Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

S.T.Ranger's Achievements

  1. Covenanter, disregard my last post, as this will be the last post I will present on this forum. God bless.
  2. The primary reason we do not apply an Eschatological fulfillment to the destruction of the Temple in AD70 is that we did not see Christ return. But I'd be happy to look at this with you. God bless.
  3. Okay, this is always a fun discussion, though on an Independent Fundamental Baptist Forum it may be that everyone here already gets it, lol. But let's see. To just get it started, the primary objective is to discuss the timing of the Rapture, so my proposal is that according to Prophecy, it is impossible for the Rapture to take place at the end of the Tribulation. Any objections? God bless.
  4. I am not really sure what you are implying with "the Two Gospel Doctrine," because there is but One Gospel of Christ. That the Kingdom Gospel is distinct from the Gospel of Jesus Christ is evident, because (1) the Gospel of Christ is a Mystery not revealed in that Age (the Age of Law) and (2) we do not see the Lord sending His disciples out to preach the Gospel, for they themselves did not know the Scripture that He should rise from the dead: John 20:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. The passage does make the statement they believed, but, what they believed was that Christ's body was gone from the tomb. If one tries to make it say they believed on Christ, then what does one do with the very statement quoted here? It says plainly, they did not know the Scripture that He must rise from the dead...yet." Secondly, sin was in fact forgiven before the Cross, but not on an eternal level: 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. We cannot equate atonement under the provision given to men in the Ages prior to the establishment of the New Covenant on the Blood (Death) of Christ with the Atonement provided through Christ Himself. Most do that, by the way, because they equate salvation prior to Eternal Redemption being obtained by Christ with atonement provided through the vicarious death of animals. Yes, He was God, He could do that. But every reference you can find of Christ forgiving sin cannot be equated to the remission of sins provided by His Sacrifice. Christ would still need to die for those He forgave. The only conclusion one could draw if they deny that is that there were people who received Atonement apart from the Work of the Cross. And I know it is popularly taught that men were "saved on credit," but, the simple truth is that the Atonement of the Cross became available when Christ actually died on the Cross. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches "salvation on credit." Colossians 1:12-14 King James Version (KJV) 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: So the man sick of the palsy was eternally forgiven apart from Christ's Work? He would not have to remain obedient to the Law? Can we overlook the rest of the voluminous testimony from Christ and the Apostles? Here is another passage that makes it clear that the sins of men were forgiven at the Cross: Romans 3:23-26 King James Version (KJV) 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. How is that relevant to anything I have said? It is not me you argue with: 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. They did not go to the Gentiles and Samaritans, and this is commanded of them by Christ, Who also stated... Matthew 15:22-24 King James Version (KJV) 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 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. So, MC, what is the Lord saying here? And I agree with that, but, that does not change the fact that Messiah had a specific Role to Israel in His earthly Ministry, and a distinct Role as Savior of the World. If you consider that the Gospel of Christ was a Mystery and not revealed in past Ages, and that His Ministry to Israel was within the framework of the revelation provided to them at that time (the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament), then you will have to acknowledge that Christ ministered under the Law, and did so...because He had not yet established the New Covenant as was promised in the Old Testament. I am really surprised that on an Independent Fundamental Forum that the concept of the distinction between the Kingdoms is not readily known. We see a difference in the Kingdom that was Israel, the Kingdom that will come (restored Israel, in the Millennial Kingdom), the Kingdom which is the rule of God in the hearts of believers, and the Kingdom which will come, the Eternal State. How do you, if you don't mind me asking, reconcile that Christ states "The Kingdom of God is within you," and Paul stating that we have been translated into the Kingdom of His dear Son? Was not Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews? Does he not distinguish the difference between being a member of Israel and being translated into the Kingdom of Christ? God bless.
  5. That's hilarious coming from someone that enters a thread with personal attacks and ignores the OP. That's okay, Dave, from here on out each personal attack will be reported to Moderation, and this certainly qualifies. The purpose of my statement is that I am not going to waste time trying to respond to someone that does not know basic common courtesy on a Debate Forum, but, for you...I'll make an exception. God bless. There is no appeal to the "Guidelines" of this forum, I am speaking that personally I will not respond to posts where the member posts within another member's post, which is not, on any forum, proper and accepted practice, but, leads to confusion as to who says what, and in Doctrinal Discussion and Debate, there is no reason to add to the confusion caused by some members. I did find that the quote function allowed for quoting what was written in my post, however, as I said, I am not going to interact with a member that has the habit of doing this. I did respond to his initial post, but in the future, will not do so. God bless.
  6. You got it, lol. I also go by Pilgrim on some forums (strangers and pilgrims). Sorry to see you go, NN, you've been a great participant. That's good enough for me. If someone will simply keep the things we have discussed in mind when they read the New Testament I am confident that eventually it will click. It's just been one of my favorite topics for years, beginning with the time I was telling someone they had to be born again and the Lord seemed to ask me "...do you know what that means?" And I had to stop and say, "No, to be honest...I don't." So just give it some thought. Out of the many people I have discussed and debated this with it is usually about 5% that do not react negatively to the idea that men were not born again before Pentecost. So just want to leave you with one thing as a focus in our discussion, that you might ponder it sometimes: you have asserted your belief that men can be born again without being eternally indwelt, so, that means we must define being born again as something not connected to Eternal Salvation. The reason is this: no man received eternal redemption of eternal life until the True and Living Bread came down from Heaven, and that is not really something one can debate, for this is precisely what Christ taught. The question is, are you okay with that kind of regeneration? Again, you've been great, NN, and sorry to see you leave. God bless.
  7. I don't really see that we have to be dogmatic that the blotting out of unbelievers is seen in the description of the Great White Throne: Revelation 20:12-15 King James Version (KJV) 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. It seems to me, Invicta, to rather point to them not be found in the book. One of the things I consider when it comes to the Book of Life is that all men are found in it, and it first has a reference to physical life. I take that view because, as mentioned earlier (and I think it was this thread), one must be in the Book in order to be blotted out. Here, for example... Psalm 69:25-28 King James Version (KJV) 25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. 26 For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded. 27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. 28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. ...we see a Messianic (and imprecatory) Psalm in which David is asking that the very enemies of Christ, which are in the immediate application David's enemies...be blotted out of the Book of the Living (Life). Now in the temporal I think we can see being "blotted out of the Book of the Living" as synonymous with physical death, thus we see David calling for their deaths. But in the deeper application in which this applies to Christ, we see this quoted in Acts 1:20 in reference to the son of perdition, Judas. So it makes sense to me that when the physical aspect of being in the Book of Life ends, the deeper application ends as well, meaning...men are blotted out at the time of death, which swings us back to the passage in Revelation where we see "the dead" stand before God at the Great White Throne. Concerning the quote from Revelation I take the position that "overcoming" is in fact a reference to salvation itself, so in other words, "Those that turn to Christ in saving faith will never be blotted out of the Book of Life." It's a great topic of discussion, though. Be glad to see the views held by the members here. God bless.
  8. You know, its really odd to be on a forum where there are people who actually embrace a Seven Year Tribulation. These days even if one acknowledges a Tribulation at all, they render it only to a 3 1/2 year period. God bless.
  9. If we think about the sacrifices and command to observe Passover, we see that Passover had only one event in which there was the possibility for the firstborn to die, yet a memorial is set up to mark that occasion. This is the same thing we do when we memorialize Christ's death, which Passover was a picture of. So the thing to consider is that depsite the fact that both sacrifice and the memorial of Passover was instituted, they are not the reality, and do not have any salvific quality at all. In the Millennial Kingdom it will be just the same, and there is no reason to think that the sacrifices offered in the Kingdom will have any more salvific quality than they did when originally instituted. We see offerings being made according to Jewish Heritage many years after the Cross... Acts 21:17-27 King James Version (KJV) 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. 27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, Sorry for the lengthy quote, but I see no way not to lose the context without quoting this much of it. So I don't think an argument that Christ's death made atonement so no need for more sacrifice is a good one, because the sacrifices offered before the Cross did not bring about Atonement on an eternal level anyway, but was simply a temporal provision given to men, that God might show grace, and not impose eternal judgment upon men at the time they sinned, or, at the time they died. God bless.
  10. They remain "written in the Book of Life," as they have not, nor ever shall be blotted out: Revelation 3 King James Version (KJV) 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. God bless.
  11. Personally, I lean heavily towards this judgment being for the Lost only, as at this time the "dead" are resurrected and that is not a term that can really be applied to those who are born again (which occurs while one is alive). However, I do not make light of the view that there will be those from among the dead who fall under more of an Old Testament Economy, such as the Gentiles spoken of by Paul who, despite not having the Word of God as does Israel (who he contrasts them with): Romans 2:11-16 King James Version (KJV) 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. The idea being that while these men did not have direct revelation (the Written Word of God), they did have the revelation Paul speaks about in regards to the internal witness of God and the testimony of creation, and that in obedience to the "works of the Law" that were written in their hearts they will be judged by that obedience or lack thereof when Christ judges. As I said, I lean towards the Great White Throne being for the lost only, and it is at this time they are publicly, so to speak, judged and sentenced to Hell. God bless. I take a little different view concerning the issue of the Book of Life, and see a distinction between the Book of Life (in which all men are written into) and the Lamb's Book of Life, which I believe distinguishes the redeemed. We know that unbelievers are in the Book of life at some point because its either that or we embrace a view that those who have received Eternal Salvation through Christ can be blotted out. And we would contradict a very clear teaching of Scripture which makes that an impossibility. God bless.
  12. Last post, I promise, and it will address each statement in order: 1. I pointed out Gentile Inclusion was the primary focus, but that does not negate the fact that it was not revealed to the Sints in the past. This depsite the fact that Gentile Inclusion was, just like the Gospel of Christ, spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament): Isaiah 42 King James Version (KJV) 1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. 5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: 6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. We also see the Promise of the New Covenant in the Abrahamic Covenant, which extends to Gentiles as well as to literal descendants of Abraham: Genesis 12 King James Version (KJV) 1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. We know the Seed in view is Christ, yet Christ was for the benefit of all mankind. So why is it that Israel did not get it? The answer is that it was simply a mystery not revealed to them as it has been to us. That is why before Pentecost the disciple returned to their former lives and after...they preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and turned the world upside down. 2. Are you suggesting Christ has always been "in" believers, and it is just a matter that it was kept a secret? John 14 would disagree with that. It is clear that the indwelling of Christ was a future event (as well as the indwelling of the Father and Holy Spirit). 3. Shoot, thought maybe you were telling me about someone else that gets it right (That's humor, NN< not arrogance, just yanking your chain). 4. Disobedience and unbelief are inextricably linked in Scripture. The single greatest sin spoken of in Scripture is disobedience, which is a result of unbelief. The sin is defined in Hebrews 3 as unbelief. The sin was disobedience. In the case of Moses, he lost his right to enter into that rest because he struck the rock rather than speak to it as he was commanded. Obedience for those in positions of leadership is far more serious with far more serious repercussions when transgressed. God bless.
  13. I have actually shown that men were not born again, lol, because it is impossible to make a case that men who do not believe on Christ are born again. It is impossible to show that the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ was revealed prior to this Age. It is impossible to equate belief in Christ as the Messiah with belief in His Resurrection. Muslims believe Christ was the Messiah. I agree with your statement: When one trusts Christ as their Savior, they become a new creature. But we look at how Christ is the Savior, and that deals specifically with His Incarnation, His death, His Resurrection, and one turning to Him based on faith that He died in their place. None of the discipels understood that, and could not understand it, because it was not given to them to understand. So at this point just explain these passages (which relate to this simple truth (that the Gospel of Christ was not revealed in past 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: 1 Corinthians 2:6-9 King James Version (KJV) 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 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. Colossians 1:25-27 King James Version (KJV) 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: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: We simply cannot impose something into the Old Testament that wasn't there. And it is the understanding, the revelation of the mystery I speak of. The Gospel was not understood by them as we now understand it in a New Covenant context. They could not, for example, understand Isaiah 53 as we do. If they had, then Peter would not have rebuked Christ for presenting the Gospel, or tried to keep Christ from the Cross with a word, or denied he even knew Christ when his own physical life was threatened. If you can overlook those issues and still be convinced that Peter was a Born Again Christian prior to Pentecost, okay. I understand that. Most people believe that. But, at the least, address these three Scriptures which make it clear that the Gospel of Christ was a mystery not revealed in past Ages, but is now made manifest to the Saints. And again, I appreciate all the participation. God bless.
  14. That is all I need to hear from you. It may be that your lack of diligence in understanding the Word of God explains your tendency towards hostility for people you do not know, your assumptive slander, and your attempt to disrupt what is a pretty good Theological Discussion so far. Consider the words of the Writer of Hebrews: Hebrews 5:10-14 King James Version (KJV) 10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. If you would care to look at other passages that command believers to actually understand the faith they profess, let me know. I may start a thread for you. Until then, this is a thread that looks at the question "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost." If you take the time to read a few of the posts, you might see that it is actually an interesting topic. One which believers disagree about, but one in which only one side can give multiple Biblical Supports for. Its not arrogance to be persuaded on a Doctrinal issue, particularly when Scriptural support is given. And your idea that "faithful attendance in a church somewhere is a good evidence of salvation is preposterous. Many Tares will have a good record of attendance when they hear "Depart from Me...for I never knew you." Where in the world you come up with the idea that somehow someone who comes to a Christian Doctrinal Debate Forum and actually discusses and debates Christian Doctrine must have their salvation questioned is beyond me. What type of church do you go to, by the way? Is this the attitude they teach there? Do they teach derision of Doctrine and the discussion of Doctrine? Why don't you address the question? You seem to think you're an authority around here, so be a Biblical Christian and give an answer to the man that asketh you. Surely you can show why the question is a stupid one. God bless.
  15. Great, you have down time at work and I need to get to work, lol. Ok, so what you are saying is that regeneration can occur and one not be indwelt of God? The problem with that which I see is that regeneration is a result of those who are born of God, which makes them sons of God, which equates to New Covenant salvation. In other words, we do not have separate times when we are born of God, born again, born from of above, or born of the Spirit. That is simultaneous with regeneration, and is the reason why we are made new. We become something we once were not, namely...the children of God. Now, I do agree that we believe prior to salvation, and as explained in earlier posts, this is caused by the Ministry of the Holy Ghost in the Ministry Christ teaches He will perform when He is sent (John 16:7-9). He enlightens the natural man to the truth, and when men yield they are born of God which is the result of men being placed into eternal union with God Himself. Baptism with the Holy Ghost is one being immersed into God. And that is the point Christ makes here: John 14:20-23 King James Version (KJV) 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Now, two questions only: 1. Is this speaking of what will happen at a future date...or not? 2. Is it taking place then? Because if we say that men are born of God already, we have the problem of what to do with John 1:11-13, and many various prophetic teachings that show it begins no sooner than the Incarnation. And if we conclude men are born of God, how is it that they are not one with Him? The answer is that it is the Sacrifice of Christ, the very Work of the Cross that we are born again by: 1 Peter 1 King James Version (KJV) 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, And I might point out that this... ...is very true. So what we would have to conclude is that men can be born again but not saved, whereas I am pointing out that men can be "saved" (from an eternal perspective" but not born again. The new birth is a result of the Reconciliation Christ came to make available to all of mankind. When men are reconciled with God, which is what Christ is speaking about when He says... John 14:20 King James Version (KJV) 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. ...then are they the sons of God, born of God, born from above, born again. Here is another contrast between the physical provision afforded the Age of Law... John 6:47-51 King James Version (KJV) 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 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. A few points to consider in this passage: 1. The provision given men under the Law did not provide eternal life; 2. Moses was of the "fathers" that ate of that bread (manna); 3. The Living Bread is Christ, and we know when He "came down from Heaven," He is speaking of the Incarnation; 4. The Living Bread is defined by Christ as His giving of His flesh, or in other words, as the New Testament testifies over and over, His death in the stead of man. Now look at Peter;s statement again: 1 Peter 1 King James Version (KJV) 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Moses did not, at any time, receive eternal life through Christ. The reason is because the Son of GOd had not yet come from Heaven, had not given His flesh (died on the Cross), and had not risen from the dead, that men might believe on Christ. We simply have to make that distinction, and if we do, we will see that the New Testament makes quite a bit of sense. For example, understanding that the New Covenant would usher in a new Age, and that the Redemption Christ would bring was still yet future for the disciples, we can better understand passages such as John 15, where those who teach loss of salvation use this teaching to show that if Christians do not "abide in Christ" they lose their salvation. If we understand the Lord is speaking of what is going to happen after His Death, Burial, and REsurrection, then we can understand this in a perspective not afforded to the disciples, and understand that the Lord is telling them to remain faithful...afterwords. The simple fact is that we have a hard time seeing disciples who the Lord Himself said would abandon Him...abiding in Christ. The one question few people ask in regards to the teaching of the True Vine, is "What is the Vine that is not true?" The answer is...Israel. They are a vine planted by God (taken from Egypt and planted in Canaan, the "Rest" in view in Hebrews 3-4). What the Lord is say is "Do not any longer count your heritage to be the means of relationship with God, but that I am your means of relationship with God." Just give it some thought. There are numerous passages that for most are hard to understand, but, if we understand the magnitude of what Christ accomplished on the Cross and in His Resurrection, and the significance of the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ now being revealed, our joy in our salvation is increased tenfold. At least it has for me, lol. Okay, going to try to get off here, unles there is a short one I might answer, but really have to get going, so if you could refrain from a response for just a little bit, I'll head on out, lol. God bless.
  • Create New...