Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost? *for all Christians

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:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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'?

 

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?

 

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

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

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

 

@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'

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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.

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...