Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

[P1LGR1M]

I agree. I am a little slow, but I believe we are saying the same thing, just with different words?

I only hoped to distinguish the difference between being eternally secure and eternally redeemed. I think we are on the same page, but making that distinction is critical in the discussion, because it must be understood we (you and I) are not saying men were not saved in those Ages which precede the current Age. But, Redemption is what Israel still awaited. You and I can say in full confidence we are eternally redeemed, whereas in the understanding of those under the Law redemption was yet to come, and the redemption they looked for was a temporal redemption.

Wish I could post the Scripture, but look at Acts 1:4-8 and consider something amazing: they have just been told that in just a few days they would receive the Promise of the Father, which they had heard of Him, and they ask...

"...wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom unto Israel?"

Amazing, right? You and I understand in this Age that the restoration of Israel is not a matter of kicking out an invading country, but bringing Israel back into relationship with God. They were cut out due to unbelief, and will be grafted back in through belief.

And here the disciples can be seen to still be carnal in their understanding. You and I would not even ask such a question, because we know the Baptism with the Holy Spirit translates people into the Kingdom of Christ. We look for a city Who's maker is God.

And this is difficult, responding on this tablet, lol, I can only see one line of your response. So to return to the issue at hand, distinguishing between the eternal redemption obtained through Christ's Sacrifice and the salvation enjoyed by the OT Saints is critical. Those who view the new birth as active in the Old Testament impose the fulfillment of promise into ages we see they were still just promise.

God bless.

 

[Kefa54]

I would have been and still am Goy. I would have been under Patriarchal Law if I was a believer.
I wouldn't have been under Mosaic Law at all. Unless I chose to convert to Judaism.

The entire Temple compound was considered holy, but it became increasingly more holy as one entered farther in, from east to west. King Herod had enclosed the outer court with colonnades and it was referred to as the Court of the Gentiles because the "gentiles" (non-Jews) were permitted to enter the Temple area. They could walk within in it but they were forbidden to go any further than the outer court.

The Temple precincts was divided into 4 courts:

1 The Court of the Priests
2 The Court of Israel
3 The Court of the Women
4 The Court of the Gentiles


Kefa

 

[P1LGR1M]

IMHO, Israel was a chosen people to be God's representatives on earth to the other nations. They were given the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the promises and the service (Rom 9:4)

This brought with it a greater responsibility and to misuse it may mean physical death but for those Israelites who clung to God's mercy and Promises, still had eternal life. The conditional Law never abrogated the unconditional Promises.

Romans 9:4 KJVS
[4] Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God , and the promises;

There still remains more to be answered in ladylynn's post. It's a great question in that it asks what would happen if someone sought to bypass what God commanded of Israel. This causes us to further to recognize that we have in the New Covenant what they did not. Their entrance into God's presence was through their mediator, the High Priest. Our Mediator is Christ Himself...and we are all priests, lol.

So the distinction between Covenants and the practices have to be acknowledged. The Covenant of Law was not open to discussion, one either obeyed or they suffered the consequences. One was born into that Covenant through heritage, which cannot be said in regards to the New Covenant.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I would have been and still am Goy. I would have been under Patriarchal Law if I was a believer.
I wouldn't have been under Mosaic Law at all. Unless I chose to convert to Judaism.

The entire Temple compound was considered holy, but it became increasingly more holy as one entered farther in, from east to west. King Herod had enclosed the outer court with colonnades and it was referred to as the Court of the Gentiles because the "gentiles" (non-Jews) were permitted to enter the Temple area. They could walk within in it but they were forbidden to go any further than the outer court.

The Temple precincts was divided into 4 courts:

1 The Court of the Priests
2 The Court of Israel
3 The Court of the Women
4 The Court of the Gentiles


Kefa

And this is something that radically changes in regards to eternal redemption through New Covenant standards: there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, male or female.

We have to remember the Covenant of Law is a Covenant distinctly made with Israel. That it did not nullify the promises of God in regards to Eternal Redemption.

And while Gentiles could become proselytes, there is no demand for that by God, based on Romans Two. God has always judged men based on their response to the revelation He has provided them.

So we can reasonably conclude that if the elements of the New Covenant were not known to men in that day, they are not held responsible to obey them (see Hebrews 10:26-29 where we see those who reject/ed the New Covenant would receive more severe punishment than those who rejected the Covenant of Law).

While we know they had expectation of Messiah's coming, they did not understand He would redeem them on an eternal basis.

So you are not goy in the eyes of Christ, for their is but one fold and One Shepherd.



God bless.

 

[valiant]

Name one person that was born again a a member of the Body of Christ pre Pentecost.

You are mixing up two concepts. Being born from above by the Spirit has been possible for all men since Adam (and including Adam). It was only by being born from above that men could begin to think spiritually (1 Cor 2). It was by being born from above that those who were true believers on the OT were circumcised in heart and received the Spirit.

So pre-Pentecost hundreds of thousands were born again and they included Peter, James, John, Andrew etc. Becoming a member (literally) of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12) was clearly only possible once Christ had risen. It was only then that there was a body that we could become a member of.

And could you post the Scripture references above? On a tablet and at a disadvantage right now.

you can read them in depth when you get to your computer

In regards to Nicodemus, he should have known what the Lord meant, but he ascribes the Lord's statement to physical birth. Rather than what was promised in the Old Testament.

True. Indeed if you read John's Gospel one of John's emphases was on people who misunderstood because they took things too literally (like many Americans today). They were lacking in spiritual understanding.

As far as the hypocrisy argument, we don't have to suggest that, for the Lord also told them to abide when He knew they couldn't at the time.

Of course they were able to abide at the time. If your interpretation of abiding suggests anything else it is your interpretation that is wrong. Abiding in Him meant being continually responsive to His words in a personal way. They had already been abiding in the true vine (Jesus as the representative of Israel) ever since they had been converted.

In fact, in the end of John 16 we see the Lord question their claim to "now believe" and He did so by telling them they would all abandon Him.

yes but He wanted them not to be conceited about their faith. He was not doubting that they had it. They did believe that He knew all things, and that He came forth from God. He was not suggesting that they did not. But He was warning them against being too confident in themselves, about being too cocksure. He KNEW that all but Judas would come through the trial.
.

Let me ask you this: would you have sought to keep the Lord from the Cross as Peter did?

In Peter's shoes I probably would. He loved Jesus and hated the thought of harm coming to Him. He had not cottoned on to why Jesus had to die. That was one of the lessons he had still to learn. All it revealed was his ignorance, and his love for Jesus.

Would you have taken up a sword and sought, through physical force...to keep Him from the Cross?

I hope in Peter's shoes I would. For Peter had no conception of the necessity of Jesus suffering and dying. He did what was natural. He had yet to learn that fighting for one's faith was not of God. For all that happens would be used by God for the fulfilment of His purposes. But that does not mean that Peter was not already born from above.

God bless.

You too.

 

[Kefa54]

Do you have scripture form the old Testament about being born agsin, or of God.

You are mixing up two concepts. Being born from above by the Spirit has been possible for all men since Adam (and including Adam). It was only by being born from above that men could begin to think spiritually (1 Cor 2). It was by being born from above that those who were true believers on the OT were circumcised in heart and received the Spirit.

So pre-Pentecost hundreds of thousands were born again and they included Peter, James, John, Andrew etc. Becoming a member (literally) of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12) was clearly only possible once Christ had risen. It was only then that there was a body that we could become a member of.



you can read them in depth when you get to your computer



True. Indeed if you read John's Gospel one of John's emphases was on people who misunderstood because they took things too literally (like many Americans today). They were lacking in spiritual understanding.



Of course they were able to abide at the time. If your interpretation of abiding suggests anything else it is your interpretation that is wrong. Abiding in Him meant being continually responsive to His words in a personal way. They had already been abiding in the true vine (Jesus as the representative of Israel) ever since they had been converted.



yes but He wanted them not to be conceited about their faith. He was not doubting that they had it. They did believe that He knew all things, and that He came forth from God. He was not suggesting that they did not. But He was warning them against being too confident in themselves, about being too cocksure. He KNEW that all but Judas would come through the trial.
.


In Peter's shoes I probably would. He loved Jesus and hated the thought of harm coming to Him. He had not cottoned on to why Jesus had to die. That was one of the lessons he had still to learn. All it revealed was his ignorance, and his love for Jesus.



I hope in Peter's shoes I would. For Peter had no conception of the necessity of Jesus suffering and dying. He did what was natural. He had yet to learn that fighting for one's faith was not of God. For all that happens would be used by God for the fulfilment of His purposes. But that does not mean that Peter was not already born from above.



You too.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I would have been and still am Goy. I would have been under Patriarchal Law if I was a believer.
I wouldn't have been under Mosaic Law at all. Unless I chose to convert to Judaism.

The entire Temple compound was considered holy, but it became increasingly more holy as one entered farther in, from east to west. King Herod had enclosed the outer court with colonnades and it was referred to as the Court of the Gentiles because the "gentiles" (non-Jews) were permitted to enter the Temple area. They could walk within in it but they were forbidden to go any further than the outer court.

The Temple precincts was divided into 4 courts:

1 The Court of the Priests
2 The Court of Israel
3 The Court of the Women
4 The Court of the Gentiles


Kefa

Sorry Kefa, you didn't quote my question so I lost the context which demands another response in the context of the question.

Jimmy DeYoung recounts a boat ride on the sea of Galille where a Jew reminded him the the first Christians were Jews. Jimmy reminded the man that the first Jews... Were Gentiles. Lol

I see it as critical to understand revelation is progressive. Abraham was told, for instance, that all families of the earth would be blessed through his seed. But it is not until Christ comes that we can properly interpret that promise as referring to the Seed (singular, meaning Christ), as opposed to seed/descendants (plural). God's Gift was not Israel, but Jesus Christ.

In pre-Law economies Gentiles received revelation from God the same way all men do: the eternal witness Gôd gives all men, the testimoñy of Creation, and direct revelation (God speaking directly to men or through Prophets or through Scripture). How men respond to that revelation determines their eternal destiny.

You bring up a good point of discussion because we consider whether those who did not receive the Word of God (and this would specifically refer to Gentiles because it is Israel said to have an advantage because God gave them the Word of God) were/are doomed to eternal punishment because they have not heard the Word of God. The answer is no. If they go into eternal punishment it will be because they rejected whatever revelation they received.

We can go to the deepest darkest reaches of Africa and find that guy everyone always asks about (you know, the guy who has never heard the Gospel), and we will find he, and his fellows...will have an opinion about murder. And stealing. And adultery. And...

...whether there is a God or not.

Where do those concepts come from? God. And that man will be judged based on his obedience to that revelation. And because his fellows also have this revelation, those who transgress that revelation will likely suffer physical judgements from his fellow man.

That is what Paul s0eaks about in Romans Two and Ten.

Now while a man could be declared just in regards to his obedience to that revelation, that doesn't mean he has received the promises of God which are given in His Word. In other words, because someone is obedient to that revelation and doesn't murder, steal, or commit adultery, that doesn't mean he is born again. The new birth is distinct to the New Covenant, and only those in relationship with God through the New Covenant receive those promises.

Just like only those in relationship with God through the Covenant of Law could claim that relationship.

God bless.

 

[crossnote]

It's just in my nature to agree to disagree, lol. Especially when it comes to Biblical Doctrine.

So you feel men went to heaven when they died? Hebrews 9 states the way into Heaven was not yet made manifest, which was only seen in figure in the Tabernacle and its services.

We would have to assume that people could go into God's presence without having their sins forgiven, wouldn't we?

God bless.

No assumption, their sins were forgiven, not on account of the blood of bulls and goats but on account of the Blood of Christ whose effects reached not just into the future but back into the past.

Went to heaven...as much as heaven that Elijah and Moses experienced on the Mount, yes. Heb 9 is speaking of the Holy of Holies for us here in our flesh.

Agree to disagree agreeably when it comes to non essential doctrine like this, but not on the essentials.

 

[skylove7]

This is a very interesting thread.
I am learning new things
Thank you

 

[crossnote]

There still remains more to be answered in ladylynn's post. It's a great question in that it asks what would happen if someone sought to bypass what God commanded of Israel. This causes us to further to recognize that we have in the New Covenant what they did not. Their entrance into God's presence was through their mediator, the High Priest. Our Mediator is Christ Himself...and we are all priests, lol.

So the distinction between Covenants and the practices have to be acknowledged. The Covenant of Law was not open to discussion, one either obeyed or they suffered the consequences. One was born into that Covenant through heritage, which cannot be said in regards to the New Covenant.

God bless.

perhaps one should be reminded that 4 of the covenants were unconditional (Abrahamic, Palestinian or Land, Davidic and the New), one was Conditional...the Mosaic. Mixing these up in haphazard fashion is not helpful. The one Covenant we deal with as Christians (both believing Jews and Gentiles) today is the New.

 

[P1LGR1M]

You are mixing up two concepts. Being born from above by the Spirit has been possible for all men since Adam (and including Adam). It was only by being born from above that men could begin to think spiritually (1 Cor 2). It was by being born from above that those who were true believers on the OT were circumcised in heart and received the Spirit.

Nicodemus was a/the teacher of Israel and he had no clue.

He suggests physical birth when he should have thought of the promises of God.

Being born from above is synonymous with being born again, and according to Christ the Church is built on the confession of Jesus being the Chrißt, the Son of the living God. Peter declared this truth, so why do we not see Peter as being inducted into the Church at that time? Why does Peter immediately after this rebuke Christ when He declares the Gospel (Matthew 16)?

The reason is because Peter is not born again. He is not a new creature in Christ because that was not yet available. Peter was not eternally indwelt, that would not happen until Çhrist returned to Heaven (John 16:7).

As far as OT Saints being circumcised in heart we can see this was a spiritual truth revealed to us. To them what was revealed was the command to be circumcised.

So pre-Pentecost hundreds of thousands were born again and they included Peter, James, John, Andrew etc. Becoming a member (literally) of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12) was clearly only possible once Christ had risen. It was only then that there was a body that we could become a member of.

So these men were born again yet had not received the eternal indwelling, had not believed the Gospel of Christ, had not abided in Christ, but abandoned Him, and did not believe He had risen from the dead?

How is one born again, Valiant? It seems one can be born again failry easy, without having to believe anything specific concerning Christ.

If what you t3ach is true, one need not become a member of the Body of Christ to be born again. One does not need to be eternally indwelt of God to be born again. You create a dichotomy of the saved, those born again, and those in the Body.

you can read them in depth when you get to your computer

Sure, make fun of my plight, lol.

It's l8ke pulling teeth. Tap...tap...tap...

...I am now renaming tablets to taplets.

I like to think I am pretty familiar with the passages relevant to this discussion, though always happy to see new arguments. The fact is that the new birth is an element of New Covenant salvation, and the New Birth was only promised in the Old Testament economies (Ezekiel 36:21-27). God did not begin placing His Spirit within men that they might walk in His statutes and keep His judgments until Pentecost.

You can't possibly see the Israel of Christ's day as having received those promises. Even if you did, you cannot deny Christ's teaching in John 14 and 16 which makes it clear this is something that will begin after He returns to Heaven.

True. Indeed if you read John's Gospel one of John's emphases was on people who misunderstood because they took things too literally (like many Americans today). They were lacking in spiritual understanding.

Whether one takes something too literally is not a National issue, it is an interpretive issue.

Better to err in a literal sense than to spiritualize the meaning out of Scripture as certain Systems (not nations) do.

Of course they were able to abide at the time. If your interpretation of abiding suggests anything else it is your interpretation that is wrong. Abiding in Him meant being continually responsive to His words in a personal way. They had already been abiding in the true vine (Jesus as the representative of Israel) ever since they had been converted.

It's not something we have to interpret...they did not abide. It would be fifty days before they are Baptized with the Spirit and begin fulfilling the Great Çommission.

Peter returned to his former life...fishing for fish, not men.

You say they were converted...explain Luke 22:32.

yes but He wanted them not to be conceited about their faith. He was not doubting that they had it. They did believe that He knew all things, and that He came forth from God. He was not suggesting that they did not. But He was warning them against being too confident in themselves, about being too cocksure. He KNEW that all but Judas would come through the trial.

.
Not one of them believed the Gospel, añd all abandoned Him.

In Peter's shoes I probably would. He loved Jesus and hated the thought of harm coming to Him. He had not cottoned on to why Jesus had to die. That was one of the lessons he had still to learn. All it revealed was his ignorance, and his love for Jesus.

And that's them point... You are not in Peter's shoes, lol.

You csnnot honestly say you would, knowing what you know (which Peter was çlueless to)...that you would try to keep Christ from the Cross.

That would be saying you would keep salvation from being accomplished.

I hope in Peter's shoes I would. For Peter had no conception of the necessity of Jesus suffering and dying. He did what was natural. He had yet to learn that fighting for one's faith was not of God. For all that happens would be used by God for the fulfilment of His purposes. But that does not mean that Peter was not already born from above.



You too.

And you are forced to say he did what was...natural.

That is precisely the point.

You have an understanding which would not hinder the Cross and you hàve that because of the Spirit that indwells you.

Peter yet natural, as were all men.

Only those in the Church are born again, and we are bien again through the Word of God, specifically 5hrough obedience to the Gospel. There are no members of the Body of Christ who a4e not both born again and eternally imdwelt.

God bless.

 

[Kefa54]

My question is generic. This whole thread seem to be focused on Mosaic Law and times. Just wondering about the rest of the world.

Kefa

Sorry Kefa, you didn't quote my question so I lost the context which demands another response in the context of the question.

Jimmy DeYoung recounts a boat ride on the sea of Galille where a Jew reminded him the the first Christians were Jews. Jimmy reminded the man that the first Jews... Were Gentiles. Lol

I see it as critical to understand revelation is progressive. Abraham was told, for instance, that all families of the earth would be blessed through his seed. But it is not until Christ comes that we can properly interpret that promise as referring to the Seed (singular, meaning Christ), as opposed to seed/descendants (plural). God's Gift was not Israel, but Jesus Christ.

In pre-Law economies Gentiles received revelation from God the same way all men do: the eternal witness Gôd gives all men, the testimoñy of Creation, and direct revelation (God speaking directly to men or through Prophets or through Scripture). How men respond to that revelation determines their eternal destiny.

You bring up a good point of discussion because we consider whether those who did not receive the Word of God (and this would specifically refer to Gentiles because it is Israel said to have an advantage because God gave them the Word of God) were/are doomed to eternal punishment because they have not heard the Word of God. The answer is no. If they go into eternal punishment it will be because they rejected whatever revelation they received.

We can go to the deepest darkest reaches of Africa and find that guy everyone always asks about (you know, the guy who has never heard the Gospel), and we will find he, and his fellows...will have an opinion about murder. And stealing. And adultery. And...

...whether there is a God or not.

Where do those concepts come from? God. And that man will be judged based on his obedience to that revelation. And because his fellows also have this revelation, those who transgress that revelation will likely suffer physical judgements from his fellow man.

That is what Paul s0eaks about in Romans Two and Ten.

Now while a man could be declared just in regards to his obedience to that revelation, that doesn't mean he has received the promises of God which are given in His Word. In other words, because someone is obedient to that revelation and doesn't murder, steal, or commit adultery, that doesn't mean he is born again. The new birth is distinct to the New Covenant, and only those in relationship with God through the New Covenant receive those promises.

Just like only those in relationship with God through the Covenant of Law could claim that relationship.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

perhaps one should be reminded that 4 of the covenants were unconditional (Abrahamic, Palestinian or Land, Davidic and the New), one was Conditional...the Mosaic. Mixing these up in haphazard fashion is not helpful. The one Covenant we deal with as Christians (both believing Jews and Gentiles) today is the New.

This is a valid poiñt but not sure why you see that as relevant.

When the writer of Hebrews seeks 5o convince his brethren the Covenant of Law is the only other Covenant he mentions. It is the Covenant of Law that the Witness Nation Israel was under, and I would remind you that Christ was made under the Law añd in no way transgressed it. Paul states that if righteousness were possible it would have been through the Law.

That is why God promised the New Covenant, and that is why He promised that He would put His Spirit within us. That we might walk in His statutes and ordinances, and keep His judgments.

Just wasnt occurring in the ages before the New Covenant was established.

Paul did not say we are ministers if the Abrahamic Covenant, but ministers of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6-8).

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

My question is generic. This whole thread seem to be focused on Mosaic Law and times. Just wondering about the rest of the world.

Kefa

I wouldn't say it is focused on Mosaic Law, but, the Covenant of Law is the Covenant which the New Covenant made obsolete.

The reason we do not sat the New Covenant makes other Covenants obsolete, such as the Abrahamic, Davidic, or even the Noahic, is because those Covenants were revelations of the Redemptive Plan of God, whereas, according to Paul in Galatians 3, the Covenant of Law was only meant to be temporary, and it did not nullify the promises of God.

God has always meant to redeem man, starting with what is called the Proto Evangelism in Genesis 3:15. God reveals He will destroy Satan through the Seed of woman. That revelation progresses in the promise to Abraham that all families of the earth (all peoples) would be blessed through his seed. Then we see it promised that David's seed would rule and of His (the Seed) Kingdom there would be no end.

So the Biblical view would not promote a position that God is a respecter of persons, but as it is written, He is not willing that any should perish.

And in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. We are made one in Christ and that was not the case in the economy of the Law. You and I could have become proselytes, but we would not have become of Israel through that. Equally true is the fact that being born of Israel did not mean one was of Spiritual Israel, or, the people God intended them to be.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

This is a very interesting thread.
I am learning new things
Thank you

And that's what it's all about, that we come together and edify one another.

God bless.

 

[Hoffco]

Of Course, all of God's elect have been "born of God", since Adam and Eve, the first members of Christ's Church.!! We fail to see God's Eternal Covenant of Grace in Romans 8:29-30 and miss the Theme of the whole Bible. All the covenants are a part of God's one cov. of Grace. Even the Cov. of works set the stage for the Eternal Cov. of Grace. Why and how did God put the Cov of Grace into motion? ie, By the Cov. of works ,which Adam failed to keep ,thus making the Cov. of Grace necessary. All the good and the evil in this world are a part of God's eternal plan, He ordains ALL things. !! This question is a no brainer. A YES, is very obvious to the true Bible student. Sorry, but any pastor who doesn't know the answer, should be very ashamed. Love to all, Hoffco

 

[P1LGR1M]

No assumption, their sins were forgiven, not on account of the blood of bulls and goats but on account of the Blood of Christ whose effects reached not just into the future but back into the past.

Great. Where is the Scripture?

Hebrews 9:12-15 makes it çlear their sins were not forgiven and that they were not eternally redeemed. Post that passage and show an alternate meanimg.

Went to heaven...as much as heaven that Elijah and Moses experienced on the Mount, yes. Heb 9 is speaking of the Holy of Holies for us here in our flesh.

The mount of transfiguration was not Heaven, that was on earth, and, Hebrews 9 makes it clear the earthly Tabernacle and earthly Holy of Holies was only a figure that signified that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest.

Christ made the way into Heaven màmifest through His death.

Agree to disagree agreeably when it comes to non essential doctrine like this, but not on the essentials.

I see this as essential Doctrine. It is because people erro e9usly impose the realization of the Promises of God in Old Testament economies that we have so many who wonder if we have to keep the Law, lol.

You ask the next ten processing Christian s what Covenant we are under and let me know how many immediately say the New Covenant.

The magnitude of the Cross is diminished if we equate the provision of Law and prior economies with the provision of the New Covenant.

And regeneration is one of those promises.

Okay, think that's it for me today. This "taplet" is driving me crazy, lol.

I will say this is one of the best discussions on this topic I have experienced to date, and just want to thank everyone for being a part of it.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Of Course, all of God's elect have been "born of God", since Adam and Eve, the first members of Christ's Church.!! We fail to see God's Eternal Covenant of Grace in Romans 8:29-30 and miss the Theme of the whole Bible. All the covenants are a part of God's one cov. of Grace. Even the Cov. of works set the stage for the Eternal Cov. of Grace. Why and how did God put the Cov of Grace into motion? ie, By the Cov. of works ,which Adam failed to keep ,thus making the Cov. of Grace necessary. All the good and the evil in this world are a part of God's eternal plan, He ordains ALL things. !! This question is a no brainer. A YES, is very obvious to the true Bible student. Sorry, but any pastor who doesn't know the answer, should be very ashamed. Love to all, Hoffco

How could Adam be a member of the Church when he was a fallen man?

Okay, I'm pretty much done for the day, but I will
leave you with a question: why was it necessary for God to pr9mise a New Covenant if people were being made me!bers of the Church since, and including Adam.

And why did God demand animal Sacrifice for remission of sins?


God bless.

 

[Hoffco]

Don't ask the "WHY" questions, just accept God's words. Adam was created Righteous,"very good", but obviously ,Adam was not secure in his goodness, he lost it and died to God; Thus, Adam needed to be "born again", "Of God" to be saved. God saved Adam and Eve by the shedding of the blood of an animal, thus starting God's saved group of people, this is the Church of God. of all ages. We=the elect, are all written in the Lamb's book of life before the world was created, ALL the elect of ALL ages are in God's book of life, Thus Adam and Eve were the first in the Church of Christ. Only the elect of the nation of Israel are in the church of Christ. Jesus only has ONE flock, Jh.10. The TWO flocks becames, are ONE "in Christ".

 

[crossnote]

Great. Where is the Scripture?

Hebrews 9:12-15 makes it çlear their sins were not forgiven and that they were not eternally redeemed. Post that passage and show an alternate meanimg.



The mount of transfiguration was not Heaven, that was on earth, and, Hebrews 9 makes it clear the earthly Tabernacle and earthly Holy of Holies was only a figure that signified that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest.

Christ made the way into Heaven màmifest through His death.





I see this as essential Doctrine. It is because people erro e9usly impose the realization of the Promises of God in Old Testament economies that we have so many who wonder if we have to keep the Law, lol.

You ask the next ten processing Christian s what Covenant we are under and let me know how many immediately say the New Covenant.

The magnitude of the Cross is diminished if we equate the provision of Law and prior economies with the provision of the New Covenant.

And regeneration is one of those promises.

Okay, think that's it for me today. This "taplet" is driving me crazy, lol.

I will say this is one of the best discussions on this topic I have experienced to date, and just want to thank everyone for being a part of it.

God bless.

Matthew 22:31-32 KJVS
[31] But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, [32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

The word 'living' refers NOT to natural or biological life (bios) but eternal/quickening life (zao).

Mark 12:26-27 KJVS
[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.

Here, notice that the dead have already risen (not the bodies though) including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.