Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost? *for all Christians

[Darrell C]

This is wholly unnecessary, and dare I say glib

Let's focus on those who perish.
Is it God's will that they perish?

Of course not. That is why He enlightens every man that comes into the world. Not a single person will stand before God and say, "This isn't fair...I didn't know!"

This was true in the Old Testament, as well as in the New. The difference being that in this Age the Revelation provided men is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is imparted to men through the Ministry of the Comforter, which is a Ministry distinct to this Age (and we know this because Christ states if He did not leave the Comforter could not come).

And I was not being glib, the questions are valid questions:

So you feel that you decided one day you wanted to be saved? Is that how it worked? Or did God intervene into your blindness to truth and bring you to conviction?

That is the only conclusion we can draw if in fact you had Free Will to seek after God and subsequently be saved. It means you woke up one day to the truth of your own accord, and acted on it.

And Scripture just does not teach that.

There is zero ability within the natural man to find truth and act on it. Only God reveals truth to men. And it is their response to the truth that will be judged.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

Of course not.

God bless.

WHY do men perish against the will of God?

 

[Darrell C]

WHY do men perish against the will of God?

Because they choose to.

But, keep in mind whereas the natural man does not exert free will in coming to saving faith, he does exert that free will which his nature allows for, which, as has been stated (by you I think)...is rebellion.

But we do not create a false doctrine which is clearly denied by Scripture: just because a man has free will to sin does not make it equally true he has free will to be righteous.

The former is expected, the latter is denied by the Word of God.


God bless.

 

[vooks]

Because they choose to.

God bless.

They successfully choose to go against the will of God?

 

[Darrell C]

They successfully choose to go against the will of God?

Most, yes, but I can tell you from personal experience for some of us...there is only so long one can kick against the goads.

"Success" in rejecting the Ministry of the Holy Ghost is determined upon physical death. Until one dies, it is premature to try to conclude in the case of those who have thus far rejected Christ. The Elect will be saved, the only question is, at what point in their lives will they be saved. We as believers have, I feel, a responsibility to evangelize, and to seek to be used of God in that process.

For me, a former band member was instrumental. Despite his efforts, though, I can look back and see a period of over a year, probably about a year and a half, in which I can in retrospect be reasonably certain that I was under the Convicting Ministry of the Spirit of God.


God bless.

 

[Hark]

In the above Paul speaks in regards to the Priesthood eating of the sacrifices they offered. The point is that the sacrifice itself (of the Law) does not make that animal something sacred or give it a meaning beyond what it was, which was simply an animal that was dying in the place of the sinner.

This is equally true of the sacrifices made by Gentiles to idols, meaning the idols are nothing and that eating of that meat (offered to those idols) was, like eating of the sacrifices of the Law, not a big deal. The point is to ascribe no reality to the idolatry of Gentiles. Do not join with Gentiles in offering up to demons.

God bless.

I believe there is no danger of believers also doing what the Gentiles are doing outside of the church at Corinth.

I believe what Paul was warning believers about is what the Gentiles are doing outside of the church in bringing it into the church incorporating their practices in with regards to communion. That is why Paul was commenting on the blood ( haima ) and the body ( soma ) in communion as being figurative whereas the Gentiles would make it literal and thus idols.

Then he went into the topic about a believer eating something that they did not know was offered up to idols.

If Paul was saying it was okay to eat meat that they did not know was offered up unto idols, then he could not be talking about that topic in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 in regards to communion to be aware of.

 

[vooks]

Most, yes, but I can tell you from personal experience for some of us...there is only so long one can kick against the goads.

"Success" in rejecting the Ministry of the Holy Ghost is determined upon physical death. Until one dies, it is premature to try to conclude in the case of those who have thus far rejected Christ. The Elect will be saved, the only question is, at what point in their lives will they be saved. We as believers have, I feel, a responsibility to evangelize, and to seek to be used of God in that process.

For me, a former band member was instrumental. Despite his efforts, though, I can look back and see a period of over a year, probably about a year and a half, in which I can in retrospect be reasonably certain that I was under the Convicting Ministry of the Spirit of God.


God bless.

If you really bothered, you'd have noted I asked of men perishing. Is it not a tad obvious that I had eternity in perspective? Men ending up in hell is IT

This means successfully resisting God's will is evidenced by their ending in hell, and this can only be said so if they died in their sins


Let's recap
1. Men are totally helpless; they can't save themselves and left to their own devices, all would perish
2. God however wills not that any perish
3. To save them, God irresistibly draws men to himself
4. Men still perish because they choose to.

May I ask exactly what it is that men choose leading to their perdition?

 

[Hark]

@Hark,
You need to learn to base your claims and statements on scriptures and not gossip or hearsay.
Where is transubstantiation mentioned here?

If you are to have any chances of converting a believer in transubstantiation or any error,you need Wisdom of God from scriptures and not wild claims because an informed believer can rightfully dismiss your correction as baseless

Transubstantiation is the "miraculous" transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ as being literal spiritually, having His Presence.

Paul used the Greek word "haima" for blood and "soma" for body which can be defined in two ways; literally or figuratively. In relations to the context of 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, I say it has to be figuratively to defer from what the Gentiles would try to do with communion as being literal.

 

[vooks]

Transubstantiation is the "miraculous" transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ as being literal spiritually, having His Presence.

Paul used the Greek word "haima" for blood and "soma" for body which can be defined in two ways; literally or figuratively. In relations to the context of 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, I say it has to be figuratively to defer from what the Gentiles would try to do with communion as being literal.

Nobody asked you to define transubstantiation, the concern here is your baseless claim that Paul was countering a non-existent practice/belief while he clearly was not.

It is true these are figures, but where did you get the idea that he was employing them 'to defer from what the Gentiles would try to do with communion as being literal'?

 

[Hark]

Nobody asked you to define transubstantiation, the concern here is your baseless claim that Paul was countering a non-existent practice/belief while he clearly was not.

Paul was countering in principle back then what transubstantiation stands for today.

It is true these are figures, but where did you get the idea that he was employing them 'to defer from what the Gentiles would try to do with communion as being literal'?

The Greek word "haima" for blood and "soma" for body and how there is necessity to not do communion in the church in the same sense as the Gentiles are doing outside the church offering sacrifices unto idols.

If you read on, Paul goes into another topic of how it is okay to eat meat that a believer did not know was offered up unto idols.

Therefore Paul could not be talking about what goes on outside the church in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 but what the Gentiles could do to communion in the church in making bread and wine as idols in offering up another sacrifice to be received again.

 

[vooks]

Paul was countering in principle back then what transubstantiation stands for today.



The Greek word "haima" for blood and "soma" for body and how there is necessity to not do communion in the church in the same sense as the Gentiles are doing outside the church offering sacrifices unto idols.

If you read on, Paul goes into another topic of how it is okay to eat meat that a believer did not know was offered up unto idols.

Therefore Paul could not be talking about what goes on outside the church in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 but what the Gentiles could do to communion in the church in making bread and wine as idols in offering up another sacrifice to be received again.

see your contradiction?
first, he was countering a yet future belief ...next, he was countering an existing belief.

Your reasoning is flawed. You argue that 'he could not be talking about what goes on outside' but he is tackling food offered to idols....which is an extension of the warning against idols in verse 7. He specifically warns them against partaking the table of devils and the Lord's table in v21. It takes a healthy dose of imagination to read transubstantiation there.

Once again, stop lying in the name of God. Regardless of how wrong transubstantiation is, it is not in question here and you can't demonstrate it.

Faith is very objective, whatever you imagine to have been revealed to you MUST be demonstrated from scriptures. Scriptures are our yardstick not your wild imagination.

Now, the error in transubstantiation is taking the elements of the Lord's table LITERALLY.To correct it, all that is needed is to tell the believers that they are figures/symbols and not LITERAL. Do you find Paul doing this?

 

[Hark]

see your contradiction?
first, he was countering a yet future belief ...next, he was countering an existing belief.

Your reasoning is flawed.

The principle that Paul was reproving back then is present today in transubstantiation, misusing what communion is for.

You argue that 'he could not be talking about what goes on outside' but he is tackling food offered to idols....which is an extension of the warning against idols in verse 7. He specifically warns them against partaking the table of devils and the Lord's table in v21. It takes a healthy dose of imagination to read transubstantiation there.

Once again, stop lying in the name of God. Regardless of how wrong transubstantiation is, it is not in question here and you can't demonstrate it.

Faith is very objective, whatever you imagine to have been revealed to you MUST be demonstrated from scriptures. Scriptures are our yardstick not your wild imagination.

Now, the error in transubstantiation is taking the elements of the Lord's table LITERALLY.To correct it, all that is needed is to tell the believers that they are figures/symbols and not LITERAL. Do you find Paul doing this?

Read off from 1 Corinthians 10:14 and onward and ask Him why Paul started off that way in judging what communion is for and then the way Gentiles offer sacrifices to idols as if believers would do that at the same time? It is when it is in the church being presented like that, that believers are to flee from. But again, only God can cause the increase.

If you still disagree, then we agree to disagree.

 

[vooks]

The principle that Paul was reproving back then is present today in transubstantiation, misusing what communion is for.

Which principle is that? And where is it mentioned or even hinted at?

Read off from 1 Corinthians 10:14 and onward and ask Him why Paul started off that way in judging what communion is for and then the way Gentiles offer sacrifices to idols as if believers would do that at the same time? It is when it is in the church being presented like that, that believers are to flee from. But again, only God can cause the increase.

I've read it backwards and there is no such principle. You basically make things up and pass them as inspired truths, and when called out you blame the other person for not seeing it. I'd not put it past you to ascribe spiritual blindness to those who call out your shenanigans.

Use wisdom, get context; read the entire chapter. Paul did not 'start off in judging what communion is for', he started by Israel. Whenever you run into WHEREFORE, you should know what follows is derived from what preceded. Why are they to flee idolatry in v14? Because in v7 he just reminded them of the lethal consequences of idolatry on Israel, and he also explains why such acts were recorded in v6.

To drive the point home on why they should keep off idols, he reminds them of the Lord's Table. Those partaking this have fellowship with the Lord...how can they at the same time have fellowship with demons(idolatry is demon worship)?

He finishes in v22 by reminding them about the Lord's jealousy by engaging in idolatry WHILE partaking His table. Obviously the idolatry is something different contrasted with the Lord's Table.

In the next chapter, he comes back to the Lord's Table and this is probably where you got your wild ideas that he was confronting transubstantiation. But even here, he simply talks of handling the table 'unworthily' which among others include gluttony at the Table

If you still disagree, then we agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I hope you note that we are agreed that transubstantiation is unbiblical. The reason I dwelt on it is to point out your obstinacy. You stubbornly throw around unwarranted wild interpretations and you won't learn nothing. You contrary to your claims are not here to learn but to serve your 'wisdom' and revelation from your high horse. You need humility to accept reproof

 

[vooks]

@Darrell C,
How is it that men choose death and end up in death(hell) when God's irresistibly draws them to life not willing that any may die?

I may be wrong but this appears to suggest that either He irresistibly draws some...not ALL, or He draws ALL but not irresistibly.

If He irresistibly draws some, then those who perish do so because nobody(God) drew them. In short, God dispatches them to hell, which ironically is not His willThumbsdown

If He draws ALL but not irresistibly,then those who perish have nobody to blame but themselves because they were given an opportunity out of their eternal death and they turned it down. It was their choice.

And you do agree with me that man has a choice in this matter only you call it 'response'

There is zero ability within the natural man to find truth and act on it. Only God reveals truth to men. And it is their response to the truth that will be judged.

Permit me to probe further; what are the possible 'responses' to the truth?
Or even more specifically, can men resist and reject the saving truth to their damnation?
If they can, is it in order to tag this truth revealed as irresistible?
And if they can't resist and reject it, why do they perish, and how can they be judged in their response seeing they can't but accept it?

 

[Hark]

Which principle is that? And where is it mentioned or even hinted at?

I've read it backwards and there is no such principle.

Take a deep breath, exhale, and set your opinion aside for a moment, and I will walk it through with His help.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

That grouping sets the problem of idolatry in which Paul is asking believers to judge concerning what we take communion for as a reminder.

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

The comparison of how Israel eat the sacrifice as partakers of the altar.

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

Paul is stressing that how the Gentiles are taking communion in that way as the Israel used to, makes it as a sacrifice to devils and not to God. See? The Gentiles think they are doing this communion as an offering of sacrifice unto God. And Paul points out that they should not be having fellowship with them when they do that.

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Here is Paul stressing that they cannot take communion in the right way while Gentiles that are taking communion in the wrong way in fellowship.

22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Ask Jesus why Paul said this. I believe it is because of the way the Gentiles were taking communion as an offering up of the sacrifice unto God to be received to eat as Israel did in being partakers of the altar.

See the principle there? The Gentiles believe they are offering the wine and the bread as that literal sacrifice of Christ unto God to receive again to eat. See why Paul said what he did in verse 22? As if we think we are stronger than God to offer His Son up as a sacrifice to eat at communion.

A Catholic priest has to be celibate to perform the Eucharist in the Mass, otherwise, they can only perform communion per catholic tradition. So in principle, that is like saying they have power to make present Christ's one time sacrifice for sins as an offering to be received by eating.

The Gentiles believed they were offering His actual blood and body to be received as that sacrifice for why Paul said to flee idolatry and asking believers to judge what they were taking communion for.

So Paul was rebuking in principle what the Gentiles were doing in taking communion for back then in what errant believers are doing today in regards to transubstantiation in transforming the bread and the wine as the body and blood of Jesus Christ's one time sacrifice for sins "made present" to be received again.

 

[Darrell C]

I believe there is no danger of believers also doing what the Gentiles are doing outside of the church at Corinth.

I believe what Paul was warning believers about is what the Gentiles are doing outside of the church in bringing it into the church incorporating their practices in with regards to communion. That is why Paul was commenting on the blood ( haima ) and the body ( soma ) in communion as being figurative whereas the Gentiles would make it literal and thus idols.

Then he went into the topic about a believer eating something that they did not know was offered up to idols.

If Paul was saying it was okay to eat meat that they did not know was offered up unto idols, then he could not be talking about that topic in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 in regards to communion to be aware of.

Now consider what is involved if someone knows the mea is offered to idols, and if they do not. The central issue is the idol, not the meat, right? The meat does not change it's status, it is just meat, but, the fact that it has been offered to a false god is the problem.

As far as Paul speaking about the blood and body, it would only be if they were actually using blood and flesh (meat) that this would be correlated to viewing it as literal. Again, it would be much later in history when the view of Transubstantiation becomes a doctrinal position.

I will come back to this after I run through the responses I have, if there is time today. An interesting issue.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

If you really bothered, you'd have noted I asked of men perishing. Is it not a tad obvious that I had eternity in perspective? Men ending up in hell is IT

I was speaking about eternal separation, Vooks. That choice is made in the physical lives of men, not after they die. So my intention in my response is that no, not all men are successful in rejecting the Ministry of the Comforter.

The point is that among the Elect there is not a uniform pattern of salvation, meaning, it is not a matter of everyone hears the Gospel, has it revealed as truth, and immediately yields to God and obeys the Gospel. For some it will take years of conviction, until finally they do yield. That a man can rebel against God's will is apparent throughout Scripture, Jonah possibly being the greatest example. Here we have a man directly spoken to by God, and instead of saying, "Okay, Lord, I will do as you ask," he heads in the opposite direction.

And just like Jonah, when God speaks to every man and woman, it is understood that the truth is being revealed. Jonah knew for certain that if he obeyed God, Nineveh would repent. He did not want that to happen.

This means successfully resisting God's will is evidenced by their ending in hell, and this can only be said so if they died in their sins

That is correct. So being "successful" can only be determined in those who die in rebellion to the Gospel of Christ. I am not one who likes to give up on anyone. I knew a fellow who said "If I don't have them saved in five minutes I won't waste any more time on them."

Let's recap
1. Men are totally helpless; they can't save themselves and left to their own devices, all would perish

And you are agreeing with my primary point here: men cannot save themselves, and free will suggests they play a role.

But the natural man cannot understand the spiritual things of God, they do not seek after God, and the fact remains that for them to be saved they are dependent on God's intervention.

The glorious truth of the Gospel and the New Covenant is that men are not "left to their own devices," but enjoy the intervention of God. This is the Biblical pattern since Adam. What man of the faithful took the initiative to get up and go out and find God? Which was not first found by God, and then brought into relationship?

2. God however wills not that any perish

Yet we know that the many will perish, don't we?

God is not held responsible for men rejecting truth and refusing to obey Him. When you tell a child not to do something, you express your will to that child, and you have the authority to enforce that will. But that does not mean the child will obey. And God is just, He would not demand obedience in something that He knows has an impossible outcome. We do not, for example, demand a first grader get straight As in Algebra, because it is beyond their capacity. But, the first grader is taught and when the understanding is provided them, then the good grades are demanded.

No different in regards to God's will. Men are not born with that capacity but are taught. We have the ABCs provided which are the internal witness, the testimony of Creation, and then finally specific teaching. Yet all along the man is not left to teach himself something he cannot possibly learn, he has a Teacher that comes and enlightens his mind whereby he gains the ability to take the proper course.

3. To save them, God irresistibly draws men to himself

I believe this is a moot point for the Elect. Of course those who are known to God will not resist, ultimately. Again, that doesn't mean they don't during the process of the conviction they are brought under.

4. Men still perish because they choose to.

And that is the only "free will" that the natural man has the inherent ability to exercise. They are the ones who decide to reject God.

May I ask exactly what it is that men choose leading to their perdition?

Again, you are prescribing ability. That is not correct. They do not choose something, they reject something. That something, in this Age, is the Ministry of the Comforter. If I come to you and say "Hey Vooks, I am going to show you how to fix your heating system so you don't freeze to death," and you say, "No thanks, I think things will work out just fine, " and you do freeze to death, would you ascribe ability to perform that which would have kept you from perishing to yourself?

It's no different with the Gospel of Christ. Natural man cannot understand it as truth, because they reject it as truth. In that conviction we are told the Comforter would convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment. I think the primary issues involved there are the conviction that we are sinners who will be eternally separated, and are headed for judgment. Christ is righteous, we are not, and this is acknowledged, and acted upon. The only recourse is to cry out to God and receive Christ.

And just as you did not know how to fix your heating system, natural men are not aware of their sin and it's penalty. To them it is a fairy tale, but, to the one who has this revealed as truth to them...it is not.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Transubstantiation is the "miraculous" transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ as being literal spiritually, having His Presence.

Paul used the Greek word "haima" for blood and "soma" for body which can be defined in two ways; literally or figuratively. In relations to the context of 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, I say it has to be figuratively to defer from what the Gentiles would try to do with communion as being literal.

And what we understand about Communion is that the elements, the bread and wine, are figurative, and comprise the reason how/why we have eternal life: His Death.

We never see someone attempting to memorialize Christ with only one of the elements, because both speak to one thing only, the literal death of Christ on the Cross, which was sufficient to save men, that their sins be atoned for.

Those that believe that these elements become literal add to that physical death, if they ascribe salvific value to it.


God bless.

 

[Hark]

Now consider what is involved if someone knows the meat is offered to idols, and if they do not. The central issue is the idol, not the meat, right? The meat does not change it's status, it is just meat, but, the fact that it has been offered to a false god is the problem.

Agreed, but yet Paul said earlier in fleeing idolatry and asked believers to judge in regards to what communion was for, and so I see that later portion of scripture regarding meat as addressing a different topic than what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22

As far as Paul speaking about the blood and body, it would only be if they were actually using blood and flesh (meat) that this would be correlated to viewing it as literal. Again, it would be much later in history when the view of Transubstantiation becomes a doctrinal position.

I will come back to this after I run through the responses I have, if there is time today. An interesting issue.

God bless.

Here is a walk through as to how I see this which I believe is by His grace & by His help.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

That grouping sets the problem of idolatry in which Paul is asking believers to judge concerning what we take communion for as a reminder.

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

The comparison of how Israel eat the sacrifice as partakers of the altar.

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

Paul is stressing that how the Gentiles are taking communion in that way as the Israel used to, makes it as a sacrifice to devils and not to God. See? The Gentiles think they are doing this communion as an offering of sacrifice unto God. And Paul points out that they should not be having fellowship with them when they do that.

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Here is Paul stressing that they cannot take communion in the right way while Gentiles that are taking communion in the wrong way in fellowship.

22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Ask Jesus why Paul said this. I believe it is because of the way the Gentiles were taking communion as an offering up of the sacrifice unto God to be received to eat as Israel did in being partakers of the altar.

See the principle there? The Gentiles believe they are offering the wine and the bread as that literal sacrifice of Christ unto God to receive again to eat. See why Paul said what he did in verse 22? As if we think we are stronger than God to offer His Son up as a sacrifice to eat at communion.

A Catholic priest has to be celibate to perform the Eucharist in the Mass, otherwise, they can only perform communion per catholic tradition. So in principle, that is like saying they have power to make present Christ's one time sacrifice for sins as an offering to be received by eating.

The Gentiles believed they were offering His actual blood and body to be received as that sacrifice for why Paul said to flee idolatry and asking believers to judge what they were taking communion for.

So Paul was rebuking in principle what the Gentiles were doing in taking communion for back then in what errant believers are doing today in regards to transubstantiation in transforming the bread and the wine as the body and blood of Jesus Christ's one time sacrifice for sins "made present" to be received again.

 

[Darrell C]

@Darrell C,
How is it that men choose death and end up in death(hell) when God's irresistibly draws them to life not willing that any may die?

First, I would ask for a passage that teaches that anyone is "irresistibly drawn" and then perish. This would nullify itself.

Secondly, I again emphasize that you impose positive action when that is not in view. What is in view is a negative action, or in other words...inaction. As far as receiving Christ that is the positive action taken by those who are saved.

Not sure if this is a good example, but consider this: you are well aware that there are children starving all over the world. Do you contribute funds to that cause?

If not, have you chosen to let people starve? Is that your will, Vooks?

I may be wrong but this appears to suggest that either He irresistibly draws some...not ALL, or He draws ALL but not irresistibly.

You are imposing a term from a System of Theology that is irrelevant in regards to those who are lost and will not be saved. If one were "irresistibly drawn," then the result would be salvation, not eternal separation.

I would agree with your statement, though, only those saved could be viewed as irresistibly drawn, but that does not change the fact that Christ stated He would draw all men unto Himself if He was lifted up. What this has relevance to is the fact that God gives the opportunity to all men to be saved, but not all men will receive the Truth.

If He irresistibly draws some, then those who perish do so because nobody(God) drew them. In short, God dispatches them to hell, which ironically is not His willThumbsdown

And that is not the case. This ascribes to God the fate of those eternally separated, leaving out the fact that God gives to all men, in All Ages, opportunity to obey His will, which I will remind you has been progressively revealed throughout the Ages, culminating in the Revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel in this Age. In the Ages which preceded this one men were not privy to that Mystery, yet still had revelation from God, beginning first with the direct relationship Man (Adam) had with God, which knowledge was passed down from generation to generation. But because of the fallen nature men rebelled against that knowledge, and we see the result in Genesis (near total destruction of Mankind). Then, we consider that internal witness and the testimony of Creation itself, Paul speaks about in Romans 1:19-20.

Then, we consider more direct revelation such as God speaking directly to men (i.e., Noah, Abraham, Moses), and giving Scripture itself.

Because of these means of revelation of the will of God, no man or woman in the History of Mankind will truthfully stand before God in Judgment and say "You never told me!"

So we see culpability for eternal separation always, always, always...rests on the conscience of those who refuse to obey God's will, no matter what Age, no matter what locale, because God has supplied all men with enough truth for them to be saved from eternal separation.

Now, one more point to reiterate on this one: we have to remember that man's condition is one of separation already. Salvation is a matter of that separation being remedied, and the only Remedy was the Cross of Christ. While the Old Testament Saint was saved from an eternal perspective, he was saved into the eternal perspective until his transgressions were redeemed by the Blood (Death) of Christ. In this Age the Comforter imparts the Gospel Truth, convicting men specifically of their sin and that Christ died to save them from their sin.

That was not the case in the Old Testament, where the realization of the promises of God awaited this Age. Just like we await the realization of the redemption of our bodies.


Continued...