Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

[JesusFan]

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.

Was there ever a time when God saved any apart from the Cross of Christ, by Grace alone received thru faith alone?
Are there just one people of God or separate groups of saved?

 

[JesusFan]

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

And I never met it as a slur just a shortened form of the main word!

 

[Darrell C]

"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)

Hello, is Ken there?

Anyone seen Ken? We were having a discussion and now someone else is talking ...

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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

You justified the use of the word when you (untruthfully) said you asked me if was was one.

I is, by the way.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

"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)

So, without having to rely on someone else to answer for you, answer me this:

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


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

When Christ died He paid the sin debt of all of God's chosen people before the cross

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.

Haven't seen a response to this yet, Ken.

I'll check back in tomorrow morning. But I will only continue our discussion after you have addressed this post.

No point in the banter that has been taking place so far.

And by the way, started a Pre-tribulational thread in other denominations (so everyone can participate). Always a good discussion.


God bless.

 

[KenH]

You justified the use of the word when you (untruthfully) said you asked me if was was one.

I is, by the way.




God bless.

Ahem. Please post #39 in this thread. Also, I was not making a judgment about the use of the term when I replied to a post that used that term. I don't see it as important. But, not being a dispensationalist, and having written it off as an erroneous teaching long ago and rarely discussing it with anyone, I wouldn't know how dispensationalists feel about the use of the term.

 

[KenH]

So, without having to rely on someone else to answer for you, answer me this:

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


God bless.

I don't see why it would matter. There is only one way that man has been saved, is saved, will ever be saved - and that way is Christ.

 

[KenH]

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.

Admit what? I admit that the gospel of Christ is never denied by the Scriptures. Man-made error, such as dispensationalism, is denied by the Scriptures.

 

[Darrell C]

Ahem. Please post #39 in this thread. Also, I was not making a judgment about the use of the term when I replied to a post that used that term. I don't see it as important. But, not being a dispensationalist, and having written it off as an erroneous teaching long ago and rarely discussing it with anyone, I wouldn't know how dispensationalists feel about the use of the term.

Okay, you got me ...

Are you debating based on some kind of dispensational hermeneutic?

I apologize.

As to the use of the word "dispy," that is a derisive term, similar to "post toastie," lol. There used to be a bunch of people here that used it, and the discussion was beginning to be very reminiscent of the discussions that used to take place (and still are in some threads).

To answer your question, no, I am not debating using Dispensational hermeneutics, I am simply presenting the views that I have arrived at through not only extensive study, but many, many hours of Theological Discussion and Debate. Some of my views will make people think I am a Calvinist. Some of my views will make people think I am an Arminian (fewer think this), and some of my views will make people think I am a Catholic (this rarely happens, but has happened already since I have been visiting, lol (and it's odd, too, because nothing I said was Catholic)).

Being called a Dispensational Is the charge given me most often. It doesn't bother me to be called dispy. What bothers me is when a thread is overrun by insincere posters who aren't really serious about debating the OP, and it is especially irritating when "cheerleaders" begin a background chatter and begin with personal attacks.

Like I said before, debate (and that is one of the primary functions of this forum) involves one person making a statement, or presenting a view, and someone else (or others) agree or disagrees. In a Christian Forum where we are supposed to be the light of the world, and a light to the world, we should example what Christ is all about to those who may be looking on. Backbiting isn't a very good witness.

Now don't get me wrong, I love to yank chains once in a while. But I prefer serious discussion about God Word.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I don't see why it would matter. There is only one way that man has been saved, is saved, will ever be saved - and that way is Christ.

This question is in reference to Dispensationalism, which you say is "very bad."

And the answer is ...?


God bless.

 

[KenH]

So, without having to rely on someone else to answer for you, answer me this:

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


God bless.

The Law(meaning the Law of Moses) was only given to ancient Israel, never to the Gentiles. The Law of Moses came to a halt when Christ said, "It is finished" and the curtain of the temple was torn in two - Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And then even ancient Israel itself as a nation was eliminated in 70 A.D.

The apostle Paul makes very clear in the book of the Romans that even though the Gentiles were not given the Law of Moses, that they still sinned even though they were not given the Law to keep, as we also see in Noah's day - Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And Paul states it clearly in Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Thus, no man can be saved by law-keeping whether they have the Law or not, as all sinned in Adam. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Salvation has always been and will always be by the sins of God's elect having been imputed to Christ and His payment of their sin debt on the cross. Christ lived on this earth and achieved a perfect righteousness which was imputed to the elect. The Holy Spirit regenerates them and gives them spiritual life, as God replaces their heart of stone with a heart of flesh, and He preserves them until their sojourn on this earth is completed.

“And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.” - Ezekiel‬ ‭16:6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” - Ezekiel‬ ‭36:26‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“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.” - 2 Corinthians‬ ‭5:21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“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.” - Romans‬ ‭4:6-8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Darrell C]

Admit what? I admit that the gospel of Christ is never denied by the Scriptures. Man-made error, such as dispensationalism, is denied by the Scriptures.

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.

Who said the Gospel was denied by Scripture?

What you are called to admit is the simple fact that you said...

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.

That is in error, and is proven by the ferry proof text you used.

Apparently you didn't read the post or you would have recognized that.

To simplify what the post pointed out to you, Hebrews 9 is teaching that in order for a Testament (a will) to be in force—the Testator must die.

Understand?

The New Covenant was not in force until the Testator—Christ—died.

That means that the promises of the New Covenant were not in force either. That means the Atonement was not in force.

The verse also teaches us that Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant—so we can receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

I just don't know how much simpler it can get than that, Ken.


God bless.

 

[KenH]

Who said the Gospel was denied by Scripture?

What you are called to admit is the simple fact that you said...



That is in error, and is proven by the ferry proof text you used.

Apparently you didn't read the post or you would have recognized that.

To simplify what the post pointed out to you, Hebrews 9 is teaching that in order for a Testament (a will) to be in force—the Testator must die.

Understand?

The New Covenant was not in force until the Testator—Christ—died.

That means that the promises of the New Covenant were not in force either. That means the Atonement was not in force.

The verse also teaches us that Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant—so we can receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

I just don't know how much simpler it can get than that, Ken.


God bless.

Hebrews 9:15 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. (emphasis mine)

Maybe we are talking past each other. Or maybe you keeping overlooking the bolded text above.

Regardless, it is clear that we espouse different gospels.

 

[Darrell C]

Hebrews 9:15 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. (emphasis mine)

Maybe we are talking past each other. Or maybe you keeping overlooking the bolded text above.

Regardless, it is clear that we espouse different gospels.

I gave a direct response to the text above with a focus on that section:

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.

As we as added ...

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.

Do you really not see that this ...


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.


...means that redemption was made by His death at the time of His death?

And that the New Covenant was not in force until the Testator died?

Do you really not understand that?

And I have given this ...


Romans 3:25 King James Version

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


...numerous times in the various threads I have posted in during the last few days.

Can you really not understand what these are saying?

Maybe a newer translation might help:


Romans 3:25 New American Standard Bible

25 whom God displayed publicly as a [a]propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, [c]because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished;


Hebrews 9:15 New American Standard Bible

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16 For where there is a r]">[r]covenant, there must of necessity s]">[s]be the death of the one who made it.

17 For a t]">[t]covenant is valid only when people are dead, u]">[u]for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.


Does that help?

!. The New Covenant was not in force until Christ actually died.

2. The sins of the past were retroactively redeemed.

3. The Atonement was not applied to Old Testament saints.


God bless.

 

[AustinC]

The will (covenant) was not invoked until Jesus died. The names of the inheritors were written down before the foundation of the world. Thus, in one sense it is an already done adoption with the added understanding that it is not yet fully brought to completion until we meet Christ face to face.

The saints, before the cross, had their hope firmly set in the Promised One whom the Spirit of God revealed to them as their Redeemer. In Job 19 we see Job's hope in his Redeemer whom he would one day see. This means OT saints also found their salvation in Christ.
We also see this Savior in Joshua 5 in Joshua's encounter with the Commander of the Lord's Army, who is none other than the pre-incarnate Redeemer of God's chosen ones.

While we think on a timeline, it seems pretty clear that God does not place His redemption of His people on that timeline as though there were a chance they wouldn't be saved.

 

[KenH]

I gave a direct response to the text above with a focus on that section:



As we as added ...



Do you really not see that this ...


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.


...means that redemption was made by His death at the time of His death?

And that the New Covenant was not in force until the Testator died?

Do you really not understand that?

And I have given this ...


Romans 3:25 King James Version

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


...numerous times in the various threads I have posted in during the last few days.

Can you really not understand what these are saying?

Maybe a newer translation might help:


Romans 3:25 New American Standard Bible

25 whom God displayed publicly as a [a]propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, [c]because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished;


Hebrews 9:15 New American Standard Bible

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16 For where there is a r]">[r]covenant, there must of necessity s]">[s]be the death of the one who made it.

17 For a t]">[t]covenant is valid only when people are dead, u]">[u]for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.


Does that help?

!. The New Covenant was not in force until Christ actually died.

2. The sins of the past were retroactively redeemed.

3. The Atonement was not applied to Old Testament saints.


God bless.

The sins of God's elect prior to the cross being retroactively redeemed means that Christ propitiated, atoned for, paid the sin debt for, their sins.

 

[Darrell C]

The sins of God's elect prior to the cross being retroactively redeemed means that Christ propitiated, atoned for, paid the sin debt for, their sins.

I agree. So your position is that their sins were retroactively redeemed?

God bless.

 

[KenH]

I agree. So your position is that their sins were retroactively redeemed?

God bless.

From our human time-based perspective, yes. It was already planned and purposed by God before the earth was created.

 

[Darrell C]

From our human time-based perspective, yes. It was already planned and purposed by God before the earth was created.

It's a yes or no answer, Ken.

Either Hebrews 9 teaches it is retroactive (and it does) and that a Testament/Covenant is not in force until the Testator dies (and it does) or it doesn't.

If the Covenant was not in force until Christ died and the Covenant was established (which means it was started, commenced at that time) until His shedding of blood there is no way to apply the Atonement proactively.


God bless.