Christ ministered to His disciples He told them to wait until they received power not to wait to be saved.
Again, the OP does not ask "Were men saved before Pentecost," but whether they were born again or not.
The distinction being that we understand, from the eternal perspective, that the Elect have been saved since before the world began, heirs of salvation which have never been in danger of eternal judgment.
However (and this is a big however, lol)...we do not impose into Ages elements of the progressive Redemptive Plan that simply were not there. An example would be...was atonement through the Cross active in those days prior to the Cross? If you say yes, then please explain to me why men were commanded to offer up animal sacrifice for the remission of sins.
And you can start, in regards to this question, with explaining this passage:
Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP]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.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]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:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]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?
[SUP]15 [/SUP]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.
If Christ obtained eternal redemption through His death...when do we suppose eternal redemption became available.
As I said, men were not saved on credit, as it is popularly taught, they were saved by grace through faith. The Old Testament Saints were saved, but that does not mean they were eternally redeemed.
So explain how it is that men were eternally redeemed prior to the Cross. That's all you have to do.
And don't forget to explain why they offered up sacrifices which only pictured Christ's death.
It appears that you have a faulty knowledge of what it is to be born again.
That is what this thread is for, my friend, to discuss it.
And we have only just broached the subject.
Probably stemming from a faulty knowledge of baptism of the Holy Spirit.
You are welcome to show how the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is simply empowering, rather than the reception of the Holy Ghost.
Let's see the Baptism with the Holy Ghost in an event where it is clear that they receive the Spirit:
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,
[SUP]2 [/SUP]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.
Paul comes across disciples of John the Baptist, and he asks, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"
Now understand that these disciples would have been familiar with Who the Holy Ghost is, so in view is not a matter that they had not heard of the Holy Ghost, but the Holy Ghost in connection with Paul's question, which has the specific focus of whether or not they had received Him.
And they say we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Now, note carefully what comes next:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
"Unto what were ye baptized?" The question asks what their baptism identified them with. They were baptized unto John, which was a baptism that identified those baptized with John the Baptist, and the preaching of repentance.
Now what we need to understand here is that they are not identified with Christ, as is the command of Christ in the Great Commission, but John.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.
Just as John (Matthew 3) and Christ (Acts 1) distinguished the Baptism with the Holy Ghost from John's baptism, even so Paul does here. And here Paul is clarifying John teaching, telling these disciples of John...they must believe on the name of Christ.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And here they are identified with Christ in baptism. Let's not forget the focus was whether or not they had...received the Holy Ghost.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
That they receive the Holy Ghost simultaneously in Acts is not unusual, and while some make the error of thinking that water baptism is how one receives the Holy Ghost, we can see clearly that this is not the case, as not one of the disciples are ever said to be water baptized (they too would have been baptized of John, and like these disciples of John teach us...that is not sufficient, one must be identified with Christ), and we see Cornelius receive the Holy Ghost before being water baptized.
But again, the point is that they had not received the Holy Ghost.
That empowerment follows is not unusual, this is true of those who are baptized into Christ.
Continued...
