Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost? *for all Christians

[Hark]

The exciting conclusion....

....which I would again remind you is where we all start. I was never in fear of losing salvation when I was a babe in Christ due to ignorance, nor even due to weakness in obedience. So I can have compassion on those who are under poor teaching, but believe that God rewards those who are diligent in their efforts to know truth. And the fact remains, most in the average congregation, no matter which group we might examine, are ignorant of Scripture and most do not have a faith that is their own, derived from Study, but have basically borrowed the faith of those who instruct them.

It's kind of like people's kids. Usually they embrace the beliefs of their parents. We find someone who is racist, and his parent/s was were racist usually.

Kind of like followers of an idol. Their kids may not always worship the idol, but they may fear the idol just in case.

If the adherent believes this, then they are in serious error. But I don't really see that in the quote. Perhaps you could quote more of it's context.

I would have thought the quote from the Catholic catechism was enough.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...techism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

"The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering."

Agreed.

And this is where Catholics fail, they do not understand positional sanctification as opposed to progressive sanctification. For many of them, salvation is something that comes after a successful course. Very sad, but, for those who are actually saved among them, they will still be saved regardless. And like those who teach loss of salvation, most will never think they are one of the ones who will fail, lol.

If a Catholic believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and that God raised Him from the dead, they are saved whether or not they believe the end result for believing those two things, however, God the Father will punish them as His people for not believing that they are saved.

The "provocation" in view can be, I think, tied directly to his previous reference to the provocation itself, which was the idolatry of Israel in the Wilderness. Paul asks a simple question...is that what we want to do? Ti maintains a consistency to what he is trying to teach them/us.

The idea of having a sacrifice is to bind the offer at the altar and kill it, thus signifying how strong the person making the sacrifice. Jesus gave up His life as a ransom for many so that no man took His life away.

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

And so I see 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 as referring to how the believers were doing communion like the Israelis and the Gentiles as if we are stronger than God in making this offering unto God which we are not.

Very kind of you, Hark. Give me a little time with that chapter to review and place it in a context of the issue you have raised. My primary point was that this passage is not, in it's historical context, speaking about Transubstantiation. While we can use passages and teachings to address more modern (even if it dates back to 3rd and 4th century origination) errors, I think we need to be very careful about that sort of thing. The idea of partaking of literal flesh and blood was something that was used to discredit Christianity, rather than something that originated from Christianity. As far as Catholic belief, I would only address that which comes directly from their own sources which hold legitimacy for the Catholic Church, Again, how their doctrine is interpreted varies from Catholic to Catholic, so if you would like to start a thread that examines theirs doctrine that would probably be interesting.

God bless.

I shall pass on that for now. I hope the Lord will lead me to post threads that every member here can get on that applies to christians in general.

As you say... speak of the Truth, and I can hope that God may cause the increase in reproving the works of darkness in that way.

It is obvious that proving the errors of the Catholic catechism or at least what they officially teach, is not going to convert any one to leave the Catholic church, but it was worth a shot to see if He would recover some that way.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
Here is a lesson the Lord has taught me in Forum Discussion, Hark: we have to keep in mind that just because someone claims to be of a particular group does not mean that (1) they actually understand the actual doctrine of the group, (2) they properly represent the doctrine of the group, (3) or that they embrace all teachings of the group.
Click to expand...

Yes. I understand that there are cafeteria Catholics that do not believe everything that the RCC teaches which is why I refer to the Catholic catechism, hoping that when they see the officlal stand of the Catholic catechism, the Lord would lead them to repentance in leaving that church, I also understand that some will just stay regardless, because it is what they believe and not what the Catholic church officially believes, but it is hard to see their personal belief under that official umbrella.

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.

What group do you belong to, if any (though I remember you saying you are not part of a fellowship right now, so this may not be a good example), and do you embrace everything they teach. Better yet, what group were you a part of, and is it safe to say you objected to at least part of their teaching?
Click to expand...

I was former Presbyterian and it took the Lord a while to show me the errors in it, with the social values compromises, and the ecumenical apostate means used for generating more attendance in other churches.

So, yes, I understand that Protestant churches are not on their toes either as signs of the times are showing apostasy abounding every where.

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.

In the thread "It's What You Do" by Protestant, he and I are in a sort of a disagreement about that issue that Protestant churches are not exactly taking the Berean approach in proving everything by the scripture. Not sure how the Lord will lead me in that or whether I should withdraw from it before the discussion becomes an argument, and thus not fruitful to anyone.

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

The same is true for Catholics, who have individual understanding of Catholic Doctrines. Secondly, even among those who call themselves Catholic, there is a variety to be found. Just as there are Charismatics who call themselves "Baptist," even so there are Catholic groups that are charismatic.

I have spoken with a fair amount of Catholics, and they are as diverse as the Baptists here are, lol. Ranging from conservative to fanatical, and even to Charismatic. One person endorsed Mary as the co-Redemptrix, whereas most Catholics I have spoken to maintain a simple honoring of Mary in the significant role she plays in redemptive history.

So in regards to transubstantiation, not all Catholics embrace a view that it literally becomes the blood and body of Christ, nor that it sustains eternal life. But Catholic Doctrine is geared towards creating a works-based mentality into it's adherents, so we are not surprised when this doctrine becomes one that compliments works-based salvation.
Click to expand...

Again, I have heard about cafeteria Catholics and so I agree with you that not every Catholic believes everything taught by the Catholic catechism.

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.

With this quote it seems as though Christ's Sacrifice is still in view. I don't think they are saying that Communion itself surpasses all sacrifices of the Old Covenant, making it an actual sacrifice itself.
Click to expand...

I reckon Catholics will have a varying view on what holy means when making Christ's one time sacrifice present to receive again..

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...

 

[Darrell C]

I don't usually spend a great deal of time trying to debunk what is false about specific denominations, but choose rather to focus on what is true. As one man who dealt with counterfeit money replied when asked if he studied counterfeit money, "No, I study real currency, so when I see the counterfeit I am able to recognize it."

So too, if we focus on understanding what is in the Word, when we run into the counterfeit we are able to recognize it.

Again, the faith of those of any given group is always so diverse it becomes pointless trying to battle the errors of that group. Better to focus on what is valid itself, and taken directly from Scripture.
Click to expand...

I suppose the trap is how they would defend their Catholic church in what they believe and so I go to their Catholic catechism to prove otherwise. As you say, it has been a fruitless endeavor to wake them up that way.

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.

1 Corinthians 10:14-22 . He referred to the cup of the devil and the table of the devils.

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.

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

I do not believe the Gentiles are doing anything like that which mirrors communion symbolically.

Then there is that verse;

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

Which is why I believe it infers communion as if we are stronger than the Lord to offer Him up as a sacrifice again to be received in that manner.

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 do not see verse 22 applying to meat offered unto other idols. The accusation for judgment was how the Gentiles were doing communion.

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.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.....26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

If our words are to match our faith, Christ's Presence cannot be in that place whenever serving communion. I can see why Paul says to flee idolatry.

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

For this to be idolatry then I would think that worship would be transferred to the elements, but it is not. In general worship is still ascribed to Christ, and the error lies primarily in the notion that the elements either contribute or sustain eternal life. Rather than idolatry, I see this as simply ignorance or confusion,
Click to expand...

Worshiping does not always accompany an inanimate object as an idol. Believing it has a presence does.

To be continued... God be willing...

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.

 

[Darrell C]

The exciting conclusion....

LOL!

↑
....which I would again remind you is where we all start. I was never in fear of losing salvation when I was a babe in Christ due to ignorance, nor even due to weakness in obedience. So I can have compassion on those who are under poor teaching, but believe that God rewards those who are diligent in their efforts to know truth. And the fact remains, most in the average congregation, no matter which group we might examine, are ignorant of Scripture and most do not have a faith that is their own, derived from Study, but have basically borrowed the faith of those who instruct them.

It's kind of like people's kids. Usually they embrace the beliefs of their parents. We find someone who is racist, and his parent/s was were racist usually.
Click to expand...

Kind of like followers of an idol. Their kids may not always worship the idol, but they may fear the idol just in case.

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.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...techism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm
"The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering."

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.

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

And so I see 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 as referring to how the believers were doing communion like the Israelis and the Gentiles as if we are stronger than God in making this offering unto God which we are not.

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.

Very kind of you, Hark. Give me a little time with that chapter to review and place it in a context of the issue you have raised. My primary point was that this passage is not, in it's historical context, speaking about Transubstantiation. While we can use passages and teachings to address more modern (even if it dates back to 3rd and 4th century origination) errors, I think we need to be very careful about that sort of thing. The idea of partaking of literal flesh and blood was something that was used to discredit Christianity, rather than something that originated from Christianity. As far as Catholic belief, I would only address that which comes directly from their own sources which hold legitimacy for the Catholic Church, Again, how their doctrine is interpreted varies from Catholic to Catholic, so if you would like to start a thread that examines theirs doctrine that would probably be interesting.

God bless.

I shall pass on that for now. I hope the Lord will lead me to post threads that every member here can get on that applies to christians in general.

As you say... speak of the Truth, and I can hope that God may cause the increase in reproving the works of darkness in that way.

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

It is obvious that proving the errors of the Catholic catechism or at least what they officially teach, is not going to convert any one to leave the Catholic church, but it was worth a shot to see if He would recover some that way.

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.

 

[Hark]

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.

I do not see growth when church discipline in regards to the faith and walk in Christ are found lacking. No church is perfect as we are not perfect, but how can one grow if we all look the other way when it comes to iniquity? How is that loving one another in Christ in seeking the other's good in the Lord?

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Ephesians 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

2 Thessalonians 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: 2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith. 3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. 4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. 5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ. 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;............14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

I wish to abide in Him to be raptured and so my hope is in Him to have me abiding in Him when the Bridegroom comes. As bad as everything seems to be now, I am praying that He has me ready to go.

That's all for now. God be willing, we shall continue again.

 

[Darrell C]

I do not see growth when church discipline in regards to the faith and walk in Christ are found lacking. No church is perfect as we are not perfect, but how can one grow if we all look the other way when it comes to iniquity? How is that loving one another in Christ in seeking the other's good in the Lord?

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Ephesians 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

2 Thessalonians 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: 2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith. 3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. 4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. 5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ. 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;............14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

I wish to abide in Him to be raptured and so my hope is in Him to have me abiding in Him when the Bridegroom comes. As bad as everything seems to be now, I am praying that He has me ready to go.

That's all for now. God be willing, we shall continue again.

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.

 

[vooks]

Well, I am not shocked for your lack of meekness in teaching others as it is done with impatience.

I shall not bother with sharing any more reproofs towards your application. Your mind is made up and mayhap is the reason why you are refusing to see anything else for the progress of this discussion.

I can agree that we disagree with the reading and application of those verses, brother.

Mayhap another may correct me with His help in a way so I can receive it, if correction from Him is warranted.

Thank you for sharing.

@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

 

[vooks]

I do not see growth when church discipline in regards to the faith and walk in Christ are found lacking. No church is perfect as we are not perfect, but how can one grow if we all look the other way when it comes to iniquity? How is that loving one another in Christ in seeking the other's good in the Lord?
.

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.

 

[vooks]

The "Elect" are those who, in the eternal perspective and soteriologically cumulative events are those who receive the very promises of God.

We can say of those who were justified by faith in the Old Testament, yet were not forgiven their sins and reconciled to God through the Cross that they were of the Elect.

Technically one is not among the Elect until salvation, but, from an eternal perspective God has known His Elect before the foundations of the world were laid. This is an issue that involves the foreknowledge of God as well as His will, rather than separating the two to create an exclusivity that denies that God so loved the world that He sent His Son.

@Darrell C,
Are you Elect yourself?

Yes of course, and they too are known from before the world was created, Judas and the Antichrist being good examples. Both are prophesied about and there is no hint at the possibility of redemption. God did not force either of those two to reject Himself yet they did, and will.

Can you tell somebody who is not Elect?

 

[vooks]

You did, when you asked the question., essentially. Of course I assume the question demanded a negative response, but, my response was to verify that no, not all men are successful. Those who are saved are not always immediate in receiving the Truth, so for that time in which they kick against the goads they are, until they yield, "successful," lol.




Again, this is a term that belongs to a System I am not a part of, and this is not a concept that I endorse, because it not only falls under the wings of a System I find disagreement with, but confuses the issues that need to be focused on.

Our discussion here would cease to be an ongoing issue if you would just acknowledge one point I have made repeatedly: you are putting the cart before the horse and arguing (1) about an issue that falls after the point in time when Free Will is relevant, and (2) against issues that are not relevant to my own Soteriology.

In other words, to simplify, the point you keep missing is that you are debating about whether man makes a choice in salvation and that is not the focal point. The focal point is whether he has that ability when the time comes for him to decide. And he does not come to that point until first he hears the Gospel, believes it, and the chooses.

But this post brings up an another assumption on your part that I think will help us to move on, hopefully, to get a better understanding of the focal issues. One being, I have never denied that men make a choice. But, what I am denying is the concept that it is within the natural framework of man that this decision is made. It is only within the framework of that point when men are brought under conviction, which necessitates God's intervention prior to choosing.




"Irresistible" has no relevance in the discussion.

The point being missed is not about whether men can resist or receive the truth, the point missed is that the Truth is not something men are aware of until God shows it to them as truth.

I have never said anything about a concept that implies an "irresistible drawing" of all men. This is a blending of Biblical statements that can in no passage in Scripture be seen to teach the concept you are arguing.


Continued...

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 point being missed is not about whether men can resist or receive the truth, the point missed is that the Truth is not something men are aware of until God shows it to them as truth.

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

 

[Darrell C]

@Darrell C,
Are you Elect yourself?

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

Can you tell somebody who is not Elect?

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.

 

[Darrell C]

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

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.

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

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

Permit me to define Freewill; it simply means ability to choose.

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.

If you agree that man MUST make a choice leading to his salvation or damnation, then we both agree man has Freewill.

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?

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

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 bigger point being missed here is God showing men the truth is not incompatible with Freewill but enhancing it.

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."

See one can't be said to have choices if he is unaware of them

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.

 

[vooks]

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?

 

[Darrell C]

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.

 

[vooks]

Basically, yes.


God bless.

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

 

[vooks]

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.

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

 

[Darrell C]

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

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.

 

[Darrell C]

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

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.

 

[vooks]

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?

 

[vooks]

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.

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