Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost? *for all Christians

Consider that the Writer is quoting the Hebrew Scriptures. Why does He do that?

Because it is to the Hebrews he is speaking.

I have never denied that the Church will be judged, they will be, that goes without saying, but, that doesn't mean we misconstrue the context of Chapter 10, which makes it clear that we are, when sanctified by the Blood (Sacrifice) of Christ, made complete for ever in regards to sacrifice for sin.

The context deals with those who draw near but then reject.

He makes it clear concerning those who are not guilty of rejecting Christ, and their future state...


Hebrews 10:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.


The L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers) invariably take passages and make believers out of those who are clearly not believers. Despite the Writer, thus the Holy Ghost, speaking in incontrovertible terms that Christ has obtained eternal redemption for us, that His Sacrifice brings about remission of sins in completion, and that we do not draw back unto perdition because we live by faith...

...still this is denied.

And despite Peter clearly drawing a parallel between false prophets under Old Testament Economies with false teachers in this Age, and both He and Jude stating their damnation is constant...

...still the attempt to make believers into unbelievers is made.

That is simply amazing. Why, do we think, this happens?


God bless.

 

And why can't they be? They may have started true and ended up false!
This makes tons of sense seeing they had 'ESCAPED from pollution' and are entangled in it AGAIN. It means they had been tangled, disentangled and then now they are entangled AGAIN.

This is also the whole point of the dog going back to the vomit...must have vomited something...the pig must have been washed off something

@Darrell C,
It's not me who have them saved but Holy Spirit who tells us they were SANCTIFIED by the blood. Isn't it shocking that the sanctified can trod the very thing that sanctified them underfoot? Little wonder there is a sore punishment awaiting them

There is no 'loss of salvation mentality' @Darrell C, just faithfulness to the text. It's the text that calls them sanctified by the blood and you are ignoring that.

Semantics bro. These guys were sanctified by the blood. Period

Makes the warning pointless if the believer is already forgiven apostasy. The warning is moot

My brother, if you are predisposed to deny the simple and plain inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that's what your heart will see. But while your heart sees what it wants, you mutilate scriptures beyond recognition

That's half a truth. Yes in both cases they are unbelievers. The important half other truth you are ignoring is that these unbelievers WERE believers. In the NT case, they were SANCTIFIED by the Blood. Are sinners sanctified but they be regenerated?

True, but judgement of what? Of apostasy which is to depart from the truth once delivered

But in NT, they reject something that SANCTIFIED him. This can only...and I mean ONLY imply they were believers. Truth presented to a sinner does not sanctified him except he believes/accepts it

 

And I'm telling you regardless of its meaning, a sanctified man trampling underfoot the blood is staring at a sore punishment. The definition and meaning of perfection does not change none of this...that's my point

Irrelevant. A sanctified man faces a sore punishment and indignation. A SANCTIFIED man

You may digress all day and night but nothing changes the fact that there is a warning that sanctified men face judgement for trampling underfoot the blood of the covenant

You are digressing. Does any of what you say mean the man was not SANCTIFIED by the blood of the covenant?

The man in question was SANCTIFIED. Is this true or false?

 

You create two groups when in view is only one, which is all inclusive. The Lord is speaking to all.

One reason is that Peter and the disciples are at this time unregenerate and not members of the Church.

The teaching is specific to Israel and by extension those who witness the sings of that generation.

And this has no relevance.

The Prodigal Son fits within a context of Israel and her relationship with God. It is not speaking of a member of the Church, for our inheritance is never removed:


1 Peter 1:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

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,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


The failure to properly place the Lord's earthly Ministry into a proper context is why we have so many disputes among denominations. A blending and merging of teachings results in a confused and erroneous doctrinal pattern which is easily rectified if we simply pay attention to context.

You are using passages teaching about the Kingdom to bolster Rapture views you have, and specific teachings concerning Church discipline as well.

The "son" in view is Israel, who was in a state of destruction when the Lord came:


Matthew 10:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Matthew 15:23-24

King James Version (KJV)

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


The word translated "the lost" is the same word we see here:


Matthew 10:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Now, will you equally say that this refers to the Church? Can we say of the Body of Christ they are in a state of destruction? Will God destroy the first member of the Body of Christ in Hell?

So we have to properly place these teachings within their context, rather than merge and blend them without distinction.

The prodigal son can have application in lesson to the Body, but we do not neglect the context of the teaching and it's primary intent, which is to illustrate Israel's state.

Now a question: what does the Lord mean when He states "I am come to the Lost Sheep of Israel...only."


Continued...

 

The text is clear enough for the simple and those with ears; a man sanctified by the blood of the covenant faces judgement and indignation @Darrell C....true/false?

Is he SANCTIFIED?
Are sinners SANCTIFIED?

It is worse ESPECIALLY because he was SANCTIFIED

My prayer is that you will open your mind to the Truth and drop your biases. A man SANCTIFIED @Darrell C....Are you sanctified?

Let me assume you are well read inHebrews 10 than myself and better than I'll ever be if I read it 1000 times. Explain to me what it means that the man is SANCTIFIED

As I predicted, a sober discussion is reduced to proof texting. Let's stick to Hebrews 10, and specifically answer this.
1. Is the subject SANCTIFIED by the blood?
2. What does it mean that he is SANCTIFIED?

@Darrell C,
Hebrews 10:25 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,

HE WAS SANCTIFIED.

Do you like Grundem want to blow off your feet by claiming that the sanctification here is ceremonial?Roflmao

 

It means what is in the text: they are appointed their portion with the unbelievers and in every teaching this is a reference to eternal damnation.

Every single one.

Yet you are making them born again believers.

In view is simply the fact that judgment will vary in severity for unbelievers, just as judgment varies for believers. The difference is that no teaching in regards to the Redeemed implies a possibility of eternal damnation.

Nothing in Revelation points to "the Western Hemisphere."

Just not in Scripture.

That is precisely what it is referring to: the Goats are appointed their portion with the unbelievers. They go into everlasting punishment.

This is dealing with the Return of Christ, not the Rapture, and we know that because the Rapture is a Mystery...

...revealed by Paul, not the Lord.

That is simply not good enough, Hark: we have been given His Word for the express purpose that we know...now.

We can know that everyone in the Church is Raptured, both dead and alive.

We can know if a passage is speaking about believers or unbelievers.

And we can know that the Lord was not revealing truth that would only be revealed when the Comforter came. Even that which He did teach the disciples that was relevant to the Church Age required the Comforter for remembrance and understanding.


John 14:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Most will miss the prophetic nature of John 14-16, and there is no reason for this.

While we know Prophecy has multiple fulfillment at times, and I would agree this has an application to the end of the Kingdom, that does not nullify the actual context of the passage.

What you are saying is that Christ is teaching about His Return in the previous chapter then skips teaching about His Return and jumps to the end of the Millennial Kingdom...which has not yet been revealed to men, and will not until John writes about it many years later.

The Sheep and Goat Judgment takes place at the Return of Christ.

At the end of the Millennial Kingdom we do not have the Sheep and Goat Judgment, in which the believers survive physically, we have the Great White Throne Judgment, and the physical Universe has already passed away.

Again you blend teachings which result in confusion.

The Sheep remain physically alive to enter the Kingdom.


God bless.

 

There is no sanctification in view for those rejecting Christ, as explained in detail in the posts. But you are ignoring what is said.

Therefore, tell me how the Writer of Hebrews can say both those sanctified by Christ's Sacrifice are forgiven forever and...rejecting Christ?

The warning is to Hebrews who draw back, but, those who do not forsake the assembling of the brethren, who do not tread under foot the Son of God, who do not count the Blood wherewith He was sanctified, who do not resist the Spirit of Grace...

...do not draw back unto perdition.

But you will not see that, because your heart denies the security of salvation in Christ, and leans on something else. Tell me that isn't so, Vooks. Tell me that you think Christ's Sacrifice actually forgives sin for ever as the text states clearly.
Deny the Writer and the Holy Ghost in this statement...


Hebrews 10:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.


It is a warning to Hebrews not to draw back, not believers not to sin.



God bless.

 

Yes, because it does not say that, lol.

What it says is they will, if they reject Christ, the New Covenant, and resist the Holy Ghost...face more severe punishment than their parallel, those who rejected the Covenant of Law.

It is really that simple.

Those who are sanctified by the Blood (Sacrifice) of Christ have their sins forgiven in completion. So this means that all sin, not just those committed prior to being sanctified, are forgiven. We would have a nullification of this statement if the rejecters are said to be sanctified in v.29, because if they are sanctified, then even that rejection would be covered by the forgiveness obtained by being sanctified.

See how you cancel out Scripture?

Both cannot be true, so either you are wrong, or Scripture is wrong.

Guess which one I have my money on?




God bless.

 

@Darrell C,
I don't do proof texting because it is a waste of time. If you wish us to discuss ALL bible verses from Genesis to Revelation, I'm all for that, I was born ready. For now we are in Hebrews 10:29

Hebrews 10:29 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,
Was this man sanctified by the blood of the covenant or not?

Hebrews 10:29 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,
Was this man sanctified by the blood?
A crazy ES adherent thinks HE there refers to Christ...

Once again @Darrell C,
We will discuss Genesis to Revelation if you wish. Let us look at Hebrews 10:29. Was this man sanctified?

Concerning Hebrews 10:38-39,
If believers can't draw back to perdition, why is the author warning them?
'Hey @Darrell C,if you tie some springs on your boots, you may jump all the way to the moon and you won't come back alive.'

More of this later.

Was the subject in Hebrews 10:29 SANCTIFIED by the blood?

 

Hebrews 10:29 Hebrews 10:29 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was NOT/NEVER sanctified,
Is this your reading @Darrell C?

Explain the words in red. Are they a typo?

Hebrews 10:29 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,

Explain this
Hebrews 10:29 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,

 

It's not reading into the text...it's right there for you to see:


Point one: 1. They are perfected forever.


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


I have tried to show you the context but it is ignored. This is contrasted with his previous statement...


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


I can't make you understand what he is saying.



Point 2:

2. Those perfected forever can't lose their life


It is simply the consistent teaching of Scripture.

If sin is forgiven through Christ and needs no more sacrifice, then sin is dealt with in completion. And this is exactly what God promised when He promised to establish the New Covenant.

When you can deny this...


1 Peter 1:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

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,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.



...then you might be on your way to showing that those sanctified in Christ do not have eternal life.


Point 3:

3. He lost his life so he was not perfected forever


Those who draw back to perdition never had eternal life, they were never born of God.

They did not live by faith, but forsake the assembling of the brethren, tread underfoot the Son of God, consider His Sacrifice unholy, resist the Spirit of Grace.

Those are some interesting characteristics you have for believers, Vooks.

What you are saying is the Writer is in error, we do draw back unto perdition.

Now you have scoffed at the idea that Christ's sacrifice equates to Eternal Security, perhaps you can show where the Writer of Hebrews went wrong here...


Hebrews 9:12

King James Version (KJV)

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.


Again, we see a contrast between that provided in the Law and that provided in the New Covenant. One provides eternal redemption, which according to the language cannot be translated to the concept your heart holds, which is Probationary Redemption, and the other does not.

Then we negate many of Christ's teachings, so let me give you a few:

Christ taught this:


John 3:36

King James Version (KJV)

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


Peter taught this:


1 Peter 1:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

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,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.



John taught this:


1 John 5:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


Paul taught this:


Philippians 1:6

King James Version (KJV)

6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:


So, yes, those sanctified by the Blood of Christ have Eternal Security, for we nullify the teaching when we create a false construct that has the Writer teaching that sins are forgiven for ever then teaching that sins will not be forgiven.

Really quite amazing.


God bless.

 

This saith Holy Spirit;
Hebrews 10:29 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,

Thus saith @Darrell C;
Hebrews 10:29 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was NEVER sanctified,

 

Proof texting is meaningless. Every scriptures you can possibly conjure up to defend your belief we can examine it, but for now,

Hebrews 10:29 (KJV) and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,

What is this ?

 

Yes, Hark, there is application to the Church, but, when we do not keep Hebrews in it's historical context we create false conclusions, as well as overlook the significance that his teaching has to his Hebrew brethren.

For example, the group he writes to is distinct from you and I because we...were never under the Law. We never had to forego a heritage we were brought up under which was God ordained as Israel did.

Here is an example:


Hebrews 5:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


The "First Principles of the Oracles of God" is a reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Bible that includes the New Testament. While the Epistles were circulated at that time, if we blend the New Testament into what he is saying we lose what his intent is.

And the intent is, "You guys are ignorant of the ABCs that the Old Testament teaches, which makes it hard to teach you a more in-depth understanding about Christ. You should be teachers of the Old Testament but you are in need that someone teach you, again, the basic principles given to us in the Old Testament."

What is not being taught here is "You Christians need to mature, and grow in Christ." He is in fact saying that these Hebrews need to go on unto that which is perfect, meaning, the Old Testament was incomplete in knowledge concerning Christ, and was only the ABCs. And it is addressed to Hebrews as a group, not the Church only. Of course it was written to be circulated among Christians, but the focus is on those of Israel struggling with leaving the Covenant of Law and embracing those things he lists.

He says that here:


Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


If you have to leave the First Principles and go on unto perfection...that means you have not yet gone on to perfection.

That is the exhortation, and it is specific to those who were under Law. And there is no-one in our time that stands in that unique place in History. Not even among the Jews, because the Jews do not practice the Law as they did in this day, for no offering for sin is offered up according to the Law.

Secondly, the list given specifically refers to doctrines of Judaism, not Christianity. We know this because they are told "Do not lay again these foundational principles," which coincides with progressing from the ABCs, the foundational principles...to that which is perfect (complete).

The Old Testament did not instruct concerning completion in regards to resurrection. They knew there would be a resurrection but they had no idea concerning glorification. We do not have a doctrine of baptisms (washings), we have One Baptism (singular). We do not simply place faith in God, the Gospel demands specific faith in the Person and Work of Christ.

So when we impose a modern application and neglect the historical context it is no wonder we have people teaching that this teaches loss of salvation.

And it is simply not in the text.

What he states specifically is that these Jews are to leave that which was incomplete and go on unto that which is. He is not saying abandon the First Principles, but to progress from them.

And that is the same danger in view in Chapter 10. There he is specific and warns against treading Christ underfoot, counting His Sacrifice as unholy, and resisting the Spirit of Grace.

Who could do that?

Jews who were raised under Law who were, at this time, still able to go to the Temple and offer up sacrifice for sin according to the Law.

But you will never understand this until you spend considerable time familiarizing yourself with this Epistle. Can you honestly say that you have given this Book serious study? Rather than focusing on certain portions of it as most do? Be honest.

I am not sure what you mean by "tagging."


God bless.

 

You ignore my question: how can the writer state both, that those sanctified are forgiven forever, and, that they will face the punishment of rejecters?

You deny that Christ is sanctified by His death?

You make Scripture contradict itself.


God bless.

 

Proof texting is critical. You offer no Scriptural basis for your views, and ignore the Scriptural Basis provided you.

You can start with actually answering that which is asked of you. Show how Christ and the Apostles do not teach Eternal Security. Show how they are wrong and you are right.

Show how believers can both draw back and not draw back, thus showing that you are right and the Writer of Hebrews, thus the Holy Spirit...is wrong.

And it is because you will not address the proof texts and the commentary given to explain why they prove the asserted view that you will continue to go in circles on this. You are desperately clinging to singular points which you think deny the many other proofs given you to show you are in error.

It's very simple, the Law could not take away sins, Christ did. The remission of sins is complete, and it is forever. It negates the possibility that those in view have drawn back contrary to the writer's clear statement.

Can you tell me why you want to believe Christ's sacrifice cannot save? Just answer that for me.


God bless.

 

That is what I have been trying to tell you, Vooks, he isn't. He is warning Hebrews who are in danger of rejecting the New Covenant out of unbelief.

It's that simple.

Now it is your turn to teach me why the Writer is in error and you are correct. You can tell me how in view are born again believers drawing back unto perdition.


God bless.

 

Okay, for both Hark and Vooks, no more responses to issues unrelated to whether men were born again before Pentecost in this thread.

You are both invited to start threads related to the issues we have been discussing, but, the OP is of more importance and would help both of you in your understanding of issues currently debated in this one.

Or, if either of you care to, you can join the thread I started on this issue, which is still fresh seeing this thread was created after it, and I have tried to address that issue here.


God bless.