Seeking God

[37818]

Did I read, “…that in all things He might have preeminence…” or was it my imagination?

Yes, Colossians 1:18.

“First born” is not always birth order, but the one who holds family authority.

Well give the explict reference where that term "firstborn" is used only to mean the given preeminence. It seems I missed that reference.
Christ is explicitly called the "first fruits" [Greek singular] in the resurrection order, 1 Corinthains 15:20.

 

[agedman]

Yes, Colossians 1:18.

Well give the explict reference where that term "firstborn" is used only to mean the given preeminence. It seems I missed that reference.
Christ is explicitly called the "first fruits" [Greek singular] in the resurrection order, 1 Corinthains 15:20.

Is not “fruits” plural?

Why is that?

Of all resurrected, He is preeminent.

 

[37818]

Is not “fruits” plural?

Why is that?

Translators choice. Nothing more. The Greek is singular in 1 Corinthians 15:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:23.

 

[Van]

So once again in a pathetic attempt to support obviously false doctrine, the meaning of "first fruits" is claimed to not refer to Christ being the first person raised to eternal life from the dead.

Someone cited 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 which indicates the order of occurrence is in view, thus the denial of Calvinists once again shows a willingness to ignore and nullify God's word in order to support their obviously false doctrine. Christ was regenerated first, then those in Christ. Full Stop. OT Saints therefore were not "regeneration" (made alive together with Christ) until after Christ died.

 

[agedman]

Translators choice. Nothing more. The Greek is singular in 1 Corinthians 15:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:23.

So once again in a pathetic attempt to support obviously false doctrine, the meaning of "first fruits" is claimed to not refer to Christ being the first person raised to eternal life from the dead.

Someone cited 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 which indicates the order of occurrence is in view, thus the denial of Calvinists once again shows a willingness to ignore and nullify God's word in order to support their obviously false doctrine. Christ was regenerated first, then those in Christ. Full Stop. OT Saints therefore were not "regeneration" (made alive together with Christ) until after Christ died.

I must say that it is a bit troubling that neither of you seem to understand the term "first fruits" as it relates to the Scriptures.

Throughout the OT, the PRINCIPLE of "first fruits" was established with the sacrifice and offerings the folks had to make. Certainly, as I already stated, that at times it refers to the first born. BUT it is NOT the only and in fact may be less emphasized.

What was important was the BEST, the PRIMARY, the one without damage, the most HONORED of all that is brought.

For example, the first lamb may be (as Adam) damaged or in some manner unacceptable, so a more perfect sacrifice was offered from the second (Adam).

The first of Abraham (Ishmael) was unacceptable so the second (Issac) was selected to carry the promise.

The first of Jacob (Esau) was unacceptable so the second (Jacob) was selected.

Now, again, when it came to animals, because most born are without blemish, then the first one would be separated out and kept for later examination. However, should that one be unacceptable, another was selected. IT IS NOT birth order that is the primary focus, but the first AND best.

When it came time to harvest grains and other agriculture, it was not the first stalk, the first orange, the first plum, the first grape, but the best of the harvest which was called the first fruits and as such brought to the temple.

BTW, @Van, This has nothing to do with Calvinism. You seem determined to use anything available against that view even when it is not appropriate.

Christ was not the first raised from the dead, but He was the first fruits (the primary focus) of all that would be in the harvest as seen in 1 Corinthians.

Again, much of the time the honor of family heritage fell to the first born in a family of the ancient eastern Mediterranean countries, BUT not always. And that is why one must also recognize that "first born" is NOT always the first born in a family, but the one who will carry the family responsibility and heritage.

Using the OT principle, OTHERS raised from the dead were not acceptable for the honor and able to carry the responsibility of family, but the Christ was and does.

 

[37818]

I must say that it is a bit troubling that neither of you seem to understand the term "first fruits" as it relates to the Scriptures.

Throughout the OT, the PRINCIPLE of "first fruits" was established with the sacrifice and offerings the folks had to make. Certainly, as I already stated, that at times it refers to the first born. BUT it is NOT the only and in fact may be less emphasized.

What was important was the BEST, the PRIMARY, the one without damage, the most HONORED of all that is brought.

For example, the first lamb may be (as Adam) damaged or in some manner unacceptable, so a more perfect sacrifice was offered from the second (Adam).

The first of Abraham (Ishmael) was unacceptable so the second (Issac) was selected to carry the promise.

The first of Jacob (Esau) was unacceptable so the second (Jacob) was selected.

Now, again, when it came to animals, because most born are without blemish, then the first one would be separated out and kept for later examination. However, should that one be unacceptable, another was selected. IT IS NOT birth order that is the primary focus, but the first AND best.

When it came time to harvest grains and other agriculture, it was not the first stalk, the first orange, the first plum, the first grape, but the best of the harvest which was called the first fruits and as such brought to the temple.

BTW, @Van, This has nothing to do with Calvinism. You seem determined to use anything available against that view even when it is not appropriate.

Christ was not the first raised from the dead, but He was the first fruits (the primary focus) of all that would be in the harvest as seen in 1 Corinthians.

Again, much of the time the honor of family heritage fell to the first born in a family of the ancient eastern Mediterranean countries, BUT not always. And that is why one must also recognize that "first born" is NOT always the first born in a family, but the one who will carry the family responsibility and heritage.

Using the OT principle, OTHERS raised from the dead were not acceptable for the honor and able to carry the responsibility of family, but the Christ was and does.

Your OT ideas with the resurrection of Christ is nonsense.

 

[agedman]

Your OT ideas with the resurrection of Christ is nonsense.

Dear friend,
The only Scriptures that the first church had were the OT and a few letters they gathered and statements of prophecy brought in the assembly.

Therefore, the NT Scriptures use the things of the OT in their statements, and we must also know of these in order to rightly come to an understanding.

 

[37818]

@agedman,
Acts of the Apostles 26:23, ". . . That Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. . . ."

 

[Van]

I must say that it is a bit troubling that neither of you seem to understand the term "first fruits" as it relates to the Scriptures.
SNIP
BTW, @Van, This has nothing to do with Calvinism. You seem determined to use anything available against that view even when it is not appropriate.
SNIP

The false doctrine of Calvinism can only be defended using false charges. The Calvinist is trying to take one of the three meanings of the word and claim it is the only one. So he claims those who actually present the actual meaning do not understand, when he is presenting a bogus understanding.

Next, the fact that since Jesus was the first in the order of sequence to be regenerated, means the OT saints were not regenerated, and therefore could seek God and trust in God in their unregenerate state blows a hole through their whole false doctrine. So once again the Calvinist falsely claims it has nothing to do with Calvinism. I kid you not...

 

[agedman]

The false doctrine of Calvinism can only be defended using false charges. The Calvinist is trying to take one of the three meanings of the word and claim it is the only one. So he claims those who actually present the actual meaning do not understand, when he is presenting a bogus understanding.

Next, the fact that since Jesus was the first in the order of sequence to be regenerated, means the OT saints were not regenerated, and therefore could seek God and trust in God in their unregenerate state blows a hole through their whole false doctrine. So once again the Calvinist falsely claims it has nothing to do with Calvinism. I kid you not...

Two problems with your thinking comes to mind.
1) This issue has nothing to do with Calvinism. Here is a site that teaches exactly what I am showing as faithful to the Scriptures. What does it mean that Jesus is the “firstborn” over Creation? | GotQuestions.org
The owner and ultimately one who is held responsible is a graduate of Calvary Theological Seminary which holds fellowship with both independent and denomination schools (therefore not Calvinistic) and is pursuing another degree at Dallas Theological (which is certainly not Calvinistic).

Here is another authority that shows the same view as I have been presenting. In What Sense Is Jesus the Firstborn of All Creation?

And here is this list giving nearly if not all references showing the Scripture authority from which I have presented my view. What Does the Bible Say About Jesus The Firstborn?

Therefore, any claim of a Calvinistic agenda is in your words “bogus.”

I personally do wish you wouldn’t bring Calvinistic thinking up where it isn’t necessary nor appropriate to the view I am showing.

2) God redeems in the exact same manner no matter the “age” in which a person has, does or will live. Therefore, the work of the Holy Spirit was just as much a part of the salvation of all the redeemed of the OT as it was in the NT and events this day as well as any in the future.

John 3 has the Lord discussing the presence and working of the Spirit is as the wind, and therefore already present in the world.

David fearing rejection plead God not take His Spirit from him.

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

So, once again your claims against what I post have been proven false. “I kid you not…”

 

[Van]

Two problems with your thinking comes to mind.
1) This issue has nothing to do with Calvinism. SNIP

Note that the false claim is repeated and the rebuttal below ignored!

the fact that since Jesus was the first in the order of sequence to be regenerated, means the OT saints were not regenerated, and therefore could seek God and trust in God in their unregenerate state blows a hole through their whole false doctrine. So once again the Calvinist falsely claims it has nothing to do with Calvinism. I kid you not...

2) God redeems in the exact same manner no matter the “age” in which a person has, does or will live.

And once again the false doctrine is proclaimed, leaving out that the OT Saints had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect after Christ died. Thus there redemption ended up in the same place (in Heaven) but being made alive (regenerated) in Christ was delayed until Christ died. Therefore they had to wait to regenerated. So their redemption was not exactly the same manner (regenerated while physically alive) as the NT saints.

 

[agedman]

Note that the false claim is repeated and the rebuttal below ignored!



And once again the false doctrine is proclaimed, leaving out that the OT Saints had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect after Christ died. Thus there redemption ended up in the same place (in Heaven) but being made alive (regenerated) in Christ was delayed until Christ died. Therefore they had to wait to regenerated. So their redemption was not exactly the same manner (regenerated while physically alive) as the NT saints.

Where do you find Scripture to claim, "the OT Saints had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect after Christ died."?

Were not both Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration perfect? Or were they angels mistaken by the three disciples who had never seen Moses and Elijah?

Were not BOTH the rich man and the poor man living in their estate after death? When did they get "regenerated" to be a part of the parable as if they were alive?

Perhaps the widows son wasn't really fully dead and the prophet did an ancient artificial respiration to revive him, or the soldier thrown into the burial chamber of the prophet suddenly had his heart restarted by being bounced along and then thrown down, I don't know how it would all fit into your view as you present it.

I present the above in jest to show how little foundational response your post brings. I do expect more from you.

I noticed you didn't attend to the citations.

I cited source material which draws the same scholarly presentation that I made, but where are your sources?

What scholarly sources do you use to draw some of your conclusions?

 

[Van]

Where do you find Scripture to claim, "the OT Saints had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect after Christ died."?
SNIP

Once again, basic biblical doctrine is said to be a mystery to Calvinists. Do they specifically deny the OT saints went to Abraham's bosom? No, they just ask for a reference as if non-existent. Go figure.

Did Jesus not say No One has ascended to heaven in John 3:13. So where did the OT Saints go, if not to heaven? Luke 16:22 says Abraham's bosom. Did OT Saints have to wait to be made perfect? Of course, see Hebrews 11:39-40.

So basically these response questions are diversions, rather than posting agreement with truth.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Van, is it conceivable that you could eliminate your references to Calvinism and Calvinists since you are targeting strawmen anyway? Try it out and see if you could advance any semblance of an argument.

 

[agedman]

Once again, basic biblical doctrine is said to be a mystery to Calvinists. Do they specifically deny the OT saints went to Abraham's bosom? No, they just ask for a reference as if non-existent. Go figure.

Did Jesus not say No One has ascended to heaven in John 3:13. So where did the OT Saints go, if not to heaven? Luke 16:22 says Abraham's bosom. Did OT Saints have to wait to be made perfect? Of course, see Hebrews 11:39-40.

So basically these response questions are diversions, rather than posting agreement with truth.

I did not question that the OT saints resided in Abraham’s bosom, what I questioned was your thinking they were not made perfect.

Again, was not Moses and Elijah both perfect on the mount of transfiguration?

 

[Van]

More denial of the obvious, folks. RR posts a "taint so" denial devoid of biblical basis and Agedmen rewrites his bogus claim, such that since they eventually were made perfect (after Christ died), the OT Saints were made perfect. Did I claim they were not made perfect or had to wait until Christ died to be made perfect? Here is what I said, "Did OT Saints have to wait to be made perfect? Of course, see Hebrews 11:39-40."

So more falsehoods, more disinformation, more smokescreed to hide the obvious false doctrine of Calvinism.

The biblical doctrine, none of the OT Saints were regenerated before Christ died, and therefore they did not enter heaven, but had to wait in Abraham's bosom, until after Christ died to be made perfect. So simple a child could understand it.

Why the denial? Because without being "regenerated" the OT saints gained approval by faith. See Hebrews 11. Thus the false doctrine of Calvinism is once again shown from scripture to be bogus. This is not rocket science. It is the pure gospel of Christ.

 

[AustinC]

More denial of the obvious, folks. RR posts a "taint so" denial devoid of biblical basis and Agedmen rewrites his bogus claim, such that since they eventually were made perfect (after Christ died), the OT Saints were made perfect. Did I claim they were not made perfect or had to wait until Christ died to be made perfect? Here is what I said, "Did OT Saints have to wait to be made perfect? Of course, see Hebrews 11:39-40."

So more falsehoods, more disinformation, more smokescreed to hide the obvious false doctrine of Calvinism.

The biblical doctrine, none of the OT Saints were regenerated before Christ died, and therefore they did not enter heaven, but had to wait in Abraham's bosom, until after Christ died to be made perfect. So simple a child could understand it.

Why the denial? Because without being "regenerated" the OT saints gained approval by faith. See Hebrews 11. Thus the false doctrine of Calvinism is once again shown from scripture to be bogus. This is not rocket science. It is the pure gospel of Christ.

What is the promise the saints were looking for? It wasn't the promise of faith, because God had already given them faith. What they were placing their faith in, was the promise...the promise of the coming Redeemer...who would justify them by his atonement for their sins.
Let's look at the points in Hebrews 11 that show us this truth.

Hebrews 11:1-2,13,39-40

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation.

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

So, they, the saints of old, were commended for their faith when they were alive. They didn't have to wait until Jesus came and died. What they had to wait for was the object of their hope. Jesus, their promised Redeemer.

Van, you insist on a theology not expressed in the Bible. You have been shown this error by multiple people. Yet you persist in demanding that your isolated, particular, error be adopted as the only correct theology on the subject.
Simply put. You are wrong. The text of scripture shows that you are wrong.

 

[Van]

What is the promise the saints were looking for? It wasn't the promise of faith, because God had already given them faith. What they were placing their faith in, was the promise...the promise of the coming Redeemer...who would justify them by his atonement for their sins.
Let's look at the points in Hebrews 11 that show us this truth.

Hebrews 11:1-2,13,39-40

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation.

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

So, they, the saints of old, were commended for their faith when they were alive. They didn't have to wait until Jesus came and died. What they had to wait for was the object of their hope. Jesus, their promised Redeemer. SNIP

Regeneration occurs when a individual is placed into Christ, and born anew, thus made alive together with Christ.
They were chosen for redemption during their lifetime, based on God approving their faith. But since Christ had not come in the flesh yet as the Lamb of God, they had to wait to be made perfect until after Christ died. No matter how often Calvinists claim this is not true, in order to hide their false doctrine, God's word says it is true. Full Stop

 

[AustinC]

Regeneration occurs when a individual is placed into Christ, and born anew, thus made alive together with Christ.
They were chosen for redemption during their lifetime, based on God approving their faith. But since Christ had not come in the flesh yet as the Lamb of God, they had to wait to be made perfect until after Christ died. No matter how often Calvinists claim this is not true, in order to hide their false doctrine, God's word says it is true. Full Stop

Is this a Calvinist claim or a God hath said claim? Tell me, is God promoting a false doctrine?

Ephesians 1:3-6

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

FULL STOP

 

[Van]

Is this a Calvinist claim or a God hath said claim? Tell me, is God promoting a false doctrine?

Ephesians 1:3-6

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

FULL STOP

Note the Calvinist simply posts scripture as if it supported his view, but 1 Peter 2:9-10 precluded his view. He chose us in Him corporately before the foundation of the world is the only possible doctrine in light of 1 Peter.