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

Which has zilch to do with imparting life and immortality.

10 but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Tim 1

It is Christ that abolished death and imparts life and immortality, the gospel only tells of it.

There's nothing new about the error of 'means regeneration', the Jews held to it too:

39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; Jn 5

Probably 99.99999% of Christianity today holds to 'gospel regeneration'. Just as the Jews, they think that in the gospel we have the 'formula to acquire immortality', when in actuality the gospel sheds light on it, it doesn't impart it, Christ's work is a done deal.

 

The Holy Place in view here is Heaven itself. We know Christ did not enter into the earthly Tabernacle/Temple, which is one of the primary points the Writer makes here. He contrasts the shadow/figure/parable with the true. Prior to Christ's Sacrifice all sacrifice for sin was temporal, temporary, and incomplete.

The Writer makes the point that Christ's Sacrifice was the reality that the Services under the Law (and prior to that) pictured.

Heaven is called "The Holiest of All," into which we have boldness to enter now, literally. See Hebrews 9:24

And sorry, my computer is acting up and won't paste, or I would have posted it for you. Luckily they have installed ref-tagger so it should come up.


God bless.

 

Not really, because while Heaven is in fact in Eternity, we see that God manifested into the World in order to make Atonement.

Consider this, because I think it is one of the most notable statements in Scripture...

Hebrews 10:19-20


Prior to Christ's Sacrifice men entered, in parable/shadow/figure by entering through the veil. This pictures men coming into God's presence in the Holiest of All. But that was only a figure.

Now consider the above verses, and the statement that the true entrance to God's presence was through the very flesh (death, John 6:51) of Christ. Christ opened the way into the Holiest for all men through that veil.

But the fact remains that there is a point in time in both Time and Eternity when that Sacrifice was offered. When we see that it was not until then that Eternal Redemption was obtained (for us, which includes the redeemed of all time) we have a hard time supporting a view that sin was forgiven prior to the Cross of Christ. We shift from the temporal to the eternal at that point in time. The transgressions of the Old Testament Saints were redeemed, and it is at that point that the shadow is abrogated for the true.


God bless.

 

We couldn't really view it as being limited seeing that it was His Plan to, at that time, bring about Redemption.

The New Covenant was a promise, which places the fulfillment of the promise in the future of the time the promise was given.

Again, I point out this passage:


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.


So we have the Eras preceding Christ's entrance to the Holiest of All, Heaven, which is a literal creation of an entrance to the presence of God for men. Prior to this, men were separated from God on that level. Until the Cross, God ministered to men in this sphere, which included after they died, for even then they could not enter into the Holiest of All. The Veil they would, and do enter through is the flesh, the death of Christ, which holds a permanent place in History.

Again, men were saved, from an eternal perspective, but, men were not saved in the eternal perspective, as we are now. And key to being translated into that Kingdom which is eternal is the Atonement/Reconciliation.


God bless.

 

Men are not saved before they are saved.

I am not sure if you refer to a Theological Doctrine when you say Gospel Regeneration, but I would suggest to you that the state of all men depends on the Revelation they have received from God.

We see a general pattern for the basis of varying degrees of judgment and reward taught in Scripture, and it is a certainty, in my view anyway, that all men will be judged according to their response to the Revelation provided them by God. This means believing and unbelieving alike.

Now, consider the Revelation provided men in this Age: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to that they will be judged according to, but, not so for those who were under the Covenant of Law:


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


If you look at the link, you will see that those guilty of treading Christ underfoot, counting His Death unholy, and rejecting the Ministry of the Comforter...will be judged more severely than they who were under Moses' Law (the Covenant of Law).

Just like those under the Covenant of Law will be held more accountable than those ignorant of the Law (though they had an internal witness and the testimony of Creation which will still stand as a witness against them).

So the bottom line would be that no man is saved apart from a positive response to the Gospel. And it is not just a matter of a man hearing the Gospel, but a matter of the necessity of the Comforter enlightening the natural mind to understand the Truth. Men do not work this out intellectually, but the Spirit imparts understanding, and they respond.


God bless.

 

While I too believe Paul was the Writer, we cannot be dogmatic about that. J. Vernon McGee and Harry Ironside make some great points as to why it is most likely Paul. Would make for a good thread.

Agree wholeheartedly.

In view, as mentioned in the previous post, is a contrast between the Covenant of Law and the New Covenant, and in Hebrews 10 there is a specific focus on the Remission of sins. The Covenant of Law was imperfect (incomplete), and the New Covenant and the Sacrifice of Christ Complete.

That is the meaning of the words translated "perfection" and "Perfect" in this passage, not to mention a consistent theme of the writer.

If you study this theme (that of "perfection/completion") it will clear up another challenging passage...

(note-links inserted)

Hebrews 6:1-6

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.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


We find our context for what is in view by backing up to see the rebuke the Writer gives his Hebrew brethren:


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.


We can bracket his statement made in v.11 at this verse:


Hebrews 6:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.


This is all one teaching yet some will unfortunately take the first 6 verses of Chapter 6 and use it to teach loss of salvation.

In view is the same point you make above in which a contrast between Christ and the Covenant of Law and it's services. The writer rebukes them for their ignorance and exhorts them to go on unto "Perfection," which is Completion through and in Christ.

That is true, and if you note in the verse that the knowledge is accompanied by reference to the Spirit of Grace, which, when we correlate this to Christ's teaching concerning the Comforter...


John 16:7-9

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.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;



The "doing despite unto the Spirit of Grace" of Hebrews 10:29 differs from Stephen's statement "Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit" in one way: the revelation being imparted. Then, it was the revelation that accompanied the Covenant of Law, whereas for the Writer of Hebrew's audience the Gospel is in view, which he so definitively explains in this Epistle.

No, actually it does not, for their was no Eucharist or Mass in that day. While some might apply it to that and in fact rebuke the beliefs of Catholics, we still maintain the Historical Context of the passage. Because people do not do this, we see grievous error such as interpreting the "forsaking of the assemblage of the brethren" as a rebuke for unfaithful church attendance, which trivializes what the Writer is teaching here. It is similar to Christ's teaching "Abide in Me" being used as a text for loss of salvation.

That is not the Writer's, nor the Lord's intent.

In view is a clear warning to Hebrews to "go on" from the Covenant of Law and it's services unto Christ and the New Covenant. They are to leave that which is incomplete and go on unto that which is complete. Christ's Priesthood as opposed to Levitical; Christ's Sacrifice as opposed to the sacrifices of the Law and those before the Covenant of Law was established (though this has particular correlation to Israel and the Law); Remission of Sins in completion as opposed to that which was incomplete and had to be, as the Writer states, repeated daily.

While I would agree that transubstantiation is an erroneous doctrine, that is not found in this text. We have to first and foremost maintain Historical Context and then make applications to our modern day carefully. And personally, I do not see those who actually embrace substantiation as in danger of idolatry, as we consider they are still trusting Christ. I visited a Methodist church once where they were teaching it, lol. I was very surprised.

But ultimately, salvation is not a matter of doctrinal flawlessness, and if it were, we would all be in trouble, because we all start out as babes, not knowing much more than the fact that we are sinners separated from God, that Christ is the SAvior, and that we must look to Him to save us from our sin.

We can see similar errors in all groups, so unless we want to condemn the entire Body of Christ for her ignorance, then we should show a little grace in regards to ignorant doctrines some have been indoctrinated into.

If God does not condemn us, shouldn't we seek to extend His grace to others He has shed His blood for?



God bless.

 

Yours is basically a false dilemma; either there is Freewill or the Father draws us. The truth is both work together. The Father draws all who come to Him but He does not force Himself in nobody, and this is why there is such a sin called rebellion.

Think through the comsequences of your claims. If the Father draws us to Himself regardless of our will, then is it in order to say that those who perish are the ones denied this lifesaving privilege of being drawn to Himself?

 

In the above Paul speaks in regards to the Priesthood eating of the sacrifices they offered. The point is that the sacrifice itself (of the Law) does not make that animal something sacred or give it a meaning beyond what it was, which was simply an animal that was dying in the place of the sinner.

This is equally true of the sacrifices made by Gentiles to idols, meaning the idols are nothing and that eating of that meat (offered to those idols) was, like eating of the sacrifices of the Law, not a big deal. The point is to ascribe no reality to the idolatry of Gentiles. Do not join with Gentiles in offering up to demons.

God bless.

 

You are adept at misquoting scriptures so I will not settle with a mere reading of that, I will instead ask you to substantiate your claim from John 3:18-21

Meanwhile, was Jesus dishonest with His offer seeing it is only available to afew?

John 7:37 (KJV)
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

 

@Hark,
You need to learn to base your claims and statements on scriptures and not gossip or hearsay.
Where is transubstantiation mentioned here?

If you are to have any chances of converting a believer in transubstantiation or any error,you need Wisdom of God from scriptures and not wild claims because an informed believer can rightfully dismiss your correction as baseless

 

The Free Will issue is easily resolved when we maintain New Testament teaching.

Scripture is clear that men are born separated from God, and have no ability to seek after God. Their proclivity is one of sin, not righteousness.

We are taught that God's revelation has been progressive in respect to direct revelation (God speaking to man directly, or to men through other men, and through Scripture), and that there is still an internal witness and the testimony of Creation itself which reveals God. Men will be held accordingly accountable for their response to those three means of revelation. And the bottom line is that it is not that men can of their own will turn to God, they are first dependent upon the revelation of truth which has always been accomplished by the Spirit of God.

This implies that they come of their own free will, which is not the case.


John 16:7-9

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.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

I agree for the most part, it is man who is responsible for their response to the intervention of God.

However, that does not mean that in the temporal we nullify any "force" imposed by the Lord. Jonah is a good example of that.

And we can be certain that the Ministry of Conviction performed by the Comforter is independent of man's involvement in regards to initiation. God, and only God, is credited with salvation, and this means from the moment men are born they are dead to the truth, and in need of enlightenment that they might respond. Most will do despite unto the Spirit of Grace, but a "few" will acknowledge the Truth and cry out to God.

Not really, no. We are born with no ability but to sin and rebel against God. This is the result of what we are born into, which a state of being separated from God. That separation is remedied in Reconciliation, where men are reunited with God , thereby receiving life. Christ states in John 6:53 that apart from Him men have no life. The life in view is not physical life, but spiritual life, eternal life, which can only be attained to through immersion into that Life. And when we are Baptized into Christ, when we are indwelt by God, we then have life.

Eternal life is not a substance poured into believers, it is a Person indwelling them.

So you feel that you decided one day you wanted to be saved? Is that how it worked? Or did God intervene into your blindness to truth and bring you to conviction?

You had, within your natural ability, every right to reject the truth, just as every man has. But you did not. Now think about that, and ask who you are going to praise for turning to Christ in faith. Yourself? Or the God Who took the time to convict you of sin, righteousness, and judgment?

There is only One means of Eternal Life...


John 12:32

King James Version (KJV)

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.



God bless.

 

Repeated post.

 

This is wholly unnecessary, and dare I say glib

Let's focus on those who perish.
Is it God's will that they perish?

PS
Don't overwhelm me with verses, I will ask for those when I'm persuaded you are imagining your own 'truths'