Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

On the contrary, you are the one stating God did something that Scripture makes clear He didn't.

That is the purpose of honing in on the fact that the Testament was not in force (meaning, by Biblical definition it had no power) until the Testator died.

You are so close to realizing that truth, Ken. The problem is you don't want to admit you are wrong. You do not want to admit the doctrines of men which you have embraced are wrong.

Here are some statements you have made:

It wasn't a done deal: Christ had to die.

I throw this in because it shows that it is not the Word of God you go to, but the doctrines of men.

This is not what Scripture teaches. Again, I will use a different translation:

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 covenant, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

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


The New was not valid prior to Christ's death. You aren't going to change that.

You admit it when you are faced with the incontrovertible statement of Scripture:

Retroactive means "after the fact."

Then you try to backtrack:

That God knew from eternity past every believer that would be saved doesn't change what He has stated in His Word.

The redemption of the Old Testament was retroactive. The New Covenant would not be in force until the Testator died.

Why is it so hard for you to simply admit that and to admit that the false doctrine that the Atonement was active throughout Biblical History is error?


God bless.

 

True, the Law was established with Israel alone, however, that did not mean there was not a provision for Gentiles. Cornelius is a good example of a Gentile convert and proselyte.

All Gentiles who hear the Law had to come into conformity with the Law. Those who had not heard the written Law nor been exposed to the Covenant of Law were given the provision of the internal witness God gives to men and women outside the scope of revelation (as well as the witness of Creation) Romans 1-2)

Two things I want you to notice:

1. Despite the Law, and remission of sins through the sacrifices of the Law—all men were still under the penalty of sin. Why? Because their sin had not yet been atoned for. It is not a matter that "...all are under sin except those who have died," but all are (still) under sin.

2. More importantly: Jew and Gentile are divided, they are not "one new man in Christ." That is not a matter of "Israel was in Christ and it is not until Christ dies that Gentiles are added in," but that both are a "new" man, not an enlarged group.

I didn't sin in Adam, I sinned in my own unique, wicked way:

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


Neither you nor I will be charged with eating of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Life. This is mythology and a doctrine of men.

That has never been denied in this discussion, thus is irrelevant. It doesn't help the doctrine you are trying to teach.


Continued...

 

I agree, Eternal Redemption is the only means of Eternal Salvation. The problem you are having is that you fail to rightly divide the Word. And you use out-of context prooftexts to support your doctrine. Here is a relevant passage and I will use the ESV this time to make it easier to understand:


Hebrews 9:12-15 English Standard Version

12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify[a] for the purification of the flesh,

14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.[c]

In regards to this ...


Ezekiel 16 King James Version

1 Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

3 And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.

4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.

5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.

6 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.


This is in reference to Israel's creation, not her redemption.

Context is pretty important, Ken.


Continued...

 

Also a picture of Israel's redemption, which took place when Jew and Gentile began to be made one in Christ:


Ephesians 2:11-16 King James Version

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:


No man was in Christ prior to the Atonement.

No man was reconciled to God prior to the Atonement.


Both Jew and Gentile were under sin and in need of Eternal Redemption.


Continued...

 

"That we might be made..."

Can't forget that.

Promise is promise until it is fulfilled, and that was fulfilled through the death of Christ:


Galatians 3:14
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


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.


Hebrews 11:13

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


Hebrews 11:39
And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

And how were David's sins covered in his day?

The sacrifices of the Law.

Vicarious animal sacrifice that allowed men to continue living physically (rather than receiving the penalty for sin, death) was established in the Garden:


Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Notice Abel is justified by animal sacrifice? He is declared righteous specifically because of his sacrifice? Which was an animal sacrifice?


Genesis 4:4-5 King James Version

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.


But this is contrasted with the New Covenant Provision:


Hebrews 12:22-24 King James Version

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Note that Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant, which was not in force until He died. Simply can't deny it, Ken.

Now, to expand a little bit, note "the spirits of just men" in v. 23: this is a reference to the Old Testament Saint.

They were just, but they were not made perfect (complete). We know this because the Writer has just told us this throughout the Book of Hebrews.

Consider again:

Hebrews 11:13

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Hebrews 11:39
And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:


Scripture makes this subject very clear for those who are not sidetracked by the doctrines of men. Atonement was not applied to the Old Testament Saint until Christ died, and then the justified Old Testament Saint was made complete in regards to remission of sins.

They died still in need of a Savior. They were saved from the eternal perspective, but their spirits went to Sheol/Hades to await Eternal Redemption. Their sins were not covered by the Blood of Christ (His Death, His Sacrifice, His Offering) until applied when He actually died in their stead.


God bless.

 

Who are you calling sensitive?!

Why you ...

Just kidding, lol.

Nothing I said means I am sensitive, I simply pointed out someone using a slur.

And you know that is what it is. You know the vitriol spewed by those who use this word.

Well, it is true that I've only had three cups of coffee today ...



By the way, the "woke" are usually the ones name-calling.

It's the "right" usually pointing that out.

Right. If you say so.


God bless.

 

What this says is that Mankind became sinners through Adam's sin, it doesn't say we sinned in Adam.

The idea is based on the erroneous notion that there is some spiritual meaning to us doing something "when we were in the loins" of our fathers.

I didn't eat of the Tree of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, hence I did not sin in Adam. I sinned when I was born, grew up to be old enough to make my own decisions, and did that which was contrary to God's will.

Likewise, Adam was not a heavy metal-playing drunk and drug addict. He wasn't disobedient and disrespectful of my mother and father.

That was me.

RIght: the penalty of death passed to all men because Adam was thrust out of the Garden and no longer had access to a source of everlasting life. If he hadn't goofed it up one of his children would have.

And the key point here is that it is through Christ that men receive life. Not by keeping the Law, not by believing God will give us a son from a wife beyond the years of bearing.

Christ alone.

And that is the topic of this thread, Ken.

Let's stay on topic if possible, lol.


God bless.

 

Why would I be interested in the doctrines of men when I have Scripture?

You need to learn to defend your position from Scripture, brother. You shouldn't have to run to other men to be able to defend what you believe. Until you are able to do that, you simply believe what other men believe, and cannot for yourself claim those doctrines as your own.


God bless.

 

Again, you run to someone to defend you, and you miss the entire point of the post.

Let me try to simplify this, just as we have with whether the New Covenant was in effect prior to the death of the Testator:

Do you really not understand that "the new man" that is made of both Jew and Gentile in Christ ...

...shows that Jew and Gentile were not in Christ prior to Christ coming and making them one?


God bless.

 

All that I write is a product derived from many hours of study and discussion.

It is quite obvious my doctrine does not stand in agreement with any one group or theological system.

Of course, but everything I have heard has been put to the test of Scripture. What I see being disproved by the Word of God is tossed out.

What I see in Scripture is what I try to maintain, and if it fails the test, again, it is tossed out.

Understand, Ken, I debate with my brothers because I am first testing my own doctrine. I want someone to show me where something I have embraced is weak or false.

That's how we help each other, brother.


God bless.