Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

[Darrell C]

I disagree. Are you intimating that all of this things you have written in this thread are out of your own head - you have never ever heard any of those things you have written in this thread in a sermon or Bible study, never read anything like what you have written in a book or an article?

Think about Martin Luther, a product of the Catholic Church. He stood against the doctrines of the Catholic Church where he felt they were in direct contradiction to what was taught there. He felt he could prove what he taught was correct based on his presentation of the Scripture he based his own view on.

That is what we should all do. It is usually pretty obvious when someone adheres strictly to a theological system. Not picking on Catholics, but when we see someone teaching Baptismal Regeneration and works based salvation and will not concede that Scripture which denies it, we know the loyalty is to the system, not the Scriptures.

When we see someone acknowledging Scripture yet teaching things like "the Angel Moroni led Joseph Smith to the golden tablets" or "Jesus was a great Prophet but wasn't God" we know they are loyal to the system, not to Scripture.

God bless.

 

[KenH]

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.

Okay. I disagree with your "testing" system by debating. But, hey, you do you and I'll do me. Cool?

 

[Darrell C]

1) My aim is not to defend myself; my aim is to proclaim the gospel of Christ.

And you will never do that properly as long as you fail to recognize the magnitude of the Cross.

The only conclusion one can draw if we think the Atonement was applied to the Old Testament Saints is that they were saved by something other than Christ's Sacrifice in their stead.

And when one recognizes that the Covenant wasn't in force then because the Testator had not yet died that is sheer belligerence.

2) Ephesians 4:20-24 But ye have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: that ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (emphasis mine)

This has a context of progressive sanctification, not positional sanctification. I have pointed that out before in one of our discussions.

Hebrews 10:10-14 refers to positional sanctification.

Colossian 3:8-11 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. (emphasis mine)

Progressive sanctification. Has a temporal context, not an eternal.

2 Corinthians 5:16-17 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (emphasis mine)

The preceding two verses do not change the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

I don't know why you want to kick at the goads, Ken. Is your pride that important to you? That you won't admit some basic principles that deny what you want to believe?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Okay. I disagree with your "testing" system by debating. But, hey, you do you and I'll do me. Cool?

You know, I don't think we really have a choice, lol.



Have to get going.


God bless.

 

[KenH]

And you will never do that properly as long as you fail to recognize the magnitude of the Cross.

The only conclusion one can draw if we think the Atonement was applied to the Old Testament Saints is that they were saved by something other than Christ's Sacrifice in their stead.

And when one recognizes that the Covenant wasn't in force then because the Testator had not yet died that is sheer belligerence.




This has a context of progressive sanctification, not positional sanctification. I have pointed that out before in one of our discussions.

Hebrews 10:10-14 refers to positional sanctification.




Progressive sanctification. Has a temporal context, not an eternal.




The preceding two verses do not change the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

I don't know why you want to kick at the goads, Ken. Is your pride that important to you? That you won't admit some basic principles that deny what you want to believe?


God bless.

Darrell C wrote, "The only conclusion one can draw if we think the Atonement was applied to the Old Testament Saints is that they were saved by something other than Christ's Sacrifice in their stead."

You conclusion is erroneous.

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. (emphasis mine)

2) "Progressive Sanctification" is a rather loaded term. I am not opposed to the use of the term, if it is properly defined.

"Progressive sanctification" is not becoming more holy and more perfect. I cannot become more perfect than Christ has already made me.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (emphasis mine)

"Progressive sanctification" as performing the works that God has ordained for me to do and the He works in me according to His plan and purpose, now that is Biblical.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (emphasis mine)

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (emphasis mine)

 

[JesusFan]

God says you did.

Romans 5:9 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (emphasis mine)

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (emphasis mine)

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (emphasis mine)

he and others here seem to have a real issue with the effects of the fall, as we were all affected and have sin natures as a direct result!

 

[KenH]

he and others here seem to have a real issue with the effects of the fall, as we were all affected and have sin natures as a direct result!

Some people think that man didn't really fall so as to die spiritually. They think that Adam just bruised his little finger or bruised his shin, or some such.

 

[JesusFan]

Darrell C wrote, "The only conclusion one can draw if we think the Atonement was applied to the Old Testament Saints is that they were saved by something other than Christ's Sacrifice in their stead."

You conclusion is erroneous.

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. (emphasis mine)

2) "Progressive Sanctification" is a rather loaded term. I am not opposed to the use of the term, if it is properly defined.

"Progressive sanctification" is not becoming more holy and more perfect. I cannot become more perfect than Christ has already made me.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (emphasis mine)

"Progressive sanctification" as performing the works that God has ordained for me to do and the He works in me according to His plan and purpose, now that is Biblical.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (emphasis mine)

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (emphasis mine)

God the father only has one way to save any and all lost sinners, basis of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ period!

 

[JesusFan]

Some people think that man didn't really fall so as to die spiritually. They think that Adam just bruised his little finger or bruised his shin, or some such.

They do not even see spiritual death, nor that Jesus Himself even had a different nature than ours, as his was sinless via Virgin birth, but ours are sinners!

 

[kyredneck]

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

Over the years on this site many a dispie have referred to themselves as dispies without any thought of it being a slur.

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

So you're going to define to us now what are slurs and vitriol? There's been many a discussion on this site among camps where 'dispy' and 'pret' and 'a-mil' and 'post-mil' were freely used with not a hint of anyone taking offense, but now ol' Darrell C is here to point out the error of our ways. Right.

[add]

...and if I remember correctly, Darrell C denies even being a dispie, if so, why would it matter to you that there are those that don't take offense to the brevity?

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C wrote, "The only conclusion one can draw if we think the Atonement was applied to the Old Testament Saints is that they were saved by something other than Christ's Sacrifice in their stead."

You conclusion is erroneous.

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. (emphasis mine)

If my conclusion is erroneous, lol, why do you post a verse that I gave to show Positional Sanctification, then go on to post verses that refer to Progressive Sanctification?

2) "Progressive Sanctification" is a rather loaded term. I am not opposed to the use of the term, if it is properly defined.

Progressive Sanctification doesn't need our approval to make it a valid Doctrinal Position. It's really very basic to Biblical Doctrine. You will find it in any good book on Theology, but more importantly—we find the doctrine in Scripture.

"Progressive sanctification" is not becoming more holy and more perfect. I cannot become more perfect than Christ has already made me.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (emphasis mine)

So if you can't be made more holy and more perfect in your daily conversation, why do acknowledge Progressive Sanctification?

You are trying to say two things again, Ken, and this because you do not want anything I say to be right. That's a really poor reason, and dangerous: we should be able to admit error in our lives—that part of progressive sanctification.

"Progressive sanctification" as performing the works that God has ordained for me to do and the He works in me according to His plan and purpose, now that is Biblical.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (emphasis mine)

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (emphasis mine)

No, not really, not in the context of this point. It is a poor attempt to cling to a hyper view that is so radical it cancels out sound doctrine.

There is implicit teaching throughout the New Testament for the Church as to how we are to strive to live holy. It isn't a matter of, "Well, I am of the Elect, therefore everything I do will be the will of God, because He has foreordained the works that I do."

It is true you have been created in Christ Jesus unto good works, but that doesn't mean 1) that all our works are good, and 2) that we do not put forth effort to be more holy in our lives.

Both of the verses above refer to a temporal context, not an eternal, as Hebrews 10:10-14.

I just don't see how Progressive Sanctification can be viewed as a "loaded term," lol.


God bless.


—

 

[Darrell C]

Over the years on this site many a dispie have referred to themselves as dispies without any thought of it being a slur.

That's great. Doesn't change the fact that it is used by people as a slur.

Perhaps you're right. There is general attitude of laziness in groups that have not understood the Pre-Tribulational Rapture. I guess maybe they are simply too lazy to spell out long words.

So you're going to define to us now what are slurs and vitriol? There's been many a discussion on this site among camps where 'dispy' and 'pret' and 'a-mil' and 'post-mil' were freely used with not a hint of anyone taking offense, but now ol' Darrell C is here to point out the error of our ways. Right.

That is correct:

slur
slûr
transitive verb

1. To pronounce indistinctly.
2. To talk about disparagingly or insultingly.
3. To pass over lightly or carelessly; treat without due consideration.

Are you really going to deny that you have insulted Dispensational believers over the years?

As far as the error of your ways, I'll let the Doctrine do that.

[add]

...and if I remember correctly, Darrell C denies even being a dispie, if so, why would it matter to you that there are those that don't take offense to the brevity?

You remember correctly, though I have no problem being called Dispensational. The views I hold to often make people think I am dispensational in my Theology, however, I hold to no System. I hold only to what I view as sound doctrine, and I try to show why.

Do you identify with a particular system? If so, which one?

And why is it that my own view that "dispy" is a slur used by those who oppose Dispensation Theology is so wrong?

I am not entitled to my own opinions?

To illustrate the spirit you convey, KYRedneck, all I have to do is show how you approach me with this off-topic rant:

Are you 'woke' now?

Is that implication a slur? Are you not calling my character into question?

Is being "woke" an insult in your book?

Answer honestly.


God bless.

 

[KenH]

If my conclusion is erroneous, lol, why do you post a verse that I gave to show Positional Sanctification, then go on to post verses that refer to Progressive Sanctification?





Progressive Sanctification doesn't need our approval to make it a valid Doctrinal Position. It's really very basic to Biblical Doctrine. You will find it in any good book on Theology, but more importantly—we find the doctrine in Scripture.




So if you can't be made more holy and more perfect in your daily conversation, why do acknowledge Progressive Sanctification?

You are trying to say two things again, Ken, and this because you do not want anything I say to be right. That's a really poor reason, and dangerous: we should be able to admit error in our lives—that part of progressive sanctification.




No, not really, not in the context of this point. It is a poor attempt to cling to a hyper view that is so radical it cancels out sound doctrine.

There is implicit teaching throughout the New Testament for the Church as to how we are to strive to live holy. It isn't a matter of, "Well, I am of the Elect, therefore everything I do will be the will of God, because He has foreordained the works that I do."

It is true you have been created in Christ Jesus unto good works, but that doesn't mean 1) that all our works are good, and 2) that we do not put forth effort to be more holy in our lives.

Both of the verses above refer to a temporal context, not an eternal, as Hebrews 10:10-14.

I just don't see how Progressive Sanctification can be viewed as a "loaded term," lol.


God bless.


—

Of course, you don't see "progressive sanctification" as a loaded term. We have two different hermeneutics in how we read the Bible and two different gospels that we proclaim.

 

[Darrell C]

Of course, you don't see "progressive sanctification" as a loaded term. We have two different hermeneutics in how we read the Bible and two different gospels that we proclaim.

No, I don't see it as a loaded term because it isn't a loaded term, simply a Bible Doctrine.

We definitely proclaim a different Gospel, though.

The Gospel I proclaim makes it clear that there is a difference between the Gospel veiled and the Gospel unrevealed through the Comforter. It recognizes that the New Covenant was not entered into until Christ died. It recognizes that the Eternal Redemption of the Old Testament Saint was retroactive, and that the Atonement was not applied to them until Christ actually died. It recognizes that a Testament has no power and is not in force until the Testator dies.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Of course, you don't see "progressive sanctification" as a loaded term. We have two different hermeneutics in how we read the Bible and two different gospels that we proclaim.

So I will ask again: do you still think the elect were under the New Covenant?

Do you still think the Atonement was applied to them prior to the New Covenant being established?


God bless.

 

[KenH]

No, I don't see it as a loaded term because it isn't a loaded term, simply a Bible Doctrine.

We definitely proclaim a different Gospel, though.

The Gospel I proclaim makes it clear that there is a difference between the Gospel veiled and the Gospel unrevealed through the Comforter. It recognizes that the New Covenant was not entered into until Christ died. It recognizes that the Eternal Redemption of the Old Testament Saint was retroactive, and that the Atonement was not applied to them until Christ actually died. It recognizes that a Testament has no power and is not in force until the Testator dies.

God bless.

The gospel of Christ, that I proclaim, is that salvation is totally and effectively a work of God, the Three-In-One, alone.

Jonah 2:9 Salvation is of the LORD. (emphasis mine)

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (emphasis mine)

The gospel is by the sovereign grace of God alone with all of it conditioned on Christ and His perfect righteousness and propitiatory, substitutionary death accomplished on behalf of God's elect, His people. There are no conditions on the sinner, as everything needed for the sinner Christ has provided them, all the way from their sins being imputed to Him and His perfect righteousness being imputed them; from the elect's regeneration while on this earth all the way to their final abode in the new heavens and earth wherein dwells righteousness, and everything - faith, repentance, good works, everything - in between regeneration and glorification.

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[Darrell C]

The gospel of Christ, that I proclaim, is that salvation is totally and effectively a work of God, the Three-In-One, alone.

Jonah 2:9 Salvation is of the LORD. (emphasis mine)

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (emphasis mine)

The gospel is by the sovereign grace of God alone with all of it conditioned on Christ and His perfect righteousness and propitiatory, substitutionary death accomplished on behalf of God's elect, His people. There are no conditions on the sinner, as everything needed for the sinner Christ has provided them, all the way from their sins being imputed to Him and His perfect righteousness being imputed them; from the elect's regeneration while on this earth all the way to their final abode on the new heavens and earth wherein dwells righteousness, and everything - faith, repentance, good works, everything - in between regeneration and glorification.

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Have to get going, but will post this again:

So I will ask again: do you still think the elect were under the New Covenant?

Do you still think the Atonement was applied to them prior to the New Covenant being established?

God bless.

 

[KenH]

So I will ask again: do you still think the elect were under the New Covenant?

Do you still think the Atonement was applied to them prior to the New Covenant being established?


God bless.

1. The elect existed long before Christ died on the cross.

2. The propitiatory sacrifice of Christ covered all of the elect, regardless when they lived in the past or in the future.

The gospel of Christ is not complicated. It is not some kind of "theological calculus" that some man-made false gospels make it out to be - that make the gospel out to be so complicated that the math of Ma and Pa Kettle looks correct by comparison.

 

[Darrell C]

2. The propitiatory sacrifice of Christ covered all of the elect, regardless when they lived in the past or in the future.

So you are affirming that the Atonement applied to the Old Testament Saint before Christ died?


God bless.

 

[KenH]

So you are affirming that the Atonement applied to the Old Testament Saint before Christ died?


God bless.

Eternally, it was a done deal the moment God chose the elect and gave them to His Son to ransom. In time, the propitiation took place at the cross and its effects covered all of the elect for all time.

Clear enough for ya?