|
Post by bobryan on May 21, 2016 21:16:52 GMT -5
This is in response to the locked thread: christdoctrineview.proboards.com/thread/39/born-again-before-pentecost-studychristdoctrineview.proboards.com/post/77=========================================== Darrell you make a good case for the fact that as time goes by we learn more and more things about the Gospel. If Peter "making mistakes" means he is not saved - then in Gal 2 - he was still not saved. But there are two interesting events that happen in the Gospels - the first is that Moses and Elijah show up in Matt 17 "with Christ" in glorified form. The second is that at the last supper Peter argues that he would have full water immersion not just his feet washed. Christ said that he did not need to be baptized.John 6 " Have I not chosen the 12 and yet ONE of you is a devil" - There were plenty of chances for Christ to tell them they were not saved and needed full water baptism after having been baptized by John - but He never does that. Neither does he tell Moses or Elijah that they are not saved in Matt 17. In fact in 1 Peter 1 the OT saints were said to have been told about 'the sufferings of the Christ AND the glories to follow". 1 Peter 1:10-12. And of course in Gal 1:6-9 there is only "one gospel" and Gal 3:8 " that gospel was preached to Abraham" 1Cor 10:4 they " all drank from the same spiritual Rock and that Rock - was Christ"Heb 8:6-10 it is Christ that is at Mt Sinai giving the covenant Gal 1 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Gal 3:8 " the Gospel was preached to Abraham!"
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 5:45:40 GMT -5
Bob I appreciate greatly you posting this response here, and your help in looking at this topic. It is through the objections to our positions that I think we are challenged to test those positions, which drives us to the Word of God. I will post the responses formerly created.
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 5:55:07 GMT -5
I would first ask that you clarify whether you mean "we" in regards to mankind in general (correlating to the progressive nature of revelation), or if you mean "we" as in this Age in our walk with the Lord. I assume the former is what you intend. Secondly, in view is not whether Peter was "saved," as far as salvation in the Old Testament (and I include the period the Gospels take place) in that, because men were still under under the Covenant of Law. In view is whether he was a born again Christian. This is the purpose of the study, to distinguish between salvation under prior Covenants, and salvation in Christ. Of course it is necessary to examine all of the issues involved, but this is one which I think important to acknowledge. As I mention repeatedly in the study, the Old Testament Saint was as secure in his salvation as we are, however, this does not mean we equate being saved with being born again. And I am not saying in this Age men can be "saved yet not born again," because that is not the case. Salvation under the conditions of the New Covenant consist of men being enlightened to the Gospel, responding in faith, and being born again, which always coincides with the indwelling Spirit of God, which was foretold and distinguished from the Ministry of the Holy Spirit prior to the coming of the Comforter. BobRyan said: ↑ If Peter "making mistakes" means he is not saved - then in Gal 2 - he was still not saved. But Peter did not "make mistakes," he was in opposition to the Gospel itself. He did not want the Messiah he understood dying. He had no clue that Christ came to die for his sins. If one did that in this day, we would not be so forgiving, would we? And the question is...can men be "saved" today by acknowledging that Christ is coming? If that is the case...many of Israel are saved and need not acknowledge that Christ has come. See the problem there? And this is precisely the case with Peter and the disciples: they acknowledged that Messiah was coming, and in fact were shown that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, yet they did not have revealed to the Mystery of Christ. The Comforter would reveal that to them. And in Galatians 2 Peter is not in opposition to the Gospel in regards to Christ's death, but in opposition to the Gospel in regards to Gentile inclusion. He is charged, by Paul, with hypocrisy. This betrayal of the Gentiles, who he formerly fellowshipped with, is not likened unto his betrayal of Christ. Also, I think we have to keep in mind the impact of not only his heritage, but also the attitudes of "that certain" that can be seen often to distort the Gospel of Christ in their views concerning the Covenant of Law. So two issues which are irrelevant to the discussion at hand are first, we are not asking if the Old Testament Saint was "saved," and secondly we are not implying that being saved means one does not make mistakes. We can view Peter as a man of faith, and in fact see him as having a strong faith in the coming Messiah. But, when things were not working out as he expected them to, we see Peter's faith shaken to the point where physical survival overwhelmed his faith in Christ. Again, that is expected because he had not received the Spirit prior to Pentecost. Consider: Luke 22:31-34
King James Version (KJV)
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.I think we could see a "return to the Lord" in view concerning conversion here. This same conversion is spoken of here... Matthew 13:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.I would suggest that Peter stood in a similar position to the people in that he awaited the promises of God. This has nothing to do with whether he was saved according to the Old Testament standard, but neither can we see an understanding of the Gospel on Peter's part. But this is expected... 1 Corinthians 2:7-10
King James Version (KJV)
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 6:17:42 GMT -5
But there are two interesting events that happen in the Gospels - the first is that Moses and Elijah show up in Matt 17 "with Christ" in glorified form. There are a number of issues which you will have to deal with in this argument. And to name a few... 1. Nowhere in the text/s do we see that Moses and Elijah are "glorified. 2. We know no man was glorified (received the glorified body) prior to Christ, for He is the Firstborn from the Dead, and the Firstfruits from the Dead. 3. We have the testimony of Scripture which makes it clear Christ was not yet glorified, and on this one I will give a verse or two: John 7:38-40
King James Version (KJV)
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
John 12:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.
John 17:3-5
King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.Moses and Elijah were...dead. Still existing, of course, but, dead nonetheless: John 6:49
Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
John 6:58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.Christ rebuked the Sadducees for their doctrine of annihilation, yet here we see in view something that distinguishes the matter of life and death in regards to man's conditions with life and death from the Eternal Perspective. Moses and Elijah were spirits at the Mount of Transfiguration, and it is Christ Who is said to be glorified. But here we have to put on our thinking caps, because we know in view is not glorification that would take place after His death, burial, and resurrection, because that had not taken place yet. The answer lies, I believe, in understanding that the Son of God did not "empty Himself" of His glory, but...veiled that glory in the body He took upon Himself. And on the Mount of Transfiguration that glory shows through. It is for this reason the Writer of Hebrews states... Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;These points could be pursued in greater detail, but I think you get the gist of the response. The last thing I would point out on this particular point is that no-one is, at this time, glorified (in regards to the glorified body we will receive), this will not take place until the rapture. In 2 Corinthians 5 Paul makes it clear we yearn for the habitation not made with hands, so that we not be found "naked" (in spirit form when we die and without a body), and this is the state of Moses and Elijah on the Mount. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 6:35:45 GMT -5
The second is that at the last supper Peter argues that he would have full water immersion not just his feet washed. Christ said that he did not need to be baptized. This implies that water is involved in the process of salvation. This is a separate topic altogether, and I have a thread christdoctrineview.proboards.com/thread/11/reasons-reject-baptismal-regeneration that I would love to have you respond to, but for now I will just make a few points to show the irrelevancy of water baptism to the discussion at hand: 1. At the Last Supper, the Covenant of Law was still in place; 2. At the Last Supper, Christ is not referring to a water baptism, but speaks of the cleansing accomplished through the Word of God. The purpose of His washing of their feet was an example of servitude with the simple point that He, Christ, as their Lord, was washing their feet, that they too should serve one another; 3. We see no less than four times in Scripture that water baptism is denied as the necessary Baptism, where the point is made, beginning with John the Baptist, "I indeed baptize you with water, but He that cometh after me will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire (and this is dealt with in the study). The primary point being that men were in need of being baptized with the Holy Ghost, not with water; 4. Peter does not ask for "full water immersion," but we read "Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Those are just a few points to consider, and while I know some view Baptismal Regeneration as a valid doctrine and practice, the evidence of Scripture makes it clear that men were in need of being Baptized with the Holy Ghost, which is a spiritual process Christ taught cannot be seen by the eye... John 3:7-8
King James Version (KJV)
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.While we do see water baptism commanded by the Lord in the Great Commission, and see a few instances where it appears baptism precedes the receiving of the Holy Ghost, we have to follow a consistent testimony of Scripture concerning baptism, and identify its intended purpose. Peter states... Acts 2:38
King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost....which some take to mean Peter is saying repentance is granted if they are baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. But, if we look at John's Baptism, we see that his baptism signified men had already repented, which is why, when certain men came to him to be baptized (Pharisees, Sadducees, and others among the Jews)...he refused to baptize them, but rebuked them instead. The reason is obvious, their lives did not evidence repentance, thus he called them a "brood of vipers." He called for them to "bring forth fruit meet for repentance," or to put it in an easier to understand form, "Prove it!" We are baptized in the Name of Christ for, or better, because of repentance, because Christian Baptism is meant to signify our identification with Christ, which does not have the same significance to all Christians in this way: we here in America do not usually fear for our lives or fear of being cast out of fellowship with our families and friends because we give public profession of our faith in Christ. Not so for those in the first century, particularly Jews who in all likelihood would be shunned by the established culture (Judaism). And we can see, even in the Church, a division of sorts between Jews and Gentiles, to the point where a decree was made concerning Gentiles. As you mentioned Peter in Galatians 2, Bob, we see the impact of the heritage of the Jew. Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles, because of his fear for what other Jews would think. But even today, profession of Christ, in some countries...can lead to death. I saw statistics a week or two where by April...well over 300 Christians have been murdered worldwide. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 6:57:08 GMT -5
John 6 "Have I not chosen the 12 and yet ONE of you is a devil" - There were plenty of chances for Christ to tell them they were not saved and needed full water baptism after having been baptized by John - but He never does that. First, I have to ask, do you really see the Baptism with John as instrumental to their "salvation?" That is, after all, the baptism they had received. We can see here... Acts 19
King James Version (KJV)
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied....that being baptized with John has nothing to do with believing on Christ and receiving the Holy Ghost. And while the sequence here indicates water baptism precedes the reception of the Holy Spirit, again we have to follow a consistent pattern in the New Testament, where we do not see an importance of baptism imposed in the salvation experience. The "washing" associated with salvation is the washing of regeneration, which is the supernatural work of God that cannot be seen with the human eye, as baptism can be. The promise of the Father, in regards to cleansing, is always associated with the Word of God, not physical water, and not, as Peter states...the putting away of the filth of the flesh (or, a physical washing). Consider the book of Romans, and ask yourself, if water baptism is so important, why Paul only mentions it once? Romans 6:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?And just to swing things back to the topic, what exactly does it mean to be "baptized into Christ?" Does it mean water baptism? Or does it mean what we see taught consistently throughout the New Testament, which is being immersed into God, receiving the cleansing promised by God to Israel in Prophecy? Secondly, and again, we do not see Peter asking for water baptism, but that Christ would wash his hands and head as well. While we can see the "washing" Christ performs as consistent with "washings," or "baptisms," under the Law, we ourselves do not have a Doctrine of "Baptisms" (plural), but there is one Baptism: Ephesians 4King James Version (KJV) 1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.Does the context suggest water baptism is in view, seeing that unity in the Spirit is central to his point? There is one Body, the Church, and One Spirit. One Lord, one faith, one Baptism. We see this here as well... 1 Corinthians 12:12-13
King James Version (KJV)
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.Again, what is more relevant to the supernatural process of New Birth, water baptism, or being Baptized with the Holy Ghost? Christ is the Baptizer, and He baptizes with the Spirit, never water. Only He can perform this baptism, and men can only replicate, with physical means (water baptism), the supernatural process those who are baptized in the Name of Christ profess has taken place. And just as John rejected those whose lives did not evidence repentance, even so, for those seeking to undergo Christian Baptism, there must be a reality to the profession of faith, else the baptism is meaningless. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 7:08:04 GMT -5
Neither does he tell Moses or Elijah that they are not saved in Matt 17. That is an argument from silence, lol. And that is one of the goals of the study, to look at what is assumed in regards to men concerning salvation under previous economies of the Old Testament (and again including the period of Christ's Ministry, as He was born under the Law and ministered within the framework of the Law). We have to balance this event with what is clearly stated elsewhere, and we can say without question that Moses and Elijah were not in glorified form, any more than Samuel was when he is supposedly called up (which I have mixed feelings about, seeing that, while this is within a Pre-Cross and Pre-Pentecost framework, I have my doubts concerning witches having the pwoer to call up the spirits of the dead, particularly a man such as Samuel, a Prophet of God. I think it possible this was not Samuel, but a demon, though I am not dogmatic and don't think we have enough to be dogmatic. We do see Moses and Elijah reappear on earth, but, the Lord Himself is involved in this appearance, rather than a King the Spirit of the Lord had departed from, and a witch). In fact in 1 Peter 1 the OT saints were said to have been told about 'the sufferings of the Christ AND the glories to follow". 1 Peter 1:10-12. This is true, and we see that testimony in passages such as Isaiah 53, however, they were not made to understand those suffering, and knew that they ministered to a future generation: 1 Peter 1:10-12
King James Version (KJV)
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."The Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven" is a reference to the Comforter Himself. We see the unity of God the Son, Father, and Holy Ghost in the reference to the "Spirit of Christ" ministering in the Old Testament Prophets, but, that does not negate the basic truth that the Incarnation took place many years after those prophecies. They understood that it was prophecy, and that is what Peter testifies of here. He is not saying that the Prophets understood prophecies such as Isaiah 53 in a context as we do, having had the Gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to us by the Comforter (Who has a distinct ministry of glorifying Christ in this Age). What is revealed to them, Peter states, is that they ministered those things to "us." This is dealt with in the second installment of the study, which deals with the Mystery of Christ. What we would have to do, in order to give understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Old Testament Saints and Prophets, is deny the numerous teachings which make it clear that it was not revealed in prior ages: Romans 16:24-26
King James Version (KJV)
24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
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:
Colossians 1:24-26
King James Version (KJV)
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:So we can't possibly make Peter to be saying that the Prophets had an understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, else we negate Paul's teaching. But, is we understand the progressive nature of revelation, we understand that while the Gospel of Christ is truly given in the Old Testament, understanding awaited the coming of the Comforter, Who has a specific ministry of convicting men of sin, righteousness, and judgment, all in a New Covenant context utilizing the revelation distinct to this Age. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 7:10:55 GMT -5
And of course in Gal 1:6-9 there is only "one gospel" and Gal 3:8 "that gospel was preached to Abraham" Context, brother, context. Paul speaks in a context that is post-Cross and post-Pentecost. There is but one Gospel, to be sure, but, that is specific to this Age. We see another Gospel in the Gospels themselves, which is the Gospel of the Kingdom. Why we would distinguish this Gospel from the Gospel of Christ has two primary reasons: 1. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery not revealed in prior Ages. That is simply a fact that is incontrovertible. 2. We see the disciples sent out to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, yet...they are not sent out to the world: Matthew 10:5-7
King James Version (KJV)
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.Consider whether the "Gospel of the Kingdom" is the "same" as Gospel of Christ. Ultimately the two are related, but, the Gospel of the Kingdom pertains primarily to the manner of revelation provided under previous Ages, primarily the Age of (the Covenant of) Law. Here we see the disciples commanded not to go to Gentiles or Samaritans, and the reason is simple...because the Messiah pertained to the "children," that is, those of Israel, to whom the promises pertained. We see in the Mystery of the Gospel that Gentile Inclusion is also something, while foretold, was not revealed until this Age (which is the context of Colossians 1). Christ makes it clear His Ministry was specific to Israel here: Matthew 15:23-24
King James Version (KJV)
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.This would be confusing unless we understood the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ, whereby we understand that it would not be until the Promised Spirit is sent that the Gospel of Christ would be revealed to the world, again...through the Ministry of the Comforter. And again, not one of the disciples show understanding of the Gospel, which was also told them, but was not understood in a New Covenant context, because they were not yet Baptized with the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:4-5): Matthew 16:20-23
King James Version (KJV)
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
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.Clearly the Gospel of Christ is not being revealed to them, and they are forbidden to tell men that which had been revealed, which was not that He would die for their sins and they understood that, but only that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 7:18:02 GMT -5
And of course in Gal 1:6-9 there is only "one gospel" and Gal 3:8 "that gospel was preached to Abraham" Galatians 3:8
King James Version (KJV)
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.This does not negate that the Gospel was a mystery in Abraham's day. 1Cor 10:4 they "all drank from the same spiritual Rock and that Rock - was Christ" Now consider their baptism: 1 Corinthians 10
King James Version (KJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.Christ teaches in John 6 that the provision given the Children of Israel is not the Provision of the True Bread which came down from Heaven. They were baptized into Moses, not Christ. The writer of Hebrews also makes it clear that they "received the Gospel, but, it did not profit them: Hebrews 4
King James Version (KJV)
1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.So again we cannot negate the fact that the Gospel of Christ was not revealed, which means that while the Gospel of Christ is seen in the promise made to Abraham, and given to the Children of Israel, we do not equate that with the revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ. If we back up to Hebrews 3 we see that they did not enter into the physical rest provided in that day (the promised land of the Abrahamic Covenant) because they were unbelievers without faith in the "Gospel" they heard. The Gospel preached to Abraham was limited, and nothing told him specifically that Christ would die for his sins. He was justified for believing what was revealed to Him. We see here (if we go on in Galatians 3)... Galatians 3:14-16
King James Version (KJV)
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.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.First I would point out that while we (in this Age with the revelation provided by the Spirit of God) do understand the Gospel of Christ in this, they did not. Paul makes this point in addressing the singular Seed as opposed to the plurality understood by Israel. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we see that these all died in faith, being justified, but without receiving the promises made unto them in the veiled Gospel they did receive: Hebrews 11:13
King James Version (KJV)
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.They understood the promises of God in physical terms, which is why Peter was in opposition to the Gospel of Christ. They expected a physical Kingdom, because a physical Kingdom was, and still is...promised. But they could not understand that which was not revealed to them, which distinguishes the difference between the Kingdom Gospel preached exclusively to Israel during Christ's earthly ministry, and the Gospel of Christ as revealed in this Age. And this is one reason why understanding the progressive nature of revelation itself helps us to place the understanding of the Old Testament Saint in a proper context, within the framework of the revelation available to them. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 7:31:22 GMT -5
Heb 8:6-10 it is Christ that is at Mt Sinai giving the covenant. I would agree, Bob, because we both know that God is One (though I would disagree it was "Christ," because Christ had not yet come. It is more proper, I believe, to understand that it was the Son of God, though from the perspective of the Writer Who identifies Him as Christ. Christ, the promised Messiah, has a point in time when He came. We know it was the Person of the Son, but technically He is not the Messiah in physical terms until the Incarnation. The point being, that the Body God would take up residence in was not in existence at that time, but began when it was created in the womb of Mary). However, consider first that while we do not separate God into three Gods to the point we could say "It was not the Father or the Spirit Who establishes the Covenant," because they did, we see Them equated in numerous places, what we dogmatically state is that what was given was... ...the Covenant of Law. And we do not equate that with the New Covenant. Secondly, we are told specifically that we, that is, you and I as New Covenant born again believers...have not come to that mount (Covenant): Hebrews 12:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
Hebrews 12:22-24
King James Version (KJV)
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.The point being that though the Old Testament Saints who were under the Covenant of Law had received the Gospel, the Writer here denies the possibility that we have come to God through that Covenant. Note above "the Church of the Firstborn" distinguished from "just men made perfect." If you go back to Chapter 11, note again that they (the faithful of the Old Testament) were just, but they were not made perfect without us. Perfection, or, completion, awaited several issues to be resolved for the Old Testament Saints which were not made complete through the Law, though we see the Gospel of Christ at every turn within the Law. Just as God did not mean to limit His promises to Abraham to that which He revealed to Abraham, neither did He intend to limit His promises to Israel by the revelation provided to them. The important thing to remember is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, though foretold and given to men prior to this Age...was not revealed to them in those Ages. It was a mystery until the Coming of the Comforter. We have not come to the Mount which had Moses as a mediator between God and men, but to Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant. The reference to Abel is, I believe, a reference to the vicarious deaths that stood as the means of remission for sin for men, beginning even in the Garden, until Christ offered up Himself for the remission of sins which were not given in completion through those sacrifices. 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.It was through the blood (death) of Christ that the Old Testament Saint was made perfect (complete) in regards to remission of sins. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins, nor was eternal redemption bestowed through those sacrifices. Only the Sacrifice of Christ could, and did...do that. The transgressions that were under the Law were also redeemed through His death, which makes the point that the Old Testament Saint died still in need of Christ. Again, thanks for the participation, this helps me to better structure the study and look at the objections that arise for those that believe men were born again according to New Covenant standards and conditions. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 7:32:36 GMT -5
And I will, when I get opportunity, give more attention to Galatians 1:6-9.
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by bobryan on May 22, 2016 14:05:30 GMT -5
But there are two interesting events that happen in the Gospels - the first is that Moses and Elijah show up in Matt 17 "with Christ" in glorified form. There are a number of issues which you will have to deal with in this argument. And to name a few... 1. Nowhere in the text/s do we see that Moses and Elijah are "glorified. First I thank you for agreeing that any time prior to the cross is "Old Testament" dispensation. Would you admit that finding that they are in fact appearing "in glory with Christ" -- certainly matters? Luke 9 28 Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him. 33 And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not realizing what he was saying
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 16:23:08 GMT -5
There are a number of issues which you will have to deal with in this argument. And to name a few... 1. Nowhere in the text/s do we see that Moses and Elijah are "glorified. First I thank you for agreeing that any time prior to the cross is "Old Testament" dispensation. Believe it or not, many reject this. Placing the events of the Lord's ministry in "the Old Testament" doesn't make sense to them. But it was still the Age of Law. Would you admit that finding that they are in fact appearing "in glory with Christ" -- certainly matters? Sure, but the point is the context is not dealing with glorification in a context of resurrection. That is the point I was making. Consider: John 7:38-39
King James Version (KJV)
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)Now the implication I see in your point is that Moses and Elijah are already glorified (in the sense of resurrection), which I don't see as possible because not even the Lord will be glorified in that sense until the Resurrection. Luke 9 28 Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him. 33 And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not realizing what he was saying I can only ask that you clarify that you view Moses and Elijah as being glorified, meaning they are in resurrection bodies prior to the Cross and Pentecost. If so, that would make whether they were born again a moot point, lol. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 16:29:42 GMT -5
By the way, forgot to tell you that there is also a thread of the same name that was created for the purpose of discussing the title of the study, which is locked so I can keep it separate. But this thread is fine, also, and that is one of the reasons I am seeking critics, because it's only through examining the objections presented that I can challenge my own views. I will respond to the proof-text offered and in regards to there being only one Gospel. This is true, when we speak about the True Gospel, but, I think we also have to consider the progressive nature of revelation in order to distinguish between that which was revealed to men in prior Ages, and what was revealed by the Spirit when He was sent, following Christ's return to Heaven.
And that brings up a question I would like to pose to you: do you distinguish between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the "Gospel of the Kingdom?" In other words, when the disciples were sent forth, were they preaching Christ crucified as the Apostles did after Pentecost?
I do see a distinction, and your interaction so far has convinced me the next installment in the study will deal with that issue. I guess I will see how things go in looking at Galatians 1:9-6.
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 22, 2016 17:32:39 GMT -5
This is a response to the title of the OP in regards to the focus of the discussion, "Were men born again before Pentecost?"
New Birth before the Cross under the One Gospel of Gal 1:6-9
Probably the first thing that stands out to me when I view this in the context of the discussion is this: whether men were born again before Pentecost or not doesn't change the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I very much affirm the Gospel of Christ, summed up by Paul here...
1 Corinthians 15
King James Version (KJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
While we recognize that the Gospel of Christ is a little more detailed than His death, burial, and Resurrection, I think it safe to say that Paul defines it sufficiently to point out the central meaning of the Gospel of Christ. When Paul preached, he preached Christ crucified, an example we all should follow. The point being we do not create "another Gospel" which is not a Gospel because we take either view, that men were or were not born again before Pentecost.
Secondly, we recognize the context the proof-text is found, which centers on the corruption taking place among the Galatians in regards to the Judaizers, who were teaching adherence to the Law for righteousness. I think Paul makes his point well in asking them...
Galatians 3
King James Version (KJV)
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
He also makes the statement...
Galatians 2:20-21
King James Version (KJV)
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
The point here would be that I do not see grounds for considering the view that men were not born again before Pentecost as constructing another means of salvation or righteousness.
Now let's look at the proof-text:
Galatians 1:6-9
King James Version (KJV)
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
The position that men were not born again before Pentecost does not "remove" people from the Grace of Christ to another gospel, it simply recognizes some simple truths concerning the Old Testament Saints. It does not pervert the Gospel, and the only way to impose such an intent is to take the position that the Old Testament Saint received the promises bestowed when the New Covenant was established. A few of the promises they did not receive, which are elements of salvation in Christ (which if a man does not have we would not consider to be a born again believer) would be...
1. The Eternal Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, promised by God in the Old Testament, and Christ in the Gospels (John 14:16, Ephesians 1:14, 4:30);
2. Eternal Redemption (Hebrews 9:12,15);
3. Remission of sins (Hebrews 9:15, 10:14);
4. Revelation of the Gospel Mystery (Romans 16:25-26, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:26-27);
5. Reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-19);
6. Our Great High Priest (Hebrews 9:11-12);
7. The Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:22-24).
All of these issues have been dealt with in the study, and from my own perspective, are incontrovertible Bible truths that should not be ignored.
So the point here would be that there is only One Gospel concerning salvation, and that Gospel has been consistent throughout Biblical History, beginning in Genesis 3:15. However, we do not equate the understanding of the men who received that revelation with the revelation provided to us in this Age by the Spirit Himself, and recorded in the New Testament Epistles.
While it is commonplace for people to view Redemption in Christ to have taken place prior to the Cross, a "salvation on credit," as it is commonly defined, the fact is...Scripture does not teach that. In fact it teaches that only the Blood of Christ, that is, His Sacrifice...
...can take away sins.
And not only does it make the believer complete in regards to remission of sins, it does so...forever.
This is the clearest statement of Eternal Security in the entire Bible (in my view):
Hebrews 10:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
The context centers on remission of sins, and the perfection spoken of here is contrasted with the Law itself:
Hebrews 10:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He came to save those who had no means to escape the separation they were born into. John the Baptist declared, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world."
Of course, while awaiting execution in prison, John would send two of his disciples to inquire this...
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?
And let's not forget the Lord distinguishing between the Old Testament Saint and the New Covenant believer...
Matthew 11:10-11
King James Version (KJV)
10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Again, I would not see the focal issue, "Were men born again before Pentecost" as relevant to the proof-text of the OP. It would have to be shown that it perverts the Gospel, to which I would suggest that in fact it distinguishes more clearly for the believer the magnitude of the Work of Christ.
I think one of the primary issues many will have is their preconceived notions about salvation are threatened. "What do you mean...Peter wasn't a born again Christian?!"
And I have tried, in the study, to make it very clear, Peter, the disciples, and the Old Testament Saints were men of faith. But, what they lacked was the revelation which would have kept Peter from trying to stop the one event in man's History by which men might be redeemed on an eternal basis. The Old Testament Prophets were used of God to convey that which He deemed necessary for men to know. We see the establishment of the Law as a schoolteacher to lead men to Christ, and we can take a look at why the Covenant of Law was established:
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.
We see the Law was added because of transgression, and we see it was never meant to outlast the coming of the Seed...Christ. Do we see the Gospel in the Law? We do. As one is fond of saying often, "You can't have the Good News without having the bad news as well." The Law speaks of Christ often, one of those being seen in the veil before the Holy of Holies. The Writer of Hebrews clarifes entrance to God, something else the Old Testament Saint did not have:
Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Entrance to God is through Christ alone, and it is reiterated consistently throughout the entirety of the New Testament that we can come to God through Christ alone, and the basis for our entrance to God is through His flesh. That is, His death in our place for our sins.
Doesn't detract from the fact that the Old Testament Saints were men and women of faith, being obedient to the First Principles of Christ given them in the Hebrew Scriptures. But, while we have an entire chapter devoted to making that point, let's not ignore something else the Writer makes clear:
Hebrews 11:13
King James Version (KJV)
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 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
What was that better thing God had for us? Well, He tells us "Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor has it entered the heart of men the things God has prepared for them that love Him," and the Writer of Hebrews speaks of those things as well:
Hebrews 10:1
King James Version (KJV)
10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
As he states in Chapter Eleven, they did not receive the promise/s, and they were not made perfect (complete). That "good thing," and the "good things" men could not even imagine was the salvation Christ would bring, and what would be accomplished through His Work. That was the promise of God, and there is one thing for certain, until a promise is fulfilled...
...we cannot impose a fulfillment. It is a promise still until fulfilled, and we can say with all certainty Christ fulfilled the Law.
God bless.
|
|