Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

Hello, is Ken there?

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

God bless.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Okay, you got me ...

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.

 

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

And the answer is ...?


God bless.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

God bless.

 

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.