Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

Yes, very clear: you reject the statement of Scripture:


Hebrews 9:12-15 King James Version

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

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.


Eternal Redemption for all was obtained through His death.

Under the previous Covenants men received the promise/s, and only under the New Covenant did men receive the promise/s.


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.


It's right there Ken.

It makes your view impossible. As do every other verse in Scripture that teaches that Eternal Salvation was accomplished by Christ dying on the Cross.

Do you think God allowed animal sacrifice on a whim? That was the prescribed method for remission of sins. That is why the Writer of Hebrews goes through all the trouble of carefully contrasting the difference between the sacrifices of the Law and the Sacrifice of Christ.


God bless.

 

Are you Yeshua1 or not?

God bless.

 

Well, that's what happens when one is unfamiliar with a topic, they are unable to bring the broader context and understanding of the topic into the harmony Scripture always presents it in.

Hebrews 10 is a good place to start in order to understand this topic better. Hebrews 7-10 is even better.

A few examples to show why you are wrong, brother:


Numbers 15:24-26 King James Version

24 Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto the Lord, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering.

25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their ignorance:

26 And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance.


Aren't you glad ignorance can be forgiven?



I know I am. I know we should praise God for this.

This is one thing that makes the understanding of so many weak: they cannot recognize that the offering of animals in the stead of the man, for his sin—did in fact bring remission of sins.

This was the prescribed method until Christ should appear. That is why the Writer of Hebrews (and the Holy Ghost!) took the time to contrast these sacrifices, Ken.

A few more:


Leviticus 4:20
And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Leviticus 4:31
And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

In view here is the remission of sins on an eternal basis. The sacrifices of the Law could not make one perfect, or, complete in regard to remission of sins.

That doesn't mean we throw out an entire Bible establishing remission of sins through vicarious sacrifice. This was the basis for Christ's Vicarious substitution.

A few more:


Hebrews 9:7-10 King James Version

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.



Note that the Levitical Priesthood was an established method concerning the offering for sin. Here we see it was imposed on them until the time of reformation, which is when Christ would come that men might be made perfect in regard to remission of sins (Hebrews 10:10-14).

The Holiest of All was not made manifest and was not accessible to men.

Christ was the One Who made entrance into the presence of God possible:


22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.


23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.


24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


Note that remission of sins under Law is contrasted with remission of sins through His Sacrifice.

Note that the earthly Tabernacle and its service/s were patterns. When he said in v.9 that it is a figure, the word figure is parable.

Our High Priest did not offer services in the temporal, He offered them in the Eternal, Heaven. He was the reality, the earthly service was the parable.

But it was still the means of remission of sins. The temporal versus the eternal. The incomplete versus the complete.


Hebrews 10:16-20 King James Version

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


We (Mankind) have had entrance to God opened to us through His Blood, His death.

That is the "veil" the veil of the Tabernacle was a figure/parable of.

Only the High Priest entered in through that veil in the earthly/temporal Holy Place, but we have boldness to enter into the true Holiest of Holies, and that is through, again, His Blood/Death.

Once again you have failed to understand the context, and it is impairing your ability to understand even something so basic as temporal remission of sins. Men did receive remission of sins through animal sacrifice, but it was incomplete, therefore continually offered.

Praise God it was only meant to be in effect (and in Christ's Day the Covenant of Law was in effect, not the New Covenant, because the Testator had not yet died) until Christ came and redeemed men from the Law:


Galatians 4:4-5 King James Version

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


Understanding this basic principle will help you to understand Temporal Justification as well.


God bless.

 

And there it is again: the ransom had not been paid. Man was still held hostage to sin.

Nothing in this verse lends itself to the belief that the Atonement was preemptive. Nor does it detract from the explicit statement of Scripture that the Atonement was retroactive for Old Testament Saints.

You have to deny Scripture to hold to that view.


God bless.

 

Again, more insult, because you cannot address the points raised.

You are declaring something that no serious Bible Student would validate, that men did not receive remission of sins in a temporal context in the Old Testament.

It's just basic, Ken. Show why the Scripture given does not make that clear.

You won't, because you can't. You know it. I know it.


God bless.

 

lol

Seriously?

I present Scripture after Scripture showing that it was necessary for Christ to die that they might receive the promises, such as remission of sins on an eternal basis, Reconciliation, the adoption of sins, the New Birth, and you conclude this?

Okay, Ken, I understand. Your system of theology is far more important than serious discussion.


God bless.

 

lol

Again, you are either not reading the posts (which shows you simply want a soapbox for the gospel according to Ken) or you are being dishonest about what is being said and hoping no one else will read the posts.

Either way it boils down to giving the impression that you are more interested in trying malign my views than you are in serious discussion.

So why do you come to a Christian Doctrinal Discussion and Debate Forum again?

Let's see these "ham-handed" statements again:

This is one thing that makes the understanding of so many weak: they cannot recognize that the offering of animals in the stead of the man, for his sin—did in fact bring remission of sins.


In view here is the remission of sins on an eternal basis. The sacrifices of the Law could not make one perfect, or, complete in regard to remission of sins.

That doesn't mean we throw out an entire Bible establishing remission of sins through vicarious sacrifice. This was the basis for Christ's Vicarious substitution.



Note that remission of sins under Law is contrasted with remission of sins through His Sacrifice.

Note that the earthly Tabernacle and its service/s were patterns. When he said in v.9 that it is a figure, the word figure is parable.

Our High Priest did not offer services in the temporal, He offered them in the Eternal, Heaven. He was the reality, the earthly service was the parable.

But it was still the means of remission of sins. The temporal versus the eternal. The incomplete versus the complete.



We (Mankind) have had entrance to God opened to us through His Blood, His death.

That is the "veil" the veil of the Tabernacle was a figure/parable of.

Only the High Priest entered in through that veil in the earthly/temporal Holy Place, but we have boldness to enter into the true Holiest of Holies, and that is through, again, His Blood/Death.



Once again you have failed to understand the context, and it is impairing your ability to understand even something so basic as temporal remission of sins. Men did receive remission of sins through animal sacrifice, but it was incomplete, therefore continually offered.

Praise God it was only meant to be in effect (and in Christ's Day the Covenant of Law was in effect, not the New Covenant, because the Testator had not yet died) until Christ came and redeemed men from the Law:


Galatians 4:4-5 King James Version

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.



Who exactly are you speaking to, Ken? It isn't me. It isn't an address of the posts, points, and Scripture.

Why not?


God bless.

 

Well, if you don't mind, before you close it, I would like to ask you one question: are there two resurrections in Revelation 20 or just one?

God bless.

 

I have shown that remission of sins was received by men in the Old Testament through the vicarious death of animals in the sinner's place.

This began in the Garden of Eden.

Would anyone else agree that this is blasphemy?


God bless.

 

Sorry, Salty, my question is more relevant to the Rapture thread, and because the rapture came up in the other thread and I am responding by the notification, I thought it was the Rapture thread being closed.

But I would like to know your views on that anyway.


God bless.

 

I'm not sure what happened, but I was going to respond to a post concerning the thousand years and it disappeared for some reason and would not let me insert the quotes.

So perhaps you could repost that.

I have to get going soon anyway, so if the thread is closed before I can address it I will start another thread specific to the thousand years.

I'm not sure which thread it was in because I was responding to an alert. Never had that happen before.


God bless.

 

And as I said, I still would like an answer, so by all means, repost it.

It didn't answer the question but would have been fun responding to.


God bless.