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

While you, like many, see this as referring to born again believers losing their salvation, the context denies that.

If you notice there is a contrast between "Moses' Law" (the Covenant of Law, a prominent element of contrast throughout the Book) and the "Covenant sanctified by the Blood (death) of Christ.

In view is not born again believers in danger of losing salvation, but Hebrews in danger of not converting from the Law to the New Covenant.

Secondly, the action condemned is not terminology describing believers, but those who...

1. Tread under foot Christ;

2. Consider His death unholy (and this because they would view the sacrifices of the Law as holy, which they were, as the Law was God ordained);

3. Done despite, or, resisted the Spirit of Grace, which is precisely what we have been discussing: rejecting the Minjstry of the Comforter in revealing the truth for the purpose of conversion.

So the parallel, just as we see in regards to false teachers/false prophets in 2 Peter 2:1, is between those who rejected the First Covenant, and those that reject the New Covenant.

And you just can't make a born again believer out of someone who is guilty of the above. It's just not in the text. It is a direct statement of what they have done, and to make this mean they were saved then fell away stands in direct contradiction to the positive statement that salvation is complete in Christ.

Now watch this, I am going to back up a bit and show you the same statement of v.26 already stated:


Hebrews 10:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Compare with...


Hebrews 10:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,


Again, we see that there is a basic truth presented, there remains no more sacrifice for sin. But, in the first reference we are told where remission of the transgressions is granted, there is no need for further offering, because as he explains throughout the Chapter, Christ's sacrifice brought completion, whereas the sacrifices of the Covenant of Law did not (Hebrews 10:1-4). They could not make the "comer thereunto complete," or, those sacrifices had to be offered over and over due to the incomplete nature of those offerings. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins, but, the sacrifice of Christ does., as promised in regards to the day when God when create a New Covenant to replace the old.

But in the second, while the same truth is given, it is speaking to those who were in danger of withdrawing from fellowship (forsaking the assembling of the brethren) because they rejected the New Covenant. The writer's point is that, "If you do that, there is no other sacrifice for sins you can turn to." That includes the sacrifices of the Law, because Christ's had fulfilled in reality what theirs only pictured.

That is why he (the Writer) compares them with those who rejected Moses' Law, and if you notice, what he is saying is that those who tread under foot Christ, consider the New Covenant unholy, and do despite unto the Spirit of Grace...

...will face a far greater judgment than the rejecters of the Covenant of Law:


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

26 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?


And just to finish up on this point, let's look at the statements that make it clear that salvation is complete in Christ, and why:


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

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

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


The simple truth is to point out, as he does in Chapter 9, that the Law was only figure, shadow, parable. It could not make the worshipper (offerer) complete, which speaks of completion, bringing something to it's end. He makes it clear that those sacrifices could not take away sins.

Now see what he says about Christ's Sacrifice:


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


This is actually the clearest, simplest attestation to the eternality of salvation in Scripture, in my view, and it is ironic this passage is used to teach the exact opposite of what the writer is teaching.

Again we see the contrast between the Two Covenants and their services, the prominent focus being that of Christ's Sacrifice and what it accomplished, which what the offering of the Levitical Priesthood could not do...take away sins. Now we understand that context by including everything he teaches in this chapter, and thus we see that the perfection/completion in view is directly addressing remission of sins. This is why Christ had to die once, contrasted with the daily service of the Law.

If you keep reading you will see that once again the Promise of the New Covenant is mentioned:


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


The point being that in view is the realization of the promise, which teaches that when one receives remission of sins through Christ...there is no more offering for sin. But it is a positive statement, not a negative. It is not saying "Hey, there's only one chance to be forgiven," but rather, he is teaching when we receive remission of sins we are made compete/perfect in regards to remission of sins for ever.

And that is a long time, Vooks.

Continued...

 

"False conversions" is correct but it is a little misleading to some who hear it. Better to say false profession, and false association. Something the Lord will say to the lost is "I never knew you." Being in relationship with God through the reconciliation is an intimate knowledge, and cannot be said of falsely professing "believers," or tares.

And that is one of the lessons of the parable of the Tares, they look like wheat, and are indistinguishable, but are not actually wheat.

Again, in view in both passages we have those who have rejected, not those who were born again. And it is when we come to understand the magnitude of Salvation in Christ that we begin to understand that Christ is in fact...the Savior.

We are born again by the Resurrection of Christ, and when we ascribe salvific value to anything we might accomplish then we add to the Cross of Christ. But as I said, He died alone, no-one but the Father with Him, making it quite impossible for men to ascribe any work they perform as contributing to salvation.

Another New Birth statement made by Paul makes that very clear:


Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


Now, a couple of things I would ask you to consider here is...

1. we see clearly that works of righteousness, as is often by Paul, denied as a contributor to salvation;

2. We are saved by the washing (cleansing) of regeneration;

3. We are brought back into relationship with God. While many see "renewing of the Holy Ghost to refer to a work performed on Christians by the Holy Ghost, that is unlikely, for that is covered in "the washing of regeneration (new birth). In view is, I believe, a clear reference to the relationship between man and God, the relationship which was lost in the Fall.

When we see man as a contributor to his salvation, whether that is in obtaining it, or maintaining it, we conflict with Scripture's teaching that reserves the Title of Savior to Jesus Christ. That Role is occupied by One, that is Christ.

And I have to get going so I will get to your last post when I return. Thanks for the discussion.

God bless.

 

It is true there is a contrast between the Old and the New in Hebrews. In fact this is the biggest theme of the book showing how New is superior to the Old. But in this case, the contrast is on severity of apostasy. It is or it will be much worse in the New

Like I have always told @Hark, making claims is one thing, demonstrating a scriptural basis is another. Let's have this proof

Why is it not? Because you say so?

And the assumption is believers can't be false teachers nor reject the New Covenant, right?

The text @Darrell C tells us the subject was SANCTIFIED.
How do those who reject the New Covenant before accepting it become SANCTIFIED?

This is what I was talking about. A priori biases make you read things into the text. Again like @Hark, you indulge in false dilemmas; if Christians could lose their salvation. Christ's salvation is incomplete.

The text says they were SANCTIFIED by the blood of the covenant.

Great verses

Agreed. Christ's sacrifice is all-sufficient

Disagreed. Your point is the author is merely appealing to the fact that the Old is totally gone so there is nothing to turn to. This would be sensible had he stopped at the highlighted. But it does not; let's read what is there instead of more sacrifice;

V27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Why @Darrell C is there judgement and indignation and no more sacrifice for those who sin willfully?
This is a WARNING and not merely a statement of absence of Old Covenant sacrifices. There is no remedy but terrible judgement is the point.

The author is comparing OT apostasy with NT apostasy. NT will be worse. That blood which saved them will not only be unavailable but the judgement and indignation will be harsh and it will be executed by God Himself not men!

You know @Darrell C, there are many points we could contrast the OLD and the NEW. On the subject verse(s), apostasy attracts a much harsher judgement. It takes copious amounts of denial to miss this

Ah the perfected/perfection clincher!

The problem is that you conflate Christ's perfect sacrifice with eternal security.
Of those sanctified and perfected forever is one who stares at sore punishment, judgement and indignation because he persists in sin-v27

Obviously whatever perfected means, it does not absolve willful sinners of a sore punishment

Great promises but no sacrifice for willful sins but a sore punishment.

 

false whatever rocks your theological boat but they were SANCTIFIED by the blood of the covenant. Looks like Jesus staged their conversion

 

The text does not say they, it says He.


Hebrews 10:29

King James Version (KJV)

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?


Two points I will make:

1. You are making those who trod underfoot Christ saved instead of rejecters as the text plainly states.

2. We already know what happens when it is the believer in view being sanctified:


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.



This is something that will be understood through serious study and understanding of the passage. You will need to understand the rest of the passage in order to see that loss of salvation is not in the teaching of the Writer. And that is something you will never understand if you are predisposed to that view, it will not allow you to exegete the passage. There is more than enough in the previous post to show that in view are those who have rejected Christ and the New Covenant, and to make them born again believers conflicts with the teachings. You would have the Writer stating that believers are forever forgiven their sins, and then turning around and saying they have tread Christ underfoot, counted His Sacrifice unholy, and resisted the Holy Spirit.

Just doesn't fit.

My hope is one day you might understand that, but, this depends on you.


God bless.

 

You would not be the first one, lol.

You don't seem to have understood what I was saying. I am not saying that erroneous doctrine is okay.

Why do you think I am here? lol

I take erroneous doctrine very seriously, which is why I debate doctrine. However, what I am saying is that believers who do have erroneous doctrine does not equate to them being unbelievers.

And every proof text you offer clearly presents the two types of people in the world: believers and unbelievers.

In the first quote Christ does not know them. If you want to make them believers go ahead, but it conflicts with Scripture.

In the second quote the context is on which deals with Israel, not the Church. The Church is not even created at this time. The context is also one of Christ's Return, and the Rapture of the Church does not take place at that time.

So do I question whether you are a believer because you err? No, I simply acknowledge that you are learning.

In the first quote, it is their faith, not their salvation which the fallse professors overthrow. Big difference. In regards to Evolution being a cause of people losing faith, apparently you have not spent much time talking to Theistic Evolutionists. It has nothing to do with their beliefs on a soteriological level. They still believe in the Bible, just not the Young Earth Creationist/Conservative/Historical interpretation.

In the second quote you still miss the fact that not all believers hold the same position in the Body. This has nothing to do with the Rapture, and it has nothing to do with the difference between believers and unbelievers. What the text does say is that depending on the obedience of believers to sanctify themselves, they will either be vessels unto honor or vessels unto dishonor, but they will still be in the House.


Continued...

 

Again...unbelieving.

Now, what I was speaking about was simply believers who are ignorant, indoctrinated, and still immature in their understanding due to the fact they haven't yet, by reason of use, reached a place of discernment based on a broader familiarity with the Word.

This is why so many teach loss of salvation.

There is no such thing as a "former believer."

As far as what believers are to do is what Scripture commands: study. But the facts are that believers are lazy, and ignorant in general. Again, not all are gifted in areas of the Word, so we don't expect everyone to be skilled in the Word, but, as the Writer of Hebrews admonishes his brethren, Hebrews, there is a Divine directive that should keep believers from being immature in understanding:


Hebrews 5:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


This warning goes out to all believers, that they do not replicate the ignorance of these Hebrews, who are immediately after told to go on unto perfection.

And it is no surprise that most ignore this part of the passage and use Hebrews 6:1-6 to teach loss of salvation.

But again, just because they are in error does not mean they are any less saved, lol.

Again, you need to speak with Theistic Evolutionists. This is just not the reality.

Those who reject Scripture are usually Atheistic and many of them make a clain of having at one time been saved. That is the lie, I give no credence to it at face value. It is at this point when I seek to discuss salvation with them, and every time they have no clue as to how one is saved.

I am not a KJVonlyist, and question those who are.

The KJV, while my favorite translation, is still just a translation. We have to consult the original languages, and any serious Theologian knows that.

For example, tell me what the writer of Hebrews means when he speaks of being perfect?

Unbelievers have only one way to depart from iniquity, and that is to be saved.

And again, the above is not taught in Scripture, this has no correlation to the Rapture, which does not take place at Christ's Return. Secondly, you are removing them from the House if you have them left behind.

You do not have the first Scripture that teaches...

so as to avoid being disqualified and thus denied attendence to the Marriage Supper as a vessel unto honor in His House only to be received later on as a vessel unto dishonor


That is error, my friend. It is a blending of prooftexts to create a doctrine that Paul nor Christ taught in regards to the Rapture or the Return of Christ.

Let's add a little more to the first quote:

2 Timothy 2:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


What is said here is we are to shun nonsense. These two were spewing erroneous doctrine, teaching the Resurrection had already passed. This threw some into despair because they thought they missed the Rapture. Now it is not their salvation that is overthrown, and nothing is said about them losing their salvation, what is in view is a matter of their faith in the sense of their daily lives, not Saving Faith.

In the second quote, you add to what you have said before, and have believers falling away and not even knowing it. You have believers who are said not to believe. And that is what the L.O.S.T. (Loss of Salvation Teachers) always do, they impose those who are clearly stated as unbelievers not known of Christ into the Body.

We have already looked at these passages, and I have already told you that I see this as an erroneous correlation.

You have no Scripture teaching believers are left behind. Not one.

And for the record, this has nothing to do with whether men were born again before Pentecost. I suggest you start a thread that deals with this topic and see if anyone bothers to join in. I have my doubts you will find even one person to see in the texts what you are seeing.

Again we see the distinction drawn between believers and unbelievers. Where do you see anything about believers falling away?

Again, the text is clear. Christ, then those that are His at His coming. Not part of those that are His.

As I already mentioned, Paul teaches the Rapture will be everyone in the Body, first the dead, then those that remain, and nowhere in Scripture do we see the division you impose into it. Every text you try to use as a proof-text falls short of your view.


God bless.

 

It is true there is a contrast between the Old and the New in Hebrews. In fact this is the biggest theme of the book showing how New is superior to the Old. But in this case, the contrast is on severity of apostasy. It is or it will be much worse in the New
[/QUOTE]

I am not just talking about the contrast found throughout Hebrews, I am talking about this specific passage and what that contrast means.

You derail yourself and overlook that the contrast is between those who rejected the Covenant of Law, and those rejecting the New Covenant, and have turned it's meaning into one that suits your doctrine.

It's really very simple, "Those who rejected Moses' Law died under two or three witnesses, how much worse do you suppose those who reject the New Covenant will be punished?"

Both groups are rejecters, Vooks.

Like I have always told @Hark, making claims is one thing, demonstrating a scriptural basis is another. Let's have this proof
[/QUOTE]

I gave you more than enough Scripture with commentary as to context. You respond with very little. The Book is written to Hebrews, Vooks. And while believers are in view, the Writer does not imply that those who reject the New Covenant are believers, but those who will be punished like those who rejected the First Covenant, or, Covenant of Law (called Moses' Law).

Why is it not? Because you say so?[/QUOTE]

Not at all...because it is right there in the text, lol.

Can you seriously deny that any one of these points is not?

And that's all the time I have tonight. I have the rest of your reply ready and will get to it likely in the morning.


Continued...

 

Which is irrelevant. He,she,they,it..... He was sanctified. Only believers are said to be sanctified by the blood of the new covenant

Your logic is basically
1. They are perfected forever
2. Those perfected forever can't lose their life
3. He lost his life so he was not perfected forever

This is reading into the text. If the text says he was sanctified, that makes him a believer unless Jesus sanctifies hell fodder

It does not take serious study though that is commendable,it just takes you taking your own medicine of being open and suffering Holy Spirit to speak through layers of your theological castles.
It also takes dedicated ignorance to miss the plain meaning of the text

Of course it doesn't fit. That was my first impression. Then I pondered, 'exactly what is it that it doesn't fit?' My theology! So you too @Darrell C, it's your theology that it 'just doesn't fit', but hey, it's your theology to fit scriptures not the other way.

For the umpteenth time how come he is SANCTIFIED?
Or does this word mean something else?
Maybe it can if you wrestle its meaning and mound it around your theology ....just saying

My prayer is you take your own medicine before prescribing it to @Hark

 

The contrast is in the severity of the penalty for apostasy.

I don't have no doctrine sir, I'm just too honest with the subject text.
It is true , the contrast is in consequences of rejecting the covenants, but my point is in both, the rejectors were UNDER either covenant, that's why he was sanctified by the blood!

Yes it is this simple, but one can reject something they have never partaken in or they can reject something they've been part of. In this case, the NT rejector had gone deep enough to be SANCTIFIED. Means he was already regenerated. In the OT, before the penalty was meted out, all Israel had agreed to follow God so they were converts as well.

Again, the fact that he was SANCTIFIED is all I need to distinguish between somebody who has just been presented with the truth and somebody who has accepted the truth. The Word of God is what sanctifies, but it does not sanctify hearers,only those who believe!

That's because they serve very little in unraveling the subject text. The key word my brother is the guy was SANCTIFIED by the blood of the covenant.

If you could show me a single scripture remotely hinting at sanctification by the blood of sinners who never accepted NT, you'd have a point. I can look them up, memorize them in Greek, Aramaic, Strong's .....

Very true @Darrell C, it was written to Jewish Christians

This is funny, he does not imply?
What other words/phrases could he have used to imply so?
He calls him SANCTIFIED. This is a term reserved for Christians exclusively without no exception, so he implies exactly what you accuse him of not unless of course he was ignorant as to its usage. @Darrell C, was he ignorant? Care to teach him a thing or two?

Yes it is 'right there in the text' yet you can't show where

Meditate on this; he was SANCTIFIED BY THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT

 

And the assumption is believers can't be false teachers nor reject the New Covenant, right?[/QUOTE]

That is correct: believers cannot be false teachers.

Believers can teach false doctrine, but they cannot be both believers and false believers.

In Hebrews we see that those who are rejecting are in view, that is just basic. Yet you have them saved...then treading Christ underfoot, counting the Sacrifice unholy, and resisting the Holy Ghost.

You refuse to let your loss of salvation mentality allow you to draw out of the text what is being taught.

Believers do not resist the Holy Ghost, they grieve the Holy Ghost.

But did you understand why they were given?

The first statement is a positive statement: when one is forgiven...there is no more need for sacrifice.

The second is a negative: if one rejects it, there is no other sacrifice they can turn to. And the audience in view are Hebrews clearly being taught the distinctions between the Covenant of Law (and its sacrifices (plural)) and the New Covenant and it's Sacrifice (singular).

And this is something not true of those sanctified by Christ: there is no more necessity for sacrifice because they have been made complete by the Once Offered Christ, meaning, just as the Promise written into the New Covenant states...sins are forgiven and remembered no more. But you will need to study Hebrews in order to understand this. If you are predisposed to make a text teach loss of salvation, that is what your heart is going to see.

The passage does not contrast the judgment of believers under the Law and unbelievers concerning the New Covenant, it contrasts unbelievers from both.

The passage is not comparing apostasy with rejection of the New Covenant, it is comparing the judgment itself. The action is the same...rejection of the will of God. Under the Law, they were put to death for despising Moses' Law. Now that the New Covenant has been established, they are judged more severely for despising Christ, His Sacrifice, and resisting the Spirit of Grace.

Both groups are unbelieving rejecters.

Continued...

 

And you admit that you do not know what this means.

It's very simple, Vooks, the word translated "perfection" means "completion."

Now look at Hebrews 10:10-14 again, and note that the context contrasts the services of the Levitical Priesthood, which it has already said in Hebrews 10:1-4 "could not make perfect/complete." But the Sacrifice of Christ does make complete, and that is...forever.

Believers are sanctified once ("For all" is a KJV insertion, it is not in the original language), and those that are sanctified have forgiveness for ever.

Secondly, we see a theme of perfection throughout Hebrews.

In Hebrews 6:1, after telling his audience (Hebrews) that they are ignorant of the Word they had (The Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures (see Hebrews 5:10-14)), he tells them to "go on unto perfection:"


Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


Look at the link.

That is because this is what we are taught in Scripture.

That is what this...


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Now you are denying this, so it is up to you to give the proper interpretation.

The context is dealing directly with sacrifice for sin. Those of the Law were incomplete and could not take away sins (and the whole point of sacrifice for sin was atonement), but Christ's brings forgiveness that is for ever.


Continued...

 

Not "sore," but unimaginably "sorer" punishment.

And what you are doing is trying to make the text say that in view are those who rejected Moses' Law and Born Again Believers who sin.

It is a corruption of the teaching.

In view are rejecters from both Eras, and the punishment for rejecting Christ is far worse, because it is the revelation of God's will for man.

My hope is one day you will understand what the writer means when he speaks about perfection/completion.

It's right there for you to see, but you will have to learn to exegete the passages apart from predisposition.

Start at the beginning of Hebrews 10 and understand the first four verses before trying to go any further. The point is that the Law, the Covenant, and it's sacrifices were only shadow/parable, not the reality they represented which is found in Christ. The sacrifices offered up in Old Testament Economies pictured the Sacrifice of Christ which would take place at the appointed time. Those sacrifices were temporary and temporal, and while they did bestow atonement for sin, they had to be offered again (daily), because they could not take away sin.

Now think about it: what the Writer is saying is that Christ's Sacrifice does take away sin, and in view is the penalty for sin. And he does not just say it takes away sin, but it states it takes it away forever.

And that is the promise of God in regards to the New Covenant.


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.



Hebrews 8:8-12

King James Version (KJV)

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Great promises but no sacrifice for willful sins but a sore punishment.


[/QUOTE]

And because your mind sees believers in view, you cannot understand the context.

The sin in view is described in vv.28-29:


Hebrews 10:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

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?


Until you acknowledge that those in danger of sorer punishment are contrasted with the rejecters of the Covenant of Law, you will never understand this passage.


God bless.

 

This does not really address what I have said here.

You have a view that born again believers are left behind, yet the only passages you can use to support this...do not even deal with the Rapture. They deal with the Return of Christ, which has at least seven years separating the two events.


Luke 12:40-49

King James Version (KJV)

40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?


This has a primary reference to Israel, not the Church. This refers to the Return, not the Rapture. Those who receive stripes are appointed their portion with unbelievers, so unless you want to teach a Purgatorial concept, you are forced to acknowledge that in view are not believers left behind, but unbelievers who will be Goats at the Sheep and Goat judgment.

Only unbelievers enter the Tribulation.

When you can find a passage in Scripture that denies both dead and living believers are caught up, let me know.

And again, there is no Terrestrial Inheritance, Paul simply distinguishes between "bodies" in 1 Corinthians 15. While I believe that the Tribulation Martyrs that are raised from the dead will interact with the living population, we again distinguish this period with the Rapture. The Rapture occurs prior to the beginning of the Tribulation, whereas the Tribulation Martyrs are raised at the end of it.

There are two groups "coming out of the Tribulation:" believers, and unbelievers.

These are physically alive, not glorified, and stand at the Sheep and Goat Judgment. The Sheep enter into the Kingdom physically alive, thus are not "like the Angels," and the Goats enter into everlasting punishment, because they have sealed their fate in rejecting the Gospel.

Not really relevant to the Rapture or anything we have been discussing.

I have never said they weren't.

While the firstfruits are indeed Elect, that doesn't mean all of the Elect are firstfruits. The Church is the firstfruits, because they are glorified (made like Christ) at the Rapture. When we look into the Kingdom we will see there w3ill be those not yet glorified living in that Kingdom, and at this time it is the Church of this Age and the Tribulation Martyrs who are glorified, though the Tribulation Martyrs could be debated, seeing the Curse is lifted to some extent, and long life is a characteristic of the Kingdom. But it is best to see the glorified, in my view, because it is called the First Resurrection, "first" being a reference, not to sequence, but to rank, and is contrasted with the resurrection unto damnation, rather than being the first resurrection which takes place.


Continued...

 

And this is completely irrelevant to what you are trying to teach: yes, the firstfruits are caught up and go to be with Christ in that City (Currently in Heaven). But this has nothing to do with the Return at the End of the Tribulation, nor is there the first passage that even hints at believers being left behind and missing the Rapture. All passages that speak of "not entering" are Kingdom passages which take place at the Return of Christ.

You will need to supply something that is relevant to the Church, not Israel, nor Tribulation believers.

No-one is resurrected "out of the Tribulation" with the exception of the Two Witnesses.

Among believers there are those who die in the Tribulation and those who live through it. Those who die are resurrected at the end of the Tribulation, and those who live through it are the Sheep of Matthew 25.

Completely irrelevant.

This teaching is specific to the Church in this Age.

And the entire Church, both living and dead, who were Raptured are those who are taken there prior to the Tribulation.

I have no clue as to what you are trying to say here, lol.

The simple truth is that the teaching in John 15 speaks to a future time for the disciples when they are exhorted to stay in Christ. The ones abiding will be those who opt for Christ as opposed to remaining in the vine that is not the True Vine, which is basically Israel, the Law, that means of relationship to God provided in that Age.

But, if one is predisposed to believe and teach that salvation can be lost, and that born again believers can somehow be unborn again, then they simply will not give attention to the particular contexts their proof-texts present.

So tell me this, Hark, what contrasts the True Vine?

Did the Disciples abide? And I mean immediately after this teaching.

It is true we abide in Christ, and His teaching is specific, those who do invariably produce fruit, which negates a possibility of believers being cut out. We will see those who are cut out, and again...they are of Israel, not the Church. The disciples would not be born again believers until Pentecost, which might be better understood if this thread actually had participants who were interested in discussing the OP, lol.


God bless.