K
KarenNC
Guest
myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Marriage/AboutMarriage/EvolutionAncient.htm
corrected hyperlink - sorry about that.
corrected hyperlink - sorry about that.
- Status
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Salvation also implies being saved from future dangers too. Likewise, the main focus of this thread stresses the original state in which Adam and Eve were created. Clearly according to Catholicism, in regards Adam and Eve’s original state of creation, we know by revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.
Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, were created inside God’s grace to begin with. They weren’t created outside of God’s grace before the fall. They were created in God’s original holiness and justice. They were, by default, moving by God’s Spirit which God himself had breathed into them.
Indeed, God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. Since man is a spiritual creature, he can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The harmony in which they had originally found themselves, however, thanks to God’s original justice, was destroyed after they sinned against God.
My point in bringing this up has been to challenge those who believe that once they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit they are by permanently saved.
My argument against this was that Adam and Eve already had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit-- and yet they clearly sinned against God and led all of humanity to likewise sin in their footsteps.
So, if Adam and Eve did indeed possess the indwelling of the Holy Sprit, then one has to wonder exactly how they inevitably led all of humanity, including themselves, to potential damnation.
Aren’t they totally saved when they are saved?
In this light, it would seem the theology of once saved always saved fall aparts when one realizes that Adam and Eve already knew Christ as theophany prior to the fall (and already had the indwelling Spirit in them too).
How exactly did Adam and Eve become unsaved if they already had these things?
That’s what this thread is attempting to ask.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Senior Member
A very potent arguement. Very thought provoking. Well done you.
Senior Member
A very potent arguement. Very thought provoking. Well done you.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I think this is realy well said. My only quibble is with God looking upon evil in this world. The world itself is not evil. The world itself is good because God made it that way.
It is sin, however, which seems to turn God away from us. Indeed, when we sin, we weaken God’s grace within us. And when we gravely sin, we slay God’s grace within us.
Sin is God’s only weakness. It’s the only thing he cannot do. It’s his only limitation.
And even then, since God can transform sin into something good, even this cannot ultimately stop him so long as we are open to the motion of the Spirit’s redeeming grace. Indeed, when moved by the Spirit, God can wipe away the effects of all sin.
It’s not that God is powerless to act, sin is not to God as kryptonite is to Superman. It’s that God has willingly subjected himself to this limitiation out of his divine love for us.
Prior to the fall within creation, sin was not a problem-- it did not exist. And after we partake in the new heaven and new earth within the beautific vision, sin will no longer be a problem either-- it will no longer exist from our point of view. Within the sin-tainted souls of creation itself, however, sin definitely is a problem for those to whom God is looking to save.
Deuteronomy 31:17 says…
Deuteronomy 31:18 says…
Psalm 104:29 says…
Job 34:12 says…
Habakkuk 1:13 says…
Isaiah 59:2 says…
Jeremiah 33:5 says…
Micah 3:4 says…
1 John 1:5 says…
And, finally, Revelation 21:27 says…
Clearly, for whatever reason, our sins really do separate us from God. He cannot look upon sin. I highly doubt that he can even think a sinful thought-- let alone look upon sin.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Thank you.
Now if only some who believe in once saved always saved would actually stand up and debate these points.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Thank you.**My wife is doing quite well. **
Glad to hear it. Wow, you’ve been busy
As you can see, I’ve been typing quite a bit too. You post is s good one and it’s going in the direction that I thought you would go-- which is very good so far.
I’ll came back to your points tommorow night. And after I’ve answered them, I think you’ll understand how the Lord works in you in a new light.
At least, that is my hope for you anyway.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Sorry, can’t help there. Didn’t hold that one even when I was Presbyterian (but then I wasn’t a very good PresbyterianNow if only some who believe in once saved always saved would actually stand up and debate these points.
)
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
No problem.Sorry, can’t help there. Didn’t hold that one even when I was Presbyterian (but then I wasn’t a very good Presbyterian
Just as a casual insert, I thought I would interect some thoughts on this topic from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Second Edition).
IV. MAN IN PARADISE:
Again, although certainly greater things were expected, it seems fairly clear that they were moving by the Spirit right from the very beginning. Nothing that they had done prior to the fall could have been done without them sharing in his divine life.
Anyway, I’ll respond to your questions in more detail tomorrow night.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I usually reply in full when I have the time to do so.**My wife is doing quite well. **
Glad to hear it. Wow, you’ve been busy
One thing that people find appealing about it is that it portrays creation as a basically good thing. Although it does acknowledge that sin exists, it doesn’t focus exclusively on sin to the point that it leads others into an overly negative view of life. This is significantly different from the gnostic view of creation for example, which views the substance of creation itself as something inherently evil.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I guess I don’t understand why this is so.
When one translates a sentence into an entirely different language, it can often be extremely difficult to capture the more subtle nuances of the original language within the new language.
For a very basic example of this, if someone says, “He put his foot in his mouth,” and this sentence were to be literally translated into another language, the person in the other language could very easily be left extremely confused, wondering, “Why is he trying to put his foot in his mouth?”
Accurately capturing the meaning of certain idioms and idiomatic expressions of one language and expressing them into the vernacular of another language is probably one of the most difficult tasks of any legitimate translator. It’s not a task that’s taken lightly either, especially in regards to the etymology of ancient words.
Nonetheless, when non-Christians insist that omnipotence must mean how they perceive omnipotence (or else it’s not really omnipotence), they are essentially missing the Christian meaning of omnipotence. And they are becoming very confused because they project their own definitions of omnipotence over Christian concepts of omnipotence, being left very perplexed because of this.
It’s really no different from an English speaker saying, “He put his foot in his mouth,” and a non-English speaker understanding the literal meaning without understanding the idiomatic dynamics and wondering, “Why is he trying to put his foot in his mouth?”
Or it could also come across as an unwillingness on the part of the listener to understand the idiomatic expression within the context of the Christian language being spoken to them.
The world tends to say we’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t. The Christian, however, asks for forgiveness for what we’ve done and what we’ve left undone.
The world tends to say that nice guys finish last. The Christian, however, says that the last shall be first and the first shall be last.
The world tends to focus on saving their lives and being true to themselves. But the Christian says that whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Christ will save it.
This brief list I noted above is just scratching the surface of the various different ways of thinking between Christians and non-Christians.
But do you see what I mean?
Just as someone has to really immerse themselves within a particular culture in order to understand the more sublime nuances of the culture’s language, someone has to really immerse themselves within a Christian mindset in order to understand the more sublime nuances of the Christian’s thought processes.
In order to really grasp Chrisitianity, you really have to achieve a certain metanioa and immerse yourself within the Christian’s mind before you can insist they must use the same definitions when examining other gods and religions.
More toward the truth, the very definitions that Christianity uses are radically different from the definitions that others use. This is one of the maior factors which honestly separates Christianity from other world religions too.
The Christian really is using an entirely different language from the non-Christian languages of the world. In fact, the entire scope of the Christian’s perception of the world is remarkably different from the non-Christian’s perception of the world.
Now let’s get back to some Christian thoughts regarding God’s omnipotence.
K
KarenNC
Guest
I can see that as a positive when choosing between it and a gnostic view of material creation as evil. To my mind, however, it paints God negatively as narcissistic.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
But that’ that not quite accurate. God can do anything that does not involve these kind of trangressions against his own will.Mr. Ex Nihilo:
KarenNC:
. Also Deut. 22-29.)So God is omnipotent because He doesn’t
worship other Gods (which he claims do not actually exist) ahead of Himself
take his own name in vain,
refuse to worship Himself on the day upon which He decided He should be worshipped in the manner in which He decided He should be worshipped. Honestly, if He went to all the trouble to create an entire universe simply to have someone to worship Him and a mirror to reflect His glory, then this shouldn’t be a hardship
dishonor His Father and Mother (well that should be easy
murder (ie kill someone or something without having what He considers to be a just cause although He is the arbiter of what is a just cause),
commit adultery (ie engage in any sort of sexual activity with someone who is not His spouse, especially the spouse or betrothed of someone else–the betrothal was considered just as legally binding as a marriage and had to be ended by a divorce --see myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Marriage/AboutMarriage/EvolutionAncient.htm))
steal (though all things belong to Him anyway)
covet His neighbor’s spouse (this does raise the question of who qualifies as “neighbor” for God. Is it humanity or is it others described as gods?)
or covet His neighbor’s goods (see above–if neighbor is humanity, then He already owns all of it anyway. If it is others described as gods, then exactly what is the command to convert those of other religions other than coveting your neighbor’s worshippers?)
I’m sorry, but it really looks like this boils down to God is omnipotent because God can’t do anything He said is not a good thing to do. It gets a whole lot easier to avoid doing things that are a sin against oneself when one is the only one who gets to define what constitutes such a sin.
So, for example, God created the heavens and the earth from absolutely nothing.
Think about that.
This isn’t just raw power. This is infinite power-- God taking absolutely nothing and transforming it into something with an actual substance which still nonethless relects his will.
Furthermore, when one understand’s God omnipotence, one sees that, regardless of what God can or cannot do, and regardless of what humanty succeeds or fails at doing, God’s will shall be done.
Think about that for a moment.
If God can do something, then his will shall be done.
If God can’t do something, then his will shall still be done.
If we succeed in doing something, then God’s will shall be done.
If we fail in doing something, then God’s will shall still be done.
How can you beat that?
No matter where one goes, and no matter what one does, there’s absolutely no way that they can escape God’s will. You can’t get a much better Christian definition of omnipotence than that. God truly is omnipotent.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
The Scriptures actually use the idea of a seed dying in the earth as a symbol of the resurrection.
The Sciptures later continue…
The Scriptures later continue as follows…
Jesus uses similar language too…
John 12:23-24:
This comes back to a variation of one of the other verses I already presented above…
John 12:25 said:
I suppose, in this regard, it comes down to perception. I’m quite sure that the seed of the fruit falling to the ground and sprouting to new life was often seen as a sign of the resurrection. Even various pagan thoughts drew similar ideas to this, with the celebration of new-life festivals on the first day of Spring. Spring in itself is a sign the resurrection-- and even creation has a minor sacramental nature to it (sacramental as opposed to being one of the seven sacraments).
K
KarenNC
Guest
It’s really no different from an English speaker saying, “He put his foot in his mouth,” and a non-English speaker understanding the literal meaning without understanding the idiomatic dynamics
I could go along with this if we were indeed translating from one language to another. Instead, we are all (presumably) speaking English (in this case, even more specifically, American English). If Christians want to use “omnipotence” when speaking English to mean something other than what the general English speaker understands it to mean, then they need to be clear that they are doing so.
The burden of definition rests on the group which chooses to use a non-standard definition when speaking with those outside the group. That’s not idiom, that’s jargon. Jargon is only useful within the group for which it is designed and not as a tool for communication with those outside the group.
Or it could also come across as an unwillingness on the part of the listener to understand the idiomatic expression within the context of the Christian language being spoken to them.
We are talking about a single word, not an idiomatic expression that might reasonably be seen as idiomatic. Also, you may be using specifically Christian (or in this case, it would appear Catholic) jargon, but you are speaking English, not a “Christian language.” In conversation do you say, “I’m now going to be speaking Christian, not English” when you switch to these non-standard definitions?
When my husband, a computer person, uses a technical phrase specific to his field, he knows that he needs to explain it to me if he wants me to understand it. This is especially true if he is using a standard English word in a very different way, as is pretty common in the computer world.
This does not reflect an unwillingness on my part to communicate with him. Insistence on using jargon, especially without identifying it as such and clarification, to my mind is a barrier to communication.
(continued)
I could go along with this if we were indeed translating from one language to another. Instead, we are all (presumably) speaking English (in this case, even more specifically, American English). If Christians want to use “omnipotence” when speaking English to mean something other than what the general English speaker understands it to mean, then they need to be clear that they are doing so.
The burden of definition rests on the group which chooses to use a non-standard definition when speaking with those outside the group. That’s not idiom, that’s jargon. Jargon is only useful within the group for which it is designed and not as a tool for communication with those outside the group.
Or it could also come across as an unwillingness on the part of the listener to understand the idiomatic expression within the context of the Christian language being spoken to them.
We are talking about a single word, not an idiomatic expression that might reasonably be seen as idiomatic. Also, you may be using specifically Christian (or in this case, it would appear Catholic) jargon, but you are speaking English, not a “Christian language.” In conversation do you say, “I’m now going to be speaking Christian, not English” when you switch to these non-standard definitions?
When my husband, a computer person, uses a technical phrase specific to his field, he knows that he needs to explain it to me if he wants me to understand it. This is especially true if he is using a standard English word in a very different way, as is pretty common in the computer world.
This does not reflect an unwillingness on my part to communicate with him. Insistence on using jargon, especially without identifying it as such and clarification, to my mind is a barrier to communication.
(continued)
K
KarenNC
Guest
**But do you see what I mean? … someone has to really immerse themselves within a Christian mindset in order to understand the more sublime nuances of the Christian’s thought processes. **
No, I don’t see it. I would consider myself to have been thoroughly immersed in the Christian mindset for 30+ years. I was raised from birth as a Christian, in the church every time the doors opened. My family engaged in nightly devotions and intense Bible study during the entirety of my childhood and young adulthood. I spent several years studying for lay ministry with materials provided by an Episcopalian seminary under the guidance of a priest. I took college level courses in Christianity and theology. I have read widely in both the Scriptures and in works of various Church Fathers and more modern Christian writers, Catholic, Anglican and Protestant. This is in addition to extensive reading in Judaism and study with a Reformed Jewish rabbi. I have spent decades in theological discussion with those in various Christian denominations, both before and after I left Christianity. I have been a very active member of churches in the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, and Assembly of God denominations.
I was not raised as nor to be a nominal Christian. My husband was raised in the home of a Lutheran minister, took a number of religion courses in college and went through extensive classes required for acceptance into the Episcopal Church (I did as well). He is almost as widely read in Christian theology as I and definitely much more widely read in Jewish studies. Neither of us has ever heard of this particular form of Christian idiom. Perhaps it is more properly termed specifically Catholic jargon.
We were both taught that the Christian God was all. All-powerful (omnipotent), All knowing (omniscient), etc. These were considered descriptors of the nature of God that could be understood by the average person who spoke English, not idioms or sublime nuances. “All” was used to mean “all” with no limits, not “some.” In fact, that was one of the arguments for the superiority of the Christian God over any other. No others were seen to be “All”–they had limits.
** the very definitions that Christianity uses are radically different from the definitions that others use. This is one of the maior factors which honestly separates Christianity from other world religions too.**
Evidently. Lack of the ability to communicate using the meanings for words that are mutually agreed upon in a given society would definitely get in the way of communication. For communication to occur, both parties involved have to understand the meaning given to a specific symbol (whether that is a word, a sound or an image).
It would seem to me that requiring that someone must be immersed in the Christian mindset before one can accurately understand words used to describe very basic concepts of the Christian religion would not tend toward success in proselytizing non-Christians.
**The Christian really is using an entirely different language from the non-Christian languages of the world. **
Could you clarify what you mean by “non-Christian languages?”
All of this gives credence to our view that Christianity is really a mystery religion of the kind that was very common throughout the Hellenistic world at the time of Jesus. It has simply been turned inside-out, with the mystery on the outside rather than reserved for and intended to be understood only by the initiated within the religion, not even for the general worshipper of that religion.
No, I don’t see it. I would consider myself to have been thoroughly immersed in the Christian mindset for 30+ years. I was raised from birth as a Christian, in the church every time the doors opened. My family engaged in nightly devotions and intense Bible study during the entirety of my childhood and young adulthood. I spent several years studying for lay ministry with materials provided by an Episcopalian seminary under the guidance of a priest. I took college level courses in Christianity and theology. I have read widely in both the Scriptures and in works of various Church Fathers and more modern Christian writers, Catholic, Anglican and Protestant. This is in addition to extensive reading in Judaism and study with a Reformed Jewish rabbi. I have spent decades in theological discussion with those in various Christian denominations, both before and after I left Christianity. I have been a very active member of churches in the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, and Assembly of God denominations.
I was not raised as nor to be a nominal Christian. My husband was raised in the home of a Lutheran minister, took a number of religion courses in college and went through extensive classes required for acceptance into the Episcopal Church (I did as well). He is almost as widely read in Christian theology as I and definitely much more widely read in Jewish studies. Neither of us has ever heard of this particular form of Christian idiom. Perhaps it is more properly termed specifically Catholic jargon.
We were both taught that the Christian God was all. All-powerful (omnipotent), All knowing (omniscient), etc. These were considered descriptors of the nature of God that could be understood by the average person who spoke English, not idioms or sublime nuances. “All” was used to mean “all” with no limits, not “some.” In fact, that was one of the arguments for the superiority of the Christian God over any other. No others were seen to be “All”–they had limits.
** the very definitions that Christianity uses are radically different from the definitions that others use. This is one of the maior factors which honestly separates Christianity from other world religions too.**
Evidently. Lack of the ability to communicate using the meanings for words that are mutually agreed upon in a given society would definitely get in the way of communication. For communication to occur, both parties involved have to understand the meaning given to a specific symbol (whether that is a word, a sound or an image).
It would seem to me that requiring that someone must be immersed in the Christian mindset before one can accurately understand words used to describe very basic concepts of the Christian religion would not tend toward success in proselytizing non-Christians.
**The Christian really is using an entirely different language from the non-Christian languages of the world. **
Could you clarify what you mean by “non-Christian languages?”
All of this gives credence to our view that Christianity is really a mystery religion of the kind that was very common throughout the Hellenistic world at the time of Jesus. It has simply been turned inside-out, with the mystery on the outside rather than reserved for and intended to be understood only by the initiated within the religion, not even for the general worshipper of that religion.
B
brkn1
Guest
I would be interested in which verses from scripture you use to prove that Adam and Eve had the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them.
The impression that I get from scripture is that, although the Holy Spirit would often come upon many OT saints, it was only at and after Pentecost that the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit began to occur. The permanent indwelling of the Comforter required that Jesus first die for our sins, rise from the dead, and then go to sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven before the Holy Spirit could come to indwell the Church members in that manner.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I would be interested in which verses from scripture you use to prove that Adam and Eve did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them.
More importantly, I would be interested in which verses from scripture you use to prove that anyone could be considered ‘good’ without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them.
In the meantime, I can assure you that there are many passages of Scripture which speak of the goodness that the Holy Spirit imparts.
For example, Galatians 5:22-23 specifically says…
If the fruit of the Spirit authentically manifests these actions within the lives of people, then I can assure you that anyone who truly has love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control also has the Spirit’s indwelling too.
Consequently, since Adam and Eve did display these things before the fall, it stands to reason that they did have the Spirit’s indwelling before the fall too. There is certainly a common way in which God is present to all of creation. Paul referred to this all-enveloping presence of God when he quoted a Greek poet in Acts 17:28…
The impression that I get from scripture is that, although the Holy Spirit was originally indwelling Adam and Eve, they lost this indwelling due to original sin.
This is not very different from the dynamics found within the Hebrew Scriptures going as far back as Isaiah 63:10…
I also get the impression that the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures were very much aware that the Holy Spirit was required for salvation too…
Psalm 51:10-12:
Is this not refering to the Holy Spirit being necessary for salvation?
Nonetheless, I also got the impression that the fullness of this indwelling was not **fully restored **until the coming of Christ…
John 1:33:
See how the Spirit had to come down and remain on Jesus?
We’re not in disagreement on this part that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is required for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to be restored to all of humanity. I’ve never disagreed with this part.
Nonetheless, according to Revelation 13:8, Jesus was slain from the creation of the world. In other words, Jesus died the moment sin first happened-- that’s why the devil is called a murderer from the beginning according to John 8:44. That’s why Jesus is paradoxically described in Revelation 5:6 as a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, yet standing in the center of the throne.
K
KarenNC
Guest
There are actually different translations of that verse, and it can be read different ways.
KJV
everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
NIV
all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.[a] (footnote: Or written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain)
Word order and word choice make a difference.
Should this verse be interpreted to mean that the Lamb was slain at the creation of the world? In that case, He was slain before the sin of Adam and Eve.
Does it mean that the book of life belonged from the beginning of the world to the Lamb that was slain? In that case, the time of the slaying is not given and it is having the name written in the book that is key and that happened before the foundation of the world, before Adam and Eve were created much less sinned.
It really is an interesting facet of religions that have sacred texts, particularly when the followers interpret those texts literally–theology can hinge on a comma or word order.
K
KarenNC
Guest
You might also be interested in this article on the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit.
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=865&letter=H
Since the scriptures dealing with Adam and Eve are Jewish ones, makes sense to me to look to the followers of that religion for an understanding of how it was originally viewed. I understand that Christianity understands the Hebrew Scriptures as foreshadowing of the New Testament, but it hopefully will shed a different light on the verses.
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=865&letter=H
Since the scriptures dealing with Adam and Eve are Jewish ones, makes sense to me to look to the followers of that religion for an understanding of how it was originally viewed. I understand that Christianity understands the Hebrew Scriptures as foreshadowing of the New Testament, but it hopefully will shed a different light on the verses.
B
brkn1
Guest
Hi Mr Ex Nihilo,
I probably should not have used the word “impression” since that allows for more leeway with scripture than I like to see in arguments one way or the other.
Throughout the Bible, it is true faith (belief, trust, and loyalty) towards God and His promises that saves the elect. Our obedience naturally follows with the accompanied “fruits” of God’s Spirit, obedience being one of the fruits.
The actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit is what happens starting at Pentecost.
Prior to the day of Pentecost, the disciples who were to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit were already in a saved state or condition as shown by the following scripture:
(John 17:14) “…because they are not of this world, even as I am not…”
(Luke 10:20) "Their names were “…written in heaven.” as you already pointed out.
(John 15:3) They were spiritually “clean”.
(John 15:4,5) Jesus already considered them abiding with Him as “branches” to the vine.
Something very different must have happened to the Christian disciples on the day of Pentecost, that never occurred before. It was the birth of the Church and just like physical birth, spiritual birth (born-again) appears to be a permanent condition. There does not seem to be any provision in scripture describing “un-adoption”.
The idea of being “sealed” of the Spirit unto God also suggests permanence. Read (2nd Corinthians 1:22) where God “sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”
Read (Ephesians 1:13-14) where “…ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession…”
Scripture symbolism has a seal signifying a finished transaction with secure ownership of whatever is sealed.
We can still sin after being sealed as shown by (Ephesians 4:30) “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” A sealed person who deliberately sins will not be able to “enjoy” sinning the way an unsealed person can. Conscience’s guilt and God’s appropriate chastisement will make sure of that.
I probably should not have used the word “impression” since that allows for more leeway with scripture than I like to see in arguments one way or the other.
Throughout the Bible, it is true faith (belief, trust, and loyalty) towards God and His promises that saves the elect. Our obedience naturally follows with the accompanied “fruits” of God’s Spirit, obedience being one of the fruits.
The actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit is what happens starting at Pentecost.
Prior to the day of Pentecost, the disciples who were to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit were already in a saved state or condition as shown by the following scripture:
(John 17:14) “…because they are not of this world, even as I am not…”
(Luke 10:20) "Their names were “…written in heaven.” as you already pointed out.
(John 15:3) They were spiritually “clean”.
(John 15:4,5) Jesus already considered them abiding with Him as “branches” to the vine.
Something very different must have happened to the Christian disciples on the day of Pentecost, that never occurred before. It was the birth of the Church and just like physical birth, spiritual birth (born-again) appears to be a permanent condition. There does not seem to be any provision in scripture describing “un-adoption”.
The idea of being “sealed” of the Spirit unto God also suggests permanence. Read (2nd Corinthians 1:22) where God “sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”
Read (Ephesians 1:13-14) where “…ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession…”
Scripture symbolism has a seal signifying a finished transaction with secure ownership of whatever is sealed.
We can still sin after being sealed as shown by (Ephesians 4:30) “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” A sealed person who deliberately sins will not be able to “enjoy” sinning the way an unsealed person can. Conscience’s guilt and God’s appropriate chastisement will make sure of that.
- Status