Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

The problem is this: yo aren't preaching the Gospel of Christ, you are preaching the gospel according to Ken.

And there are plenty of Scriptures to deny that gospel.

Just read the thread, you'll find quite a few.



Seriously, if you aren't going to put the effort into having a debate—why are you even posting in this thread?

A debate is one of us making a statement supported by Scripture, then the other commenting and posting Scripture that shows the error of the other. Not just spouting opinions unsupported by a Biblical basis.

God bless.

 

The question is—when did Christ pay the sin debt of the Old Testament Saint.

I have provided my Scripture, where is yours?

I can tell you why you haven't provided it—it's not in the Bible.

My friend, you need to seriously take stock of what it is you are believing. I have shown you Scripture that shows you with out controversy that their debt was paid when Christ died on the Cross and you keep ignoring it.

When, Ken—when?

That is the question before you, lol.

If you want to teach the Atonement was provided to men prior to Christ's death, I suggest you bring forth Scripture supporting that. You won't because it isn't a Biblical Doctrine.

God justified men in the Old Testament, this is true.

Yet...

Romans 3:10 King James Version

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:



How many times will you look at that truth and ignore it? When will you read the chapter and understand that being justified in the Old Testament is not the same as being eternally redeemed and receiving the declaration of righteousness that is not based on what you did, but what Christ did.

How many times can I point out to you that Abraham believed this Gospel: I will give you a son and all families of the earth will be blessed through him?


God bless.

 

So where is your Scripture?

You won't find it because it isn't in the Bible.

You are preaching the word of JesusFan, not the word of God. And I can tell you why you are doing it, JF: because you get your understanding from men, not the Word of God.

God bless.

 

Because you cannot, for yourself, go into Scripture and support what you think you believe. Just as I said to JF, you are holding to the doctrines of men, not Biblical Doctrine.

That is why you cannot bring even the first Scripture to your defense.

I hope you have a good day too, Ken, though I pray the Spirit of God greatly trouble your spirit over your beliefs. He still does that, you know?

God bless.

 

Very good.

Now, when was the New Covenant Established?

God bless.

 

Hmm. Why does this sound familiar?

Let me ask both of you something: where did you learn the slur "dispy?"

You know where the spirit of slander comes from, right?

Not sure if you know where you are coming from. Did someone tell you that you this?

What you missed was the question itself. Perhaps you would show me where you asked me?

But glad you asked: yes, I am Dispensational in the sense that I embrace simple Bible truths that only those who have never read the Bible would reject.

Like the fact that there is more than one dispensation taught in Scripture. Pretty simple, really. Let me try to explain, and I'll do that with one question:

Was there a time when men were under the Law, and then a time when men weren't?

Let's make it even a little more complicated:

Was there a time when men were not under Law, then they were under Law, and then they weren't?

If you answered yes to either question, then guess what—you've just become Dispensational in your beliefs! Congratulations!

How magnanimous, lol.

Your opinion is that it is not a bad thing that people believe there are differing Ages in which differing administrations of God were effected.

And you feel this because...?


God bless.

 

The gospel of Ken falls short of what the text actually teaches: He died for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the First Testament, which would be the Covenant of Law. It's right there in the text.

Do you really not understand what it is saying?

Hebrews 9:15-18 King James Version

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.


What that means, Ken, is that the New Testament could not be in force until Christ (the Testator) died.

So much for the Gospel of Ken.


18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.


You probably aren't aware of this, but Hebrews constantly contrasts the Old with the New. The Covenant of Law was in fact in force until Christ died, as it clearly states above. Do you remember the Scripture I gave earlier? Something about God sending His Son when He determined the fullness of times had come, to redeem men from the (Covenant of) Law?

Consider:

Hebrews 10:9 KJV
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.


The first is the Covenant of Law. The second is the New Covenant.

Now that your doctrine has been denied by Scripture, will you admit it?


God bless.

 

I really do apologize for that, Ken, what I should have said was—what ineffable twaddle!

Of course, this is in regards to the gospel according to Ken:

And by the way, it is poor form to talk about people behind their backs and then add a @.




God bless.