Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

[KenH]

He is coming from a Dispy salvation theology viewpoint, and I am from a baptist Covenant theology one!

I asked him if he was but he did not answer the question, unless I missed his answer somewhere along the line.

 

[JesusFan]

I asked him if he was but he did not answer the question.

I do not say that as if it is a bad thing, but just to point out why we are differing here on this issue!

 

[Darrell C]

There are no such Scriptures that deny the gospel of Christ.

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.

 

[KenH]

I do not say that as if it is a bad thing, but just to point out why we are differing here on this issue!

Oh, dispensationalism is a very bad thing.

 

[KenH]

A debate is one of us making a statement supported by Scripture

Fine. This, written by a friend of mine, will suffice for my side of this debate, supported by Scripture: SKU-000697434_TEXT.indd (b5z.net)

Have a good day.

 

[Darrell C]

God must deal with man's sin. The reprobates will pay for theirs. The sins of the elect were paid for by Christ.

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.

To stand as holy before God one must have a perfect righteousness. The elect are credited with Christ's perfect righteousness.

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.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

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.

Romans 4:6-8 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Am saying that God the father knew that the Cross was already a done deal from eternity past to Him and gave them credit for what was yet to come!

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Fine. This, written by a friend of mine, will suffice for my side of this debate, supported by Scripture: SKU-000697434_TEXT.indd (b5z.net)

Have a good day.

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.

 

[KenH]

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

Hebrews 9:5 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.

 

[Darrell C]

Hebrews 9:5 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.

Very good.

Now, when was the New Covenant Established?

God bless.

 

[JesusFan]

Very good.

Now, when was the New Covenant Established?

God bless.

from the perspective of God or man?

 

[KenH]

Very good.

Now, when was the New Covenant Established?

God bless.

When Christ died He paid the sin debt of all of God's chosen people before the cross, all of God's people alive the day Christ died on the cross, and all of God's chosen people after the cross - every single one of God's elect as He purposed before the earth began.

Hebrews 9:15-16 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. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

 

[KenH]

from the perspective of God or man?

It may be that @Darrell C doesn't understand that God is eternal and the man is limited by time. Earlier, when I mentioned this, how that election happened before the earth began with God the Creator and calling happens in time with us creatures, he called it "twaddle".

 

[Darrell C]

He is coming from a Dispy salvation theology viewpoint, and I am from a baptist Covenant theology one!

I asked him if he was but he did not answer the question, unless I missed his answer somewhere along the line.

I do not say that as if it is a bad thing, but just to point out why we are differing here on this issue!

Oh, dispensationalism is a very bad thing.

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?

He is coming from a Dispy salvation theology viewpoint, and I am from a baptist Covenant theology one!

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

I asked him if he was but he did not answer the question, unless I missed his answer somewhere along the line.

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!

I do not say that as if it is a bad thing, but just to point out why we are differing here on this issue!

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.

Oh, dispensationalism is a very bad thing.

And you feel this because...?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

When Christ died He paid the sin debt of all of God's chosen people before the cross, all of God's people alive the day Christ died on the cross, and all of God's chosen people after the cross - every single one of God's elect as He purposed before the earth began.

Hebrews 9:15-16 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. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

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.

 

[George Antonios]

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now. Gal 4

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

1Pe 1:3 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,

Evidently then, Isaac being born after the Spirit is simply a reference to his supernatural birth, not to the regeneration of his inner man by the Spirit.
He was born after the Spirit, not of.
There is no new birth possible without the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
John and Peter are categorical about that.

 

[Darrell C]

It may be that @Darrell C doesn't understand that God is eternal and the man is limited by time. Earlier, when I mentioned this, how that election happened before the earth began with God the Creator and calling happens in time with us creatures, he called it "twaddle".

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:

Once God elected people and gave them to Christ before the world began their salvation was a done deal and worked out in time(from our perspective, but God knows the end from the beginning). Election way back before the world began, calling happens in time.

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




God bless.

 

[KenH]

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

 

[KenH]

And you feel this because...?

"Moses or Christ? Paul's Reply to Dispensational Error"

"There follows the Pauline analysis of the nature and history of the true Church, as contained in chapters 3 and 4. The first great conclusion Paul presents to the Galatians is that the only true children of Abraham, the heirs to the Abrahamic covenant, blessing and promise, are true believers, whether Jew or Gentile: “Know ye therefore that they which be of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). There can be no appeal from this fundamental statement. In one sentence Paul destroys the entire dispensational, pre-millennial and post-millennial edifice. It is foundational to all three systems that Jewish privilege and a special Jewish future must be maintained on the basis that the Abrahamic covenant was exclusive to the natural (i.e. Jewish) seed of Abraham. But Paul shows in these two chapters that the “seed of Abraham” is Christ, and that they who are Christ’s, and no one else, are “Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise;” that this “seed” abolishes all distinction of birth or privilege, for “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male of female: for all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:16, 28-29)."

- rest at Microsoft Word - MOSES OR CHRIST _C. D. Alexander_.docx (wsimg.com)

 

[KenH]

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

I heard the term long, long ago. Also, I didn't use the term, so you can leave off the "you" toward me.