Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

Think about Martin Luther, a product of the Catholic Church. He stood against the doctrines of the Catholic Church where he felt they were in direct contradiction to what was taught there. He felt he could prove what he taught was correct based on his presentation of the Scripture he based his own view on.

That is what we should all do. It is usually pretty obvious when someone adheres strictly to a theological system. Not picking on Catholics, but when we see someone teaching Baptismal Regeneration and works based salvation and will not concede that Scripture which denies it, we know the loyalty is to the system, not the Scriptures.

When we see someone acknowledging Scripture yet teaching things like "the Angel Moroni led Joseph Smith to the golden tablets" or "Jesus was a great Prophet but wasn't God" we know they are loyal to the system, not to Scripture.

God bless.

 

And you will never do that properly as long as you fail to recognize the magnitude of the Cross.

The only conclusion one can draw if we think the Atonement was applied to the Old Testament Saints is that they were saved by something other than Christ's Sacrifice in their stead.

And when one recognizes that the Covenant wasn't in force then because the Testator had not yet died that is sheer belligerence.

This has a context of progressive sanctification, not positional sanctification. I have pointed that out before in one of our discussions.

Hebrews 10:10-14 refers to positional sanctification.

Progressive sanctification. Has a temporal context, not an eternal.

The preceding two verses do not change the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

I don't know why you want to kick at the goads, Ken. Is your pride that important to you? That you won't admit some basic principles that deny what you want to believe?


God bless.

 

You know, I don't think we really have a choice, lol.



Have to get going.


God bless.

 

If my conclusion is erroneous, lol, why do you post a verse that I gave to show Positional Sanctification, then go on to post verses that refer to Progressive Sanctification?

Progressive Sanctification doesn't need our approval to make it a valid Doctrinal Position. It's really very basic to Biblical Doctrine. You will find it in any good book on Theology, but more importantly—we find the doctrine in Scripture.

So if you can't be made more holy and more perfect in your daily conversation, why do acknowledge Progressive Sanctification?

You are trying to say two things again, Ken, and this because you do not want anything I say to be right. That's a really poor reason, and dangerous: we should be able to admit error in our lives—that part of progressive sanctification.

No, not really, not in the context of this point. It is a poor attempt to cling to a hyper view that is so radical it cancels out sound doctrine.

There is implicit teaching throughout the New Testament for the Church as to how we are to strive to live holy. It isn't a matter of, "Well, I am of the Elect, therefore everything I do will be the will of God, because He has foreordained the works that I do."

It is true you have been created in Christ Jesus unto good works, but that doesn't mean 1) that all our works are good, and 2) that we do not put forth effort to be more holy in our lives.

Both of the verses above refer to a temporal context, not an eternal, as Hebrews 10:10-14.

I just don't see how Progressive Sanctification can be viewed as a "loaded term," lol.


God bless.


—

 

That's great. Doesn't change the fact that it is used by people as a slur.

Perhaps you're right. There is general attitude of laziness in groups that have not understood the Pre-Tribulational Rapture. I guess maybe they are simply too lazy to spell out long words.

That is correct:

slur
slûr
transitive verb

1. To pronounce indistinctly.
2. To talk about disparagingly or insultingly.
3. To pass over lightly or carelessly; treat without due consideration.

Are you really going to deny that you have insulted Dispensational believers over the years?

As far as the error of your ways, I'll let the Doctrine do that.

You remember correctly, though I have no problem being called Dispensational. The views I hold to often make people think I am dispensational in my Theology, however, I hold to no System. I hold only to what I view as sound doctrine, and I try to show why.

Do you identify with a particular system? If so, which one?

And why is it that my own view that "dispy" is a slur used by those who oppose Dispensation Theology is so wrong?

I am not entitled to my own opinions?

To illustrate the spirit you convey, KYRedneck, all I have to do is show how you approach me with this off-topic rant:

Is that implication a slur? Are you not calling my character into question?

Is being "woke" an insult in your book?

Answer honestly.


God bless.

 

No, I don't see it as a loaded term because it isn't a loaded term, simply a Bible Doctrine.

We definitely proclaim a different Gospel, though.

The Gospel I proclaim makes it clear that there is a difference between the Gospel veiled and the Gospel unrevealed through the Comforter. It recognizes that the New Covenant was not entered into until Christ died. It recognizes that the Eternal Redemption of the Old Testament Saint was retroactive, and that the Atonement was not applied to them until Christ actually died. It recognizes that a Testament has no power and is not in force until the Testator dies.

God bless.

 

So I will ask again: do you still think the elect were under the New Covenant?

Do you still think the Atonement was applied to them prior to the New Covenant being established?


God bless.

 

Have to get going, but will post this again:

God bless.

 

So you are affirming that the Atonement applied to the Old Testament Saint before Christ died?


God bless.