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

That's normal. I don't leave my own fellowship though I disagree with certain positions held. The fact is that none of us will find a fellowship that holds no differing views, yet I feel it is important for us to have a place where we can go and worship God, as well as fellowship with other believers of relatively likeminded position.

We should commend those Catholics that acknowledge that certain views are not accurate, but, we should also know what that Catholic believes before we condemn them. Again, the average adherent of any given group is woefully ignorant of the doctrine of that group, though they present themselves as representatives of that group.

Depends on what Presbyterians you speak of. R. C. Sproul is about as solid a teacher and spiritual leader one could hope for, and has stood against Ecumenical attempts in the past. He differs from most Reformed teachers in regards to the "perseverance of the saints," and would change that to "Preservation of the Saints," which is how he teaches it to mean. He has said he has thought about starting another denomination, lol, but doesn't.

Take D.James Kennedy, another solid teacher. And yet I would take issue with Sproul in Eschatological matters, that is one issue where we part ways. Standing in the other corner we have John MacArthur, a friend of Spoul's, despite doctrinal difference.

But I will say I have visited a few Presbyterian fellowships and not been real impressed, lol. One had a female Pastor and I am one who thinks Scripture teaches that men are to hold that position.

As I said, I spend little time trying to debunk denominations. Better to simply study the Word of God.

And again I would suggest that an examination of the actual teachings themselves are in order. I have seen Catholics on more than a few occasions do the debunking, because the teaching was incorrectly interpreted by the objector. I have myself debated with Catholics and examined their very teachings. Some of it is not good, but as a whole, they are not much different from other groups. I find a teaching of the Reformed that men are born again and then have faith to be as bad as teaching works-based salvation. All erroneous teaching is bad, but that does not mean necessarily that it is embraced by insincere believers. Ignorance doesn't keep anyone out of Heaven, lol, for which I am grateful.

Again, I think it's just a matter of erroneous understanding. I doubt very much God is condemning those in error on this any more than He condemns those who think it's a sin to work on Sunday.

Now the teachers, that is a different story. All teachers have a responsibility to know truth and teach truth. While I do not think they will be damned for their error, that doesn't mean I don't think they will not be held accountable. But the layman adherent is generally lazy, and as the say, ignorance is bliss, lol.


Continued...

 

My brother was a Catholic because, well, we are Irish, and hey, it's just the Irish thing to do. Finally got him to go to a Baptist Church, and guess what: he is just as ignorant of Baptist teaching as he was of Catholic teaching. But the teaching he has been under for the last several years has been beneficial to him, and he is finally getting to a point where Theology is coming into focus.

In regards to Catholics that are doctrinal, only by going to their legitimate teachings can anything be accomplished, and it is not always fruitless. It is like our own source: if you want to debate a doctrine that is held, we go to Scripture to verify or negate, right? It is sad that they give such importance to their own writings, but, that is not unique in Religious History. Catechisms, Creeds, the doctrines of men, all extra-biblical and suspect. Only Scripture can be used as that measure for truth which should settle it for the Bible believer.

Simple point: you cannot have two masters. You cannot do both.

I agree, there is no connection between Communion and the idolatry of either Gentiles or Israel, both of which are referred to in the passage. The point is that not even the offering up to God in legitimate fashion made the meat anything different than what it was.

And I don't see in the statement anything about offering up the Lord again, simply that we replicate those who provoked in the Provocation. In the Provocation, God was provoked by the idolatry. The question "Are we stronger than He," in giving this a little thought (very little, lol), simply asks a similar question, basically, "Can we imagine that what we think (that the meat offered to idols or idols) has more credence than what we have already been told," which is...idols are nothing, and idolatry has historically resulted in destruction.

The Provocation is the greatest example of this. That's why Paul speaks about it, because his point is that they be not idolaters and he compliments that warning with the fact that the meat and the idol are nothing. Idols are ridiculed from God's perspective, because they are in fact inanimate objects that fools worship.

Again, I believe there is a demon behind every idol and false god, but, that does not change the physical circumstances that we have people who ascribe significance to rock, wood, and dead flesh.

I see no accusation against them.


1 Corinthians 10:15-17

King James Version (KJV)

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?

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.


He simply states a fact. This is basically an epilogue to what he teaches in regards to meat offered to idols.
It seems to me that he is contrasting the Gentiles with those who partake of Communion, who are of the Body, and again warning against idolatry.

Not sure what you are saying here. Christ is present at every gathering of believers, not to mention Communion.

You can't believe there is a presence in it if it does not have tangible form.

The purpose of the idol is to have a physical representation of that which is worshipped. While we call desires or possessions "idols" today, the historical context, nor this passage, does not carry that modern application, but refers to a graven image.


God bless.

 

LOL!

I think that's an apt statement.

And just like Jews brought up under the Law had trouble embracing the New Covenant, even so we would expect the superstitions of Gentiles would have equally been an issue to deal with.

I have seen worse statements than this. I would take issue with "and includes the church's offering" more than the former part of the statement.

I'll take a look at the link if I ever get a breathing spell between responses, lol. Almost out of time.

That's not what Paul states, though. He states how they (the Body) does it:


1 Corinthians 10:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

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?

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.


He refers to the sup of blessing, and the bread which is broke, nothing about meat. The contrast is to the meat offered unto idols.

That is good to hear. May God bless you in your efforts, Hark.

I don't know, we cannot be sure what the seed we plant will grow into.

I think as a general rule, most will not convert, but, some do. I think for many their love for the people there is a strong motivation to stay. Secondly, as I mentioned before, that there are errors is not really good reason to forsake a particular fellowship. If your conscience is bothered enough, sure, but, the issue of transubstantiation might be likened to the debate about the Rapture. Some people become absolutely vitriolic about this issue. For example, one just recently called the Pre-Tribulation Rapture view cultic. Sound familiar? But it is conceivable that one who takes a post-trib view would remain in a pre-trib fellowship, or vice versa.

It is unlikely there exists a congregation where everybody either believes all the same things, or, believes all that is taught in that fellowship. You will find this same thing in the Catholic Church, and it is best to address each Catholic individually, and whether there is a change in view or an acknowledgement of error in Catholic Doctrine will be seen.

Probably the doctrine of Catholicism I stand against most vehemently is their works-based teaching. But, we see this in numerous groups, so it is an issue that is not denominational, but doctrinal.


God bless.

 

Again, I think you are equating iniquity with erroneous doctrine. Many sincere believers hold erroneous positions but that mean they are intentionally sinning.

I was a member of a Church at one point, and sending my nephew and nieces to a Christian School. One of the boys in the school was a member of my Church and he was messing around with my 13 year old niece, and in fact getting her involved in the practice of cutting herself (which is an ancient practice rooted in idolatry). I confronted the School, the boy, and my own Pastor. They ignored it. I left the church and pulled them out of the school.

Now that is what I call a failure of Church discipline.

But I don't see erroneous doctrine as intentional sin, because many who hold to these doctrines simply do not know any better. They sincerely believe they have embraced truth.

Let me ask you, how many times since you have been saved have you changed your position on any given doctrine? I know I have a number of times. And each time, I did not say, "Well, now I finally know the truth, now I am saved." The fact is that we are all in error about something, and we can only be grateful to God that we have not had the misfortune to have been indoctrinated into errors which for us...are easily understood to be error.

But the fact is that indoctrination is both something that occurs through heritage, as well as self imposed. Most of us can have the tendency to conform Scripture to that which we believe, and sometimes we can lose an ability to be objective in our study. But the time should come for all of us where we learn to study Scripture and to bring out of the text that which is there. This happens by reason of use, and forum discussion is, as I said before, an accelerated path for growth. When our views are challenged, we are forced to provide Scripture as support. Sometimes, if we are honest with ourselves, we find that we have read into something that isn't actually there. So think about the countless millions who only have what they are to believe supplied to them once a week (or even twice or three times a week). There is no affirmation from Scripture what is said is true, nor is there cross referencing all relevant passages to make sure it is not just a generality in the proof text.

So if you have a hunger for God's Word, praise God for that, because He is the One that has gifted you with that. And the ultimate reason for God gifting you in areas of the Word is for one reason: that souls might be led to Christ. And I can tell you one thing I believe to be true, it is hard to witness to someone we offend. While I do think sometimes it is necessary to "play devil's advocate" so to speak, and present object lessons in regards to behavior, I also think this is more for those we are certain, or at least fairly certain, are already saved. When it comes to Catholics, it is harder to assume that because of the Soteriology of Catholicism, being works-based as it is. So again, focus on what Scripture does teach, rather than what false religion teaches. There are ministries that deal with cults and false religions, and I appreciate those guys, but they usually have a particular cult or false religion they major in and minister to.

And didn't mean to go on so long, but thanks again for the discussion. I will give the passage some more consideration, and perhaps it will come up again, but, perhaps the thread should return to the OP, lol.


God bless.

 

@Hark,
If you really care about correcting false doctrines,
1. Never misrepresent the falsity because the deceived will simply call you out and ignore you
2. Never peddle lies because staunch adherents of the belief are not exactly illiterate biblically and thy will see through your lies

If there is any wrong/sin with transubstantiation , it is not because it is 'idolatry' or 'table of Devils' but simply because it is FALSE.

The best evidence against transubstantiation is the very fact that when Jesus offered the disciples the cup and bread, he was literally right there meaning there is no way he was that very bread nor was his blood in the cup.

Paul tells of Jews who have a zeal but not according to knowledge. Please back your zeal with knowledge and you will win many, reason being many including the lost are allergic to ignorance such as what you are parading

 

That's why I counseled you to start yours where you never look away when it comes to iniquity. In your church, you can prophesy infallibly 247 and edify it with your marvelous spiritual gifts. As it were, typing away from your basement limits your reach to zero.

 

@Darrell C,
Are you Elect yourself?

Can you tell somebody who is not Elect?

 

Let's again recap a few things
1. We are both in agreement that man has a role to play in his salvation
2. We are also in agreement that this role entails a response which is a choice he makes
3. We are also in agreement that God does not force His salvic will on men though He can force His will like say on Jonah

On this post you have accused me of misrepresenting your views by introducing the term irresistible drawing, and for this I duly apologize.

Permit me to define Freewill; it simply means ability to choose. If you agree that man MUST make a choice leading to his salvation or damnation, then we both agree man has Freewill.

If there was no Freewill involved in saving man, then God would save/damn man regardless of their choices/responses/decisions

The bigger point being missed here is God showing men the truth is not incompatible with Freewill but enhancing it. See one can't be said to have choices if he is unaware of them

 

Yes. I believe myself to be a born again believer.

That's a tough question, really. First, we are given indicators concerning false believers, and what we are to look for. These indicators are also in regards to ourselves, such as John's teaching in 1 John, for example. While we might see indications that someone is falsely professing, the thing to keep in mind is that until one dies in their sins the game is still afoot.

Secondly, due to a false notion of what it means to be a Christian, I think there are believers that are falsely concluded as unsaved because they do not fit the pattern of an individual's idea of what it means to be a Christian.

Third, in my roaming I have spoken with atheists who profess to have once been saved but are now lost. I view there to be two primary possibilities in regards to that lot, which would be first, they simply were never saved, and then secondly, they were saved, but due to trauma or tragedy they are angry with God and out of fellowship. This is an extreme example but the possibility still remains that they are the very ones we are commanded to restore.

Again, I view Election to have it's primary application in the Eternal, where, while Old Testament Saints were not Reconciled through the Cross, they were still "saved" from an eternal perspective, and still among the Elect. People in this day who have not yet come to Christ but will are still among the Elect. People who will be born in the future and come to know Christ are still among the Elect.

So it is not until one dies remaining in separation to God that the finality of damnation arrives.


God bless.

 

Agreed on all three points, though I would say that God can force men to actions that are salvific. Meaning, He can arrange events so that it becomes almost impossible for any result but salvation. I believe He did this in my own case. But that is not exactly "forcing salvation," or a decision for salvation apart from man's involvement. I do believe that man makes that choice of his own free will, so the point has to remain agreed with, which I have no problem with.

And that is very good of you, Vooks, I appreciate that.

But that is not what "Free Will" is about, when it is spoken of in a salvific context.

In view is the primary question, "Does man have this ability within his natural self or doesn't he?"

My position is, no, he does not. and your final statement in this post is a great way to illustrate that truth. so bear with me.

I believe in free will in man, but not Free Will as it means in Theological Debate.

The Doctrine of Free Will is not the same as a general free will all men have. I had free will prior to my salvation to sin, but, nothing in my natural state could lead me to, of my own free will, seek after God. What the Doctrine teaches is that the natural man, for example, can pick up a Bible, read it, and decide to believe on Christ. The problem with that is that the natural man, if it is just a reading of the Word apart from the enlightenment of God, will not embrace the Word as truth. He may give lip service, but, there is a difference between understanding something as truth and the understanding provided by God.

When I was saved, there was a marked difference between my view of myself, my condition, my destination on an eternal basis, and Christ. I can distinctly remember the fear that fell on me once the truth of my own sin and standing before God was made clear. I knew at that point I had been wrong, I was not such a good guy, I was not okay with God, and if I had died at that moment I would have been on my way to Hell.

That understanding was not something that was previously a part of my existence. Thus, the notion that I could have, of my own free will, sought to have remedied that condition would have been like treating cancer before one is diagnosed. No-one does that, right?

I agree, that would be the logical conclusion, and some of our brothers and sisters take that view. That is how they reconcile the fact that Scripture makes it clear that the natural man has no ability to seek after God, and that his actions will inevitably result in sin, rather than righteousness. But I reject that doctrine as well.

The reconciliation is very simple: natural man has no ability in regards to the spiritual things of God, and is dependent on God to reveal the truth to him.

It really is that simple.

This does not nullify the many teachings of Christ in the Gospels which make it clear, man will have to choose. Man is commanded to believe on Christ, thus this is a decision ascribed to man, not God. But if we neglect to maintain the Biblical pattern, which has God enlightening the natural man that he might respond, then we end up with confusion that has been an ongoing dispute among Christians for centuries.

The primary point is that we cannot make the natural man performing action which his nature does not allow for. You could say God enhances his free will in the sense that he broadens the choices, lol. Just like I broadened yours in regards to my cousin. Now you can decide, if were to actually ask you to help her, whether you will help her or not. Just so, with the natural man, a decision for Christ is not an option, because even if he was aware of the Gospel it would mean as much to him as a fairy tale or a good movie does. It might be likened to my drug and alcohol use when I was younger. I knew, because I had been told, that drugs and alcohol were bad, they caused harm. Sadly, I became a drug and alcohol user, and you would think I would have known then that what I had been told was true, but, that was not the case. I enjoyed it. But now, I have a knowledge of the truth taught to me because I can see the harm it caused in my life.


So there are three points in which the same knowledge is had, yet three different perspectives:

1. As a child, truth taught and embraced as truth at face value;

2. As a young man, truth rejected and discounted;

3. As an older man, truth not only confirmed as truth, but understood personally and experientially.


That is why we have people who say "I believe in God, and maybe one day I will work on finding out about Him. But not right now."

And this statement is precisely what I have been saying this whole time.

The natural man does not have the ability to exercise free will in regards to Christ and salvation because it is not a choice on his horizon. He is completely unaware to his condition which denies an ability to make a choice about whether he will reject or receive Christ. It is not until God makes the Gospel understood to him, as he did you and I, that men exercise their will. Keep in mind until one is saved they are still natural, so, it is natural that most will, when exercising their will, reject God and the truth He reveals to them.


God bless.

 

Sum of it all
There is some work God does on every man, and man's response to this determines how he spends his eternity.

Is this a fair assessment of what we have shared?

 

Basically, yes.


God bless.

 

Would you say that this work of God happens before man is born again?

 

Or a third one; they lost their faith and their eternal life

 

Without question. As I said, I reject the Reformed notion that men are regenerated first, which gives them the ability to have faith in Christ. Salvation in Christ cannot be accomplished apart from being born of God, yet, if we say God regenerates then man makes his decision, then we have to also say salvation can be lost, because Scripture makes it very clear that there are those who turn away from the truth after receiving it.

Thus, we create yet another contradiction in Scripture, as well as another issue for the Body to squabble about: loss of salvation and Eternal Security.

But all of these issues are resolved simply by acknowledging the Ministry of enlightenment which is consistent in all Eras, the only thing changing being (1) the revelation provided and (2) completion versus incompletion.

Man is commanded to make that decision, but, this decision is not made through his own intellectual assessment of the facts. It is made within that sphere of conviction at which time God is revealing truth to Him.

We see the false teachers here...


2 Peter 2:1; 19-21

King James Version (KJV)

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.


...have been given the truth, yet, they have turned away from it. Now if Reformed Theology is correct, the only possible conclusion is that these men were born again, because after all, regeneration precedes the ability to understand.

But we cannot make false teachers, who are equated with the false prophets of the Old Testament...born again believers. And that is the error of everyone that uses passages like this one to teach loss of salvation, they are ascribing salvation to those who are clearly shown to be unbelievers.

So how did they know the truth from which they turned away from? The simple fact is that they learned the truth they turned away from through the convicting ministry of the Comforter. That is the role the Spirit of God plays in this Age as taught by Christ in John 16:7-9. And the difference between His ministry to this Age and those that precede this one is the revelation being revealed to sinners. In the Old Testament men were not commanded to believe on the Risen Christ, but were kept under the Law, and before that Paul goes so far to say that the revelation was even less specific with consequences less specific (Romans 5:13; Acts 17:29-31).

So our solution to the centuries old battle among brethren is right there for us to understand: the natural man has no ability to be aware of his condition until God opens his eyes to that condition. At that point men do indeed choose, again, his natural state the reason why many reject and the few receive.

So we maintain the clear presentation of Scripture that men make that choice, as well as preserve the truth that the natural man cannot understand or receive the spiritual things of God. Both groups are right to a certain extent, but, both groups erroneously impose elements which conflict with Scripture. The Reformed view is correct in regards to Total Depravity, the Arminian group correct that man has a will which he exercises.

But, in regards to the natural man, in regards to a salvific context, the only free will he will ever exercise is the decision to reject and rebel, because that is the condition he is born in.


God bless.

 

Scripture makes it clear that salvation in Christ is complete, and the indwelling of God is the guarantee that this salvation is secure, so we could not offer that up as a third possibility.

1 Peter 1:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


This is a view (that salvation can be lost) that is a familiar concept taught by many that embrace Free Will. The two doctrines go hand in hand, usually.

But the New Birth (v.3) is a result of the power of God, not something that men accomplish. Christ died alone on the Cross, and no man contributed to the Work whereby He could say "It is finished."

What we would have to see in Scripture is this event in salvation reversed, but, we do not. We see the Spirit of God leave men in the Old Testament, but, Christ distinguishes between the Ministry then and the Ministry now here...


John 14:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 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.


Again, if we recognize the distinctive differences between Old and New Covenant Ministries, we find the balance for many debated issues. We rightly distinguish between the Holy Ghost coming upon people in the Old Testament and the Holy Ghost coming within believers in the New. Study John 14 and 16, as well as Acts 1, and you will see that Christ prophesies of the coming of the Promised (in the Old Testament) Spirit, and that it was at Pentecost when He came. In John 16:7 the Lord states that the Comforter could not come if He did not return to Heaven, which makes it clear...

...the Comforter was not present in that day.

The Holy Spirit, yes, but the Comforter, no. Same Spirit, but, different Ministry. Prior to the Cross remission of sins depended on animal sacrifice which had to be repeated because it was incomplete. But the Sacrifice of Christ brought about Remission of sins in completion, which is precisely what God told Israel He would do at a future time:


Jeremiah 31:31-34

King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


Now, the writer of Hebrews speaks of the days when sin was remembered:


Hebrews 10:3

King James Version (KJV)

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.


And if you study Hebrews 9-10, you will see the context deals with the Remission of sins and makes it clear that Christ's Sacrifice brings about that promised completion to sacrifice whereby remission (forgiveness) of sins is complete as promised. He states in Hebrews 10:10-14 that Christ's Sacrifice makes complete remission of sins for those sancitifed by the Blood (death) of Christ...

...for ever.

And I am out of time, need to get ready for work, but thanks for the questions, Vooks.


God bless.

 

On this we have to differ unfortunately.
Hebrews 10:26-29 (KJV)
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

These are the false conversions you spoke about?

 

I have been on both sides of the divide. I started with 'I don't know', slipped into ' eternal security' , and now I'm on 'conditional eternal security'. This is one topic I have been open minded enough.

So you can imagine my joy when you counseled @Hark about doctrines and how many times he has changed his.

I've been in countless debates on the subject as well and the surest proof that the debate is senseless is proof texting. This is one subject whose weight demands examination of each scripture at a time.

The 'proof texts' for either side are well known to the other, and they have canned responses to these. I can almost tell what counter-argument will be thrown my way on each point I raise and vice versa.

Let's start with your first scripture on Peter a common 'proof text' on conditional eternal security. Let's dwell on it.

Your claim is/are;
1. The subjects were false teachers
2. They were never born again just exposed to the saving truth.

#1 is quite clear they are false teachers because they are so identified, but what about #2? What makes them unsaved? Is it because they depart from the truth, or you are not told they are saved, or they perish yet your theology militates against saved people perishing?

On my part, I hold these are Christians who depart from the truth and perish. Why so?
1. They had ESCAPED the pollutions of the world.
2. Their latter situation is said to be worse than their former. This would not make sense of they were unsaved all along, but it does if they had heaven and now they are staring at hell in eternity
3. The metaphors employed; a washed pig and a dog that had vomited. These two point to a transformation in them that is reversed

Over to you @Darrell C