Post by Admin on Oct 26, 2019 19:23:33 GMT
Hi Dave, and thanks for the reply. I will address your response/s in the following, and hopefully we can continue discussion. I will change your statements to green to distinguish between speakers:
Hello Darrell,
Thanks for writing,
I must say, you have a lot there to address. Please allow me to address a few of your items, and if you agree, maybe you can review your thoughts and see if it modifies your approach.
First, paragraph two regarding Adam and whether or not he had "eternal life."
When God created the animals they simply came into existence, but when God created man he created him from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the Breath of Life.
I view this as an argument from silence (that animals were created without a spirit (which is the source of life for the physical body)) and quite possibly another argument that men did not have eternal life (and I will try to clarify why as we go). Animals are said to have spirits:
Numbers 27:16
Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation,
Ecclesiastes 3:21
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Gen 1:30
And to every beast H2416 of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, H2416 I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; H2416 and man became a living H2416 soul.
In Genesis 1:30 nephesh actually follows chay as it does in 2:7. It would seem logical to conclude that all "flesh" has a "spirit." Again, this is the source of life for living creatures. There is a difference between life of flesh and other "life," such as plants and trees.
Now the assumption is that when God "breathed the breath of life" into Adam that this is different from His creation of the animals, and...that this is the source of "eternal life" which Adam had and lost when he sinned.
So Adams' nature was both physical (dust) and spiritual (God's breath).
This is based on the previous assumption. Remove that assumption and recognize that man is not the only created being with a spirit and it calls into question the basis for the idea men had eternal life prior to Christ's coming (and specifically men being baptized into Christ in Eternal Union).
Adam was an unfallen sinless being. We know this because after God made man, He saw all that he had made and said that it was very good (Gen. 1:31).
I am having a hard time following your reasoning: we know Adam was a sinless being because after He had made man...He saw everything was good?
I do agree that Adam was sinless in the sense that he had not yet sinned, but the error of imposing this designation is that he was sinless in the sense Christ was sinless. Christ could not sin and was therefore sinless. Adam could (and did) sin thus was not sinless.
Also God walked with Adam in the cool of the day.
I am assuming this is further reasoning towards Adam's sinlessness? At this point I would suggest that Adam's relationship with God was physical. That as opposed to a "spiritual" relationship as we see we have in Christ.
After creation, God only made one demand, and that was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. He then gave the judgment for what would happen if man did eat of it. So regarding your second paragraph and eternal life, would you hold to the position that if Adam did not eat of the tree of life he would have died anyway?
No. Again, Adam's relationship to God was physical and that relationship was maintained by (1) Adam's obedience (which is contrary to our own relationship to God through Christ) and (2)...the Tree of Life. Adam, had he not sinned, would never have died and that relationship would have continued.
That would make death as a punishment for disobeying God meaningless.
How so? The very consequence warned is what happened. If I say "Dave, never email me again or I will classify you as spam," and you do not...is my statement meaningless?
So then if Adam hadn't eaten of the tree he would have had by definition functional eternal life.
While the same word is used for everlasting I think this would be the better understanding to impose regarding the concept of Adam not sinning and remaining in the Garden "forever." "Eternal Life" is found only in One, God. Only He is eternal. "Everlasting" has the idea of continuance but eternal means has always existed and will always exist. Now, here is the thing: when we are baptized into Christ in Eternal Union we partake of that divine nature. This is contrasted with Old Testament Saints (including Adam) who still existed after physical death yet did not have eternal life as we have. They received it when Christ died in their stead but not until He actually atoned for their sins.
But yes, I think "functional eternal life" is an excellent way to state that, Dave. However, we can both probably recognize the difference between physical life and eternal life through Christ, right?
Logically these are only the two options in context.
If you mean (1) "functional everlasting life" had Adam never sinned and Eternal Life (which is the very reason Christ came (John 3:14-16) then yes, I agree.
(Now a theological point here; Adam's life would have been what I would call "finite eternal life." Before thinking it is a contradiction of words let me define it: It is a life that begins at a certain point and has the potential to continue indefinitely, but can be ended due to the breaking of a covenant between one of two parties. We today in the Christian era have to look at this differently. We are not in Adams' situation. We do not have this as an option for our existence. For us because of Jesus' work, our definition of eternal life, in general, is something that can never be taken away.)
I would agree with the last statement and would point out...Adam did not have that. That's the point, Dave. Again I mention the popular notion of the Atonement applied to the Old Testament Saint: we have a distinct problem trying to make that concept work...because it is contradictory. If Adam had the same "Eternal Life" we have in Christ then how could that be lost (which is the "spiritual death" many try to impose into the account of the Fall). Keep in mind that Adam was not in Christ. Not even the disciples of Christ were in Christ until Pentecost (John 14:15-23). There was "Jew and Gentile" under the Law, a division that held both...outside of Christ.
As to whether "finite eternal life" is a contradiction, I do have to conclude it is, because eternal life cannot, by definition, be finite. We look at the lost who will continue in existence forever and do not impose the concept of eternal life in their existence. Secondly, no man had the potential to continue indefinitely prior to the Cross and Pentecost. We would have to have a position, status, or condition that we would view as "potentially continuing" and there simply isn't one that compares to a man being placed in Christ. The closest we come to would be the justification of the Old Testament Saint, which from an eternal perspective (God's) secured their eternal destinies, though they still died not receiving the promises or being made perfect (complete in regards to remission of sins(Hebrews 11:13, 39-40; 10:1-18)).
One more point from paragraph two; regarding the usage of the word "day" in relation to a 24-hour spiritual/physical death period. Most translators miss this but the answer is actually quite simple and revealing. In the Hebrew language the phrase, "...in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die" (Gen. 1:17), are the two Hebrew words "muth muth." In grammar, this is known as a "gerund" and translates into English words that have an -ing ending. So the verse should be translated as,"...in the day you eat of it, dying you shall die." In fact, some King James editions note this in a center column reference. This word usage points to something that would happen immediately, but then a process would begin that would have an end result. What happens in Genesis, is Adam falls spiritually immediately and then the body begins to degenerate under the process of decay which would eventually lead to physical death.
This is a moot point: Adam immediately lost the relationship (which was physical) he had with God, was thrust out of the Garden (and access to that which would keep him alive, the Tree of Life), and was immediately destined to die. That began the moment he took a bite, but there was a period in which he hid (having recognized his error) and God expelled him. Again, we see no basis for a "spiritual death" as popularly believed. I agree fully there was an immediate consequence to his actions.
Your second and last sentences of paragraph 2 don't apply in context because it's looking back after the fact of what happened, and what Jesus did 2000 years ago, not what Adam had in the nature of his unfallen existence.
If you mean...
Many, if not most, hold to a view that Adam had "spiritual life" which largely extends itself to a meaning of "eternal life." he lost it when he sinned...and now we need to recover that.
We know God sent His Son into the world for the specific purpose of bestowing to men eternal life through the Son being lifted up (John 3:14-16).
...isn't that point? We are examining the nature of Adam's "unfallen existence." You have stated he was "sinless," yet we know he was not sinless and had the potential for sin. I think it a mistake to consider Adam "sinless" simply because he had not yet sinned, and again contrast that with the nature of Christ which was in fact sinless.
And I would again reiterate the point that Christ came that men might have eternal life. If you don't mind I will post the Scripture reference above:
John 3:14-16 King James Version (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
First, I would point out that this statement answers a question Nicodemus asks:
John 3:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
The "things" Nicodemus refers to are of course being born from above and being born of water and Spirit. And the response is that Christ must die upon the Cross. In order for a man to be born of God...Christ had to die.
Regarding #s 1 ) and 2); You wrote, "No man was in Christ prior to the coming of the "Promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5)" which is defined by Christ as the Baptism with the Holy Ghost...." Actually, that's not quite accurate. You see, the Holy Spirit had three positions or functions in the New Testament as defined by three different greek words when talking about His presence and man, "with, in, and upon." He was "with" the disciples, He is "in" all believers which is the new birth, and He is "upon" believers giving them the gifts of the Holy Spirit as He wills (Heb. 2:4).
I would agree with the three ways in which the Spirit of God ministers in and through men, however, to say that He was "in" believers prior to the ministry of the Comforter would be in direct conflict with Christ's teachings:
John 14:15-23 King James Version (KJV)
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Here we see the difference between His ministry among men prior to Pentecost and after, as Christ prophesies of HIs coming. He (Christ) contrasts His Own ministry which is coming to an end (hence their sorrow) with that which will take place at a future date. Note He (the Spirit) is with them but shall be...in them. Note that this is given an eternal context as well (v.16), again contrasted with Christ's ministry among men prior to His death, burial, and Resurrection.
The question here is do you see a difference between what is taking place during this teaching and what Christ states will take place at a future date? Would you say they already had the Spirit Christ is saying will come after He returns to His Father's House?
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
When will Christ come to them? The logical conclusion would be when the Spirit comes to them. They, the disciples will be indwelt by the Spirit and the Son. They are not, at the time of this writing, indwelt by either. We can only say that the Spirit is with them.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Again, eternal life is a result of Christ's dying...and rising again. "Because I live" is a reference to the Resurrection. Their "seeing Him" refers, again, to the future. They will see Him
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
"At that day" is again a reference to the future: at that day they will know Christ is in the Father, they in Christ, and Christ in them. This is not taking place at the time of the teaching. It is speaking of their being in Christ. They are not yet...in Christ.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Again we see reference to the eternal indwelling of God in the believer and their being in Him.
I would just ask you, if you believe men were in Christ prior to Pentecost what would you base that on, and how would you deal with the consistent teaching of the New Testament that shows the Church began at Pentecost?
Take a look at John Chapter 20: 20-23. " On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
This is one of about three arguments presented to support Regeneration prior to Pentecost (and to date I have yet to find someone who can address the arguments presented that show Regeneration began at Pentecost), so I am familiar with it. The problem you are going to have with this is that if this refers to the disciples receiving the Spirit as taught by Christ (primarily in John 14-16) then we have a contradiction in Scripture:
John 16:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
We can start here: what does Christ mean He must go away? Is this not a reference to His return to Heaven? Some have tried to argue that it is a reference to His death but that makes little sense and ignores the context of the discussion/teaching. Christ does not "depart" until Acts 1 and He leaves them still awaiting the promise of the Father, defined as the Baptism with the Holy Ghost:
Acts 1:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
While most systems of Theology teach the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as an empowerment, I would point out that this makes little sense. The disciples were empowered previously so this could not be the meaning of being baptized with the Holy Ghost. However, it fits perfectly with the consistent promise of the Spirit, and I won't list all of those, lol, but a few. And I would also point out that we must make the Baptism with the Holy Ghost consistent with what Christ HImself taught (v.5):
Ezekiel 36:24-27 King James Version (KJV)
24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
This is the clearest teaching of the promise of Regeneration in the Old Testament.
John 7:38-39 King James Version (KJV)
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Two things to consider, first, that we again see a distinction between the Spirit being with men and the Spirit being in them, and secondly that Christ is referring to eternal life and that again it something that is a future event in the lives of men.
And so as not to overload this particular point I would point out that your text can be used to support the disciples receiving the Spirit at that time, but here is a question: what about before this? Why hadn't they received Him prior to this time? Did the Old Testament Saints, in direct conflict with Christ's teaching? The point being, we still see a point in time, after the Cross...that this promise is fulfilled?
The phrase, "receive the Holy Spirit" in grammar is in the aorist imperative tense. That means it is a completed action. It is sort of like a traffic cop handing you a ticket and then walking away. He tells you, "Here's the ticket." You now have it in hand and it's done!
In light of Christ's teaching that the Spirit would not come until He departed, which in the context of the discourse in John 14-16 refers to His return to Heaven, we cannot see the "completed action" as the disciples receiving the Holy Ghost prior to Pentecost. The Lord told many to believe on Him, yet it would not be until Pentecost that even the His Own disciples would believe on Him in the eternally salvific context of faith in the Risen Savior. For example:
Luke 24:36-39 King James Version (KJV)
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
After the Resurrection, they did not believe. Here they think they are seeing a spirit because they think He is still dead. In John 20:9 we see that they...
John 20:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
It is no coincidence that it is not until the Day of Pentecost that the disciples begin preaching the Gospel. The Mystery of the Gospel was not revealed until this Age began:
Ephesians 3:3-5 King James Version (KJV)
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
We must not confuse the promise of the Holy Spirit that would be "in" us forever, with Him being "upon" us with demonstrable power as a witness to the world.
First, I would ask you when was the promise given and when was it fulfilled? I agree we must distinguish between the filling and indwelling of the Spirit and again point out that the indwelling on an eternal basis is the promise of the Father that the disciples had heard of from Christ, and when He taught them we can see that it is a future event even for the disciples.
Can it happen simultaneously?
Yes, but only in this Age. In the Old Testament men were only filled with the Spirit for the purposes of ministry.
Yes, as you pointed out in the Book of Acts. But God does it as it pleases Him. The main point here is, that the Holy Spirit was "in" believers before the Day of Pentecost.
Simply not the case:
John 14:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Nor were men in Christ. Prior to Pentecost there was Jew and Gentile, now in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. That is distinct to this Age.
There is much more to address, but time moves on. One thing regarding Abraham. Check The Gospel of John Chapter 8 in reference to what Jesus said about Abraham "seeing" His day.
And how did Abraham "see His Day?" We are told:
Galatians 3:6-8 King James Version (KJV)
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Again, the Gospel is the Hidden Wisdom of God, kept secret since the world began (Romans 16:25-27; 1 Corinthians 1:16-2:16; Ephesians 3:3-5; Colossians 1:25-27). It was not revealed to the saints or sons of men in past Ages. This includes Abraham. He understood the Gospel in physical terms. He believed God when God said He would give him a son and bless all families of the earth through him. That doesn't equate to knowing Jesus died on the Cross to save us from our sin.
So yes, Abraham rejoiced to know that God would produce seed through a presumably barren wife and that the world would be blessed through that seed, but...he was ignorant of Who the Seed actually was.
Then look at Genesis 15, 17, 18 and ask who Abraham was interacting with in the flesh. What mystery did Abraham know? Remember, a secret is something we absolutely don't know about, but a mystery is something we know about, but can't fully understand. See if that might not apply to your thoughts about Paul talking in Romans 16.
We can see that the Mystery was kept hidden:
Romans 16:25-26 King James Version (KJV)
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
So a distinction between mystery and secret has no bearing on the Mystery of the Gospel.
Keep up your good labours in The Lord, be a Berean, and be not weary,
In Him,
Dave
Dave, I appreciate your time, and hope the responses might encourage you to consider these issues, all of which could have considerably more time given to them, lol.
This is why I had hoped to hear from Matt, because these issues demand more time be given them than a few minutes on a radio show could afford.
God bless.
Hello Darrell,
Thanks for writing,
I must say, you have a lot there to address. Please allow me to address a few of your items, and if you agree, maybe you can review your thoughts and see if it modifies your approach.
First, paragraph two regarding Adam and whether or not he had "eternal life."
When God created the animals they simply came into existence, but when God created man he created him from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the Breath of Life.
I view this as an argument from silence (that animals were created without a spirit (which is the source of life for the physical body)) and quite possibly another argument that men did not have eternal life (and I will try to clarify why as we go). Animals are said to have spirits:
Numbers 27:16
Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation,
Ecclesiastes 3:21
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Gen 1:30
And to every beast H2416 of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, H2416 I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; H2416 and man became a living H2416 soul.
In Genesis 1:30 nephesh actually follows chay as it does in 2:7. It would seem logical to conclude that all "flesh" has a "spirit." Again, this is the source of life for living creatures. There is a difference between life of flesh and other "life," such as plants and trees.
Now the assumption is that when God "breathed the breath of life" into Adam that this is different from His creation of the animals, and...that this is the source of "eternal life" which Adam had and lost when he sinned.
So Adams' nature was both physical (dust) and spiritual (God's breath).
This is based on the previous assumption. Remove that assumption and recognize that man is not the only created being with a spirit and it calls into question the basis for the idea men had eternal life prior to Christ's coming (and specifically men being baptized into Christ in Eternal Union).
Adam was an unfallen sinless being. We know this because after God made man, He saw all that he had made and said that it was very good (Gen. 1:31).
I am having a hard time following your reasoning: we know Adam was a sinless being because after He had made man...He saw everything was good?
I do agree that Adam was sinless in the sense that he had not yet sinned, but the error of imposing this designation is that he was sinless in the sense Christ was sinless. Christ could not sin and was therefore sinless. Adam could (and did) sin thus was not sinless.
Also God walked with Adam in the cool of the day.
I am assuming this is further reasoning towards Adam's sinlessness? At this point I would suggest that Adam's relationship with God was physical. That as opposed to a "spiritual" relationship as we see we have in Christ.
After creation, God only made one demand, and that was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. He then gave the judgment for what would happen if man did eat of it. So regarding your second paragraph and eternal life, would you hold to the position that if Adam did not eat of the tree of life he would have died anyway?
No. Again, Adam's relationship to God was physical and that relationship was maintained by (1) Adam's obedience (which is contrary to our own relationship to God through Christ) and (2)...the Tree of Life. Adam, had he not sinned, would never have died and that relationship would have continued.
That would make death as a punishment for disobeying God meaningless.
How so? The very consequence warned is what happened. If I say "Dave, never email me again or I will classify you as spam," and you do not...is my statement meaningless?
So then if Adam hadn't eaten of the tree he would have had by definition functional eternal life.
While the same word is used for everlasting I think this would be the better understanding to impose regarding the concept of Adam not sinning and remaining in the Garden "forever." "Eternal Life" is found only in One, God. Only He is eternal. "Everlasting" has the idea of continuance but eternal means has always existed and will always exist. Now, here is the thing: when we are baptized into Christ in Eternal Union we partake of that divine nature. This is contrasted with Old Testament Saints (including Adam) who still existed after physical death yet did not have eternal life as we have. They received it when Christ died in their stead but not until He actually atoned for their sins.
But yes, I think "functional eternal life" is an excellent way to state that, Dave. However, we can both probably recognize the difference between physical life and eternal life through Christ, right?
Logically these are only the two options in context.
If you mean (1) "functional everlasting life" had Adam never sinned and Eternal Life (which is the very reason Christ came (John 3:14-16) then yes, I agree.
(Now a theological point here; Adam's life would have been what I would call "finite eternal life." Before thinking it is a contradiction of words let me define it: It is a life that begins at a certain point and has the potential to continue indefinitely, but can be ended due to the breaking of a covenant between one of two parties. We today in the Christian era have to look at this differently. We are not in Adams' situation. We do not have this as an option for our existence. For us because of Jesus' work, our definition of eternal life, in general, is something that can never be taken away.)
I would agree with the last statement and would point out...Adam did not have that. That's the point, Dave. Again I mention the popular notion of the Atonement applied to the Old Testament Saint: we have a distinct problem trying to make that concept work...because it is contradictory. If Adam had the same "Eternal Life" we have in Christ then how could that be lost (which is the "spiritual death" many try to impose into the account of the Fall). Keep in mind that Adam was not in Christ. Not even the disciples of Christ were in Christ until Pentecost (John 14:15-23). There was "Jew and Gentile" under the Law, a division that held both...outside of Christ.
As to whether "finite eternal life" is a contradiction, I do have to conclude it is, because eternal life cannot, by definition, be finite. We look at the lost who will continue in existence forever and do not impose the concept of eternal life in their existence. Secondly, no man had the potential to continue indefinitely prior to the Cross and Pentecost. We would have to have a position, status, or condition that we would view as "potentially continuing" and there simply isn't one that compares to a man being placed in Christ. The closest we come to would be the justification of the Old Testament Saint, which from an eternal perspective (God's) secured their eternal destinies, though they still died not receiving the promises or being made perfect (complete in regards to remission of sins(Hebrews 11:13, 39-40; 10:1-18)).
One more point from paragraph two; regarding the usage of the word "day" in relation to a 24-hour spiritual/physical death period. Most translators miss this but the answer is actually quite simple and revealing. In the Hebrew language the phrase, "...in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die" (Gen. 1:17), are the two Hebrew words "muth muth." In grammar, this is known as a "gerund" and translates into English words that have an -ing ending. So the verse should be translated as,"...in the day you eat of it, dying you shall die." In fact, some King James editions note this in a center column reference. This word usage points to something that would happen immediately, but then a process would begin that would have an end result. What happens in Genesis, is Adam falls spiritually immediately and then the body begins to degenerate under the process of decay which would eventually lead to physical death.
This is a moot point: Adam immediately lost the relationship (which was physical) he had with God, was thrust out of the Garden (and access to that which would keep him alive, the Tree of Life), and was immediately destined to die. That began the moment he took a bite, but there was a period in which he hid (having recognized his error) and God expelled him. Again, we see no basis for a "spiritual death" as popularly believed. I agree fully there was an immediate consequence to his actions.
Your second and last sentences of paragraph 2 don't apply in context because it's looking back after the fact of what happened, and what Jesus did 2000 years ago, not what Adam had in the nature of his unfallen existence.
If you mean...
Many, if not most, hold to a view that Adam had "spiritual life" which largely extends itself to a meaning of "eternal life." he lost it when he sinned...and now we need to recover that.
We know God sent His Son into the world for the specific purpose of bestowing to men eternal life through the Son being lifted up (John 3:14-16).
...isn't that point? We are examining the nature of Adam's "unfallen existence." You have stated he was "sinless," yet we know he was not sinless and had the potential for sin. I think it a mistake to consider Adam "sinless" simply because he had not yet sinned, and again contrast that with the nature of Christ which was in fact sinless.
And I would again reiterate the point that Christ came that men might have eternal life. If you don't mind I will post the Scripture reference above:
John 3:14-16 King James Version (KJV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
First, I would point out that this statement answers a question Nicodemus asks:
John 3:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
The "things" Nicodemus refers to are of course being born from above and being born of water and Spirit. And the response is that Christ must die upon the Cross. In order for a man to be born of God...Christ had to die.
Regarding #s 1 ) and 2); You wrote, "No man was in Christ prior to the coming of the "Promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5)" which is defined by Christ as the Baptism with the Holy Ghost...." Actually, that's not quite accurate. You see, the Holy Spirit had three positions or functions in the New Testament as defined by three different greek words when talking about His presence and man, "with, in, and upon." He was "with" the disciples, He is "in" all believers which is the new birth, and He is "upon" believers giving them the gifts of the Holy Spirit as He wills (Heb. 2:4).
I would agree with the three ways in which the Spirit of God ministers in and through men, however, to say that He was "in" believers prior to the ministry of the Comforter would be in direct conflict with Christ's teachings:
John 14:15-23 King James Version (KJV)
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Here we see the difference between His ministry among men prior to Pentecost and after, as Christ prophesies of HIs coming. He (Christ) contrasts His Own ministry which is coming to an end (hence their sorrow) with that which will take place at a future date. Note He (the Spirit) is with them but shall be...in them. Note that this is given an eternal context as well (v.16), again contrasted with Christ's ministry among men prior to His death, burial, and Resurrection.
The question here is do you see a difference between what is taking place during this teaching and what Christ states will take place at a future date? Would you say they already had the Spirit Christ is saying will come after He returns to His Father's House?
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
When will Christ come to them? The logical conclusion would be when the Spirit comes to them. They, the disciples will be indwelt by the Spirit and the Son. They are not, at the time of this writing, indwelt by either. We can only say that the Spirit is with them.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Again, eternal life is a result of Christ's dying...and rising again. "Because I live" is a reference to the Resurrection. Their "seeing Him" refers, again, to the future. They will see Him
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
"At that day" is again a reference to the future: at that day they will know Christ is in the Father, they in Christ, and Christ in them. This is not taking place at the time of the teaching. It is speaking of their being in Christ. They are not yet...in Christ.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Again we see reference to the eternal indwelling of God in the believer and their being in Him.
I would just ask you, if you believe men were in Christ prior to Pentecost what would you base that on, and how would you deal with the consistent teaching of the New Testament that shows the Church began at Pentecost?
Take a look at John Chapter 20: 20-23. " On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
This is one of about three arguments presented to support Regeneration prior to Pentecost (and to date I have yet to find someone who can address the arguments presented that show Regeneration began at Pentecost), so I am familiar with it. The problem you are going to have with this is that if this refers to the disciples receiving the Spirit as taught by Christ (primarily in John 14-16) then we have a contradiction in Scripture:
John 16:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
We can start here: what does Christ mean He must go away? Is this not a reference to His return to Heaven? Some have tried to argue that it is a reference to His death but that makes little sense and ignores the context of the discussion/teaching. Christ does not "depart" until Acts 1 and He leaves them still awaiting the promise of the Father, defined as the Baptism with the Holy Ghost:
Acts 1:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
While most systems of Theology teach the Baptism with the Holy Ghost as an empowerment, I would point out that this makes little sense. The disciples were empowered previously so this could not be the meaning of being baptized with the Holy Ghost. However, it fits perfectly with the consistent promise of the Spirit, and I won't list all of those, lol, but a few. And I would also point out that we must make the Baptism with the Holy Ghost consistent with what Christ HImself taught (v.5):
Ezekiel 36:24-27 King James Version (KJV)
24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
This is the clearest teaching of the promise of Regeneration in the Old Testament.
John 7:38-39 King James Version (KJV)
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Two things to consider, first, that we again see a distinction between the Spirit being with men and the Spirit being in them, and secondly that Christ is referring to eternal life and that again it something that is a future event in the lives of men.
And so as not to overload this particular point I would point out that your text can be used to support the disciples receiving the Spirit at that time, but here is a question: what about before this? Why hadn't they received Him prior to this time? Did the Old Testament Saints, in direct conflict with Christ's teaching? The point being, we still see a point in time, after the Cross...that this promise is fulfilled?
The phrase, "receive the Holy Spirit" in grammar is in the aorist imperative tense. That means it is a completed action. It is sort of like a traffic cop handing you a ticket and then walking away. He tells you, "Here's the ticket." You now have it in hand and it's done!
In light of Christ's teaching that the Spirit would not come until He departed, which in the context of the discourse in John 14-16 refers to His return to Heaven, we cannot see the "completed action" as the disciples receiving the Holy Ghost prior to Pentecost. The Lord told many to believe on Him, yet it would not be until Pentecost that even the His Own disciples would believe on Him in the eternally salvific context of faith in the Risen Savior. For example:
Luke 24:36-39 King James Version (KJV)
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
After the Resurrection, they did not believe. Here they think they are seeing a spirit because they think He is still dead. In John 20:9 we see that they...
John 20:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
It is no coincidence that it is not until the Day of Pentecost that the disciples begin preaching the Gospel. The Mystery of the Gospel was not revealed until this Age began:
Ephesians 3:3-5 King James Version (KJV)
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
We must not confuse the promise of the Holy Spirit that would be "in" us forever, with Him being "upon" us with demonstrable power as a witness to the world.
First, I would ask you when was the promise given and when was it fulfilled? I agree we must distinguish between the filling and indwelling of the Spirit and again point out that the indwelling on an eternal basis is the promise of the Father that the disciples had heard of from Christ, and when He taught them we can see that it is a future event even for the disciples.
Can it happen simultaneously?
Yes, but only in this Age. In the Old Testament men were only filled with the Spirit for the purposes of ministry.
Yes, as you pointed out in the Book of Acts. But God does it as it pleases Him. The main point here is, that the Holy Spirit was "in" believers before the Day of Pentecost.
Simply not the case:
John 14:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Nor were men in Christ. Prior to Pentecost there was Jew and Gentile, now in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. That is distinct to this Age.
There is much more to address, but time moves on. One thing regarding Abraham. Check The Gospel of John Chapter 8 in reference to what Jesus said about Abraham "seeing" His day.
And how did Abraham "see His Day?" We are told:
Galatians 3:6-8 King James Version (KJV)
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Again, the Gospel is the Hidden Wisdom of God, kept secret since the world began (Romans 16:25-27; 1 Corinthians 1:16-2:16; Ephesians 3:3-5; Colossians 1:25-27). It was not revealed to the saints or sons of men in past Ages. This includes Abraham. He understood the Gospel in physical terms. He believed God when God said He would give him a son and bless all families of the earth through him. That doesn't equate to knowing Jesus died on the Cross to save us from our sin.
So yes, Abraham rejoiced to know that God would produce seed through a presumably barren wife and that the world would be blessed through that seed, but...he was ignorant of Who the Seed actually was.
Then look at Genesis 15, 17, 18 and ask who Abraham was interacting with in the flesh. What mystery did Abraham know? Remember, a secret is something we absolutely don't know about, but a mystery is something we know about, but can't fully understand. See if that might not apply to your thoughts about Paul talking in Romans 16.
We can see that the Mystery was kept hidden:
Romans 16:25-26 King James Version (KJV)
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
So a distinction between mystery and secret has no bearing on the Mystery of the Gospel.
Keep up your good labours in The Lord, be a Berean, and be not weary,
In Him,
Dave
Dave, I appreciate your time, and hope the responses might encourage you to consider these issues, all of which could have considerably more time given to them, lol.
This is why I had hoped to hear from Matt, because these issues demand more time be given them than a few minutes on a radio show could afford.
God bless.