Featured The New Birth is a Pre-Pentecost Reality

I will have to come back to your other posts, my friend, I am out of time.

I appreciate the responses.


God bless.

 

Without the new birth we are dead in trespasses and sins.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

On what basis does Jesus then say:

Mark 12
26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

HankD

 

The Lord counters the error of the Sadducee who believed that when men died they ceased to exist, whereas the Lord points out that they had not ceased to exist, but their spirits lived on. In view is the Resurrection of the Dead, regeneration is not relevant. The former takes place after physical death, the latter takes place while one is still alive. The glorification of the Church in the Rapture was, like the Gospel of Christ, a mystery until later revealed. The division between those that embraced the resurrection of the dead and those that did not is put to rest in the Lord's address of the Sadducees' error.


God bless.

 

Let's talk about the Baptism with the Spirit.


Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


Christ is the Baptizer, the two mediums Spirit and fire, which are in reference to salvation (gathered into His garner) and eternal judgment (burned up with unquenchable fire).

Water baptism is irrelevant, as seen in the case of the wandering disciples of John. While Christian Baptism is commanded, so too is teaching and making disciples. Nobody suggests that these other commands are necessary for salvation, but water baptism is, by some, construed as necessary, and by some the time of regeneration, since it is seen often in conjunction with the salvation experience (such as John's disciples).

Now where is it that my understanding of the Baptism with Holy Spirit is in error?

Could you point out the texts which find me guilty of this?

I would ask if you take the view that the Church began at Pentecost, or, if you feel the "Church" includes those of faith prior to the Cross and Pentecost. Salvation in Christ hinges on belief in Christ's death in the sinner's stead, though some believe that the limited understanding of the Old Testament Saint counts. I would think the Disciples' lack of understanding would be enough to convince that they did not understand Christ's Ministry as Savior, but that their expectation was temporal only.

Consider:


John 16:28-32

King James Version (KJV)

28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


It doesn't seem to be a ringing endorsement of the disciples' claim to belief.

At this point, the disciples still do not understand the reason for the Lord's coming. This is punctuated by the disciples scattering, their defection from the Lord, at which time He is abandoned by all but the Father.

Not so. Those that would hear the Gospel preached on the Day of Pentecost would then be baptized in the Name of Christ.

Secondly, where exactly do we see the disciples of Christ...baptized in the Name of Christ? There is no record of that.

Third, we see those baptized of John baptized in the Name of Christ and receiving the Spirit which they had never heard of:


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 is irrelevant. John's baptism was not a baptism in the name of Christ. It was a baptism of repentance, much like Christian baptism, but as we see in Acts 19 those disciples were baptized in association with John, not the Lord. That is the distinction between Christian Baptism and all others, including John's.

While it might be said those hearing the Lord's statement in Acts 1 had been baptized by John it is, I suggest, irrelevant to the Baptism in the Name of Christ, the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and the baptism with fire (for those refusing to repent and believe on Christ).

While I am primarily of a position that might be called to at least some extent cessasionist, the fact is that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit was not restricted to the Day of Pentecost, but is the beginning of what was promised in the Old Testament, testified of by John, and taught by Christ. The Baptism with the Spirit of God is precisely the indwelling that takes place when one is saved. The New Birth is effected by the indwelling of God, for as God stated, "I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and keep my judgments."

The error I see many make is to reverse the indwelling with the filling, which is a ministry God has employed from the beginning, empowering those chosen for offices such as Prophet, Priest, and King.

We see the distinction in Acts 1:


Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


They would be witnesses once Baptized with the Spirit, empowered by God for the ministry He had for them, which is evidenced by the events of Pentecost.

That same process has been taking place for nearly two thousand years now. God is still indwelling those He saves, as well as empowering them for ministry.

Pentecost was a central location where the Coming of the Comforter would make an impact, which is precisely what happened. But...it was not to stop there:


Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)


8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Obviously the original disciples are not still around, thus we understand that the witnesses that reached to the uttermost parts of the world were those that followed them.

When John preached the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire, he was not addressing the disciples, but all those that came to him professing repentance. He rebukes the Pharisees (and other Jews) because apparently their works belied the profession of repentance they made when they sought to be baptized of Him.

We see in Acts that the same process of believing, repenting, and being baptized in the Name of Christ occurs not just in Jerusalem, but in numerous places. Samaria is one, the wilderness another.

This contradicts the unity of the House of God which is the Church, the Body of Christ. We are the Temple, and that Temple is one, though we be many members.


God bless.

 

I would agree this is the root of the problem, though not the argument, lol.

God said "In the day that ye eat of it you will die," and I believe they did die...spiritually.

I agree with most of what you say here.

Consider that Man, Adam, was in direct relationship with God within the provision of life that God had bestowed. When he sinned, he was thrust out of that direct relationship and the provision was removed. Circumstances changed for dam, as well as his offspring. We see in the first covering of sin, being clothed with the skins of animals, the first mention of substitutionary death. In other words, from the very beginning, though man was out of relationship with God directly, God, in His mercy, made provision so that rather than being put to death, another death made atonement. The second mention is Abel, who brings of his flock, the fat being mentioned, which implies what he brought had been put to death.

The point being, in answer to a later question, is that there are two entirely different aspects involved, both spiritual and physical (physical death a result of the loss of relationship with God), and while the one is lost (spiritual), God's mercy still impacts the physical, because the fact is that if it were not for the grace and mercy of God...men would be put to death the first time they sinned. But the two, though interrelated, must be distinguished from each other. Old Testament Saints were provided a means of atonement which did not make the "comer thereunto perfect," and I cannot stress enough the importance of the Writer of Hebrews' doctrine in regards to completion. All Old Testament Saints benefitted from God's provision which brought about atonement, but...it was not until The Sacrifice had been offered that atonement was made complete.

Remission of sins, prior to Christ...was incomplete. That is why they had to be offered again and again, often for the same sins. But, the offering of Christ was sufficient, in regards to atonement, to make complete remission of sins.

And we go back to the promises of God in Christ:


Jeremiah 31:31-34

King James Version (KJV)


31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


The Writer of Hebrews makes it very clear that the provision for remission of sins was not a permanent atonement, and this is contrasted with the Sacrifice of Christ:


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

1 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.


When Adam's sin was covered by those skins, and when Abel offered up a sacrifice from his flock (which would be written in the Covenant of Law), the sins these offering were presented for...were not taken away. The sinner was not cleansed according to the promise of God in regards to the New Covenant. But by the indwelling of God we are cleansed of sin, though perhaps not instantaneously. But more importantly, the Offering of Christ, literally standing in the place of our own death...completely satisfies the penalty we were born under.

We are born out of relationship with God, which relationship was lost in Adam, and we are reconciled to God through the Sacrifice of Christ, which removes the penalty of sin and allows God to bring us back into relationship with Himself.

This does not mean that men like Noah and Abraham had no relationship with God, but, they did not have the relationship Christ provided through His death. If that had been possible, then Christ need not have died. But He did have to die that man's sin be dealt with in finality. Thus can God say "I will no more remember their sins," and the Writer of Hebrews can state...


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


"Perfection" has "completion in view, the writer having made the case that the contrasted offerings, the offering of the Law, could not take away sins in completion, however, the Offering of Christ could and did. In regards to sin the born again believer has been, in the eternal sense, forgiven his/her sin and there will never be another offering made to satisfy that debt.


Continued...

 

This is kind of an area where I think we have to express a little humility. We see in the Garden that there was a Tree of Life which has ascribed to it the potential for sustaining physical life. Adam was cast out of the Garden removing his access to it, which might imply that this tree could sustain life. However, we cannot, I feel, be dogmatic that, for example, Adam had fallen off a cliff that he would not have died. I think physical death was a potential for Adam, but that physical death was unlikely due to the provision God had given in the Garden itself. Consider that Adam came into the very presence of God, which we keep in mind was God on the earth, rather than God in Heaven and Adam coming into God's presence in His Eternal Glory. We see similar circumstances with Abraham on the Plains of Mamre, where God comes physically into Abraham's presence, has His feet washed, and is served a meal.

When Adam sinned, that relationship was lost and Adam lost the provision afforded him. But again we distinguish between the physical and the spiritual, and just in my view, the indwelling presence of God, as it is now under New Covenant conditions, is what was lost "in that day." Just as the Lord distinguished between the Spirit of God being with, and being in the disciples...


John 14:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

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

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


...even so the Lord did not abandon man entirely, but still ministered in and through him.

But, the restoration of direct relationship through indwelling awaited the New Covenant.

Consider this familiar passage again:


Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

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

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


We can take this to mean (1) that the Holy Spirit renews the man, or (2) that the renewal is the direct relationship with God restored.

Both are true, because the Spirit certainly renews in regeneration, however, that is already mentioned in "washing of regeneration," which can be seen in the promise of God here:


Ezekiel 36:22-27

King James Version (KJV)

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.



The green represents the cleansing and renewal of our selves, the blue representing the indwelling.

Absolutely.

Put up your garden tools my friend, I think we are on the same page here.

Spiritual death is what every man is born into. It is the result of the lack of relationship with God, which the Lord testifies is the condition of every one that does not believe on Him, and specifically...in His death and the role His death plays in regards to man's condition:

Consider again a very familiar passage:


John 6

King James Version (KJV)


45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.


Reference to the promise of God. In order for men to believe on Christ He must have first come. They must have first heard, then they come unto Him. No man "came unto Christ" prior to Christ's coming, thus leaving the promise unfulfilled.


46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

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

48 I am that bread of life.


Again I ask who among those who sat under Christ's teaching and preaching actually "believed on Him?" Not one. Because the emphasis in this passage is going to be believing in His death which is what is meant by eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood.

Again, we see a present tense here, but Christ having not died at this point precludes anyone actually fulfilling belief in His death. Again, Peter exemplifies opposition to the very Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now this next statement is very important in our present examination of the distinction between physical life and spiritual life:


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


The Jews argued with Christ that Moses gave them manna, and we both know that the manna provided only physical life, as most in the wilderness would fail to come into the physical rest God would provide for Israel.

The Lord states that the fathers...are...dead. The physical is in view, and what He is doing here is contrasting the provision given Israel in the Wilderness with the Provision being bestowed through Christ, which provision cannot be imposed into the Old Testament, or we would have to have a revision to the Lord's words here to "Well, most of your fathers are dead.

but He doesn't do that. In no uncertain terms He contrasts the life provided through Himself with the physical provision in the Wilderness. Here the Jews are relying on their heritage for righteousness and acceptance with God, Christ makes it clear that prior to His coming...all died.

Here is the contrast:


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


Again we see a timeline established: unending life begins first with the Son of God coming. He is the True Bread (provision for life) in contrast with the physical provision (manna).



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


The provision for eternal life is in fact His flesh, or, in other words...His death on the Cross. Manna could not provide eternal life, the historical account, as well as later commentary (such as that written by the Writer of Hebrews), shows that in the Old Testament God was dealing with man on a physical level.

Now this next statement is very important:


52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


The great truth concerning salvation is right here: except we eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood...we have no life in us.

Which of the Old Testament Saints believed in the death of Christ?

We can't even find a disciples prior to Pentecost who does...

John 6 offers probably the most compelling treatment concerning what it means to believe and what the focus of that belief is. The Lord makes it clear that eternal life is through Himself, and that those that do not believe upon Him...

...have no life.

Again, the Lord contrasts the purely physical and temporal understanding of the Jews with that which is eternal and spiritual.

And again, we cannot impose this provision for life into the Old Testament, it just isn't there.

That does not mean that those of faith were not "saved," it just means that as the writer of Hebrews makes clear, they still had to await perfection, or, completion in regards to redemption. Eternally speaking, redemption is through Christ alone. His death was necessary to bring about the condition by which God could reconcile the world unto Himself.


Continued...

 

I agree for the most part, though not sure I would say "merely," as separation from God, the condition all are born into (without life), is the focal point of man's dilemma.

I agree completely, and would just suggest to you this: God is the source of Eternal Life, and we obtain eternal life through the indwelling of God.

In other words, when the Lord indwells those that are born again, that is why we have eternal life. That is an eternal relationship established at salvation.

Eternal life is not a substance poured into those who believe, but is the result of the indwelling of He Who is Eternal.

That is what Adam lost. That is what the Second Adam restores.

Basically, yes. Although "inheritance" implies the possession of something, whereas we are born lacking that which was lost.

Agree completely.

And again we see that the restoration of that relationship is markedly different under New Covenant conditions, and is that which was promised of God in the Old Testament, realized in full on the Day of Pentecost.

It is actually one of my favorite studies. It is just my belief that if we understand the ramification of the significant difference between the relationships we see through the history of the Bible, it actually clears quite a few dilemmas that rage in controversy in the Body of Christ.

For example, the Calvinist/Arminian debate is quite simply answered in the fact that it is the Ministry of the Comforter by which men are enlightened to understand and believe the Gospel. One error I think people make in this controversy is to suppose that belief must result in regeneration, but I would suggest to you that men can believe yet still spurn the ministry of the Comforter. Another would be the actions of the disciples: In John 15 the Lord says "Abide in me," yet just hours later every disciples is scattered, and Peter vehemently denying he even knows the Lord.

Here is something for you to think about: during the Lord's Ministry, can we say that it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached? I would suggest it was not, but that it was a specific ministry of the Kingdom, which relates to Israel on a National basis.

Consider:


Matthew 10:5-6

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.



Matthew 15:24

King James Version (KJV)

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.



How do we reconcile this? The Lord restrained ministry to the Gentiles?

The obvious answer lies in subsequent teachings of Paul, where we are made to understand the Gospel of Christ was a mystery, whereas in the Lord's ministry we see the Lord fulfilling His role as Messiah to Israel. The Gospel was spoken of, but...it was not made known to men until after His death, burial, and resurrection.

But back to the point: for me, much that used to be puzzling is cleared up in understanding just how significant Christ's Ministry both as Messiah to Israel and Savior of the World were, and that the Gospel of Christ clarifies the Redemptive Plan of God from the beginning, though it was revealed progressively.

The Old Testament is primarily temporal and physical. Ezekiel 18, for example, is abused by some to teach eternal death when in view is a temporal and physical context. The Wilderness is used in Hebrews to contrast the physical nature of the Old Testament as contrasted with the eternal nature of the Rest provided in Christ. Over and over the Writer (hence the Holy Spirit) contrasts the two Covenants, the New Covenant being far superior on every point.


God bless.

 

We can find a number of statements spoken in present tense which still have a future application. Many of the parables concerning the Kingdom which will come (the physical Kingdom, Millennial) example this. The coming of Christ Himself has more than one application, as there remains a Second Coming.

In regards to Nicodemus, the argument that the New Birth must have been possible at that time because the Lord expected that Nicodemus would know what He meant (as opposed to Nicodemus' seeming erroneous conclusion) is easily settled in understanding that what the Lord expected a/the teacher of Israel to understand is the promise of the New Birth found in the Scriptures.

In other words, just as we can look at the promises of God and see that there was a promise of being made new, even so Nicodemus should have immediately had a passage such as Ezekiel 36:22-27 come to mind, rather than mistaking this as a physical event.

Even if Nicodemus had imposed a physical connotation to the Lord's statement, it would not have been a physical birth from the womb, but a spiritual effort of God as seen in Ezekiel 37, where physically dead carcasses that are mere bone are resurrected, their flesh restored and life anew beginning.

The rebuke of Nicodemus was justified in the sense that Nicodemus chose the absolute last meaning the Lord's statement might have referred to.

This is a familiar argument of those that impose regeneration into the Old Testament, but it is equally reasonable that the rebuke was for being ridiculous, lol.

No-one, I mean no-one, who is a serious student of Scripture would suggest a person re-entering the womb and being "born again." Now it has been suggested by some that Nicodemus' statement was not literally referring to entering the womb again, was simply euphemistic for "starting over." In other words, what Nicodemus was asking was "Shall a man who is already established in religion cast all of that off and begin again?"

While we may debate what Nicodemus actually meant, what we can say for certain is that just because the Lord refers to the promises of God that does not mean that this justifies the argument that the New Birth was an available process in that time.

A good example of present tense statement having a future application is found in John 15:


John 15

King James Version (KJV)


4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.


This command is given to the disciples, yet the truth is...not one of them "abided" in Christ. All were scattered, all forsook Him:


John 16:30-32

King James Version (KJV)

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


The disciples were powerless to, at that time, abide in Christ. We see the future aspect of the Lord's teaching in John 14-16, yet our loss of salvation brothers erroneously use John 15 to teach loss of salvation. If that is the case, then all of the disciples were lost through their abandonment of the Lord at such a crucial time. "Well, I only denied the Lord when He was crucified, but now I believe."

It will not be until some fifty days later that the disciples will be Baptized with the Holy Spirit, then empowered to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their abandonment was foretold and inevitable, because until the rest of Christ's teaching in this passage comes to pass, that is, the Comforter is sent to convict the world (including the disciples) of sin, righteousness, and judgment, that the disciples understanding would be opened to the truth of that which Christ accomplished on the Cross, and provided through His Resurrection.

While Nicodemus would not be expected to understand the Gospel of Christ and the events that would follow (primarily the coming of the Comforter and the Ministry He would begin after Christ's Ascension), what he should have understood, better, at least, was the promise of God given to Israel in the Old Testament.


God bless.

 

Again this is in reference to bodily resurrection (which occurs after one dies physically (which is all they knew at that time, they had not had the Mystery of the Rapture revealed to them)), not to regeneration, which takes place while one is alive.

Again this point is irrelevant to a discussion of New Birth.

Nowhere are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob said to be born again, but the opposite...they did not receive the promises of God, where we, in New Testament and New Covenant times...have. We have been made perfect, and the spirits, not bodies, of the Old Testament Saints, due to Christ's Work, have also at this time been made perfect.

Again, Christ calls the "fathers" of the Wilderness...dead.

This would include Moses.

And agreed, no-one among the physically living are spiritually alive while they remain separated from God, which the remedy for is specifically believing on Jesus Christ Who died to restore men to relationship with God through the promise of the indwelling presence which is eternal, not external.

On the contrary, they are simply ignored.

I have pointed out that Hagar is not a reference to being natural, but represents those under the Law, who you impose regeneration upon.

In view are the Two Covenants, not the condition of those ascribed to either.

Ishmael is "born after the flesh" because he is a result in the lack of faith of Abraham and Sarai, whereas Isaac is "born after the Spirit" because he was the child God said they would have, which when it did not occur according to their timetable they sought to intervene and "help God out."

Nor is it a dogmatic denial that being born again would take place at a future date. This is one of the poorest arguments given, because both views are reasonable, and sadly, it is one of the better arguments for those that believe the New Birth has always taken place.

You just don't have much to support the view, and you cannot argue with the fact that the indwelling of God under New Covenant conditions is different than the ministry of the Spirit in the Old Testament. I have pointed that out several times now. It is not my teaching you are found to be in disagreement with, but the Lord's.

I will let the reader decide. I have presented quite a bit of Scripture to support my view and addressed each point you have made. The premise of this thread is that being born after the flesh is being natural and being born after the Spirit is regeneration, and I view this to be in disagreement with the text itself, where clearly it is Covenantal in context.

This would establish a salvation by heritage which, as I have also mentioned on more than one occasion, is in conflict with a number of passages which show that one cannot be born into relationship with God.

So too is the present tense spoken in regards to eternal punishment:


John 3:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.



Consider:


John 6:54

King James Version (KJV)

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


Do you acknowledge future application here?

But you ignore Peter's rebuke of Christ right after his confession, which again was revealed by God, not something he concluded within himself.

Here the Lord specifically states the Gospel of Christ, and Peter rejects it. He does not want the Lord to die because that is in conflict with what he does understand, which is Israel restored to her glory with the Son of David enthroned...in a temporal Kingdom. It was not unreasonable for him to have that expectation...God promised it.

As far as being written in Heaven, in the eternal sense that register is complete and has been from the foundation of the world:


Revelation 17:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


Equally true those who, though they have not even been born, that will be blotted out, have been known from the foundation of the world. We cannot overlook God's omniscience when we address those issues.


Continued...

 

Then explain why Peter did not want Christ to die, which is the very heart of the Gospel of Christ.

Because he did not understand what Christ came to do. No-one did.

On the contrary, I am the one that mentioned that revelation was progressive, and that understanding of the Redemptive Plan, specifically the Gospel of Christ...was not revealed until after Pentecost.

Show me the disciple, during that forty days after Christ's Resurrection...who continued to minister the Gospel of the Kingdom. Peter said "I go a-fishing." And others went with him. They returned to their prior lives, my friend, they did not abide in Christ and continue to minister as they had been empowered during Christ's Ministry.

I agree, yet it is evident that no-one could place passages such as Isaiah 53 in a proper context, but in fact, we see Peter opposed to the true meaning of that passage.

The result of His death was not revealed until Pentecost.

No-one understood the Gospel of Christ prior to Pentecost. No-one. But you are welcome to show me someone.

This is where Hebrews truly helps us to place the Covenant of Law in a proper perspective to the New Covenant.

You cannot seriously equate Levitical Sacrifice to the Sacrifice of Christ. The Writer of Hebrews goes to an awful lot of trouble to help people avoid that error.

Peter states the same thing, as shown in a previous post:


1 Peter 1:9-12

King James Version (KJV)

9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

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.


It is the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven Who enlightens men to understanding of the Gospel. The reference here is to the Comforter. It was not revealed to the Prophets, though, like John, they prophesied of Christ. John stated "Behold! The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," yet...he was not sure if Jesus was the Christ. The same thing is true of Peter's confession, in which he speaks truth though he does not understand it, and will right after this confession rebuke the Lord when He pronounces the Gospel message.

I agree, because they were not saved in completion, they were simply afforded grace by which their sin was placed on hold, so to speak, but...their sin still had to be atoned for by Christ. If it were possible for sin to be remedied prior to Christ's death, as I said before...Christ need not have died. But they all, though they received a good report, and were imputed righteousness through faith, still died needing their sins atoned for on an eternal basis.

And we see what they believed, exemplified in Peter. They did not understand Christ's death for their penalty of sin, but looked for Messiah to ride in on a white horse and restore the Kingdom.

Think about it: the Lord tells them they will be, not many days hence, Baptized with the Spirit of God.

And they ask about the physical Kingdom?

Now place yourself in the sandals of the disciples, knowing what you know through the revelation provided by the New Testament: the Lord tells you "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."

What do you say, my friend?

Do you, like Peter, say "This shall never be?"

No, because the Spirit of God has shown you the truth, thus you could only concede the Lord's statement, though with sorrow.

We both know the spirits of men live on after physical death, however, the Old Testament Saint was limited on what was revealed about resurrection of the dead.

There is nothing in the Old Testament by which we can impose the promise of God in the New Covenant and see them as being bestowed prior to the establishment of the New Covenant.


God bless.

 

I would prefer that you did not lump the quotes together like this:

Please keep the quotes in their original form and context.

I am out of time, and am beginning to think that most of what has been posted is not going to be addressed, so I will ask that you address what I have posted in context or we will continually go in circles on the same points.

Go back and reconsider what you have not addressed, that may help.


God bless.