The Reprobate Calvinist

[TCassidy]

And I would suggest to you that prior to the Cross and Pentecost not one man or woman was alive spiritually.

David was a man after God’s own heart and Abraham was a friend of God. No one can please God without being regenerated (Rom 8:8-11).

How could an unregenerate person be an author of Scripture? Surely if Moses and David and the prophets were unregenerated, then there would not have been any Scripture prior to the cross. Nor would there have been any men giving true prophecies. All revelation from God would have come from angels or directly from God—not through men.

Anna and Simeon clearly represent OT saints when they rejoiced to see the baby Jesus in the temple. There can be no doubt that they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Yet according to John 6:47; 11:25-27; and 20:31, all who believe that have eternal life. Anna and Simeon and all OT believers believed in the coming Messiah for eternal life and hence they were born again.

Finally, the biggest problem with this view is that it makes OT believers unbelievers. Oh, they believed something. But they are not seen as believing in the Messiah for everlasting life. They are not seen as being sure that they are eternally secure by faith in the coming Messiah. As a result, two or more saving messages occur. If prior to Jesus’ baptism people were born again by believing something less than the truth that the Messiah guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him, what is it they believed? And why, then, would Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 use Abraham as an example of one who believed the same saving proposition we believe? If Abraham was born again simply because he believed God exists, then how could he be a model for how people are born-again today?

Old Testament believers were not spiritually dead. They were spiritually alive. True, only some were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and that indwelling was not permanent. But all OT believers were regenerated and all were sealed. To believe otherwise is to reduce OT believers to people who were not children of God, were not spiritually alive, had no ability to please God, and who had no current relationship with God.

All who believe that the Messiah guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him are regenerate people. Regeneration bridges every so-called "dispensation."

Acts 10:43 "To him (Christ) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

The Old Testament Prophets preached Christ. And those Old Testament saints who believed were born again, made alive in Christ, and received remission of sins.

 

[TCassidy]

Darrell C said:

Christ is the Savior, Cassidy.

Yes, we all know that. Do you have a point?

Election pertains to those saved by the Savior.

So when the bible says the Chief Corner Stone (Christ) is "elect" you say the bible is wrong and the Holy Spirit inspired a lie?

But if you want to take that view, okay. It fits right in there with Mesopotamia being the most important civilization

So you still haven't figured out that Abraham, the founder of Israel, was a Mesopotamian? You haven't learned to read with understanding yet? You still don't know that Genesis 24 teaches us that Nahor went back to Mesopotamia to the people of Abraham to find a spouse for Isaac? You still have not figured out that God appeared to Abraham while he was still in his homeland, Mesopotamia? You have still not figured out that the nation of Israel was founded by a Mesopotamian and founded on the governing principles of Mesopotamia? Do you still deny that Abraham was Mesopotamian even though the bible makes it very clear?

and the Bible is missing hundreds of names from it's genealogies, lol.

So you still can't compare the genealogies and see that names are missing?

Moses and Aaron - Exodus 6:16-20, Numbers 26:57-59; and 1 Chronicles 6:1-3; 23:6, 12-13
With the Moses and Aaron playing such central roles in the exodus, it is not surprising that their genealogy is given four different times in the Old Testament. This genealogy serves as a striking example of telescoping a genealogy to include only the tribe, division, and clan. The genealogies defining the divisions and clans of the Levites are given in Numbers 3:17-37; 26:57-59 and 1 Chronicles 6:1-3; 23:6-23. We see from these passages that Moses and Aaron were of the tribe of Levi (the Levites), the division of Kohath (the Kohathites), and the clan of Amram (the Amramites). These genealogies were telescoped to only include the three generations needed to establish this.

Korah – Numbers 16:1
In the second census during Israel’s desert wanderings, a few noteworthy individuals are listed along with each tribe’s genealogy. Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, the son of Levi led a rebellion against Moses during the desert wandering and was engulfed by the earth along with his followers. This genealogy specifies his clan (Izhar), division (Kohath), and tribe (Levi) and telescopes out the remaining generations between Korah and Izhar.

Dathan and Abiram – Numbers 16:1; 26:5–9
Along with Korah, Dathan and Abiram participated in the rebellion against Moses and died with him. Because of their notoriety, Dathan and Abiram are listed among the Reubenites in the second Israelite census. In this genealogy, we are given only their clan (Eliab), division (Pallu), and tribe (Reuben).

Zelophehad’s daughters – Numbers 26:28–32; 27:1
Zelophehad and his daughters are listed as noteworthy among the Manassehites in the second census of Israel. Because he had five daughters and no sons, they came to Moses about the issue of inheritance. As a result, it became law that daughters would receive the inheritance if there were no sons (Numbers 27). This genealogy (Zelophehad, son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, son of Joseph) is analogous to the preceding examples except that one more name is included beyond the tribe (Manasseh), division (Machir), and clan (Gilead).

So which is it, Cassidy, you are a Calvinist or an Arminian?

I am sorry I confused you by using words too big for your understanding. Let me try again. My Soteriological position (that means how people get saved) sees God as Sovereign (that is a big word that means He is in charge and control of everything) and First Mover (that means that God is the uncaused cause of all things) in the monergistic (that is a big word that means only one Person is the Author of Salvation, and that person is God) salvation of sinners.

I'm sorry but I can'd dumb it down any more than that. If you are still confused about the big words I suggest you ask your pastor to explain them to you. If he has any theological education at all he should be able to help you.

 

[steaver]

Brother,

I am not a Calvinist, but I do believe in all five points of the doctrines of grace.

Calvinism's doctrines of grace or the bible's doctrines of grace? We have to be specific for both Cals and non claim the doctrines of grace.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
And I would suggest to you that prior to the Cross and Pentecost not one man or woman was alive spiritually.

David was a man after God’s own heart and Abraham was a friend of God. No one can please God without being regenerated (Rom 8:8-11).

That's true, but both men were liars and David an adulterous murderer.

Did that please God?

Your proof-text...

Romans 8:8-11

King James Version (KJV)

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Is in a Post-Pentecost context which is not making a general statement by which we declare dogmatic doctrinal positions that do not allow for the larger context of this chapter as well as some very basic truths.

And I will just point out a few things:


Romans 8

King James Version (KJV)

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


No mention of regeneration, Abraham or David pleasing God, but one point which many on this forum have refused to acknowledge because it interferes with their Theology System: the indwelling Spirit of God on an eternal basis was not until after Pentecost arrived.

That is what verse 3 is reiterating.

Now, let's revisit your proof-text:

Romans 8:8-11

King James Version (KJV)

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.


The context makes it pretty clear that in view is Paul speaking of the conditions that existed at the time of the writing, yet you are taking this statement and creating a false argument.

You do that fairly often in your response. We will look at all of them.

The Spirit in view, as mentioned in my first post...is the Comforter.

There is no other Spirit in view in the context of Paul's writing here, and we can say dogmatically that He was not there when Christ ministered to the disciples and the general population:


John 14:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


This is what Paul is speaking about when he equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ:

Romans 8:8-10

King James Version (KJV)

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

While the Spirit of God ministered to men in the Old Testament, we see Christ teaching that the coming of the Comforter would establish something that was not previously occurring, and we see that the condition of eternal indwelling was not taking place at that time.


John 16:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

So for you first point...

Darrell C said: ↑
And I would suggest to you that prior to the Cross and Pentecost not one man or woman was alive spiritually.

David was a man after God’s own heart and Abraham was a friend of God. No one can please God without being regenerated (Rom 8:8-11).

Going to have to shoot that down for the syllogistic concoction it is.

The indwelling of the Spirit in view in Romans 8 is not a general indwelling that one can find in the Old Testament, and if they do find it, they need to find out why their teaching conflicts with Christ and Paul's clear teachings on this matter.

Regeneration is simultaneous with eternal indwelling, you don't have one without the other. We can establish by the teachings concerning the coming of the Comforter that we have something that does not "span all dispensations," lol.

And we can look at least one clear example of someone who is not regenerate pleasing God:


John 1:46-48

King James Version (KJV)

46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.


Now, unless you want to say this fellow who does not know Who Christ is regenerate, or, that the Lord is not please with Nathanael for being without guile, then you will have to cede the point, and admit defense number one is bogus.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

How could an unregenerate person be an author of Scripture?

Not even a regenerate person can be the author...God is the Author.

That's why we call it the Word of God. Not the Word of Moses, Paul, or John. While those names might be used to designate it, the revelation provided comes from God, not men, regenerate or unregenerate.

So another point which is not only weak but completely in error as to Who the Author of the Word is.

And by the way...how can a regenerate man kill the husband of his adulterous lover?

Surely if Moses and David and the prophets were unregenerated, then there would not have been any Scripture prior to the cross.

Well, I guess if your understanding of Inspiration is that men generated revelation, then I can see why you would think that is a good reason to think men were regenerate in the Old Testament Economies.

Nor would there have been any men giving true prophecies.

Is that a fact?


John 11:49-53

King James Version (KJV)

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.


Are you willing to say Caiaphas was regenerate?

According to your teaching...he has to be.

So how does regenerate man seek to kill Christ?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

All revelation from God would have come from angels or directly from God—not through men.

All revelation came from God...period. lol

Peter is the best example of this:


Matthew 16:13-17

King James Version (KJV)

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


Was Peter regenerate?

If so, how can one be regenerate and rebuke the Gospel of Jesus Christ being spoken by Jesus Christ Himself?


Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Yep, that's a born again believer there.

At least according to your teaching.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Anna and Simeon clearly represent OT saints when they rejoiced to see the baby Jesus in the temple.

I would agree, but am I supposed to take your word for it?

There can be no doubt that they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God.

Scripture?

There is a major difference between someone believing Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God...and one being born again.

That is one of the fundamental errors teachers like you make, they try to dictate unbiblical terms and conditions.

Peter had revealed to Him that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God...but Peter not only tried to keep Christ from the Cross, he denied he even knew the Lord.

A moment of weakness in the life of a born again believer?

No...Peter was not Baptized with the Holy Ghost, and according to Christ's teaching had not yet received the Comforter.

We have God's Word on that and can be quite dogmatic.

The Comforter, Who Christ said was with them but would be in them, and this forever, contrasted with the Lord departing...didn't come until Pentecost.

That is the fundamental oversight of Calvinists and Arminians.

So which one are you?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Yet according to John 6:47; 11:25-27; and 20:31, all who believe that have eternal life.

And what are they believing in?

Let's look at one of your proof-texts which you have failed to present in your defense of your view:


John 6:47-51

King James Version (KJV)

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


Notice a couple things in this statement: first, the Bread of Life came down from Heaven. This is contrasted with the bread the fathers partook of, manna, which brings up the second point...

...they had not received this Bread of Life.

Why? Because He had not come from Heaven to accomplish Atonement/Reconciliation.

Regeneration and the eternal indwelling cannot be separated:


Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


So your teaching has men regenerate...but not having the Spirit of God.

This is Old Testament ministry, not New, thus you mingle teachings and the result is a construct of syllogistic, fleshly conclusion.

Not divine revelation.

Perhaps the reason is because you do not understand Inspired Revelation, or it's Author.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Anna and Simeon and all OT believers believed in the coming Messiah for eternal life and hence they were born again.

Could you show me that in Scripture?

Consider:


Luke 2:25-30

King James Version (KJV)

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,


Notice we have an Old Testament Saint...awaiting Christ?

He had been waiting to see the salvation of the Lord?

Same with Anna:


Luke 2:36-38

King James Version (KJV)

36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.


Just as Charismatics tend to confuse the Baptism with the Holy Ghost with the filling of the Ghost, so do you, except in reverse, lol. You equate the Baptism with the Holy Ghost which began on Pentecost with the filling of the Holy Ghost which empowered men in those economies.

God has always ministered in the hearts of men, but, the specific revelation involved was not the same in every Age.

We see the reaction of Israel to that ministry here...


Acts 7:51

King James Version (KJV)

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.


So far I have not seen the first credible support that men were regenerate in Old Testament Economies.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Finally, the biggest problem with this view is that it makes OT believers unbelievers.

Only you do that, lol.

It's a false argument, and hopefully you will understand that.

You can begin your understanding by first understanding that one can believe without being born again, and secondly, what one is called to believe...makes a big difference.

So go ahead and find the Old Testament Saint that was trusting in the Cross of Christ, which is prerequisite for being born again.

I'll tell you this in advance, you are not even going to find one Disciple of Christ that believed in Christ as Savior. Not in regards to Christ dying for their sins, that is.

Not one of them can be found to be believing, and Christ rebukes them here...


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


Perhaps you could explain how people that did not believe in Christ's Resurrection were born again believers?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Oh, they believed something. But they are not seen as believing in the Messiah for everlasting life.

No, they did believe Messiah would come, even the woman at the well had that knowledge, and trusted that when He was come He would explain all things.

But let's now take a look at another Prophet:


John 1:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.


Was John a believer? Unquestionably.

Was he trusting in Christ's death?

Nope...


Matthew 11

King James Version (KJV)

1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?


Sure, John was a believer, and John was saved by grace through faith, but let's not confuse that with John understood what Christ being the Lamb of God actually meant. Paul wrote too clearly concerning the Mystery of the Gospel for us to overlook Biblical Doctrine and impose elements which are distinct to one Covenant into Ages where we are clearly told they did not exist.

Most of Israel had faith that God would send the Messiah, the problem was...the Messiah He sent did not meet their expectations.

That is true of many people today as well.

They are not seen as being sure that they are eternally secure by faith in the coming Messiah.

By who?

Trusting God is simply a Bible Basic. Many men have had faith in God, and been justified by and through that faith.

You can read about a great many of them in Hebrews 11. Just take note when the writer points out that they did not receive the promises, but died in faith.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

As a result, two or more saving messages occur. If prior to Jesus’ baptism people were born again by believing something less than the truth that the Messiah guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him, what is it they believed?

There is only one saving message, and that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So rather than deal with another false argument, simply hear what the Word of God states clearly:


Romans 16:25-26

King James Version (KJV)

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:


The Old Testament Saint was not privy to the revealed Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Basic Bible truth which can help both Calvinist and Arminian.

And why, then, would Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 use Abraham as an example of one who believed the same saving proposition we believe?

Not sure how you arrive at that which was revealed to Abraham was the same "saving proposition."

We do not have a general faith in God, but specific faith in the death of Christ.

You are laying again a foundation of faith, and the writer of Hebrews forbids us to do that.

And by the way...the Author does as well.

If Abraham was born again simply because he believed God exists, then how could he be a model for how people are born-again today?

So where do we see Abraham born again?

Old Testament believers were not spiritually dead.

Sure they were.

Can't have the Life which came from Heaven if He hasn't come yet, can we?

The Old Testament has a primarily temporal focus. A number of false doctrines can easily be dismissed if this is understood.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

They were spiritually alive.

Not according to Christ.

Not one person can be seen to be eternally redeemed:


Hebrews 9:12-15

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.

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.


Christ made entrance to God possible, and relationship with God more than that which we see in the Old Testament. That is why the renewing of the Holy Ghost is distinguished between the washing of regeneration, because that relationship lost in Adam is restored through the New Covenant.


2 Corinthians 5:18-20

King James Version (KJV)

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.


So what will you propose God was reconciling the world to Himself with prior to the Christ coming?

True, only some were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and that indwelling was not permanent.

They were not indwelt on an eternal basis, period.

The Spirit of God performed much the same ministry He performs among believers today. He will fill one with His Spirit and empower them for ministry.

But that does not nullify Christ's teaching about the Comforter.

But all OT believers were regenerated and all were sealed.

Great.

Scripture?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

To believe otherwise is to reduce OT believers to people who were not children of God,

On the contrary...I have spent many a page trying to convince people that Israel was the People of God.

That is another Basic Bible Doctrine which some would seek to deny.

Joel 3

King James Version (KJV)

1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,

2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.


And that among Israel were believers and unbelievers alike.

But they were not the Church. That began at Pentecost. Here is the closest you will get to the "church" being in the Old Testament:


Acts 7:37-38

King James Version (KJV)

37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:


And we know two facts: these were the People of God in that day, this is reiterated over and over, and one would have to be intentional in missing that; secondly...they were unbelievers. Consult Hebrews 3 and 4. You will get an abbreviated summation of the People of God.

Moses, by the way, did not receive the promise. Nor did Joshua. Nor did David. They were believers, but, they received not the promises. They were not made perfect/complete. They did not enter into the Rest we, the Church, have entered into.

were not spiritually alive,

That is correct.

While we would not say they were bereft of spiritual existence, for this is the immaterial aspect to man's existence, what we can say is that they did not have the Life which Christ teaches He came down from Heaven to bestow upon men.

They had...manna.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

had no ability to please God,

A false argument.

Try to say Nathanael was a born again believer trusting in Christ's death?

Just not going to work.

and who had no current relationship with God.

Sure they did, they had the Covenant relationship provided by God.

And the final relationship God had prior to the establishment of the New Covenant was through the Covenant of Law.

Failure to maintain that Covenant relationship (the Covenant of Law) was the very reason why God promises the New Covenant:


Galatians 3:17-19

King James Version (KJV)

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.


Hebrews 8:6-9

King James Version (KJV)

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.


Men had a relationship, doesn't mean they were reconciled to God on an eternal basis.


Continued...

 

[TCassidy]

This is why so many people on the BB think you are an idiot. I post one post to you and you spam the thread with post after post after post that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP or with my post. You just blather on and on and on in all directions making absolutely no sense at all. Time for you to go back on ignore. I tried to give you a second chance and you spammed the thread again and posted absolute inanity.

 

[Darrell C]

All who believe that the Messiah guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him are regenerate people.

Not true.

These...


2 Peter 2:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.


...knew the way of righteousness and turned from the holy commandment.

They obeyed not the Gospel and thus did not know God. Doesn't mean that they didn't have that knowledge.

Only those that receive the Spirit of Grace, rather than resist Him, and repent, and trust in Christ...are born again.

And you can't meet that criteria with Old Testament Revelation.

Regeneration bridges every so-called "dispensation."

Sorry, no.

Regeneration began at Pentecost, and the Church is the result of the Ministry of the Comforter.

Acts 10:43 "To him (Christ) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

What this means is that the Prophets testify of Christ.

IT doesn't nullify the fact that the Gospel was not revealed to men until this Age.

The Old Testament Prophets preached Christ. And those Old Testament saints who believed were born again, made alive in Christ, and received remission of sins.

I would agree that the Old Testament Saints had an expectation of Christ, and did indeed receive remission of sins.

However, the remission of sins they received came through the vicarious death of animals, thus had to be continually repeated, because that remission was not complete.

It is not until the Son of God came down from Heaven and offered up Himself that remission of sins in completion became available, which was one of the promises of God in regards to the New Testament.

Misunderstand just these basic truths is why we have seen Calvinists and Arminians, both in history as well as on this forum...continually debating the issue.

And it is just not a necessary division in the Body of Christ.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

This is why so many people on the BB think you are an idiot.

Well, I would say that my responses are why people know you are an idiot, but I won't say that.



Instead I will just point out that still you make erroneous conclusions.

The responses are detailed, and even broken down to make it easier for you to respond to.

You, on the other hand, seem to think you can post what you want, and how much you want.

So will you?

No, because you know your doctrine is sloppy, and your indoctrination, though apparently not yet complete, is something that won't allow you to actually question what is so painfully erroneous in your doctrine.

I mean really...you believe the writers authored Scripture?

I post one post to you and you spam the thread with post after post after post that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP or with my post.

It does have to do with both the OP and your post, though you help me to bring "Reprobate Calvinist" into perhaps a more concise context.

Keep up the good work there Prof.

You just blather on and on and on in all directions making absolutely no sense at all.

I can't understand it for you, lol.

Time for you to go back on ignore.

Well, just to clarify...the responses are not necessarily for you.

I already know you have a habit of slinking away with your tail between your legs when your doctrine is challenged.

Doesn't mean no-one can benefit from understanding just how ridiculous some of the stuff you teach is, lol.

"Men can't please God unless they are regenerate."

Sounds plausible, and there are a lot of people that might buy into that kind of fluff.

But explain how Nathanael was regenerate.

Explain why you view the Bible Writers as the authors?

I tried to give you a second chance and you spammed the thread again and posted absolute inanity.

Magnanimous of you, to be sure, but...that too is questionable.

Have a hard time seeing your insults as giving anyone a chance.

Now we both know you have said some pretty dumb things, and that is pointed out in the response you say is not relevant to what you said.

But look, being magnanimous at times myself, I will give you yet another chance to address the errors that I have pointed out.

Have fun.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said:
Christ is the Savior, Cassidy.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all know that. Do you have a point?

Here is the point: Christ is not the Firstborn because He is the first to be "elected." lol

Read the post again and you will see the point that was in view.

Election pertains to those saved by the Savior.
Click to expand...

So when the bible says the Chief Corner Stone (Christ) is "elect" you say the bible is wrong and the Holy Spirit inspired a lie?

Where's your Scripture?

Please show me the Scripture where that election is equated to redemptive election.

And that is why you do not have any Scripture, because you wouldn't be able to pass off this false doctrine as readily if you actually posted the Scripture. lol

But if you want to take that view, okay. It fits right in there with Mesopotamia being the most important civilization
Click to expand...

So you still haven't figured out that Abraham, the founder of Israel, was a Mesopotamian?

Well that is amazing, but can you tell me why we never read about "Mesopotamia, the People of God?"

And can you tell me why, if Mesopotamia is so great, the greatest, in fact, according to you...God called Abraham out of there? lol

You haven't learned to read with understanding yet?

I seem to be doing pretty well understanding you have a habit of teaching some strange doctrines. Mesopotamia is the most important civilization, the Bible Writers authored revelation, unregenerate men can't please God, men were eternally redeemed in the Old Testament prior to the Redeemer coming...

Yeah, those things are understood, and addressed.

You still don't know that Genesis 24 teaches us that Nahor went back to Mesopotamia to the people of Abraham to find a spouse for Isaac? You still have not figured out that God appeared to Abraham while he was still in his homeland, Mesopotamia? You have still not figured out that the nation of Israel was founded by a Mesopotamian and founded on the governing principles of Mesopotamia? Do you still deny that Abraham was Mesopotamian even though the bible makes it very clear?

How does that make Mesopotamia the most important civilization of world history?

That was my only point.

Quote me denying Abraham was Mesopotamian, lol. And we both know you won't, because you can't, because your defense of the false doctrines you teach leave you with only the option creating false arguments. You certainly can't directly address the responses.


Continued...

 

[TCassidy]

I have to admit I have a terrible character flaw.

1. I do not celebrate stupidity.
2. I do not treat ignorance as if it were a virtue.
3. I do not suffer fools gladly.

And thus my "ignore" list is explained.