New Birth prior to the cross - Gal. 4:29

[The Biblicist]

Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now

Wouldn't denial of the new birth prior to the cross make Paul's comparison meaningless? Wouldn't those who deny the new birth prior to the cross be forced to directly contradict Paul's words "as then...even so it is now"? Is there a THIRD type of human being that is neither born "after the flesh" or "after the Spirit"? If this is merely a different way of describing the physical birth of Isaac from the physical birth of Ishmael then how could that be applicable "as then....even so IT IS NOW"?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now

Wouldn't denial of the new birth prior to the cross make Paul's comparison meaningless? Wouldn't those who deny the new birth prior to the cross be forced to directly contradict Paul's words "as then...even so it is now"? Is there a THIRD type of human being that is neither born "after the flesh" or "after the Spirit"? If this is merely a different way of describing the physical birth of Isaac from the physical birth of Ishmael then how could that be applicable "as then....even so IT IS NOW"?

This represents a misunderstanding of the text. Paul clearly states in v. 24 that this is allegorically speaking, that the women Hagar and Sarah represent the two covenants, the law, and Christ's new covenant. Therefore it is not an example to be taken literally according to the new birth to salvation, but is an allegory explaining how the new covenant is superior to the old. Consider his audience. He was chastising the Galatians for allowing the Judaizers to lead them back into the law. He was not discussing new birth in Christ with them, outside of the context of their mixing the two, which negated both.

He was also pointing out that Abraham's disobedience to the promise produced enmity between his people and the people of Hagar later in human history. Abraham was promised a child. But he and Sarah grew tired of waiting on God and devised a "plan" that would help God "deliver" on His promise by having Abraham sleep with Hagar. That was not God's plan. It showed a lack of faith, and it is faith that is required for salvation. Abraham knew this, as his faith was reckoned as righteousness in Genesis 15:6. The danger of lifting Scripture out of context is that it invariably fails to explain itself. Some people often do this in order to prove an invalid point. There is no "new birth" prior to the cross for anyone -- Abraham, you, me or the last person born in the millennial reign.

 

[The Biblicist]

This represents a misunderstanding of the text. Paul clearly states in v. 24 that this is allegorically speaking, that the women Hagar and Sarah represent the two covenants, the law, and Christ's new covenant.

You must be careful to apply the allegory to what Paul actually applies it to rather than using it as a broader brush to apply it to everything Paul is speaking about. I believe that is precisely where you interpretation fails for several reasons.

For example verses 22-23 MUST first be understood and accepted literally and historically not allegorically. The allegory is the application by Paul to these literal and historical events in verses 22-23 which in no way denies their actual literal and historical occurrence.

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.


The Specific allegorical application is then stated in verses 24-26

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Also, please note that "sinai in Arabia" is placed in contrast to "Jerusalem which is above" rather than to "the cross" as your position supposes. Significantly, Sinai in Arabia and the new "Jerusalem which is above" were conexistent prior to the cross as well as now rather than one then and the other now as your interpretation demands. More importantly, Sinai as a covenant was not existent at the time of either Ishmael or Isaac as they lived 400 years prior to when that covenant was given.

However, the truth is that the essence of the Sinai covenant, just as the essence of the covenant of the New Jerusalem have always existed from the garden of Eden and have always been two fundemental ways (Mt. 7:13-14) called "works" and "grace" and even long before Isaac, Noah "found grace in
the eyes of the Lord" under the "everlasting covenant" or what is called now confirmed on earth by the blood of Christ as the "new" covenant, not because it presents a new way of salvation but because it was publicly ratified by blood AFTER the Mount Sinai covenant was ratified by blood. However, it is the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) as the "new Jerusalem which is above" existed BEFORE the giving of the "old" covenant at Mount Sinai and remember it is described as "the blood of the everlasting covenant" which preceded the blood which established the Siniatic covenant.

However, your interpretation has even greater problems as it denies the possibility of new birth until after the cross, and most likely until Pentecost when Jesus BEFORE THE CROSS not only teaches it as a necessity for fallen man in John 3:3-6, providing only two possible alternatives "born of flesh" versus "born of Spirit" (Jn. 3:6), but rebukes Nicodemus for being a teacher of the Old Testament Scriptures and not understanding this very necessity (Jn. 3:9). Hence, the very same alternative births in Galatians 4:29 are confirmed BEFORE THE CROSS by Christ in John 3:6 as the only TWO POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES, whereas your interpetation and position demand NO ALTERNATIVE to being born of the flesh prior to the cross.

Moreover, this is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems your position has, as your position demands that prior to the cross those "in the flesh" which is equal to be "born of the flesh" could please God and walk by faith (Rom. 8:8; Heb. 11:6) which is impossible.

Finally, Galatians 4:29 is not stated to be allegorical but is stated unequivocally to be understood and recognized as a contrasting condition of NATURES due to two different births both then and now, just as Jesus BEFORE THE CROSS confirmed two different births (Jn. 3:6) using the PRESENT TENSE not the future tense for either, as your interpretation would demand.

 

[The Biblicist]

You must be careful to apply the allegory to what Paul actually applies it to rather than using it as a broader brush to apply it to everything Paul is speaking about. I believe that is precisely where you interpretation fails for several reasons.

For example verses 22-23 MUST first be understood and accepted literally and historically not allegorically. The allegory is the application by Paul to these literal and historical events in verses 22-23 which in no way denies their actual literal and historical occurrence.

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.


The Specific allegorical application is then stated in verses 24-26

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Also, please note that "sinai in Arabia" is placed in contrast to "Jerusalem which is above" rather than to "the cross" as your position supposes. Significantly, Sinai in Arabia and the new "Jerusalem which is above" were conexistent prior to the cross as well as now rather than one then and the other now as your interpretation demands. More importantly, Sinai as a covenant was not existent at the time of either Ishmael or Isaac as they lived 400 years prior to when that covenant was given.

However, the truth is that the essence of the Sinai covenant, just as the essence of the covenant of the New Jerusalem have always existed from the garden of Eden and have always been two fundemental ways (Mt. 7:13-14) called "works" and "grace" and even long before Isaac, Noah "found grace in
the eyes of the Lord" under the "everlasting covenant" or what is called now confirmed on earth by the blood of Christ as the "new" covenant, not because it presents a new way of salvation but because it was publicly ratified by blood AFTER the Mount Sinai covenant was ratified by blood. However, it is the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) as the "new Jerusalem which is above" existed BEFORE the giving of the "old" covenant at Mount Sinai and remember it is described as "the blood of the everlasting covenant" which preceded the blood which established the Siniatic covenant.

However, your interpretation has even greater problems as it denies the possibility of new birth until after the cross, and most likely until Pentecost when Jesus BEFORE THE CROSS not only teaches it as a necessity for fallen man in John 3:3-6, providing only two possible alternatives "born of flesh" versus "born of Spirit" (Jn. 3:6), but rebukes Nicodemus for being a teacher of the Old Testament Scriptures and not understanding this very necessity (Jn. 3:9). Hence, the very same alternative births in Galatians 4:29 are confirmed BEFORE THE CROSS by Christ in John 3:6 as the only TWO POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES, whereas your interpetation and position demand NO ALTERNATIVE to being born of the flesh prior to the cross.

Moreover, this is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems your position has, as your position demands that prior to the cross those "in the flesh" which is equal to be "born of the flesh" could please God and walk by faith (Rom. 8:8; Heb. 11:6) which is impossible.

Finally, Galatians 4:29 is not stated to be allegorical but is stated unequivocally to be understood and recognized as a contrasting condition of NATURES due to two different births both then and now, just as Jesus BEFORE THE CROSS confirmed two different births (Jn. 3:6) using the PRESENT TENSE not the future tense for either, as your interpretation would demand.

The more larger problem behind the denial of the new birth prior to the cross is the improper interpretation of the promise of the Spirit and the baptism in the Spirit. Dispensationalists interpret that promise to be a new way of salvation involving the Spirit - spiritual union; while Pentecostals interpret as a new kind of spiritual power - both are wrong.

There is no new gospel, new way of salvation, new condition of salvation before versus after the cross (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; 25:22-23; etc.). What is new is a new dispensation of the Spirit over a new public kingdom administration of the covenant of grace with new scriptures (confirmed by new signs and wonders) that govern that new administration - the public new house of God.

The baptism in the Spirit was a common historical event prior to the cross whereby each new public house of God was publicly accredited once (Ex. 40; 2 Chron. 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-3).

The new public house of God was constituted from water baptized materials provided by John the Baptist (Lk. 1:17). In every case it is a PLURAL "you" and never ever promised to any SINGULAR "ye" or "thee" or "you." You will note that in EVERY CASE where the promise of the Baptism in the Spirit is given prior to Pentecost it is NEVER once given to anyone but those who received water baptism by John (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:5). This was a one time historical accrediting action (Acts 2:1) which never occurred again but once (Acts 11:15-16) and that was to publicly accredit Gentiles for water baptism (Acts 10:47). The nearest reference point for any previous baptism in the Spirit that Peter could point to was "AT the beginning" (Acts 11:16) rather than a repetitious action for every believer at regeneration as dispensationalism teaches or with impartation of spiritual gifts as Pentecostals teach.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Good thinking already. Look forward to more discussion.

This is NOT a "Calvinist v Arminian" thread or a "Covenant v Dispensational" thread - let's keep it that way and have good insights/ideas shared

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

For example verses 22-23 MUST first be understood and accepted literally and historically not allegorically.

That is nonsense. You can't lift verses from the midst of an allegory and determine they "must" be understood and literally interpreted separately and apart from the allegory.

The allegory is the application by Paul to these literal and historical events in verses 22-23 which in no way denies their actual literal and historical occurrence.

While there is no denial of the literal and historical aspects of the birth of Ishmail and Isaac, telling the story as an allegory for the law and the promise -- which is exactly why Paul retold the story for the church at Galatia in the first place -- makes all references to the story part of the allegory. You are trying to remove the context in which Paul speaks in order to establish a "biblical principle" that does not exist.

 

[kyredneck]

Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now

Wouldn't denial of the new birth prior to the cross make Paul's comparison meaningless? Wouldn't those who deny the new birth prior to the cross be forced to directly contradict Paul's words "as then...even so it is now"? Is there a THIRD type of human being that is neither born "after the flesh" or "after the Spirit"? If this is merely a different way of describing the physical birth of Isaac from the physical birth of Ishmael then how could that be applicable "as then....even so IT IS NOW"?

Why 'NEW' birth? It's literally 'born from above', as in 'the Jerusalem that is above which is the mother of us all', referring to the children of the heavenly Zion as opposed to the earthly one.

....It behoveth you to be born from above; the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit. Jn 3:7,8 YLT

Are we to actually think Christ was implementing a brand new thing here?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13:8

Or was He revealing a mystery from of old, something that had always been?

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4

John the Baptist filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb, David made to hope while on his mother's breast, Isaac born after the Spirit by the time of his weaning, Paul separated from his mother's womb to preach Christ among the Gentiles.

There's nothing 'new' about the Spirit blowing where He wills.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is nonsense. You can't lift verses from the midst of an allegory and determine they "must" be understood and literally interpreted separately and apart from the allegory.

You admit they are historical and literal in your next paragraph below. Even if you would not admit it, the weight of Biblical scholarship demands they are historical and literal events. The allegorical method has to do with Paul's application not with the Biblical record.

While there is no denial of the literal and historical aspects of the birth of Ishmail and Isaac,

Thus you repudiate your own denial in the first paragraph above. Second, the Scriptures do not record this as an allegory but as literal historical events. It is Paul under the leadership of the Holy Spirit that applies these literal and histroical events allegorically. However, he is very specific as to what parts of this literal and historical events he makes an allegorical application and it is not verse 29.

You have failed to deal with the Biblical evidence that I provided to prove that being born of flesh and born of the Spirit were literal realties prior to the crosss (Jn. 3:6) just as Paul claims in Gal. 4:29! You have failed to explain how anyone "born of flesh" thus operating in the fallen nature or "in the flesh" can please God or walk by faith (Rom. 8:8 with Heb. 11:6).

You have failed to acknowlege or explain the use of "new Jersualem which is above" as the contrast to Mount Sinai instead of with the cross? You have failed to explain how the "new Jerusalem which is above" had no existence prior to the cross but only after the cross?? Indeed, you have failed to explain or answer any of the Biblical based objections I presented. Instead you simply reassert your disproven statements.

Again, you are taking the allegory and its precise application and trying to apply it to everything. The langauge in Galatians 4:29 is not allegorical but is explicitly stated to be the same application then as now.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why 'NEW' birth? It's literally 'born from above', as in 'the Jerusalem that is above which is the mother of us all', referring to the children of the heavenly Zion as opposed to the earthly one.

....It behoveth you to be born from above; the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit. Jn 3:7,8 YLT

Are we to actually think Christ was implementing a brand new thing here?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13:8

Or was He revealing a mystery from of old, something that had always been?

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4

John the Baptist filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb, David made to hope while on his mother's breast, Isaac born after the Spirit by the time of his weaning, Paul separated from his mother's womb to preach Christ among the Gentiles.

There's nothing 'new' about the Spirit blowing where He wills.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[percho]

The more larger problem behind the denial of the new birth prior to the cross is the improper interpretation of the promise of the Spirit and the baptism in the Spirit. Dispensationalists interpret that promise to be a new way of salvation involving the Spirit - spiritual union; while Pentecostals interpret as a new kind of spiritual power - both are wrong.

There is no new gospel, new way of salvation, new condition of salvation before versus after the cross (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; 25:22-23; etc.). What is new is a new dispensation of the Spirit over a new public kingdom administration of the covenant of grace with new scriptures (confirmed by new signs and wonders) that govern that new administration - the public new house of God.

The baptism in the Spirit was a common historical event prior to the cross whereby each new public house of God was publicly accredited once (Ex. 40; 2 Chron. 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-3).

The new public house of God was constituted from water baptized materials provided by John the Baptist (Lk. 1:17). In every case it is a PLURAL "you" and never ever promised to any SINGULAR "ye" or "thee" or "you." You will note that in EVERY CASE where the promise of the Baptism in the Spirit is given prior to Pentecost it is NEVER once given to anyone but those who received water baptism by John (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:5). This was a one time historical accrediting action (Acts 2:1) which never occurred again but once (Acts 11:15-16) and that was to publicly accredit Gentiles for water baptism (Acts 10:47). The nearest reference point for any previous baptism in the Spirit that Peter could point to was "AT the beginning" (Acts 11:16) rather than a repetitious action for every believer at regeneration as dispensationalism teaches or with impartation of spiritual gifts as Pentecostals teach.

Could it be pre-Pentecost the Spirit was given to one and taken from one where as, post Pentecost one is indwelt with the Spirit of adoption unto the adoption, the redemption of the body or that is, conceived by the Holy Spirit unto new birth?

After all what does the gospel bring to light? Is it not life and incorruption?
2 Tim 1:10


OT
Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Ps 51:10-12

NT A prophesy of Jesus for after Pentecost
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 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. John 14:16,17

Bearing in mind this verse.

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. John 16:7

Now saying all of that I believe those called of God in the OT will receive the promise of God at the same moment and by the same Spirit of faith by which we received the promise of the Holy Spirit to indwell us making us heirs of the hope of eternal life.

 

[The Biblicist]

Could it be pre-Pentecost the Spirit was given to one and taken from one where as, post Pentecost one is indwelt with the Spirit of adoption unto the adoption, the redemption of the body or that is, conceived by the Holy Spirit unto new birth?

No! Here is why. All human beings will either suffer eternal death or eternal life - there is no middle option. Eternal life IS spirtiual union with God as eternal death is being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). To be in UNION with God requires indwelling by the Spirit of God through the new inward man born of the Spirit. This is Paul's point in Romans 8:7-9. If any man have not the Spirit in the sense of indwelling, then that man is "none of his" regardless when he lives. Spiritual UNION or UNION with the Spirit of God is impossible without the permenant dwelling of the Spirit as no UNION can exist without that indwelling.

OT
Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Ps 51:10-12

Whenever we sin we break FELLOWSHIP with God not sonship. The Holy Spirit is taken from us in the sense of EXPERIENTIAL FELLOWSHIP and therfore we lose the JOY not the CONDITION of our salvation.

NT A prophesy of Jesus for after Pentecost
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 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. John 14:16,17

This is not referring to Spiritual union, new birth or indwelling of the Spirit as INDIVIDUALS but as the corporate "temple" or new public house of God. This promise is given only to BELIEVERS already baptized in water and brought into assembly with Christ (Acts 1:21-22). For example, consider the difference between 1 Cor. 3:16 with the use of the PLURAL "ye" and singular "temple" versus 1 Cor. 6:19 and the use of the SINGULAR "you" and the SINGULAR "temple." The first refers to the CORPORATE public temple consisting of PLURAL water baptized believers whereas the latter refers to the singular temple of the physical body of the water baptized believer. It is the INSTITUTIONAL temple that was promised the baptism in the Spirit and thus indwelling by the Spirit as the new public house of God just as every single solitary new public house of God previously had been initially baptized ONCE in the shikinah glory and indwelt by the Spirit of God (Ex. 40:35; 2 Chron. 7:1-3). There is a NEW public kingdom administrator given the keys of the kingdom with a new mission, a new set of scriptures with a new office (apostles) that would be leading them in a transition period which would conclude with the finished canon of scriptures, fulfillment of confirming miracles signs and wonders to a new people - gentiles - but NONE OF THIS changed the same gospel preached before and after the cross, NONE OF THIS changed the way of salvation before or after the cross - Acts 4:12; 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:29; Jn. 3:3-6.

Bearing in mind this verse.

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. John 16:7

Again, this refers to the day of Pentecost and the public accreditation by the baptism in the Spirit and indwelling of a new public house of God and not to individual believers.

There can be no eternal life apart from spirtiual union with God and there can be no spiritual union with God without the indwelling Spirit of God as all who are without such are "none of his" - Rom. 8:9

 

[beameup]

Nobody was sealed with the Holy Spirit prior to Acts 2,
and nobody will be sealed with the Holy Spirit after the Rapture.
2 Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30
During the Tribulation, "he who endures to the end" (death/martyrdom) will be saved... denial = loss of salvation.

 

[convicted1]

Why 'NEW' birth? It's literally 'born from above', as in 'the Jerusalem that is above which is the mother of us all', referring to the children of the heavenly Zion as opposed to the earthly one.

....It behoveth you to be born from above; the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit. Jn 3:7,8 YLT

Are we to actually think Christ was implementing a brand new thing here?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13:8

Or was He revealing a mystery from of old, something that had always been?

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4

John the Baptist filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb, David made to hope while on his mother's breast, Isaac born after the Spirit by the time of his weaning, Paul separated from his mother's womb to preach Christ among the Gentiles.

There's nothing 'new' about the Spirit blowing where He wills.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

God's people under the OT Law and even pre-Law were all regenerated the same way with the same sweet Spirit.....

 

[percho]

Do, Romans 6:4,5; Ephesians 2:5,6,7; and 1 Peter 1:3,4,5 all say the very same thing?

If anyone wants me to paste those just say so.

Is there a past, present and future seen in each of those passages?

What would be the end result of all three of the above passages? What will be different about each of us when verses R5 E7 and 1P5 come to fruition?

Will we be all we can be before V's 5,7 and 5?

 

[percho]

God's people under the OT Law and even pre-Law were all regenerated the same way with the same sweet Spirit.....

The people of the OT all died in faith not having received the promises.

And if David can be used as an example of the all; On the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, David was still dead in faith, for he wasn't speaking of himself in Psalms 16:10 but was speaking of the fruit of his loins, the Christ. Therefore the soul of David on that day must still have been in Hades and his flesh must have seen corruption. Um there's that word fruit that fruition comes from.

Just when does regeneration take place?

Does the earnest of the Spirit of truth point us to the future?

 

[pinoybaptist]

amazing how God dispenses His wisdom in drops and droplets among His people.
The Biblicist speaks almost like a Primitive Baptist.
Brings to mind that situation when an apostle, then called a disciple, asked the Lord why He speaks to the people in parables, but yet reveals to them (the disciples) what He means.
What was His answer ?
Unto you it is given.....to them, it is not....
Brings to mind also something Isaiah said to the tune of 'precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little' being beneficial to some, but not to some....
One word of caution, though.
There is a little bit of a thin line to watch out for, less we trip over it, between 'regeneration before the cross' as Brother The Biblicist titled it, and the heretical teaching of Two-Seeds.
Let's watch out for that.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nobody was sealed with the Holy Spirit prior to Acts 2,
and nobody will be sealed with the Holy Spirit after the Rapture.
2 Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30
During the Tribulation, "he who endures to the end" (death/martyrdom) will be saved... denial = loss of salvation.

Do you understand what it is to be "sealed" by the Holy Spirit???? It is a metaphor taken from the postal delivery system of that day. It simply means eternal security. Have you read Psalm 89:28-36? Have you read about the repeated "sure mercies" of David??? Apparently not? Do you really understand that you are denying eternal life, eternal security to all saints prior to Pentecost? Do you really understand you are teaching TWO different gospels; TWO different ways of salvation? What you are teaching is absolutely false. There is but ONE gospel (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 4:12; 26:22-23; Jn. 14:6; Mt. 7:13-14) and it is a gospel of eternal security IN CHRIST (Gal. 3:17) as there is no salvation for anyone at anytime OUTSIDE OF CHRIST but that is precisely what you are teaching when you deny sealing before Pentecost.

 

[The Biblicist]

The people of the OT all died in faith not having received the promises.

This is one of the most abused scripture texts in the entire Bible. The promises that he has in view are spelled out in no uncertain terms in Hebrews 11:13-16

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

They will not receive the NEW HEAVEN and NEW EARTH with its NEW JERUSALEM in glorified bodies WITHOUT US. Not until the resurrection.

However, every aspect of salvation short of glorification they have received. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit and the whole chapter declares they WALKED in the Spirit as that is the walk of faith. They were justified by faith (Rom. 4). They were progressively sanctified by the Spirit as that is the WALK of faith. They were regenerated, Spirit indwelt (union with God) or eternal life but they were not glorified and have not obtained the new city and won't until we do.

And if David can be used as an example of the all; On the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, David was still dead in faith, for he wasn't speaking of himself in Psalms 16:10 but was speaking of the fruit of his loins, the Christ. Therefore the soul of David on that day must still have been in Hades and his flesh must have seen corruption. Um there's that word fruit that fruition comes from.

What????? David's body saw corruption but Jesus told the Sadducees that God is not the God of the dead but of the living demanding that all Old Testament saints were LIVING. Jesus told Mary BEFORE the cross that he that liveth and believe in me SHALL NEVER DIE -"believeth thou this?" Well, Percho? "believeth THOU this?"

 

[The Biblicist]

amazing how God dispenses His wisdom in drops and droplets among His people.
The Biblicist speaks almost like a Primitive Baptist.
Brings to mind that situation when an apostle, then called a disciple, asked the Lord why He speaks to the people in parables, but yet reveals to them (the disciples) what He means.
What was His answer ?
Unto you it is given.....to them, it is not....
Brings to mind also something Isaiah said to the tune of 'precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little' being beneficial to some, but not to some....
One word of caution, though.
There is a little bit of a thin line to watch out for, less we trip over it, between 'regeneration before the cross' as Brother The Biblicist titled it, and the heretical teaching of Two-Seeds.
Let's watch out for that.

I am not a Primitive Baptist and I do not believe in the two seed theory. Although I believe there are only TWO kinds of people on earth - those "in the flesh" and those "in the Spirit" and those "in the flesh" are "NONE OF HIS" - Rom. 8:9. Also I do not believe there is any salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at any time (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Heb. 4:2) and those who teach pre-cross saints were only "in the flesh" are either denying they were saved or asserting they were saved OUTSIDE OF CHRIST.