicodemus had not yet been born again.

Agreed that no one has been saved on the basis of deeds. What seems new to me in Paul's statement is regeneration. He did not experience this before conversion to Christianity.

Being born again IS conversion. But in the Old Covenant most Jews were not converts, they were born Jewish and God expected them to be faithful. So we have two kinds of birth: natural birth within a covenant community, and the spiritual birth of individuals who then join the church. I think this is the comparison between John the Baptist and members of the Kingdom of Heaven.

I do not know how these thoughts of mine compare with the teachings of dispensationalist theologians. On this topic I'm just a layman thinking out loud.

All I would offer at this point is that your position, in my assessment, is developed from a series of reasonable (although not necessary) inferences. There are, I believe, Scripture verses that require necessary inferences be made that lead to a different conclusion. However, my interest is not in debating the issue as much as it is in learning how popular the view you hold is among dispensationalists - and their basis for holding that view.

You have provided your view and offered a defense for it. I appreciate the insight. Thank you.

 

[prov1810]

All I would offer at this point is that your position, in my assessment, is developed from a series of reasonable (although not necessary) inferences. There are, I believe, Scripture verses that require necessary inferences be made that lead to a different conclusion. However, my interest is not in debating the issue as much as it is in learning how popular the view you hold is among dispensationalists - and their basis for holding that view.

You have provided your view and offered a defense for it. I appreciate the insight. Thank you.

Looking at the entry for regeneration in the doctrinal summary at the end of Chafer's text... "The doctrine of individual regeneration is obscure in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament it becomes definite (John 3:1-6)".

I'll try to find more on this from him and other dispensationalists.

 

[prov1810]

Found this:

Professor Sproul also identifies another quintessential difference between the Reformed versus Classic Dispensational view. On page 194 [of WILLING TO BELIEVE, The Controversy over Free Will] he states, "It is also important to note that Reformed theology understands regeneration to involve a change in the fallen human being's nature. That is, the human nature itself undergoes a change (amelioration) in its constitution." (Underline and bracket emphasis mine.) Sproul is absolutely correct regarding Covenant theology's view. However, both the Reformed and Wesleyan theological tradition (like the Romanist tradition before them) view regeneration in terms of this amelioration of the depravity congenitally received from the First Adam.

This is typically called "One Naturism"--one nature changed from bad to good, in contrast to the doctrine of the "Two Natures of the Believer"--where the old nature (life from the First Adam) is progressively displaced by the new nature (life from the Last Adam--the Risen Lord Jesus Christ). Until recently (circa 1980s & 1990s), classical dispensationalists have rejected the Reformed "one naturism" view. In his book, Professor Sproul acknowledges this theological shift. "The developments within Dispensational thought, particularly those evidenced at Dallas Theological Seminary, are encouraging to advocates of classical Reformed theology." (p.189-190).
​

From Dispensational Truth (1920) by Clarence Larkin:

"Sin" is that tendency in mankind to do wrong which we call "Natural Depravity." We do not get rid of this "tendency" by the "New Birth," but we get a "counteracting force" called the "New Nature." We become a "dual personality," composed of the "Old" and "New Natures," and which shall predominate depends on which we feed and which we starve.
​

 

[Danoh]

In 2 Tim. 2:15, the Apostle Paul writes of the need to rightly divide the word of truth. In the very next passages, he makes use of both CONTRAST and a Time Line to illustrate its opposite.

The Lord did likewise in John 3 and John 6. Contrast John 3:6 with the Time Line He refers to things in light of, in John 6:39 and you find, that, NO, Old Testament saints (Genesis to Acts) were NOT born again.

Further, Jesus' words had not been to Nicodemas alone. He declared "YE must be born again," just as He had declared He had been "not sent BUT UNTO the house OF ISRAEL," Matt. 15:24.

"Ye" refers to all of you, in that case, then, ALL Israel.

Danoh
Eph. 4:16

 

[msortwell]

Looking at the entry for regeneration in the doctrinal summary at the end of Chafer's text... "The doctrine of individual regeneration is obscure in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament it becomes definite (John 3:1-6)".

I'll try to find more on this from him and other dispensationalists.

Based upon the quote from Chafer's text, wherein he would seem to be saying that the OT text may allow for the doctrine of individual regeneration while the NT makes it clear that within the NT church period believers certainly ARE born again.

This would seem to indicate that a dispensationalist will draw his conclusion based upon something other than application of a literal (or plain meaning) hermeneutic.

Still, it seems that the "NT-Only" regeneration position (like that held by Danoh) is most popular among dispensationalists. If it is in fact the majority view among dispensationalists I am interested in knowing why - particularly in light of the fact that it is decidedly the minority view held among the reformed.

 

[prov1810]

If it is in fact the majority view among dispensationalists I am interested in knowing why - particularly in light of the fact that it is decidedly the minority view held among the reformed.

It's the way of thinking. Categorical differences are also chronological - for instance, law and grace are dispensations. Regeneration came in with Pentecost.

Interesting Reformed perspective: Before Pentecost, Where Did OT Israelites' Faith Originate?

 

[msortwell]

It's the way of thinking. Categorical differences are also chronological - for instance, law and grace are dispensations. Regeneration came in with Pentecost.

Interesting Reformed perspective: Before Pentecost, Where Did OT Israelites' Faith Originate?

The article that you identified describes the position that I hold. Up until recently, I thought it was universally held among the reformed. I was proved wrong recently; it is not universally held among the reformed. Some among the reformed believe differently.

 

[Danoh]

The article that you identified describes the position that I hold. Up until recently, I thought it was universally held among the reformed. I was proved wrong recently. Some among the reformed believe differently.

A problem with that article's position is passages like Deut. 10:16's "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked," clear evidence it was on them to get right and not the work of the Spirit.

Of course, that had to do with what God was then proving through the Law, Rom. 3:19.

Danoh
Eph. 4:16

 

[msortwell]

No other contributions for consideration?

 

[notreligus]

1. Were Old Covenant believers born again?

2. Does being a dispensationalist (i.e., application of the dispensational hermeneutic) require a particular answer to the question posed above?

Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.
Acts 7:52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,
Acts 7:53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it."
Acts 7:54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him.

As you may know, you can find that term, "stiff-necked," in the Scriptures multiple times as a description of the Jews. Stephen, as he was being stoned by order of the Pharisees, told them that they had always ignored the Holy Spirit. They were a temporal people, more interested in the physical things. Christ said that they had turned His Father's house into a den of thieves. They had abandoned the Temple and had begun worship in synagogues long before Christ came and began His ministry. They had begun to follow rabbinic oral law and even created more ordinances beyond the Mitzvoh 613. Christ was critical of Nicodemus with his being a high-ranking Pharisee and yet seemed to be so spiritually dead and spiritually ignorant.

After the cross God began to deal with individuals and not just a nation, ethnic Israel. There was no more distinction between Jew and Gentile but Christ had died that all of mankind might be reconciled to God Almighty. The Holy Spirit was no longer limited by walls or a curtain.

 

[Danoh]

Readt Acts 7 in the context of the Lord's warning to Israel in Matt. 12. Add to that Romans 2.

And, the no distinction was made possible at the cross, but did not even begin to play out until after Acts 7. See Acts 9 and 10, and Romans 9-11, and Eph. 2.

By the way, Romans 11's grafting in is not a people, it is an offer, which, will one day be cut off, see also, 2 Thess. 2.

Danoh
Eph. 4:16

 

[prov1810]

1. Were Old Covenant believers born again?

On the one hand, there must have been a difference in the hearts of saved and unsaved OT Israelites. On the other hand, the texts about having a new heart in Jeremiah and Ezekiel point to the future (the millennium, I believe), and there's no precedent for what happened at Pentecost. So we don't have a simple issue here and I'm sure you agree.

In OT Israel, obedience was a requirement for remaining in the land and they disobeyed. But God will give them new, faithful hearts and they will live safely in the land. This is why the texts in Jeremiah and Ezekiel connect regeneration with the fulfillment of the land promises. It's perfectly legitimate to use them in a general discussion on regeneration, but they also have a specific historical fulfillment for Israel.