New Birth

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

It seems all were lost pre-cross, according to our friend.

Jesus transcends time. God justifies all who believe in His son. This, according to Paul's letter to the Roman church, is clear.

. Those before the cross could not enter glory til Christ made atonement. And Spirit baptism was not available before the cross either, and you admit that. New birth was no more available than Spirit baptism was. And if one is before the cross why not the other?

Show one scholarly witness that new birth is available before the cross. Just one. Don't hedge now.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You folks are totally offkey and no scholar agrees anyone was born again before the cross.

I'm not saying born again, I do think there's a unique way in which we can know God and walk with God that was not available to those under the old covenant.

What I am talking about is salvation, eternal life. Either eternal life was available to all, or only to those who lived AFTER the atonement took place in time. You seem to be saying the latter, but I don't think you believe that.

Specifically, do you believe Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, John the Baptist and the thief on the cross were saved or not? Do you believe they died and were present with the Lord or not?

If yes, on what basis?
If no, then that directly contradicts scripture.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Seriously? The lamb slain from the beginning refers to either the clothing God made to cover Adam as Christ's righteousness covers us, or the plan for the cross.

Seriously? The clothing made for Adam? Smh

Its an obvious reference to the atonement, which yes, took place in time. However you are missing the point that God is eternal and not bound by time. The atonement was a certain reality, one could even say present reality to God at creation. It doesn't mean God didn't act on the basis of the atonement in time (from our POV) but neither was He bound by something that would happen in time.

[Scott Pitta]

Men have always been justified by faith.

The object of our faith has always been God.

The unique features changes in every dispensation, but the fundamental truths remain the same.

Charles Ryrie wrote about this in his book "Dispensationalism Today'.

[Esaias]

The Gospels give us Jesus' doctrine. Acts shows us how the apostles proclaimed his doctrine to the masses. The preaching we see in Acts is the practical application of the doctrine we see in the Gospels.

Anyone who believes and understands the doctrine in the Gospels will preach it like it was preached in Acts.

Anyone who preaches it different than what is seen in Acts, obviously has a different understanding of the doctrine taught in the Gospels than the apostles did.

If we believe what they believed, we will speak like they spoke, we will preach what they preached, we will tell people what they told people.

If we do NOT believe what they believed, we will speak differently than they did, we will preach something they did not preach, we will not be telling people what they told people.

Do you tell convicted sinners to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Do you tell convicted sinners 'what are you waiting for? Get up and be baptised, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord'?

Do you even have room in your theology for people to have believed and been baptised, and not yet received the Holy Spirit? And needing people to pray for them and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit?

Do you ask professing believers 'have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed'? and if they seem confused, do you then ask them 'Unto what were you baptised, then?'

If not, you probably don't believe the same Gospel doctrine as the apostles.

[Esaias]

If you tell people 'Believe on Jesus and you shall be saved' do you also tell them 'along with your household'?

If you tell people to 'pray this prayer' and then tell them they will be born again you are not preaching what the apostles preached, you have another doctrine, another religion even.

If you tell people 'baptism does not save anyone' you obviously have a different understanding of the role of baptism than the apostle Peter.

If you tell people they need to be born again, and if someone asks you 'what exactly do you mean born again, how does one get born again?' and you do NOT tell them you are talking about being born of water and the Spirit, you obviously do not understand regeneration the way either the apostle John or Jesus Christ Himself understood it.

If you tell people to be born again and then later on get baptised you do not think in the same terms the apostles did, you have a different take on things than they did.

If you even suggest to people they should 'schedule an appointment to be baptised later that week or later that month' you are operating in a mindset that is not the mindset of the apostles.

If you make a clear separation between being baptised and being saved and being added to the church, your doctrine and theology and soteriology is not the same as the apostles'.

If you have a different doctrine than the apostles, you might be a baptist... But you definitely are not an apostolic.

[shazeep]

well, the Spirit was being poured out even on slaves "at that time." And the Apostles didn't even have Acts 2:38 yet, so "Apostolic" seems to me to be an unattainable ideal, in this day and age. Not saying one shouldn't strive for it, but that it will surely be appropriated as a label, and become as meaningless as any other. Let's admit "Apostolics" would be Communists, and also be awestruck:

42And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43And awee came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I'm not saying born again, I do think there's a unique way in which we can know God and walk with God that was not available to those under the old covenant.

What I am talking about is salvation, eternal life. Either eternal life was available to all, or only to those who lived AFTER the atonement took place in time. You seem to be saying the latter, but I don't think you believe that.

Specifically, do you believe Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, John the Baptist and the thief on the cross were saved or not? Do you believe they died and were present with the Lord or not?

If yes, on what basis?
If no, then that directly contradicts scripture.

Amen.

Leviticus 19:18b Instead, love your neighbor as you love yourself. I am the LORD.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Gospels give us Jesus' doctrine. Acts shows us how the apostles proclaimed his doctrine to the masses. The preaching we see in Acts is the practical application of the doctrine we see in the Gospels.

Anyone who believes and understands the doctrine in the Gospels will preach it like it was preached in Acts.

Anyone who preaches it different than what is seen in Acts, obviously has a different understanding of the doctrine taught in the Gospels than the apostles did.

If we believe what they believed, we will speak like they spoke, we will preach what they preached, we will tell people what they told people.

If we do NOT believe what they believed, we will speak differently than they did, we will preach something they did not preach, we will not be telling people what they told people.

Do you tell convicted sinners to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Do you tell convicted sinners 'what are you waiting for? Get up and be baptised, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord'?

Do you even have room in your theology for people to have believed and been baptised, and not yet received the Holy Spirit? And needing people to pray for them and lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit?

Do you ask professing believers 'have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed'? and if they seem confused, do you then ask them 'Unto what were you baptised, then?'

If not, you probably don't believe the same Gospel doctrine as the apostles.

But what about all those people through the centuries who haven't preached and taught what the apostles taught?
I mean how strait is strait and how narrow is narrow?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Seriously? The clothing made for Adam? Smh

Its an obvious reference to the atonement, which yes, took place in time. However you are missing the point that God is eternal and not bound by time. The atonement was a certain reality, one could even say present reality to God at creation. It doesn't mean God didn't act on the basis of the atonement in time (from our POV) but neither was He bound by something that would happen in time.

Atonement was not made until Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection.

He does act in time. TIME AND SPACE. Otherwise He did not have to go to the cross.

WADR you really don't understand atonement.