No Man Comes to the Father...
Forum category
Jesus told His disciples, “I am The Way, The Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through Me”.
There are some of us who believe that although God was loving and merciful in the Old Testament, and extending forgiveness, the stain of sin was still an unresolved issue. There had been no sacrifice that could take away the sin (Heb. 10:4) or cleanse men of their unrighteousness. Even Paul states, If Christ be not raised, you are still in your sins (1Cor. 15:17). Jesus Christ was manifested to put away sinby the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26). Jesus death took place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first Covenanat (Heb. 9:15). Jesus Christ became the High Priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17). Jesus Christ became the High Priest and entered the heavenly holy place to offer one sacrifice for sins for all time (Heb. 10:12), to make purification for sins (Heb. 1:3). It is the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses men from all sins (1John 1:7). By God’s will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10:10). There was no means for dealing with sin, and making men holy before the blood of Jesus Christ was shed. And men only have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jeus (Heb. 10:19). Jesus inaugurated a new and living way through the veil (Heb. 10:21). Under the Old Covenant men could not come near to God unless they were a priest. A veil always separated them from God. Only the High Priest could enter through the veil. As long as the veil remained it signified that the way into the heavenly Holy Place had not been disclosed (Heb. 9:8).
OT believers needed a cleansing that nothing on earth could give them before they died. They needed a better covenant, with a better sacrifice, with better promises, a better High Priest, and a better mediator. They needed the veil torn in two showing that the way into the Holy Place had been made. They needed Jesus Christ to be their way to come to the Father. And they needed Jesus to become their High Priest to make them into temples and priests of God under the New Covenant.
This is one perspective on why we believe that OT believers did not go to heaven when they died. They needed Jesus Christ to become High Priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people first. God, in love and in mercy kept men safe after they died in a place somtimes called Sheol, Paradise or Abraham’s Bosom awaiting the redemption and salvation the Lord Jesus Christ would provide.
Some people believe that OT believers went to directly to heaven when they died. Needless to say, each perspective saw problems with the other side. We are moving the discussion to its own thread here. Chip had asked a series of challenging questions which we are moving to this thread to try to answer to his satisfaction.
There are some of us who believe that although God was loving and merciful in the Old Testament, and extending forgiveness, the stain of sin was still an unresolved issue. There had been no sacrifice that could take away the sin (Heb. 10:4) or cleanse men of their unrighteousness. Even Paul states, If Christ be not raised, you are still in your sins (1Cor. 15:17). Jesus Christ was manifested to put away sinby the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26). Jesus death took place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first Covenanat (Heb. 9:15). Jesus Christ became the High Priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17). Jesus Christ became the High Priest and entered the heavenly holy place to offer one sacrifice for sins for all time (Heb. 10:12), to make purification for sins (Heb. 1:3). It is the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses men from all sins (1John 1:7). By God’s will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10:10). There was no means for dealing with sin, and making men holy before the blood of Jesus Christ was shed. And men only have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jeus (Heb. 10:19). Jesus inaugurated a new and living way through the veil (Heb. 10:21). Under the Old Covenant men could not come near to God unless they were a priest. A veil always separated them from God. Only the High Priest could enter through the veil. As long as the veil remained it signified that the way into the heavenly Holy Place had not been disclosed (Heb. 9:8).
OT believers needed a cleansing that nothing on earth could give them before they died. They needed a better covenant, with a better sacrifice, with better promises, a better High Priest, and a better mediator. They needed the veil torn in two showing that the way into the Holy Place had been made. They needed Jesus Christ to be their way to come to the Father. And they needed Jesus to become their High Priest to make them into temples and priests of God under the New Covenant.
This is one perspective on why we believe that OT believers did not go to heaven when they died. They needed Jesus Christ to become High Priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people first. God, in love and in mercy kept men safe after they died in a place somtimes called Sheol, Paradise or Abraham’s Bosom awaiting the redemption and salvation the Lord Jesus Christ would provide.
Some people believe that OT believers went to directly to heaven when they died. Needless to say, each perspective saw problems with the other side. We are moving the discussion to its own thread here. Chip had asked a series of challenging questions which we are moving to this thread to try to answer to his satisfaction.
- 33 views
Chip asked:
.
On what legal basis does your treatment of OT people rest?
On the promises and the oaths of God (Heb. 6:17, 18).
Paul reveals that God made promises to Abraham and his Seed (not many, but One—Jesus Christ) (Gal. 3:15). Abraham did not receive all the promises God made him in his earthly lifetime. He did receive his son Isaac, but he did not have descendants as the sand of the earth. He was promised the land, but it wasn’t given to him for a possession in his lifetime. In Genesis 15:1 God promised Abraham that He (God) was Abraham’s shield, and his “great reward”. (I believe that God was promising Himself to Abraham and Jesus Christ as an inheritance. Then when we become a joint-heir with Christ, God (Jesus Christ) Himself becomes our source of eternal life when He takes up residence in our hearts -1John 5:11, 12; Eph. 3:17.) Abraham didn’t receive the promise when God made the promise to him, but Abraham did believe God, and God did credit Abraham’s sin stained account with righteousness. As the writer to the Hebrews tells us, “These (including Abraham) gained approval through their faith but they did not receive what was promised (Heb. 11:39). After His death, Jesus Christ received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33)
.
.
SIDE NOTE:
What was the significance of that promise made to Abraham and Jesus Christ? God the Father did not dwell in men in the OT. He said He came to dwell “among men”. But before God would come and dwell in the tabernacle or the temple, it had to be anointed with the holy anointing oil. Before the qualified priests could come near to God’s presence they had to have an extensive set of washings, sacrifices and offerings, and they had to be clothed in special garments. But a veil always separated OT priests from the presence of God. Men needed a better Covenant, with better promises, better sacrifices, and a better mediator between God and man (Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 9:23). Jesus Christ was the first man to be indwelt by God the Father, and made “one” with Him. Jesus’ body was the temple of God (John 2:21, 19). Why would God indwell Jesus Christ and no other man? Other men were defiled by sin, and there had been no sacrifice that could cleanse and take away the sins of men. Prior to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God “overlooked the times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30). Prior to the Law, “sin was not imputed where there is no law” (Rom. 5:13). “In the righteousness of God He passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 2:28). “Love takes not into account a wrong suffered” (1Cor. 13: ). Although they were guilty, God had provided deceased OT believers a “place of refuge” until there was a new High Priest. (pictured by the cities of refuge- Num. 35:). But God had planned for a sacrifice that could remove the stain of sin: that which was as scarlet would be as white as snow…” (Is. 1:18). His plan was made before He ever laid the foundations of the earth. All of the multitudes of bulls and goats and lambs and rams sacrificed under the Old Covenant could never take away sin, but they could give us a deeper understanding of the coming work of Christ. For God does not dwell in a defiled vessel. After the one sacrifice that could take away sins, and cleanse men from all sin was offered; after the ratification of the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ; after Jesus Christ becomes the High Priest; then men could become temples of God and priests of God under the New Covenant. Once cleansed, God (The Father, Son, and Spirit) comes to dwell in men the hearts of men.
.
.
PROMISES AND OATHS CONT…
Paul describes the promise for an inheritance that was made to Abraham and Jesus Christ in Galatians 3. Drawing men’s attention to the earthly parallel he states, “even though it is a man’s covenant (will or testament), yet when it is ratified (by the death of the one who made the promises), no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.” (Gal. 3:15). There was a promise made to Abraham and His Seed, then four hundred years later the Law was given. But the Law did not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. FOR IF THE INHERITANCE is based upon the Law, it is no longer based upon the promise, but God granted it to Abraham by means of a promise” (Gal. 3:17, 18). God promised with a blood covenant (Gen 15). God does not break His Promise, which would eventually be dispersed as an inheritance after God died. :) In the meantime, God gave the Old Covenant through Moses. God changed the priesthood, so He had to change the Law (Heb. 7:12). The Old Covenant was a wonderful foreshadowing of what Jesus Christ would eventually do (Heb. 10:1). The multi-faceted work of Christ was pictured in the furnishings, the many different sacrifices and offerings, and the work of the priests. The Law demonstrated how restricted the access was into the presence of God—only the High Priest was allowed!. The veil always separated men from His presence. The writer to the Hebrews said that veil signified that the way into the holy place had not yet been made (Heb. 9:8). Christ would enter the heavenly presence of God as a forerunner for us (Heb. 6:9). He made a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil of His flesh (Heb. 10:20). He entered through His own blood (Heb. 9:10), and He offered one sacrifice for the sins for all time (Heb. 10:12). After He made the offering for purification for sins (Heb. 1:3) and Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father. As foreshadowed in the Old Covenant, Jesus the new High Priest would perform the required ritual (foreshadowed in the Old Covenant) to make men into priests who met the requirement.
On what legal basis does your treatment of OT people rest? We know OT saints were redeemed by faith, just like NT saints (Heb 11 [esp verse 39]; James 2:23; 2 Pet 2:7). We also know Jesus Christ was the lamb reckoned slain from the foundation of the world (i.e. efficacious for redemption) (Rev. 13:8 [Greek scholarship is somewhat divided on the construction of this verse, though the majority agree the grammatical structure indicates it is the Lamb slain from the foundation rather than the book which was from the foundation - see Barnes, Jamison, Faucet and Brown]; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet 1:19-20). The promise was as effective to save OT saints before its temporal occurrence as it was to save NT saints after its temporal occurrence. (God is atemporal, transcending time) It is only on the basis of this one event that either group can be redeemed by a holy God. We know NT saints go immediately to heaven upon death - 2 Cor 2:5-8. If it is insufficient to fully redeem OT saints and get them to heaven before the temporal event, on what legal basis is a holy God justified in granting temporary or partial reprieve? IOW, if they are not saved, why are they not condemned? Conversely, if they are judged by the merit of Christ’s death to be justified before the law and no longer condemned, then why only half way saved. Legally, this half-way redemption is unscriptural..
.
On what legal basis does your treatment of OT people rest?
On the promises and the oaths of God (Heb. 6:17, 18).
Paul reveals that God made promises to Abraham and his Seed (not many, but One—Jesus Christ) (Gal. 3:15). Abraham did not receive all the promises God made him in his earthly lifetime. He did receive his son Isaac, but he did not have descendants as the sand of the earth. He was promised the land, but it wasn’t given to him for a possession in his lifetime. In Genesis 15:1 God promised Abraham that He (God) was Abraham’s shield, and his “great reward”. (I believe that God was promising Himself to Abraham and Jesus Christ as an inheritance. Then when we become a joint-heir with Christ, God (Jesus Christ) Himself becomes our source of eternal life when He takes up residence in our hearts -1John 5:11, 12; Eph. 3:17.) Abraham didn’t receive the promise when God made the promise to him, but Abraham did believe God, and God did credit Abraham’s sin stained account with righteousness. As the writer to the Hebrews tells us, “These (including Abraham) gained approval through their faith but they did not receive what was promised (Heb. 11:39). After His death, Jesus Christ received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33)
.
.
SIDE NOTE:
What was the significance of that promise made to Abraham and Jesus Christ? God the Father did not dwell in men in the OT. He said He came to dwell “among men”. But before God would come and dwell in the tabernacle or the temple, it had to be anointed with the holy anointing oil. Before the qualified priests could come near to God’s presence they had to have an extensive set of washings, sacrifices and offerings, and they had to be clothed in special garments. But a veil always separated OT priests from the presence of God. Men needed a better Covenant, with better promises, better sacrifices, and a better mediator between God and man (Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 9:23). Jesus Christ was the first man to be indwelt by God the Father, and made “one” with Him. Jesus’ body was the temple of God (John 2:21, 19). Why would God indwell Jesus Christ and no other man? Other men were defiled by sin, and there had been no sacrifice that could cleanse and take away the sins of men. Prior to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God “overlooked the times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30). Prior to the Law, “sin was not imputed where there is no law” (Rom. 5:13). “In the righteousness of God He passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 2:28). “Love takes not into account a wrong suffered” (1Cor. 13: ). Although they were guilty, God had provided deceased OT believers a “place of refuge” until there was a new High Priest. (pictured by the cities of refuge- Num. 35:). But God had planned for a sacrifice that could remove the stain of sin: that which was as scarlet would be as white as snow…” (Is. 1:18). His plan was made before He ever laid the foundations of the earth. All of the multitudes of bulls and goats and lambs and rams sacrificed under the Old Covenant could never take away sin, but they could give us a deeper understanding of the coming work of Christ. For God does not dwell in a defiled vessel. After the one sacrifice that could take away sins, and cleanse men from all sin was offered; after the ratification of the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ; after Jesus Christ becomes the High Priest; then men could become temples of God and priests of God under the New Covenant. Once cleansed, God (The Father, Son, and Spirit) comes to dwell in men the hearts of men.
.
.
PROMISES AND OATHS CONT…
Paul describes the promise for an inheritance that was made to Abraham and Jesus Christ in Galatians 3. Drawing men’s attention to the earthly parallel he states, “even though it is a man’s covenant (will or testament), yet when it is ratified (by the death of the one who made the promises), no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.” (Gal. 3:15). There was a promise made to Abraham and His Seed, then four hundred years later the Law was given. But the Law did not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. FOR IF THE INHERITANCE is based upon the Law, it is no longer based upon the promise, but God granted it to Abraham by means of a promise” (Gal. 3:17, 18). God promised with a blood covenant (Gen 15). God does not break His Promise, which would eventually be dispersed as an inheritance after God died. :) In the meantime, God gave the Old Covenant through Moses. God changed the priesthood, so He had to change the Law (Heb. 7:12). The Old Covenant was a wonderful foreshadowing of what Jesus Christ would eventually do (Heb. 10:1). The multi-faceted work of Christ was pictured in the furnishings, the many different sacrifices and offerings, and the work of the priests. The Law demonstrated how restricted the access was into the presence of God—only the High Priest was allowed!. The veil always separated men from His presence. The writer to the Hebrews said that veil signified that the way into the holy place had not yet been made (Heb. 9:8). Christ would enter the heavenly presence of God as a forerunner for us (Heb. 6:9). He made a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil of His flesh (Heb. 10:20). He entered through His own blood (Heb. 9:10), and He offered one sacrifice for the sins for all time (Heb. 10:12). After He made the offering for purification for sins (Heb. 1:3) and Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father. As foreshadowed in the Old Covenant, Jesus the new High Priest would perform the required ritual (foreshadowed in the Old Covenant) to make men into priests who met the requirement.
What is the requirement for a man to beome a priest in the New Covenant? The quality of eternal life (Heb. 7:16). How do men receive eternal life? The Law/Old Covenant can never give life (Gal. 3:21)! There is only one way!!! Jesus Christ comes to live in men’s hearts to give them eternal life.
What has to happen before Jesus Christ can come to live in a man’s heart?
Now here is the real legal problem!!! A slave can only serve one master. You were born a slave of sin, under jurisdiction of the Law (Rom. 6, 7). Legally you were bound to the Law for life, in the same way that a man is joined to his wife. And you are a slave of sin.
How do you legally get set free, when the Law will not pass away till heaven and earth passes away?
How do you get free from being a slave of sin so that you can become a slave of God (Romans 6:22), so that God has the right to make you an adopted son?
In my understanding this is a legal issue that is totally overlooked (or ignored?) by Reformed proponents.
How do you get any OT character free from their slavery to sin and bondage to the Law so that they can become a slave of God, let alone a son of God by adoption or birth???
So now we both have a legal issue to deal with! I will finish chronicling God’s promise, and His New Covenant becoming a reality in the next post. In the meantime, someone please explain for me how someone born a slave at birth (slave of sin, bound to the Law), is set free so that they can become an adopted son, so that they can qualify receive the inheritance as a joint heir with Christ, and become an heir of God (Rom. 8:17), and have the Father send the Spirit of His Son into their hearts (Gal. 4:4-8).
What has to happen before Jesus Christ can come to live in a man’s heart?
Now here is the real legal problem!!! A slave can only serve one master. You were born a slave of sin, under jurisdiction of the Law (Rom. 6, 7). Legally you were bound to the Law for life, in the same way that a man is joined to his wife. And you are a slave of sin.
How do you legally get set free, when the Law will not pass away till heaven and earth passes away?
How do you get free from being a slave of sin so that you can become a slave of God (Romans 6:22), so that God has the right to make you an adopted son?
In my understanding this is a legal issue that is totally overlooked (or ignored?) by Reformed proponents.
How do you get any OT character free from their slavery to sin and bondage to the Law so that they can become a slave of God, let alone a son of God by adoption or birth???
So now we both have a legal issue to deal with! I will finish chronicling God’s promise, and His New Covenant becoming a reality in the next post. In the meantime, someone please explain for me how someone born a slave at birth (slave of sin, bound to the Law), is set free so that they can become an adopted son, so that they can qualify receive the inheritance as a joint heir with Christ, and become an heir of God (Rom. 8:17), and have the Father send the Spirit of His Son into their hearts (Gal. 4:4-8).
This discussion began on the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith thread and was moved here at my request.
Thanks Jim!
Thanks Jim!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Jim C] Jesus Christ was the first man to be indwelt by God the Father, and made “one” with Him.Jim,
When you have time, can you please explain what you mean by this statement? Not clear to me if you are espousing an unorthodox position on the hypostatic union, just writing quickly through a subpoint of the greater discussion which did not come through clearly, or if I am just misunderstanding what you are saying.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
On February 2, 2010, I posted my blog article titled http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/02/regeneration-precedes-faith.ht… Regeneration Precedes Faith .
On May 24, 2010, in the comments section of that article, a individual named SteveB posted a lengthy article divided up over a few posts. He wrote:
In his reply on June 2, 2010, he indicated that he had been “kicked off of the Sharper Iron board.”
In reply, I suggested that since his comments were “post length,” he should start his own blog and post his research there. I also noted that because my time is limited I would not be able to respond to each of the objections he raised.
On June 16, I posted a blog article titled http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/06/facebook-theological-discussio… Facebook Theological Discussion .
On June 22, 2010, SteveB commented on that post. He wrote:
On November 1, 2010, an individual named Jim began posting very similar comments to those from SteveB. In one of his comments Jim posed this question:
I believe the argument establishes a faulty chronology, which I stated in my June 2, 2010 reply to SteveB in the comments of my http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/02/regeneration-precedes-faith.ht… Regeneration… article.
In this thread, Jim C is making that same argument!
p.s. Follow these links to the SI discussion of my articles:
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith
http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/10/monergism-vs-synergism-part-1… Monergism vs. Synergism - Part 1
On May 24, 2010, in the comments section of that article, a individual named SteveB posted a lengthy article divided up over a few posts. He wrote:
Quite simply, a person is regenerated when Jesus Christ comes to dwell in their hearts to give His life, God’s gift of eternal life. We are saved when Jesus Christ comes to live inside of us, to give us His life.
There was no regeneration before Jesus Christ came to redeem men and rose from the dead.
When did men begin receiving the new birth, the indwelling of Jesus Christ? Not until after Jesus rose from the dead.On May 25, 2010, in a follow up comment SteveB wrote:
It is not Biblically sound to claim that men were regenerated before Jesus Christ rose from the dead and began dwelling in men’s hearts.On June 1, 2010, in responding to his comments, I offered to move the discussion to SI, noting that “more folks would benefit by the discussion there.”
In his reply on June 2, 2010, he indicated that he had been “kicked off of the Sharper Iron board.”
In reply, I suggested that since his comments were “post length,” he should start his own blog and post his research there. I also noted that because my time is limited I would not be able to respond to each of the objections he raised.
On June 16, I posted a blog article titled http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/06/facebook-theological-discussio… Facebook Theological Discussion .
On June 22, 2010, SteveB commented on that post. He wrote:
The “two groups” of people are actually those who are indwelt by Jesus Christ, and those who are not.On June 24, 2010, I once again suggested that SteveB start his own blog as…
The comments box on my posts is not the correct forum for posting your lengthy articles.On October 30, 2010, I posted a blog article titled http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/10/monergism-vs-synergism-part-1… Monergism vs. Synergism - Part 1 .
On November 1, 2010, an individual named Jim began posting very similar comments to those from SteveB. In one of his comments Jim posed this question:
Do you believe men were“born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” before Jesus Christ rose from the dead? (1Peter 1:3)In what is presently the last comment on that thread, I responded:
Jim (or is it Steve),The view that both SteveB and Jim present in their comments, is the view that salvation is not possible without Christ indwelling the believer. Their main point seems to be that such indwelling cannot happen until AFTER the resurrection of Christ, resulting in the notion that there was no salvation in the OT.
This is now the 3rd time that someone has posted almost identical questions in the comments section of my blog. This particular article does not deal specifically with the regeneration issue, and thus your contribution here is not directly related to my article.
As I responded previously, my time is limited, and the writing of my articles takes precedence over a discussion of an issue that is not specifically related to my article.
Since this is the 3rd time this issue with regeneration has been raised, and since the arguments are similar, I will delete any further comments related to this issue.
I believe the argument establishes a faulty chronology, which I stated in my June 2, 2010 reply to SteveB in the comments of my http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/02/regeneration-precedes-faith.ht… Regeneration… article.
In this thread, Jim C is making that same argument!
[Jim C from post 1] Once cleansed, God (The Father, Son, and Spirit) comes to dwell in men the hearts of men.
[Jim C in post 2] Jesus Christ comes to live in men’s hearts to give them eternal life.
[Chip in post 4] Not clear to me if you are espousing an unorthodox position on the hypostatic unionI hope this thread will establish whether the view posited by SteveB, Jim, and now Jim C. is unorthodox.
p.s. Follow these links to the SI discussion of my articles:
http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] Regeneration Precedes Faith
http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/10/monergism-vs-synergism-part-1… Monergism vs. Synergism - Part 1
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Wrong forum.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Chip,
Before I continue with the clarification that you asked for, first let’s deal with the potential criticism.
Chip said,
Before I continue with the clarification that you asked for, first let’s deal with the potential criticism.
Chip said,
Not clear to me if you are espousing an unorthodox positionJohnBrian said,
I hope this thread will establish whether the view posited by SteveB, Jim, and now Jim C. is unorthodox.What exactly do you mean by “unorthodox” position?
Can’t speak for JohnBrian, of course.
For my part, I mean there are many unorthodox explanations for the hypostatic union. Your statement does not make it clear whether you espouse the orthodox understanding of the God/man Jesus Christ or some variation of the unorthodox proposals made over the centuries.
For my part, I mean there are many unorthodox explanations for the hypostatic union. Your statement does not make it clear whether you espouse the orthodox understanding of the God/man Jesus Christ or some variation of the unorthodox proposals made over the centuries.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
I’m sorry. I was pointing to the word “unorthodox”. What do you mean by it?
I’m sorry. I was pointing to the word “unorthodox”. What do you mean by it?
Contrary to what is usual, traditional, or accepted; not orthodox.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip,
By that definition Jesus Christ was unorthodox in His day, both His teaching and His actions. It infuriated many of His contemporaries. Martin Luther was unorthodox in his day. Those who questioned his orthodoxy tried to kill him. Later, people who rejected infant baptism, and instead practiced ‘believers baptism’, were persecuted and sometimes put to death for their unorthodox beliefs and practice. The Church was split after the time of Augustine, because many of the things that Augustine taught were unorthodox—they had not been taught by any other church father before him. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejected Augustine and his writings as unorthodox. I have heard men put distance between John Calvin and the writers of the Canons of Dort when John Calvin’s writings contradict Calvinism. Lutherans reject Calvinism as unorthodox. Catholics have their own standards of orthodoxy. If being “orthodox” is your goal, then what time period do you point to as your target? Whose “orthodox” views are your standard?
Personally I believe there is only one Truth that is unshifting over all time. And that is the truth that God has revealed in His Word. My goal is to be Biblical. Like the Bereans we need to, “examine the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” The beliefs and practices of famous men in history has not always proved to an exact standard of TRUTH.
Are you going to judge the things that I say by your standard of orthodoxy, or are we going to sharpen one another as we seek to test our beliefs against the standard of TRUTH— the Word of God?
By that definition Jesus Christ was unorthodox in His day, both His teaching and His actions. It infuriated many of His contemporaries. Martin Luther was unorthodox in his day. Those who questioned his orthodoxy tried to kill him. Later, people who rejected infant baptism, and instead practiced ‘believers baptism’, were persecuted and sometimes put to death for their unorthodox beliefs and practice. The Church was split after the time of Augustine, because many of the things that Augustine taught were unorthodox—they had not been taught by any other church father before him. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejected Augustine and his writings as unorthodox. I have heard men put distance between John Calvin and the writers of the Canons of Dort when John Calvin’s writings contradict Calvinism. Lutherans reject Calvinism as unorthodox. Catholics have their own standards of orthodoxy. If being “orthodox” is your goal, then what time period do you point to as your target? Whose “orthodox” views are your standard?
Personally I believe there is only one Truth that is unshifting over all time. And that is the truth that God has revealed in His Word. My goal is to be Biblical. Like the Bereans we need to, “examine the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” The beliefs and practices of famous men in history has not always proved to an exact standard of TRUTH.
Are you going to judge the things that I say by your standard of orthodoxy, or are we going to sharpen one another as we seek to test our beliefs against the standard of TRUTH— the Word of God?
Jim, what in the world are you talking about. Once again, you refuse to answer questions. All I asked was for you to clarify a statement you made. I charitably suggested I was not clear what you meant. Rather than
— simply clarify what you meant
or
— simply restate your thought
or
— simply provide your belief regarding the hypostatic union
you obfuscate.
You seem to avoid discussion at every opportunity, preferring to lecture until you are backed into a corner, then jumping to a new lecture circuit.
Please just answer the question. Then, perhaps, we can resume a normal dialogue.
Here it is again.
— simply clarify what you meant
or
— simply restate your thought
or
— simply provide your belief regarding the hypostatic union
you obfuscate.
You seem to avoid discussion at every opportunity, preferring to lecture until you are backed into a corner, then jumping to a new lecture circuit.
Please just answer the question. Then, perhaps, we can resume a normal dialogue.
Here it is again.
Jim C wrote:Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
Jesus Christ was the first man to be indwelt by God the Father, and made “one” with Him.
Jim,
When you have time, can you please explain what you mean by this statement? Not clear to me if you are espousing an unorthodox position on the hypostatic union, just writing quickly through a subpoint of the greater discussion which did not come through clearly, or if I am just misunderstanding what you are saying.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/the-myth-of-abrahams-bosom] THE MYTH OF “ABRAHAM’S BOSOM”
…what about all God’s people who came before Christ’s death? What about Abraham, Moses, David, and Isaiah? According to the theory, they were not yet covered by Christ blood. Conclusion: they, before Christ’s death, were not in the presence of God. They were somewhere else waiting for their sins to be covered.
This “somewhere else” was known as “Abraham’s Bosom.” Think “Protestant Purgatory” or something like that. Abraham’s Bosom existed as a holding tank for God’s people until Christ’s death on the cross. Once the atonement was made, Abraham’s Bosom it was vacated as all its occupants were ushered into God’s presence in heaven.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Chip,
I am sorry it took so long to post this. I was away from the computer I had my rough draft on.
I believe Jesus was the Word and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus was fully God and fully man. Jesus is God’s Son. And Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. (I think that covers it). When I said that Jesus Christ was the first man to be indwelt by the Father, and made “one” with Him, I was expressing my understanding of a special relationship that Jesus, the Son of God, had with His Father, as He expressed it in the following verses.
These are the declarations of Jesus Christ. As you can see, they were given in more than one context. Could any other man prior to Jesus Christ make such a claim?
The Father is in Me (John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21, 23)
The Father dwells in Me (John 14:10)
I am in the Father (John 10:38; 14:10:11, 20; 17:21)
The Father and I are one (John 10:30; 17:22)
Jesus called His body a temple—John 2:21
The Father remained in Christ until a moment before He died.
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2Cor. 5:19)
“My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (in contrast Jesus Christ promises never to leave us or forsake us.)
I believe this relationship was unique to Christ before His death and resurrection.
I had more verses of Jesus telling His disciples that He will dwell in them, of Jesus praying for believers to become “one” with He and the Father, and the numerous verses which express the fact that Christ dwells in us, and so does the Father (and of course the verses which refer to the Spirit too). Obviously NT believers are now holy temples of God. So if you need those verses let me know.
In Christ,
Jim C
I am sorry it took so long to post this. I was away from the computer I had my rough draft on.
I believe Jesus was the Word and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus was fully God and fully man. Jesus is God’s Son. And Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. (I think that covers it). When I said that Jesus Christ was the first man to be indwelt by the Father, and made “one” with Him, I was expressing my understanding of a special relationship that Jesus, the Son of God, had with His Father, as He expressed it in the following verses.
These are the declarations of Jesus Christ. As you can see, they were given in more than one context. Could any other man prior to Jesus Christ make such a claim?
The Father is in Me (John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21, 23)
The Father dwells in Me (John 14:10)
I am in the Father (John 10:38; 14:10:11, 20; 17:21)
The Father and I are one (John 10:30; 17:22)
Jesus called His body a temple—John 2:21
The Father remained in Christ until a moment before He died.
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2Cor. 5:19)
“My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (in contrast Jesus Christ promises never to leave us or forsake us.)
I believe this relationship was unique to Christ before His death and resurrection.
I had more verses of Jesus telling His disciples that He will dwell in them, of Jesus praying for believers to become “one” with He and the Father, and the numerous verses which express the fact that Christ dwells in us, and so does the Father (and of course the verses which refer to the Spirit too). Obviously NT believers are now holy temples of God. So if you need those verses let me know.
In Christ,
Jim C
Ed Vasicek, in another thread, posted a link to a Jim Hamilton article titled:
http://jimhamilton.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/them30-1.pdf] Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit? .
The article covers similar material as is being discussed in this thread.
http://jimhamilton.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/them30-1.pdf] Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit? .
The article covers similar material as is being discussed in this thread.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Thank you Jim.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I want to thank JohnBrian for posting the link to the blog article, “The Myth of ‘Abraham’s Bosom” in post #12. The discussion was very stimulating. I posted the questions listed below in the blog comments, but I did not receive an answer to them. Therefore, if you believe
“Abraham’s Bosom” = heaven = Sheol (in some cases),
then I would be interested in your take on the following verses.
Can anyone answer the questions which follow these verses?
QUESTIONS:
1. The last passages distinctly speaks of Christ’s SOUL, and His body, and receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from His Father. If Sheol= heaven, and if heaven was the destination for OT believers and Jesus when He died, then why did David prophecy, “You won’t abandon My SOUL to heaven”? If Christ’s soul went directly to heaven when He died on the cross, then why did Peter preach “He was neither ABANDONED TO HADES (heaven), nor did his flesh suffer decay (in the grave). If an OT soul went to heaven when it died, would we think of it as “abandoned in heaven”?
2. In Ps. 49:15, if Sheol=heaven, then why would there be a declaration that God would redeem his SOUL from the power of heaven? If all dead OT believers were in heaven, then whose SOUL was going to be redeemed by God from the power of Sheol, and be received by God? When and how was His SOUL redeemed? (As Micheal recently wrote, “Even when they rebelled, God initiated a plan to give man redemption. He gave them children and began to work through the line of one of them so that HE COULD EVENTUALLY REDEEM man who did not deserve to be redeemed.”)
.
.
Ponderings: (I am convinced that OT believers did not go to heaven when they died. They needed the long promised Holy Spirit which Jesus Christ received after He died (Acts 2:33), which He poured out on the day of Pentecost. OT believers died waiting for the redemption and the salvation that the Lord Jesus Christ would provide. However I am not willing to “die on the hill” saying that I believe that all of the Scriptures that I am listing here to support this view, can only be used to teach this perspective. I really desire my Christian brothers and sisters to help to test these, and help me see any perspective on these verses that I may have missed considering.)
Note the context of Ps. 49:15 below. It is speaking about redeeming, and God providing a ransom. And it was the SOUL that needed redemption. I’m just wondering now for the first time, if perhaps the SOUL needed to be redeemed from Sheol (the place of death, not the pit and not the grave), for without redemption of the SOUL from Sheol there could be no physical resurrection, and there would be no hope for the body except decay. Certainly we wouldn’t contend that the SOUL was needing to be redeemed from heaven would we? And we are not contending that the soul of an individual was in the grave are we? Remember, we have our redemption in Christ’s shed blood. Jesus’ blood was the only blood that could take away sins (Heb. 10:4), and cleanse a man’s conscience (Heb. 9:14).
Ps 49:7-9
No man can by any means redeem his brother
Or give to God a ransom for him —
8 For the redemption of his SOUL is costly,
That he should not undergo decay.
More Ponderings:
Note how these different verses which follow use the word “death”. I do not believe that the term means the cessation of life from the physical body, rather the place of death, Sheol, or Abraham’s Bosom.
“In the days of His flesh, when He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to Him who was able TO SAVE HIM FROM DEATH, and who was heard because of His piety.” (Heb. 4:7) His prayers were heard because of His piety. Did God save Him from dying physically? If Jesus was referring to His body, then why was He crying with loud crying and tears, if His Soul was going to heaven and He knew He was going to be raised up from the grave 3 days later? Or, if He meant the way He was going to die, then how did God save Him from that?
“He Himself likewise also partook of the same (flesh and blood), that through death He might render powerless HIM WHO HAD THE POWER OF DEATH, that is the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Did the devil have power over people dying? Did the devil have power over the body in the grave?
“…our Savior Jesus Christ who ABOLISHED DEATH and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (2:Tim. 1:10) What was it that He abolished? I think it was the need of people going to the place of death when they died, because now believers go immediately to be with the Lord when they die.?
“…by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.” (Heb 2:9) If this is physical death, why did people still need to die physically?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word HE WILL NEVER SEE DEATH.” 52 The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.” 53 “Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? (John 8:51). Could Jesus have meant the death of the physical body?
Speaking to His disciples, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here WHO WILL NOT TASTE DEATH until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matt 16:28) How could this be physical death, since all of His disciples died before the Lord returned? Or was Jesus just mistaken, and He just didn’t come as soon as he thought?)
“…let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from DEATH.” (James 5:20). There have been many converted since James penned these letters. If he meant that conversion would save a man’s soul from physical death, then that interpretation does not conform to our reality. Converted men still died physically.
CONT…
“Abraham’s Bosom” = heaven = Sheol (in some cases),
then I would be interested in your take on the following verses.
Can anyone answer the questions which follow these verses?
.“What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his SOUL from the power of Sheol?” (Ps. 89:48).
“But God will redeem my SOUL from the power of Sheol; FOR HE WILL RECEIVE ME” (Ps. 49:15).
(And David’s prophecy concerning Christ): “You will not abandon MY SOUL to Sheol” (Ps. 16:10). And then Peter preached, “he (David) looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither ABANDONED TO HADES, nor did His flesh suffer decay… but He received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:31-33)
QUESTIONS:
1. The last passages distinctly speaks of Christ’s SOUL, and His body, and receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from His Father. If Sheol= heaven, and if heaven was the destination for OT believers and Jesus when He died, then why did David prophecy, “You won’t abandon My SOUL to heaven”? If Christ’s soul went directly to heaven when He died on the cross, then why did Peter preach “He was neither ABANDONED TO HADES (heaven), nor did his flesh suffer decay (in the grave). If an OT soul went to heaven when it died, would we think of it as “abandoned in heaven”?
2. In Ps. 49:15, if Sheol=heaven, then why would there be a declaration that God would redeem his SOUL from the power of heaven? If all dead OT believers were in heaven, then whose SOUL was going to be redeemed by God from the power of Sheol, and be received by God? When and how was His SOUL redeemed? (As Micheal recently wrote, “Even when they rebelled, God initiated a plan to give man redemption. He gave them children and began to work through the line of one of them so that HE COULD EVENTUALLY REDEEM man who did not deserve to be redeemed.”)
.
.
Ponderings: (I am convinced that OT believers did not go to heaven when they died. They needed the long promised Holy Spirit which Jesus Christ received after He died (Acts 2:33), which He poured out on the day of Pentecost. OT believers died waiting for the redemption and the salvation that the Lord Jesus Christ would provide. However I am not willing to “die on the hill” saying that I believe that all of the Scriptures that I am listing here to support this view, can only be used to teach this perspective. I really desire my Christian brothers and sisters to help to test these, and help me see any perspective on these verses that I may have missed considering.)
Note the context of Ps. 49:15 below. It is speaking about redeeming, and God providing a ransom. And it was the SOUL that needed redemption. I’m just wondering now for the first time, if perhaps the SOUL needed to be redeemed from Sheol (the place of death, not the pit and not the grave), for without redemption of the SOUL from Sheol there could be no physical resurrection, and there would be no hope for the body except decay. Certainly we wouldn’t contend that the SOUL was needing to be redeemed from heaven would we? And we are not contending that the soul of an individual was in the grave are we? Remember, we have our redemption in Christ’s shed blood. Jesus’ blood was the only blood that could take away sins (Heb. 10:4), and cleanse a man’s conscience (Heb. 9:14).
Ps 49:7-9
No man can by any means redeem his brother
Or give to God a ransom for him —
8 For the redemption of his SOUL is costly,
That he should not undergo decay.
More Ponderings:
Note how these different verses which follow use the word “death”. I do not believe that the term means the cessation of life from the physical body, rather the place of death, Sheol, or Abraham’s Bosom.
“In the days of His flesh, when He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to Him who was able TO SAVE HIM FROM DEATH, and who was heard because of His piety.” (Heb. 4:7) His prayers were heard because of His piety. Did God save Him from dying physically? If Jesus was referring to His body, then why was He crying with loud crying and tears, if His Soul was going to heaven and He knew He was going to be raised up from the grave 3 days later? Or, if He meant the way He was going to die, then how did God save Him from that?
“He Himself likewise also partook of the same (flesh and blood), that through death He might render powerless HIM WHO HAD THE POWER OF DEATH, that is the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Did the devil have power over people dying? Did the devil have power over the body in the grave?
“…our Savior Jesus Christ who ABOLISHED DEATH and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (2:Tim. 1:10) What was it that He abolished? I think it was the need of people going to the place of death when they died, because now believers go immediately to be with the Lord when they die.?
“…by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.” (Heb 2:9) If this is physical death, why did people still need to die physically?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word HE WILL NEVER SEE DEATH.” 52 The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.” 53 “Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? (John 8:51). Could Jesus have meant the death of the physical body?
Speaking to His disciples, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here WHO WILL NOT TASTE DEATH until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matt 16:28) How could this be physical death, since all of His disciples died before the Lord returned? Or was Jesus just mistaken, and He just didn’t come as soon as he thought?)
“…let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from DEATH.” (James 5:20). There have been many converted since James penned these letters. If he meant that conversion would save a man’s soul from physical death, then that interpretation does not conform to our reality. Converted men still died physically.
CONT…
“Have GATES OF DEATH been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen THE DOORS OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH?” (Job 38:17) What do you think the gates of death are? Where do you think they lead to?
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. And DEATH AND HELL were cast into THE LAKE OF FIRE. THIS IS THE SECOND DEATH. (Rev 20:13-14)
Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such THE SECOND DEATH HATH NO POWER. The lake of fire is the place of the second death where the bodies and souls of unsaved men will spend eternity. When it says “death and hell” delivered up the dead that were in them, I suppose death could mean the grave there, but the context seems to indicate Sheol. Note also the place “the second death” has no power on the ones who were raised in the first resurrection. Death could not hold Christ. He came to destroy the one who had the power of death, the devil.
JohnBrian highlighted this quote from the article linked on post #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. And DEATH AND HELL were cast into THE LAKE OF FIRE. THIS IS THE SECOND DEATH. (Rev 20:13-14)
Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such THE SECOND DEATH HATH NO POWER. The lake of fire is the place of the second death where the bodies and souls of unsaved men will spend eternity. When it says “death and hell” delivered up the dead that were in them, I suppose death could mean the grave there, but the context seems to indicate Sheol. Note also the place “the second death” has no power on the ones who were raised in the first resurrection. Death could not hold Christ. He came to destroy the one who had the power of death, the devil.
JohnBrian highlighted this quote from the article linked on post #13.
Actually the teaching of Purgatory is quite different. The idea of Purgatory was used by Catholics to raise money. Hired professionals would go around the countryside, recreating vivid scenerios of the departed souls in torment in a place where they had to pay penance, or somehow atone for their own sins. People on this side of Purgatory could “lessen the time” a the soul of a departed loved one would have to spend there if they would pay the price. (Supposedly.)
- This “somewhere else” was known as “Abraham’s Bosom.” Think “Protestant Purgatory” or something like that. Abraham’s Bosom existed as a holding tank for God’s people until Christ’s death on the cross. Once the atonement was made, Abraham’s Bosom it was vacated as all its occupants were ushered into God’s presence in heaven.
[Jim C in post 2] Jesus Christ comes to live in men’s hearts to give them eternal life.
[Chip Van Emmerik in post 4] Not clear to me if you are espousing an unorthodox position on the hypostatic unionJim,
Your position, if I understand it correctly, is not an argument that conservative evangelicals (and I include fundamentalism in that group for the purposes of this post) hold to, so in that regard it may be unorthodox. It would be necessary for you to show where others have affirmed your position, and by doing so show that your idea is not outside the pale of orthodoxy.
Here is a statement of what I will call the TRADITIONAL view:
There can be no salvation apart from the death of Christ.
Most believers would agree with this statement, even those who deny the monergisic view of salvation. This view holds that salvation was available prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, and the phrase that often describes that idea is somewhat along the line of “those saved before the cross looked forward to the cross, while those saved after looked backward to the cross.”
Here is a statement of what I understand your view to be, and will call the NON-TRADITIONAL view:
There can be no salvation UNTIL AFTER the resurrection of Christ.
Your argument appears to be based on the passages in Scripture that refer to Christ indwelling the believer, and the logical fact that such could not happen prior to the resurrection. Your position denies that anyone could be saved, even though they could exercise faith, prior to the resurrection. Naturally your view will insist that faith precedes regeneration, as that is the reasoned outcome of your view.
Your view that salvation cannot take place until post resurrection is a view that many, both synergists and monergists, will disagree with. Your argument against the monergistic view of regeneration preceding faith is not specifically against that view. It is against any view that insists that men were saved prior to the resurrection.
So is there evidence to defend your view?
SteveB in defending his (and your) view in the comments section of my http://canjamerican.blogspot.com/2010/02/regeneration-precedes-faith.ht… Regeneration Precedes Faith article, references a sermon by John Piper titled http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-reason-the-son-…] The Reason the Son of God appeared was to Destroy the Works of the Devil . He insists that Piper’s sermon supports this non-traditional view.
[SteveB on May 26, 2010] The issue I was working through was developing a concise rock solid case proving there was no regeneration before the resurrection. That fact poses irreconcilable problems to all of the peculiar Reformed tenets. Surprise of all surprises, John Piper made the case for me! Although his case will not be adequate to convince anyone, it will show that there are huge discrepancies in this man’s teaching. (I also have a similar list of quotes by John MacArthur).(bolded text mine-JB)He then quotes a few portions of the sermon.
[SteveB on May 26, 2010] “The incarnation is necessary for the new birth because the life we have through the new birth is life in union with the incarnate Christ…THAT LIFE THAT WE HAVE IN UNION WITH CHRIST IS THE LIFE THAT JESUS OBTAINED FOR US BY THE LIFE THAT HE LIVED AND THE DEATH THAT HE DIED IN THE FLESH.” (“The Reason the Son of God appeared was to Destroy the Works of the Devil” 12/23/07)Here is the context with SteveB’s quote bolded:
[John Piper] First, consider that the aim of the new birth is to enable us to believe in the incarnate Jesus Christ. If there were no Jesus Christ to believe in, then the new birth would not happen. Look at 1 John 5:1: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ [that is everyone who believes that this incarnate Jewish man from Nazareth is the promised divine Messiah] has been born of God.” That means that the Holy Spirit causes people to be born again with a view to creating faith in the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ (see 1 John 4:2-3). That’s the aim of the new birth. And so faith in Jesus Christ is the first evidence that it has happened. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” Faith is the sign that the new birth has happened.Notice that Piper affirms that regeneration precedes faith in the paragraph directly preceding the one SteveB quotes from!
But that’s not the only reason the incarnation is necessary for the new birth—not just because the aim of the new birth is faith in Jesus Christ. The incarnation of the Son of God is necessary because the life we have through the new birth is life in union with the incarnate Christ. Jesus said, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). That life that we have in union with Christ is the life that Jesus obtained for us by the life he lived and the death he died in the flesh.
Piper does not present the non-traditional view as SteveB insists, but rather presents the traditional view. To insist that he does affirm the view you are advocating, is to read your view into his sermon. So, the evidence that SteveB presents is not at all compelling.
Maybe it would be helpful in this thread for you to explain your view more fully, as it is obvious in other threads that this view is central to your theology, and thus is a presupposition (pre-conception) for all of your arguments.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
JohnBrian,
I want to commend you for the tenor of your discussions and your conciseness.
You suggested that I begin a new thread to discuss the destination of the souls of OT believers, when this topic came up in your thread “Regeneration Precedes Faith”. I did. You then posted a link to a blog entitled “The Myth of Abraham’s Bosom” (see #13). I elected to join that discussion and asked my questions about “souls waiting for redemption from Sheol”, which were not answered when I asked them on your thread “Regeneration Precedes Faith”. My questions were not answered in the blog discussion either. I then consolidated my questions and added more Biblical evidence and submitted that in post #17 and #18. You seem to be challenging my understanding of the Scriptures on this issue, but you do not seem willing to address my questions which correspond to the Scriptures, which promote the view that the souls of OT believers did not immediately enter the presence of the Father when they died.
Re: post #19 - I am not a big fan of “traditional”, any more than I am of “orthodox”. People seem to pull this charge out of their arsenal when their Scriptural basis is weak. Paul tells us, “see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8). We can see two periods of history where tradition became overriding, causing men to miss the truth. Before Jesus went to the cross, religious leaders were measuring His disciples by the “orthodox” “tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:5; Matt. 12:2). On the other hand, Jesus said that the religious leaders had (A) laid aside the commandment of God, to hold to the tradition of men (Mark 7:8); (B) rejected the commandment of God to keep their tradition (Mark 7:9); (C) invalidated (made void, nullified, made of no effect) the word of God for the sake of their tradition (Mark 7:13; Matt. 15:6). Jesus charged these religious leaders with transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition (Matt. 15:3). We know that Jesus Christ kept the Law perfectly, yet the religious leaders judged Jesus through the lens of their tradition as violating the Sabbath (Luke 13:14; John 5:16, 18, 9:16). They concluded that Jesus was not of God because He didn’t keep the Sabbath according to their tradition (John 9:16). Tradition caused these men to miss The Truth.
Later we see the slide into tradition that overtook the Catholic Church over the years. Martin Luther went after a huge body of teaching that was “traditional”, but it was not Biblical. Did Martin Luther manage to reject all unbiblical yet “traditional” teachings taught and practiced by the Catholic Church? The Lutherans would say yes; others in the body of Christ might say that Martin Luther continued to hold to at least a couple of traditions, and some teachings that are not Biblical.
Therefore, I prefer the model of the Bereans myself. They tested the things that the outstanding Apostle Paul taught them with their Scriptures. The Word of God is our “plumb line”, not tradition.
I gave a set of Scriptures (not an exhaustive set) that lead me to believe that men’s souls did not go immediately to heaven when they died. These verses tell me, among other things, men’s souls needed to be redeemed from Sheol. As I pointed out, if believing souls were in heaven, they would not need redemption from heaven, and if this passage were referring to non-believing souls in hell, these souls would not be redeemed from Sheol. So whose souls were they, and where were they? These are some of the questions that I asked (see post #17, 18). I am open to anyone giving me their interpretation of these verses and answer the questions which I have posed. If my understanding of the Bible is incorrect, then you should have no problem answering the questions and presenting Scripture to back up your contentions.
Please consider answering the questions in post #2 as well. These questions address another reason why men could not receive the salvation which Christ came to give, before He came to give it.
You asked:
I want to commend you for the tenor of your discussions and your conciseness.
You suggested that I begin a new thread to discuss the destination of the souls of OT believers, when this topic came up in your thread “Regeneration Precedes Faith”. I did. You then posted a link to a blog entitled “The Myth of Abraham’s Bosom” (see #13). I elected to join that discussion and asked my questions about “souls waiting for redemption from Sheol”, which were not answered when I asked them on your thread “Regeneration Precedes Faith”. My questions were not answered in the blog discussion either. I then consolidated my questions and added more Biblical evidence and submitted that in post #17 and #18. You seem to be challenging my understanding of the Scriptures on this issue, but you do not seem willing to address my questions which correspond to the Scriptures, which promote the view that the souls of OT believers did not immediately enter the presence of the Father when they died.
Re: post #19 - I am not a big fan of “traditional”, any more than I am of “orthodox”. People seem to pull this charge out of their arsenal when their Scriptural basis is weak. Paul tells us, “see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8). We can see two periods of history where tradition became overriding, causing men to miss the truth. Before Jesus went to the cross, religious leaders were measuring His disciples by the “orthodox” “tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:5; Matt. 12:2). On the other hand, Jesus said that the religious leaders had (A) laid aside the commandment of God, to hold to the tradition of men (Mark 7:8); (B) rejected the commandment of God to keep their tradition (Mark 7:9); (C) invalidated (made void, nullified, made of no effect) the word of God for the sake of their tradition (Mark 7:13; Matt. 15:6). Jesus charged these religious leaders with transgressing the commandment of God by their tradition (Matt. 15:3). We know that Jesus Christ kept the Law perfectly, yet the religious leaders judged Jesus through the lens of their tradition as violating the Sabbath (Luke 13:14; John 5:16, 18, 9:16). They concluded that Jesus was not of God because He didn’t keep the Sabbath according to their tradition (John 9:16). Tradition caused these men to miss The Truth.
Later we see the slide into tradition that overtook the Catholic Church over the years. Martin Luther went after a huge body of teaching that was “traditional”, but it was not Biblical. Did Martin Luther manage to reject all unbiblical yet “traditional” teachings taught and practiced by the Catholic Church? The Lutherans would say yes; others in the body of Christ might say that Martin Luther continued to hold to at least a couple of traditions, and some teachings that are not Biblical.
Therefore, I prefer the model of the Bereans myself. They tested the things that the outstanding Apostle Paul taught them with their Scriptures. The Word of God is our “plumb line”, not tradition.
I gave a set of Scriptures (not an exhaustive set) that lead me to believe that men’s souls did not go immediately to heaven when they died. These verses tell me, among other things, men’s souls needed to be redeemed from Sheol. As I pointed out, if believing souls were in heaven, they would not need redemption from heaven, and if this passage were referring to non-believing souls in hell, these souls would not be redeemed from Sheol. So whose souls were they, and where were they? These are some of the questions that I asked (see post #17, 18). I am open to anyone giving me their interpretation of these verses and answer the questions which I have posed. If my understanding of the Bible is incorrect, then you should have no problem answering the questions and presenting Scripture to back up your contentions.
Please consider answering the questions in post #2 as well. These questions address another reason why men could not receive the salvation which Christ came to give, before He came to give it.
You asked:
To see a prominent preacher, John MacArthur, teach that the souls of men went to Sheol when they died, go to: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1301-D_Bible-Questions-and-Answers… This link is a Q & A by John MacArthur, and this topic is in the upper-middle of the body of that page. This is the first of five paragraphs:So is there evidence to defend your view?
Lastly I would ask, is the following statement which you submitted Biblical or “traditional”?“The question went on then and said what about those who died before Christ arose? Were they with the Lord? The Old Testament teaches that the people who died went to a place called Hades or Sheol. It can be translated the grave. It means a waiting place. Apparently, this was not the prepared Heaven that our Lord spoke about; but in the Old Testament, you have a rather limited view of life after death. The best we can assume is that when the saints in the Old Testament died, they went to a compartment or a part of Sheol or the grave. I’m sure it was a place of joy and fulfillment, a place of blessing, a place of enrichment, a place where the godly would go.”
In my detailed study of all of the verses which referenced “salvation” or “being saved”, I do not recall this point being taught. Where does the Bible teach that OT believers were saved by looking forward to the cross? Where does the Bible say that men today are saved by looking at the cross? I give some of the Biblical detail of what God does to save us in the next post. On the other hand, contrary to that statement, JohnBrian aren’t you telling me that in the very micro-second an uninterested, likely antagonistic, unregenerate man is regenerated to enable his spiritual perception, he is already expressing faith and being saved? If that is your view for both OT and NT then where was the time for the unregenerate to look anywhere?“those saved before the cross looked forward to the cross, while those saved after looked backward to the cross.”
JohnBrian asked if I had any evidence to support my view that the work of God to save a man came after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe God’s gift of salvation is a New Covenant gift made available by the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and is applied to us by our High Priest Jesus Christ, and it is Jesus Christ coming to live in our hearts to give us His life (eternal life). By contrasting the features of the Old and New Covenants, hopefully you will see that the Old could not and did not do what men ultimately needed—give us a brand new source of life! I believe that the saving work of Jesus Christ as High Priest (which I partially amplify below) has been a neglected topic in the church.
.
1. Why do we need the New Covenant? Because the Law could not impart LIFE (Gal. 3:21). (If people in the OT who were under the Law, were receiving new spiritual life in regeneration and eternal life, then what “kind of life” does Paul mean when he says the Law cannot impart life? How many different “kinds of life” for men are there in the Bible? In contrast, I believe that men did not receive eternal life in regeneration in the OT: the Law could never impart “life”)
A. When God changed the priesthood (given to the brother of Moses, Aaron and his descendants) of necessity there takes place a change of law also (Heb. 7:12). The first covenant was inaugurated with blood of calves and goats by Moses (Heb. 18-21). However, God needed to set aside the former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (Heb. 7:19). It only had a shadow of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1).
B. THE SACRIFICES were inferior—they could not take away sins (Heb. 10:4, 11), they could not cleanse a man’s conscience (Heb. 9:14), and they had to be repeated often year after year (Heb. 9:25; 10:11).
C. THE PRIESTS were inferior—they had to offer sacrifices for their own sins (Heb. 9:27), they died and they ceased being priests (Heb. 7:23), they didn’t have the quality of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16), they did not make a way into the earthly Holy of Holies for all of the priests, let alone anyone outside of the priesthood.
D. THE PRIESTHOOD was very limited; only a small segment of one tribe qualified to be priests. Moses, a mere man, but a type of Christ, offered the special sacrifices for the first priest’s consecration. Thereafter the High Priest would offer the sacrifices, offerings and etc… to ordain new priests. Only “holy anointing oil” was used in the services.
E. THE SANCTUARY was inferior—it was merely a copy of the true one, and its furnishings copies of the heavenly things (Heb. 8:5; 9:5, 24). . It was made with hands.
2. On the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah foretold THE NEW COVENANT – “The days are coming when I will effect a new covenant… not like the covenant which I made with their fathers” who came out of Egypt (Heb. 8:8).
A. It was A BETTER COVENANT, enacted on better promises, and Jesus is the mediator (Heb. 8:6). If the first had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second (Heb. 8:6). Jesus takes away the first in order to establish the second (Heb. 10:9). It brings in a better hope, through which we draw near to God (Heb. 7:19). This hope, sure and steadfast, enters within the veil (Heb. 6:19).
B. ONLY ONE SACRIFICE- “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all” (Heb. 10:10). Once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26). His blood can cleanse men of all their sins (1Jn 1:7), and cleanse the conscience from dead works (Heb. 9:14).
C. THE PRIESTS are all God’s sons. Jesus Christ BECAME the High Priest of the New Covenant, who made propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17). He obtained a more excellent ministry…as He is also the mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6). Jesus was made High Priest through an oath, and He is a Priest forever (Heb. 7:21). “Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee (born out from the dead); thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:5, 6). Jesus Christ was and remained holy, innocent, undefiled (Heb. 7:27), and after His death He was given the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16). Because He abides forever, Jesus holds his priesthood permanently (Heb. 7:24). THEREFORE HE, AS HIGH PRIEST IS ABLE TO SAVE FOREVER THOSE WHO DRAW NEAR TO GOD THROUGH HIM (Heb. 7:25). THE LAST ADAM BECAME THE LIFE GIVING SPIRIT (1Cor. 15:45). (If men were already receiving the new life in regeneration and eternal life in the OT, then what kind of “life” does the Last Adam give?). The Last Adam, the Life Giving Spirit gives men eternal life when He dwells in them (1Jn. 5:11, 12; Eph. 3:17). Jesus Christ is our life (Col. 3:4). When men are born again with the power of an indestructible life they meet the requirement to become a priest in the New Covenant (Heb. 7:16). Jesus Christ, the Son of God and High Priest makes all believers priests. NT priests are anointed with the Holy Spirit (whereas OT priests were anointed with “holy anointing oil”.).
D. THE PRIESTHOOD- all believers when we are indwelt and made one with the Spirit of Christ (an indestructible life is the qualification for priests under the New Covenant.) The ordination of each believer into the priesthood is with a better sacrifice/offering. And our anointing is by the Holy Spirit. Because we have the power of an indestructible life, we do not cease to be a priest when we leave our physical bodies.
E. THE SANCTUARY- It is in heaven itself, and it is made without hands (Heb. 9:24). The veil of the earthly temple was torn in two upon Christ’s death, signifying that the way into the Holy Place had now been disclosed (Heb. 9:8). When Christ appeared as High Priest of the good things to come, He entered into the Holy Place made without hands in heaven, and when He entered, He entered through His own blood (Heb. 9:11, 12, 24). Jesus entered within the veil as a forerunner for us (Heb. 6:20). (When Jesus walked on earth He stated that no man had seen the Father at any time except Himself. But the angels continually behold the face of His Father. As the Forerunner, He was the first ‘man’ to go through the newly opened veil.) Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time (Heb. 10:12). And when He had made purification for sins He sat down at the right hand of the Father (Heb. 1:3). WE NOW HAVE CONFIDENCE TO ENTER THE HOLY PLACE BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, BY A NEW AND LIVING WAY WHICH HE INAUGURATED FOR US THROUGH THE VEIL, THAT IS HIS FLESH (Heb. 10:19-20). OT men did not enter the heavenly Holy Place on the promise of the blood that would be shed some time in the future, but through His shed blood, and through His flesh. Jesus, as High Priest baptizes men, and saves them in this baptism.
.
1. Why do we need the New Covenant? Because the Law could not impart LIFE (Gal. 3:21). (If people in the OT who were under the Law, were receiving new spiritual life in regeneration and eternal life, then what “kind of life” does Paul mean when he says the Law cannot impart life? How many different “kinds of life” for men are there in the Bible? In contrast, I believe that men did not receive eternal life in regeneration in the OT: the Law could never impart “life”)
A. When God changed the priesthood (given to the brother of Moses, Aaron and his descendants) of necessity there takes place a change of law also (Heb. 7:12). The first covenant was inaugurated with blood of calves and goats by Moses (Heb. 18-21). However, God needed to set aside the former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (Heb. 7:19). It only had a shadow of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1).
B. THE SACRIFICES were inferior—they could not take away sins (Heb. 10:4, 11), they could not cleanse a man’s conscience (Heb. 9:14), and they had to be repeated often year after year (Heb. 9:25; 10:11).
C. THE PRIESTS were inferior—they had to offer sacrifices for their own sins (Heb. 9:27), they died and they ceased being priests (Heb. 7:23), they didn’t have the quality of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16), they did not make a way into the earthly Holy of Holies for all of the priests, let alone anyone outside of the priesthood.
D. THE PRIESTHOOD was very limited; only a small segment of one tribe qualified to be priests. Moses, a mere man, but a type of Christ, offered the special sacrifices for the first priest’s consecration. Thereafter the High Priest would offer the sacrifices, offerings and etc… to ordain new priests. Only “holy anointing oil” was used in the services.
E. THE SANCTUARY was inferior—it was merely a copy of the true one, and its furnishings copies of the heavenly things (Heb. 8:5; 9:5, 24). . It was made with hands.
2. On the other hand, the prophet Jeremiah foretold THE NEW COVENANT – “The days are coming when I will effect a new covenant… not like the covenant which I made with their fathers” who came out of Egypt (Heb. 8:8).
A. It was A BETTER COVENANT, enacted on better promises, and Jesus is the mediator (Heb. 8:6). If the first had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second (Heb. 8:6). Jesus takes away the first in order to establish the second (Heb. 10:9). It brings in a better hope, through which we draw near to God (Heb. 7:19). This hope, sure and steadfast, enters within the veil (Heb. 6:19).
B. ONLY ONE SACRIFICE- “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all” (Heb. 10:10). Once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26). His blood can cleanse men of all their sins (1Jn 1:7), and cleanse the conscience from dead works (Heb. 9:14).
C. THE PRIESTS are all God’s sons. Jesus Christ BECAME the High Priest of the New Covenant, who made propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17). He obtained a more excellent ministry…as He is also the mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6). Jesus was made High Priest through an oath, and He is a Priest forever (Heb. 7:21). “Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee (born out from the dead); thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:5, 6). Jesus Christ was and remained holy, innocent, undefiled (Heb. 7:27), and after His death He was given the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16). Because He abides forever, Jesus holds his priesthood permanently (Heb. 7:24). THEREFORE HE, AS HIGH PRIEST IS ABLE TO SAVE FOREVER THOSE WHO DRAW NEAR TO GOD THROUGH HIM (Heb. 7:25). THE LAST ADAM BECAME THE LIFE GIVING SPIRIT (1Cor. 15:45). (If men were already receiving the new life in regeneration and eternal life in the OT, then what kind of “life” does the Last Adam give?). The Last Adam, the Life Giving Spirit gives men eternal life when He dwells in them (1Jn. 5:11, 12; Eph. 3:17). Jesus Christ is our life (Col. 3:4). When men are born again with the power of an indestructible life they meet the requirement to become a priest in the New Covenant (Heb. 7:16). Jesus Christ, the Son of God and High Priest makes all believers priests. NT priests are anointed with the Holy Spirit (whereas OT priests were anointed with “holy anointing oil”.).
D. THE PRIESTHOOD- all believers when we are indwelt and made one with the Spirit of Christ (an indestructible life is the qualification for priests under the New Covenant.) The ordination of each believer into the priesthood is with a better sacrifice/offering. And our anointing is by the Holy Spirit. Because we have the power of an indestructible life, we do not cease to be a priest when we leave our physical bodies.
E. THE SANCTUARY- It is in heaven itself, and it is made without hands (Heb. 9:24). The veil of the earthly temple was torn in two upon Christ’s death, signifying that the way into the Holy Place had now been disclosed (Heb. 9:8). When Christ appeared as High Priest of the good things to come, He entered into the Holy Place made without hands in heaven, and when He entered, He entered through His own blood (Heb. 9:11, 12, 24). Jesus entered within the veil as a forerunner for us (Heb. 6:20). (When Jesus walked on earth He stated that no man had seen the Father at any time except Himself. But the angels continually behold the face of His Father. As the Forerunner, He was the first ‘man’ to go through the newly opened veil.) Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time (Heb. 10:12). And when He had made purification for sins He sat down at the right hand of the Father (Heb. 1:3). WE NOW HAVE CONFIDENCE TO ENTER THE HOLY PLACE BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, BY A NEW AND LIVING WAY WHICH HE INAUGURATED FOR US THROUGH THE VEIL, THAT IS HIS FLESH (Heb. 10:19-20). OT men did not enter the heavenly Holy Place on the promise of the blood that would be shed some time in the future, but through His shed blood, and through His flesh. Jesus, as High Priest baptizes men, and saves them in this baptism.
F. MEN BECOME TEMPLES OF GOD on earth - Know ye not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you…the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are (1Cor. 3:16, 17). “Know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God” (1Cor. 6:19). Jesus Christ in me (see Gal. 1:16; 2:20; Eph. 3:17; Rom. 8:10; Col. 1:27; 3:11; 2Cor. 13:5). Our new life comes from Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5; Col. 3:4; 1John 5:11, 12). The Father lives in me (Rom. 8:11; 1John 4:15; 2:9, 23; Matt. 10:40; John 13:20; Eph. 4:6). The Spirit is given to believers (Gal. 3:14).
To sum up the first evidence: The Old Covenant could not give life, but Jesus Christ, the Last Adam became the life giving Spirit. Jesus became the source of eternal salvation (Heb. 9:5). He became the High Priest who is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him. Jesus Christ comes to dwell in men to give them His life (Eph. 3:17; 1John 5:11, 12; Col. 3:4). If a man does not have Jesus Christ they do not have life, and if a man does not have the Spirit of Jesus Christ he does not belong to Him (1Jn 5:12; Rom.8:9). A person is saved when they are made alive with Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5), saved by regeneration (Titus 3:5). Saved by Christ’s life (Rom. 5:10).
Therefore regeneration is not the name for the things that happen to an unregenerate man before he places his faith in Jesus Christ. Biblically, regeneration is the saving work of God.
3. JESUS THE HIGH PRIEST BAPTIZES AND GIVES THE SPIRIT.
A. Prior to Jesus becoming the High Priest: Men from the Pharisees come to John the Baptist and ask him why He is baptizing if he is not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet (John 1:25). I do not know what in the Old Testament indicated to them that the coming Christ would baptize. Does anyone have any idea? But John replies that Jesus will baptize men with the Holy Spirit (John 1:33). The Holy Spirit had been promised, but John was careful to note that the Holy Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39). “But this He spoke of the Holy Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive” (John 7:38). Jesus Christ calls His impending death a “baptism” and says his disciples will be baptized with the baptism that He is baptized with (Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50.) Just prior to His ascension, Jesus told His disciples to “wait for what the Father had promised, which you heard of from Me” (Acts 1:4), “for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). The Day of Pentecost began a whole new work of God. (The following points are taken from a sermon by John MacArthur from this page: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1703_The-Baptism-of-the-Holy-Spiri…
B. The church is born- “the called out ones”, “the bride of Christ” This is something not seen in the OT. It’s a mystery, hidden throughout the OT.
C. The Holy Spirit is given (Peter preached concerning Jesus: “and having receive from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Jesus received the promise of the Holy Ghost, and He gives the Spirit to believers. The Spirit wasn’t given until after Jesus was glorified. Jesus had to return to the Father before the Spirit could be sent (John 14).
D. The church- “that body of believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit all in an invisible union with Jesus Christ and with each other”
E. The church- branches for the vine Jesus Christ
F. The church- a household, a family of sons by adoption and birth
G. A building, a spiritual temple with Jesus Christ as the foundation, the Cornerstone (the first stone laid down).
H. The Body of Christ
I. They were baptized with the Holy Spirit- those who would be in the Church would be indwelt by the Spirit.
J. Corresponds to the Feast Days foreshadowed in the Old Covenant. The Feasts were the days that the men were to “appear before the Lord”. Jesus died on Passover, the first feast was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began the evening of His death. One sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest brought to the priest, and the priest waves the sheaf before the Lord “to be accepted for you” on the day after the Sabbath (Jesus entered as a forerunner for us having become a High Priest forever- Heb. 6:20). Then on the Feast on the Day of Pentecost they were to wave two leavened loaves; they are the first fruits unto the Lord (Jews and Gentiles coming before the Lord for the first time as part of the Body of Christ). If you do not see the foreshadowing in the Feasts then I am left speechless).
K. The Spirit of God within you is the guarantee of your full final inheritance.
L. Men are baptized into the Body of Christ for the first time that day.
M. The Mystery- the body of Christ is the collective unity of all the saints of which Christ is head. “When you believed in Jesus Christ, you were placed into that unity, that body. You became one with Christ and one with every other believer. Right? “Christ lives in Me…I am in Him, I’m one with Him, I’m joined to Him” “
John MacArthur, same sermon:
To sum up the first evidence: The Old Covenant could not give life, but Jesus Christ, the Last Adam became the life giving Spirit. Jesus became the source of eternal salvation (Heb. 9:5). He became the High Priest who is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him. Jesus Christ comes to dwell in men to give them His life (Eph. 3:17; 1John 5:11, 12; Col. 3:4). If a man does not have Jesus Christ they do not have life, and if a man does not have the Spirit of Jesus Christ he does not belong to Him (1Jn 5:12; Rom.8:9). A person is saved when they are made alive with Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5), saved by regeneration (Titus 3:5). Saved by Christ’s life (Rom. 5:10).
Therefore regeneration is not the name for the things that happen to an unregenerate man before he places his faith in Jesus Christ. Biblically, regeneration is the saving work of God.
3. JESUS THE HIGH PRIEST BAPTIZES AND GIVES THE SPIRIT.
A. Prior to Jesus becoming the High Priest: Men from the Pharisees come to John the Baptist and ask him why He is baptizing if he is not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet (John 1:25). I do not know what in the Old Testament indicated to them that the coming Christ would baptize. Does anyone have any idea? But John replies that Jesus will baptize men with the Holy Spirit (John 1:33). The Holy Spirit had been promised, but John was careful to note that the Holy Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39). “But this He spoke of the Holy Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive” (John 7:38). Jesus Christ calls His impending death a “baptism” and says his disciples will be baptized with the baptism that He is baptized with (Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50.) Just prior to His ascension, Jesus told His disciples to “wait for what the Father had promised, which you heard of from Me” (Acts 1:4), “for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). The Day of Pentecost began a whole new work of God. (The following points are taken from a sermon by John MacArthur from this page: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1703_The-Baptism-of-the-Holy-Spiri…
B. The church is born- “the called out ones”, “the bride of Christ” This is something not seen in the OT. It’s a mystery, hidden throughout the OT.
C. The Holy Spirit is given (Peter preached concerning Jesus: “and having receive from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Jesus received the promise of the Holy Ghost, and He gives the Spirit to believers. The Spirit wasn’t given until after Jesus was glorified. Jesus had to return to the Father before the Spirit could be sent (John 14).
D. The church- “that body of believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit all in an invisible union with Jesus Christ and with each other”
E. The church- branches for the vine Jesus Christ
F. The church- a household, a family of sons by adoption and birth
G. A building, a spiritual temple with Jesus Christ as the foundation, the Cornerstone (the first stone laid down).
H. The Body of Christ
I. They were baptized with the Holy Spirit- those who would be in the Church would be indwelt by the Spirit.
J. Corresponds to the Feast Days foreshadowed in the Old Covenant. The Feasts were the days that the men were to “appear before the Lord”. Jesus died on Passover, the first feast was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began the evening of His death. One sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest brought to the priest, and the priest waves the sheaf before the Lord “to be accepted for you” on the day after the Sabbath (Jesus entered as a forerunner for us having become a High Priest forever- Heb. 6:20). Then on the Feast on the Day of Pentecost they were to wave two leavened loaves; they are the first fruits unto the Lord (Jews and Gentiles coming before the Lord for the first time as part of the Body of Christ). If you do not see the foreshadowing in the Feasts then I am left speechless).
K. The Spirit of God within you is the guarantee of your full final inheritance.
L. Men are baptized into the Body of Christ for the first time that day.
M. The Mystery- the body of Christ is the collective unity of all the saints of which Christ is head. “When you believed in Jesus Christ, you were placed into that unity, that body. You became one with Christ and one with every other believer. Right? “Christ lives in Me…I am in Him, I’m one with Him, I’m joined to Him” “
John MacArthur, same sermon:
“So when you believed in Jesus Christ at the very moment of your salvation, He placed you into the body in union with Christ and every other believer. Are we one with each other in Christ? Sure. How did we get there? That’s what the baptism of the Spirit is.”
“When you’re saved, you come into union with Christ. You’re buried with Him in His death, you rise with Him in His resurrection by a divine miracle you united with Jesus Christ. One other verse that is very strategic. 1 Peter 3:21, then I’ll summarize. “The like figure unto which even baptism doth also now save us.” Oh no. Baptism saves us? That’s what it says. You say, do you believe it? I believe it. Then it says this. “But not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Not water baptism.” What kind of baptism? Spirit baptism. Therefore, Spirit baptism is tied intrinsically to what experience? Salvation.”
These are weighty evidences. To conclude: Jesus Christ our High Priest saves men when He baptizes them into His Body, and in to His death and resurrection. Men were not united to the likeness of Christ’s death before Christ died, became High Priest, and began baptizing men into His death. In that baptism men are “crucified with Christ”, “dead with Christ” “buried with Christ” “circumcised by Christ all before they are made alive with Jesus Christ (by grace they are saved) (regeneration), “raised up with Christ”, and “seated with Christ in the heavenly”. (An instantaneous work, but fully detailed in the Word of God.)
Why do we need to die with Christ? What is the significance of our death with Christ? If you understood this Biblical truth, then you would have a greater understanding of the significance of the Work of Jesus Our High Priest. Our death with Christ is essential, and many things happen in it, but we are saved when we are made alive with Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5); He saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). And we are saved by His life (Rom. 5:10) in the Baptism which now saves us (1Peter 3:21).
Last Proof for now: The quote that you gave from John Piper is great (see the end of post#19).Take this statement: “The incarnation of the Son of God is necessary because the life we have through the new birth is life in union with the incarnate Christ. “ Who could be placed in union with the “incarnate Christ”? Doesn’t Jesus have to become incarnate before a man can be placed “in union with the incarnate Christ”? Now let me add the Scripture. Earlier in this thread I referenced a unique relationship that Jesus Christ had with the Father.
The Father is in Me (John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21, 23)
The Father dwells in Me (John 14:10)
I am in the Father (John 10:38; 14:10:11, 20; 17:21)
The Father and I are one (John 10:30; 17:22)
Jesus called His body a temple—John 2:21
Jesus tells men that they will experience this same kind of unique relationship:
In John 14, Jesus is speaking of His impending departure: to go to the Father (John 14:12). He tells them He will pray to the Father for the Comforter, The Spirit of Truth (Jesus claimed to be the Truth) to be with them forever. Jesus tells them, “I will come to you” (14:18). Then He addresses His resurrection, “because I live, you shall live also. In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me and I in You” (Jn. 14:19, 20). Before His death Jesus prayed for that unique relationship. “That they may be one, even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, That they may also be in Us …That they may be One, Just as We are one, I in them and You in Me” (John 17:20-23). Men were not joined to Christ (placed in union with Jesus Christ) before this prayer in John 17. No man was placed “in Christ” before this prayer in John 17. I would contend the first men to be placed “in Christ” were the men baptized by Jesus Christ into the Body of Jesus Christ, on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus Christ was not in man before the prayer in John 17. I would contend that Jesus Christ becomes the life giving Spirit, before men are made alive with Jesus Christ and saved. Eternal life is “in Christ”. And a man is saved when he is “in Christ” and Christ is in him, and He is one with Jesus and the Father. He receives eternal life “in Christ”.
The quotes by John MacArthur support this contention, and they directly tie our union to Jesus Christ to the baptism Christ gives us.
Why do we need to die with Christ? What is the significance of our death with Christ? If you understood this Biblical truth, then you would have a greater understanding of the significance of the Work of Jesus Our High Priest. Our death with Christ is essential, and many things happen in it, but we are saved when we are made alive with Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5); He saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). And we are saved by His life (Rom. 5:10) in the Baptism which now saves us (1Peter 3:21).
Last Proof for now: The quote that you gave from John Piper is great (see the end of post#19).Take this statement: “The incarnation of the Son of God is necessary because the life we have through the new birth is life in union with the incarnate Christ. “ Who could be placed in union with the “incarnate Christ”? Doesn’t Jesus have to become incarnate before a man can be placed “in union with the incarnate Christ”? Now let me add the Scripture. Earlier in this thread I referenced a unique relationship that Jesus Christ had with the Father.
The Father is in Me (John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21, 23)
The Father dwells in Me (John 14:10)
I am in the Father (John 10:38; 14:10:11, 20; 17:21)
The Father and I are one (John 10:30; 17:22)
Jesus called His body a temple—John 2:21
Jesus tells men that they will experience this same kind of unique relationship:
In John 14, Jesus is speaking of His impending departure: to go to the Father (John 14:12). He tells them He will pray to the Father for the Comforter, The Spirit of Truth (Jesus claimed to be the Truth) to be with them forever. Jesus tells them, “I will come to you” (14:18). Then He addresses His resurrection, “because I live, you shall live also. In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me and I in You” (Jn. 14:19, 20). Before His death Jesus prayed for that unique relationship. “That they may be one, even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, That they may also be in Us …That they may be One, Just as We are one, I in them and You in Me” (John 17:20-23). Men were not joined to Christ (placed in union with Jesus Christ) before this prayer in John 17. No man was placed “in Christ” before this prayer in John 17. I would contend the first men to be placed “in Christ” were the men baptized by Jesus Christ into the Body of Jesus Christ, on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus Christ was not in man before the prayer in John 17. I would contend that Jesus Christ becomes the life giving Spirit, before men are made alive with Jesus Christ and saved. Eternal life is “in Christ”. And a man is saved when he is “in Christ” and Christ is in him, and He is one with Jesus and the Father. He receives eternal life “in Christ”.
The quotes by John MacArthur support this contention, and they directly tie our union to Jesus Christ to the baptism Christ gives us.
[Jim C in post 21] I believe that the saving work of Jesus Christ as High Priest (which I partially amplify below) has been a neglected topic in the church.I find myself in agreement with what you have written in post 21. What I am disagreeing with you about is your insistence that salvation cannot happen until AFTER the resurrection of Christ.
The problem is not with your logic, it is with the above premise.
Here is what I wrote to describe your view:
[JohnBrian from post 19] Your argument appears to be based on the passages in Scripture that refer to Christ indwelling the believer, and the logical fact that such could not happen prior to the resurrection. Your position denies that anyone could be saved, even though they could exercise faith, prior to the resurrection. Naturally your view will insist that faith precedes regeneration, as that is the reasoned outcome of your view.I also pointed out that SteveB (in a comment on my blog) referenced Piper as a supporter of your view.
[SteveB] Surprise of all surprises, John Piper made the case for me!I showed that in the paragraph directly preceding that which SteveB used to prove his point, Piper affirmed that regeneration precedes faith.
Here’s more of the same paragraph by SteveB
Surprise of all surprises, John Piper made the case for me! Although his case will not be adequate to convince anyone, it will show that there are huge discrepancies in this man’s teaching.Here’s a problem:
SteveB has piper making his case, but it isn’t adequate to convince anyone, and there are huge discrepancies in Piper’s teaching.
Question - Why cite Piper as a proponent of your view?
If it’s not enough to convince anyone, and there are huge discrepancies, then he clearly doesn’t “make the case”!
[Jim C in post 23] I would contend that Jesus Christ becomes the life giving Spirit, before men are made alive with Jesus Christ and saved. Eternal life is “in Christ”If you are here declaring that Christ and the Holy Spirit are the same, just different manifestations, then Chip in post 4 is correct.
[Chip Van Emmerik] Not clear to me if you are espousing an unorthodox position on the hypostatic union,This would put you in direct conflict with SI’s http://sharperiron.org/doctrinal-statement] Doctrinal Statement , specifically the 2nd point.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Discussion