# Were the twelve (minus one) saved?



## Herald (Mar 4, 2007)

Understanding that Judas was the son of perdition, were the other eleven disciples saved before Pentecost? It is understood that their knowledge wasn't complete (Matthew 15:15-16; Matthew 16:1-11; John 12:16; John 20:6). It is understood that they were elect (John 6:70; John 18:9). I am wondering whether the work of regeneration had already taken place before Pentecost? Could Peter have uttered his great confession (Matthew 16:16) while still unregenerate?

What say you all?


----------



## satz (Mar 4, 2007)

I think Peter was definitely regenerate by Matthew 16. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, so re v17, there's no way God could have revealed this to him, in a meaningful way that Peter would have believed, unless he was regenerate.

I can't think of any 'proof texts' but I would think men who followed Jesus around for three(?) years would have been regenerate. I think in general they showed enough fruit to indicate such.

Any reason why you think they might have not been?


----------



## Herald (Mar 4, 2007)

Was Thomas' unbelief in our Lord's resurrection the sign of an unregenerate heart or a lapse of faith? 

I'm trying to gauge what impact (if any) it may present if the eleven were not saved. How do we reconcile passages such as 1 Cor. 2:14 and Eph 2:1 against Luke 9:1-2?

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

[bible]Ephesians 2:1[/bible]

_________________________________________________________________


[bible]Luke 9:1-2[/bible]

What makes this even more problematic is that Judas Iscariot was among them.


----------



## Herald (Mar 4, 2007)

[bible]Matthew 14:33[/bible]

Could they have worshipped Jesus if they were not regenerate? I have no problem with Judas not being singled out for who he was. The emphasis was on the entire group, not just Judas.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 4, 2007)

Guys,
We need to NOT think like dispensationalists. To a man, excepting Judas Iscariot, these fellows were regenerate, Old Covenant Jews. Any other thought simply fails to do justice to the Hope of Israel, and that there were many who had it even in those dark days of legalism, formalism, apostasy and hypocrisy.

Did they have to grow in grace and faith? Sure. Did they immediately recognize Jesus? Well, several of them believed simply in the testimony of John the Baptist. Several of them simply dropped what they were doing and responded to Jesus command to follw him. Their conviction and clarity grew over time.

And at the betrayal, all forsook him. But Jesus preserved them all, all but Judas. So for the 11, it was only a lapse, not apostasy.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 4, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Thomas did not believe until he stuck his hands in Jesus' side. But by the time of Pentecost it seems they were all saved (and Judas as dead). Peter by Matthew 16....not sure....


But how could Peter be the first Pope if he wasn't regenerate?


----------



## etexas (Mar 4, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> But how could Peter be the first Pope if he wasn't regenerate?


Cause he knew he would get a cool hat.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 4, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Cause he knew he would get a cool hat.


That hat is anything but cool...it may be bullet proof however. Kevlar hats "I'ma' da' stinkin' Pope!"


----------



## Herald (Mar 4, 2007)

> We need to NOT think like dispensationalists.



Bruce, I'm trying not to. This question was asked of me today of Simon Peter, and I answered, "Yes. He was regenerate." The follow up question was, "Prove it." I believe the preponderance of scripture bears out Peter's salvation, but I wanted to throw this out for the brains on the PB.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 4, 2007)

Bill,
I understand. I would argue that from our first encounters with Peter, as in his days attending the ministry of John the Baptist, he exhibits the most sincere faith imaginable. I agree that his declaration of Jesus Messianic/divine identity is a most clear sign.


----------



## KMK (Mar 5, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Bruce, I'm trying not to. This question was asked of me today of Simon Peter, and I answered, "Yes. He was regenerate." The follow up question was, "Prove it." I believe the preponderance of scripture bears out Peter's salvation, but I wanted to throw this out for the brains on the PB.



"Prove it." Really, how can you 'prove' anyone is regenerate? All we have to go on is a profession of faith and repentance and preservation. I would have to say that Peter demonstrated those.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 5, 2007)

Even saved people are still sinners, and often don't believe as they should.

Thomas, previous to Jn 20:28, exhibited faith in Jesus (e.g. Jn 11:16). Why should we assume it wasn't genuine and saving? Simply because, _like the rest of the disciples, _he lapsed?

Shall we also presume that John himself wasn't saved until we read, Jn 20:8, "he saw and believed"? These were men like ourselves, weak, frail, and dependent on the prayers of Jesus (see Jn. 17:6-9 for both the disciples' characters and Jesus prayer).


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 5, 2007)

"I do not think that Peter had a full understanding of Jesus as Messiah, cf. Mt.16:23, or even Acts 1:6". I think the full understanding must be linked to the pouring out of the Spirit of prophesy by the risen Christ. 
This raises a further question as to how much theology we need to be saved. 
If the disciples were regenerate before the day of Pentecost then is the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 an extra? This would contradict 1.Cor.12:13 (Spirit-baptism is for all).
I think one must argue for a period of transition within the context of redemptive history (this overlap was to continue – for a while, cf. Acts 19:1ff.). 
The 12 (except for Judas whom we know to have been a reprobate) were not regenerate - which is not possible without the Holy Spirit who as yet had not been poured out on the Church. (cf. Ro.8:9c).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 5, 2007)

Dieter,
How were OT saints saved? The same way we are--by faith in the Messiah.

They had to be regenerated just like we must be, living on the other side of the cross. So the Spirit had to regenerate them too. That's what Jesus said to Nicodemus, right? Long before the cross. And he rebuked Nicodemus for his denseness on the subject also: "Thou are _*THE*_ teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?" (Jn.3:10)

Regeneration didn't begin happening starting at Penecost. It started happening with Adam and Eve after the fall.


----------



## Herald (Mar 5, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Dieter,
> How were OT saints saved? The same way we are--by faith in the Messiah.
> 
> They had to be regenerated just like we must be, living on the other side of the cross. So the Spirit had to regenerate them too. That's what Jesus said to Nicodemus, right? Long before the cross. And he rebuked Nicodemus for his denseness on the subject also: "Thou are _*THE*_ teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?" (Jn.3:10)
> ...



Bruce, I'm pleased that you made this post. It debunks the need for a sinners prayer or a "memorable" salvation experience. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. I am *not* saying that a person is not saved if they prayed a sinners prayer or know the day/hour that they came to faith. I am saying that the calling of the elect is not tied to a flawed human understand of the process of salvation.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 5, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Guys,
> We need to NOT think like dispensationalists. To a man, excepting Judas Iscariot, these fellows were regenerate, Old Covenant Jews. Any other thought simply fails to do justice to the Hope of Israel, and that there were many who had it even in those dark days of legalism, formalism, apostasy and hypocrisy.
> 
> Did they have to grow in grace and faith? Sure. Did they immediately recognize Jesus? Well, several of them believed simply in the testimony of John the Baptist. Several of them simply dropped what they were doing and responded to Jesus command to follw him. Their conviction and clarity grew over time.
> ...



Thank you, Bruce, and


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 5, 2007)

satz said:


> I think Peter was definitely regenerate by Matthew 16. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, so re v17, there's no way God could have revealed this to him, in a meaningful way that Peter would have believed, unless he was regenerate.
> 
> I can't think of any 'proof texts' but I would think men who followed Jesus around for three(?) years would have been regenerate. I think in general they showed enough fruit to indicate such.
> 
> Any reason why you think they might have not been?



Well, Judas followed Jesus around for three years and he wasn't... and it's not as though the twelve were the only ones who stuck with Jesus that whole time - and not all of them, surely, were regenerate.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 6, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> It debunks the need for a sinners prayer or a "memorable" salvation experience. Salvation has always been by grace through faith.



This is where some of the Puritans got carried away, I think. Some of them wouldn't believe a person was genuinely saved unless he could give a lengthy, detailed account of some conversion experience. They were under the impression that one had to undergo some deep emotional struggle to be genuinely converted. Reading John Bunyan's _Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners_ will provide a good demonstration of this attitude. Well, not every Christian has that kind of experience, as we all know.

The Bible merely says, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved." Some people will have a hard time getting to that place, but others won't. I think it was wrong for some of the Puritans to expect, in effect, that everyone was supposed to have the exact same experience.


----------



## javacodeman (Mar 6, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Guys,
> We need to NOT think like dispensationalists. To a man, excepting Judas Iscariot, these fellows were regenerate, Old Covenant Jews. Any other thought simply fails to do justice to the Hope of Israel, and that there were many who had it even in those dark days of legalism, formalism, apostasy and hypocrisy.
> 
> Did they have to grow in grace and faith? Sure. Did they immediately recognize Jesus? Well, several of them believed simply in the testimony of John the Baptist. Several of them simply dropped what they were doing and responded to Jesus command to follw him. Their conviction and clarity grew over time.
> ...



I fail to see how this question is dispensational or covenant in nature. Unless I've missed something, if I gaze at any person who is elect through either a dispensational or covenant lens, will I not see a point in time when that person becomes "saved" or regenerated?

java


----------



## etexas (Mar 6, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Even saved people are still sinners, and often don't believe as they should.
> 
> Thomas, previous to Jn 20:28, exhibited faith in Jesus (e.g. Jn 11:16). Why should we assume it wasn't genuine and saving? Simply because, _like the rest of the disciples, _he lapsed?
> 
> Shall we also presume that John himself wasn't saved until we read, Jn 20:8, "he saw and believed"? These were men like ourselves, weak, frail, and dependent on the prayers of Jesus (see Jn. 17:6-9 for both the disciples' characters and Jesus prayer).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 6, 2007)

javacodeman said:


> I fail to see how this question is dispensational or covenant in nature. Unless I've missed something, if I gaze at any person who is elect through either a dispensational or covenant lens, will I not see a point in time when that person becomes "saved" or regenerated?
> 
> java



Michael,
My point was that someone could read the openning question (and I did) as if it were saying that until the Spirit came at Pentecost, people generally, and the disciples particularly, weren't regenerated. That view is simply not tenable, once one acknowledges that faith in Christ, even when it was prospective, was the necessary instrument of justification. And faith in God is a divine gift requiring a new heart for the exercise. Ergo, OT saints were regenerated. And, for example, Peter's faith declaration of Mt. 16:16 is an exhibition of saving faith. Jesus tells him, "I have prayed for you that your faith fail not" (See. Lk. 22:28-32). Jesus holds on to the ones he's been given, and who he intercedes for.

So, it did seem as though the classic Dispensational view that OT saints were saved some other way may have prompted the openning question (and I realize that the question was coming from "outside the board" initially, and wasn't Bill's own thinking.)


----------

