The real presence of Christ in the sacrament of communion.

[The Righterzpen]

There you nailed the difference --it is in what they understand, not in what God does.

I was thinking about this this afternoon (post my previous response to you) in regards to revelation of OT Scripture to a specific group of people; and that maybe the statement about "Comforter" is directed at them, because the purpose of the giving of the law was that sin is understood to be what it is. All the law can do is condemn.

I later came to the conclusion that the concept of "comforter" was not directed at Jews because of the giving of the law; but likely had specifically to do with general revelation to humanity about the mystery that is redemption. Which I'll explain what I mean in a minute.

So, can there exist an atoned for gentile, who has no knowledge of written revelation (i.e. Scripture) who is comforted by what they come to understand via conscience, coupled with the witness of creation?

I suppose that's possible; and here I'm drawing totally off of a personal experience that if there is Scripture to back this up; I don't know what verse that would be. Yet also taking into consideration that my experience is post Pentecost side of the cross.

So, here it is.

When I was a teenager; I'd had a "spiritual awakening" prior to really understanding what Biblical faith constituted. This awakening started with Al-Anon. And I would equate it to when Paul talks about the "inscription to the unknown god" (Acts 17:23)

My spiritual awakening first consisted of the general revelation that God was real. (There was "a Power greater than myself that could restore me to sanity". Also I think it bears consideration that the 12 steps are taken from principles found in the Bible. So thus my awakening didn't actually take place totally outside of the written revelation of Scripture.)

Prior to this awakening though, I was an atheist and I specifically remember being an atheist. So this spiritual awakening was very tangible and there was a noticeable shift in my ability to recognize the reality of God. Now it was another 6 months or so before I was presented with the gospel; but I remember feeling joy over the knowledge that God created this world. He ruled it and I didn't have to worry about that. He "knew I was here".

Looking back at it now; I recognize that as the initiation of regeneration. And of course my understanding was only limited to the revelation I had to that point.

Now if I'd lived in a different time and place and had absolutely no access to Scripture; would that actually constitute what we in "Christianize" call "regeneration"? It was definitely a spiritual awakening and was absolutely and act of God. Was this similar to what some anonymous Inca running around in the Amazon could have experiences 3000 years ago? I don't know the answer to that.

And this is why I raise the question of what did "regeneration" look like prior to Pentecost? Was that an "indwelling" and would we even recognize it as "regeneration" or "conversion" in the Christian gospel context? Obviously there is the element in here of; how can one be "converted" to something they have no knowledge of?

Thus the point I brought up about what Jesus said to Peter about being converted. Peter did display something that was accounted for as faith. Was this akin to Abraham's faith was accounted as righteousness? I don't know the answer to that either, because Peter was under the law; and he clearly adhered to the law as the basis of his righteousness before God. We see this with his struggle of the vision with the sheet and the unclean animals in Acts. So fundamentally we could say that Peter "believed Judaism"; but that's not the same thing as having faith in Christ. And thus the necessity that Peter need to be "converted".

And this is why I'd say that Peter was not "regenerated" by the Spirit of God in the same sense that we understand it today. Now was this true for all the disciples? I don't know that either. John certainly seemed to be more able to absorb Jesus's presentation as the fulfillment of the law than Peter was. But again; did that really have anything to do with the operation of the Spirit, or mere differences in human personalities?

As stated by the Scripture though; the point of Pentecost was to bring them knowledge and power of what had only been revealed post resurrection. Paul talks about this mystery having now been revealed; which he ties to "if the kings of this world had known this mystery, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory".

This represented some fundamental change in how the Spirit interacted with human beings. At the very least of which constituted revelation to our understanding.

My whole concern, saying what I said, (as I remember, haha, I am 65), is that it be understood that regeneration is ALWAYS by the Spirit indwelling,

In regards to regeneration; I agree with you. My question becomes is there a difference between "regeneration" and "awakening" in regards to elect pre and post Pentecost?

And we could add a 3rd category of "awareness". "Awareness" I'd call the law of God written on the conscience. That exists regardless of whether or not the individual has exposure to written Scripture or not. There are a lot of "aware" people who never become redeemed.

I'm thinking they knew who the "Comforter" is, and he didn't need to explain it. I think, like faith, which is completely God's work, (whether in small measure or large, it is the same faith, and altogether reliable, solid, factual, effective) the indwelling of the spirit is the same.

Now you could be correct here about them understanding the "Comforter". Jesus did specifically tell them that the "Comforter" was the Spirit of God. So yes they understood Who the "Comforter" was.

You are certainly correct about salvation being altogether reliable, solid, factual and effective. Yet in regards to earthy time; prior to the resurrection, salvation was yet to be accomplished. Although it's true that this was "planned" and "accomplished" in eternity; salvation would not be real if there was not incarnation, death, burial and resurrection.

Which again brings me to the question of the believer's relation to the Holy Spirit pre and post Pentecost. Are we basing assumptions about pre-Pentecost believers' experience, on our post Pentecost perspective?

Jesus makes some cryptic statements about keeping all that the Father had given him and "lost none but the son of perdition". (Which "son of perdition" is a reference to Judas.) (John 17:12) None of Jesus followers died from the point of the appearance of John the Baptist (with the exception of John himself) in the wilderness until post the resurrection. (I believe John represented the end of the OT "prophetic era" and this is why he dies.) Yet there must have been a reason that the survival of the rest was important. Jesus states that this was on account of the fulfillment of Scripture. (He's obviously referring to something in the OT; but I don't know what? And I don't know why their physical survival to post resurrection was important; other than Jesus states "they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves".)

I'd mentioned earlier that the book of Daniel actually refers to Pentecost as "the consummation". (Daniel 9:27) In societies where marriages aren't arranged; we certainly have a form of acquaintance with our future spouse before the actual wedding. We know that person to a certain extent; but if we've maintained a certain physical distance, we are not intimately acquainted with them.

Which draws the question based on what the book of Daniel says about Pentecost; whether or not pre-Pentecost understanding of the relationship to the Holy Spirit to the believer has similar application as this marriage metaphor? After all, Jesus does use that metaphor in the context of faith pre-resurrection as opposed to post-resurrection.

Jesus also makes the statement that he "can't" send the Comforter until he goes back to heaven. (John 16:7) Well.... why is that? Technically Pentecost could have happened at the resurrection. Jesus though had made the decision that this would happen post ascension though. Which is a strong argument for what does "indwelling" constitute pre-Pentecost?

I just found another verse! Check this one out:

John 14:
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.

So yes, these verses solidify the reality that there was a notable difference in how the Holy Spirit related to the believer pre verses post Pentecost.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It sounds here like you are saying salvation in the OT was NOT by faith, (salvific faith being always the work of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer). It sounds like you are saying that the atonement was somehow applied to them some other way. I don't get that.

Well in the light of the verses I just came across; the "application of the atonement" judicially is specifically Jesus pays for one's sin. Wether the Spirit is "with" one or "in" one (as stated in John 14) is the "effect" of the atonement. The indwelling of the Spirit is "caused" by the atonement. And of course in order for it to be effectual; the atonement has to be accomplished.

I like to think this actually happened as you say, except that it is also WE elect now who are taken up to be with him at that time.

Your assumption here though is based on interpretation of eschatology. If you're assuming the tribulation is related to the "rapture" and you're not an amillennialist; then yes, you will see post-Pentecost "us" in there too.

We have no basis for saying otherwise except by assuming some constancy to time in ordering eternity. I don't believe time is capable of that.

Yet we know Christ secured the atonement "in time" "once and for all". Which this absolutely anchors this event here in Revelation "in time". John is witnessing a record of it "after the fact". Which this does make sense, in the very least, in the context of where Revelation appears in the cannon.

Now when was the book of Revelation actually written? That's a different issue altogether.

Daniel on the other hand was told to "seal up the prophecy; for it is for a time far from now." Some scholars have stated that this verse in Daniel is a "foreshadow" to the book of Revelation. Which I think is likely accurate.

Did Daniel's vision actually include the book of Revelation? We don't know that either, because Daniel is not the one who wrote Revelation down. But if it did include the book of Revelation; obviously Daniel would have seen a "real time" record of something that hadn't happened yet.

Whereas all of the rest of prophecy Daniel had received was in the form of a parable. (The ram and the goat etc.) And the parables were explained to him. His experience was not like watching a movie reel. He didn't see the actual events; he saw a parabolic representation of them. Revelation I believe is different, in that we are seeing a parabolic representation of what's happening in heaven "in real earthly time".

It is like I say, that God may well have made all this happen as a completed work by his mere say-so. We see a long process, and it is so, but God seeing it happen because he spoke it into fact.

Well, clearly the book of Revelation records things that haven't happened yet. And I haven't thought about this in context of possible differing literary styles that may be employed in the book of Revelation. That would be an interesting "research project" to do, because we do see things in there such as Satan depicted as a beast and Jerusalem depicted as a harlot that are metaphoric elements. Yet there are also clearly "real time events" depicted too.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I like this VERY much. Most people take Romans 1:20 to be referring to nature alone, Ps 19 style. But I agree completely with you here. Their sin thus more directly remains completely their fault --they are without excuse. It is not just that they failed to consider God, because of nature, but they failed to obey the law of God. It is a rare thing to find a believer who links the law with the goodness (evidence) of God in this way.

I think the confusion comes from people not really understanding how God holds humans accountable for sin.

This quasi involves questions about "free will'. If the nature is fallen, the spirit is dead, and the will is bound by sin; how someone be commanded to believe?

I think people miss that "the wages of sin" is a different "system" than being atoned for. It's like the difference between living in the Amazon and Antartica.

The "wages of sin" is something that's earned. And they are earned based on the transgression the person chooses to engage in. Part of "awareness", is the law written on the conscience. The nature of the fall though, is that the choice will always be to sin; what degree or extent of sin though, is still the choice of the individual. This is why Paul states of Jacob and Esau, that God's choice "according to election" stands before they had "done (committed) good or evil".

The wages of sin based on having done good or evil; doesn't actually have anything to do with "faith". One isn't condemned for "lack of faith" because they are "dead in trespass and sin". They are condemned for what they've done in that deadness; (how they've exercised false faith despite the revelation they have) not actually the deadens itself.

So the deadness is somewhat of a moot point. It's "moot" in the sense that one being born in a state of corruption is technically not their fault. Yet because of the temporal nature of being a created entity; all of us would have transgressed as Adam had. And so thus we are all responsible for our own deadness.

The "economy" of redemption though runs on a different paradigm. A paradigm that is wholly dependent on God's action. And it is wholly dependent on God's action because of our propensity to sin, based on having a nature that is corruptible to begin with.

Once we understand our state of position in comparison to God; that's when redemption becomes wanted and sought after. And that of course requires a "spiritual awakening". A spiritual awakening is instituted by the action of the Holy Spirit. That was true even when "the consummation" was not realized pre-Pentecost.

I don't know how much sense this makes to you? Recognizing the dichotomy between the "economy" of redemption; as opposed to the "economy" of Judgement is difficult to reconcile.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well in the light of the verses I just came across; the "application of the atonement" judicially is specifically Jesus pays for one's sin. Wether the Spirit is "with" one or "in" one (as stated in John 14) is the "effect" of the atonement. The indwelling of the Spirit is "caused" by the atonement. And of course in order for it to be effectual; the atonement has to be accomplished.

So you ARE saying your view of this is that since in the OT the atonement was not yet accomplished it didn't actually apply? God doesn't need to wait on time for the fact of what happened in Christ's death to be effective. God doesn't depend on time, for what he sees to be factual. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth. I hope I just am not following what you're trying to say.

Your assumption here though is based on interpretation of eschatology. If you're assuming the tribulation is related to the "rapture" and you're not an amillennialist; then yes, you will see post-Pentecost "us" in there too.

Well, no. What I am saying has nothing to do with anyone's Eschatology.unless their eschatology necessarily is time dependent in the end --i.e. that there is time in heaven the same way as on temporal earth. Regardless of when one dies, is raptured, or otherwise 'taken up' what do you have to show from Scripture or reason to say we don't all see each other 'arrive' as we do?

Yet we know Christ secured the atonement "in time" "once and for all". Which this absolutely anchors this event here in Revelation "in time". John is witnessing a record of it "after the fact". Which this does make sense, in the very least, in the context of where Revelation appears in the cannon.

Now when was the book of Revelation actually written? That's a different issue altogether.

Daniel on the other hand was told to "seal up the prophecy; for it is for a time far from now." Some scholars have stated that this verse in Daniel is a "foreshadow" to the book of Revelation. Which I think is likely accurate.

Did Daniel's vision actually include the book of Revelation? We don't know that either, because Daniel is not the one who wrote Revelation down. But if it did include the book of Revelation; obviously Daniel would have seen a "real time" record of something that hadn't happened yet.

Whereas all of the rest of prophecy Daniel had received was in the form of a parable. (The ram and the goat etc.) And the parables were explained to him. His experience was not like watching a movie reel. He didn't see the actual events; he saw a parabolic representation of them. Revelation I believe is different, in that we are seeing a parabolic representation of what's happening in heaven "in real earthly time".

Well, clearly the book of Revelation records things that haven't happened yet. And I haven't thought about this in context of possible differing literary styles that may be employed in the book of Revelation. That would be an interesting "research project" to do, because we do see things in there such as Satan depicted as a beast and Jerusalem depicted as a harlot that are metaphoric elements. Yet there are also clearly "real time events" depicted too.

I don't deny real-time events with this view. I'm saying that the way we see time now, I expect to be a much different view there. "The old order of things will pass away" may include a whole lot more than we thought. I see no reason that Christ's death was not in every way effective in the salvation of souls OT, as in the salvation of souls after Christ's death and resurrection.

God caused Christ's birth, death and resurrection to happen when it did, not because it would not have had the same effect if it had been some other time, but because of the particular circumstances of Christ's life, death and resurrection. --At least, that is, I see no reason yet to think otherwise.

Let me try to put this view of time like this: God sees time as only God can --not that time isn't real and in control like we see it in control of us at present, but that it is something he did, wrote, watched, whatever you want to call that. It is a tool, not a boundary. It doesn't control Heaven. I keep hearing objections to what I am trying to get across here, and they ALL assume some absolute substance to time that I don't believe God must live by. Nor will we when we are finally completely transformed, when the Sons of God are revealed, when we see HIM as he is.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Is salvation through Christ alone, and that being by faith alone, and that being by the indwelling Spirit of God? I don't get what you are saying here.

Yes, Christ is the only one who can accomplish atoning for someone's sin.

Yet just as one can be condemned for their sin, even outside having access to written revelation; one can be redeemed by Christ without access to written revelation, because "the invisible things of God are seen in the creation; including His Godhead and eternal power".

The same mechanism that is presented to the unregenerate, is also used to reveal to the elect. They have "a preacher" as Paul describes. It's the same "preacher" the unregenerate have. To the unregenerate "they are without excuse"; but to the elect "they have not been left without a witness". The "word" (in this case spoken as both creation and the law written on the conscience because they are created in the image of the One God) is a "two edged sword".

The created order is still established by God's decree; which is His LAW. The written revelation is "the Law". "The Law" is the "two sided coin" of the one covenant. "The Covenant" is the redemption plan. The Old Testament is a parabolic representation of the reality, who is Christ.

For those on the OT side of Pentecost John 14 explains that the Spirit dwells "with" them. For those on the NT side; the Spirit dwells "in" us.

For the OT person; how the Spirit helped their understanding depended on what revelation they had. He used their conscience as well as the creation. If they had the OT; he used that too. Except they were more accountable than the person who only had "two witnesses". (They / we had / have "3 witnesses".) "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses; let all things be established."

For NT people, they may have been "spiritually awakened" and later "regenerated unto conversion"; or "spiritual awakening and conversion" may have taken place at the same time. There are enough stories of indigenous people (and even entire tribes) "looking for God" who recognize the gospel as soon as they come in contact with a missionary. These are people who (like me) were likely "spiritually awakened" prior to "conversion".

Now here's an ominous thing as it relates to preaching of the actual gospel. Now I'd heard about Jesus in movies and history class. I'd also heard the "free will gospel"; but I didn't actually "believe" until I heard the truth. The first time I'd ever heard about the doctrine of election; I recognized it as truth. I'd actually "known" it before. I just didn't have the language or the mastery of the language in the Bible to articulate it.

 

[The Righterzpen]

So you ARE saying your view of this is that since in the OT the atonement was not yet accomplished it didn't actually apply?

It applied; but "generally" it applied in time. We have instances were "Enoch walked with God and was not." Moses was "buried by God" (and Satan contended with Michael over the body of Moses). And Elijah was taken into heaven in a chariot.

All these things happened in time technically before the atonement. And these things are what Satan complained about.

So yes, you could state there are instances where God "bent the rules" so to speak; because He's omnipotent and He can. But none of these actions would have "held" in eternity if there was no incarnation, death, burial and resurrection "in time".

God becoming part of His creation was absolutely necessary to redeem it. There was no way around that.

Now I'm not accusing you of being a gnostic; but with no "in time material manifestation that accomplished the atonement" you are into heresy. "If Christ didn't come in the flesh...." Which at this point; I'm not thinking that's what you are saying.

God doesn't need to wait on time for the fact of what happened in Christ's death to be effective. God doesn't depend on time, for what he sees to be factual.

But God follows His own laws and part of what He'd established involved a time table.

We see this in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus is in "Abraham's bosom"; not "paradise". Paradise is in the 3rd heaven. Abraham's bosom is believed to be part of Sheol.

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth. I hope I just am not following what you're trying to say.

"In eternity" yes; but "in time" no. How can a creation that doesn't exist yet be atoned for "in time". As soon as creation is commenced; redemption requires the incarnation, death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well, no. What I am saying has nothing to do with anyone's Eschatology.unless their eschatology necessarily is time dependent in the end --i.e. that there is time in heaven the same way as on temporal earth. Regardless of when one dies, is raptured, or otherwise 'taken up' what do you have to show from Scripture or reason to say we don't all see each other 'arrive' as we do?

Paul says "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". When Paul died, he didn't have to wait for the "rapture".

What we call "the rapture" is the resurrection of the body. Those were souls that appeared in heaven "out of great tribulation"; which came from Sheol, not "bodies from the grave". (Remember "You have not left my soul in hell" Christ "preached to the spirits in prison".)

The totality of the final resurrection hasn't taken place yet. A few people have been raised. Not everyone.

Jesus said to the thief: "Today you shall be with me in paradise." That indicates to us that Christ ascended to heaven (soul and spirit but not body) upon death.

Let me try to put this view of time like this: God sees time as only God can --not that time isn't real and in control like we see it in control of us at present, but that it is something he did, wrote, watched, whatever you want to call that. It is a tool, not a boundary. It doesn't control Heaven. I keep hearing objections to what I am trying to get across here, and they ALL assume some absolute substance to time that I don't believe God must live by. Nor will we when we are finally completely transformed, when the Sons of God are revealed, when we see HIM as he is.

Time is a "boundary" though, because God set it as a boundary; not because He needed it to be a boundary. And He obligated Himself to work within that boundary. Again, not because He had to; but because He chose to.

Jesus didn't have to atone for sin. That was a choice he made. He chose to work within the confines that He set the creation in. This is why Jesus got tired and hungry and probably sick. He had to bathe and go to the bathroom like the rest of us. If he got cut he bled. He was incarnated as a "fertilized egg" and grew into adulthood. He aged; (was subject to the passage of earthly time).

These were all boundaries He chose to operate in. And He made these decisions for His own reasons based on the nature of how He decided to create.

When the heavens and earth are recreated; it says there is "time no more". I believe time is a constraint placed on creation because of the corruptible nature of temporal creation. Time exists basically because of death; even though time was set up prior to the fall.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It applied; but "generally" it applied in time. We have instances were "Enoch walked with God and was not." Moses was "buried by God" (and Satan contended with Michael over the body of Moses). And Elijah was taken into heaven in a chariot.

All these things happened in time technically before the atonement. And these things are what Satan complained about.

So yes, you could state there are instances where God "bent the rules" so to speak; because He's omnipotent and He can. But none of these actions would have "held" in eternity if there was no incarnation, death, burial and resurrection "in time".

God becoming part of His creation was absolutely necessary to redeem it. There was no way around that.

Now I'm not accusing you of being a gnostic; but with no "in time material manifestation that accomplished the atonement" you are into heresy. "If Christ didn't come in the flesh...." Which at this point; I'm not thinking that's what you are saying.



But God follows His own laws and part of what He'd established involved a time table.

We see this in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus is in "Abraham's bosom"; not "paradise". Paradise is in the 3rd heaven. Abraham's bosom is believed to be part of Sheol.



"In eternity" yes; but "in time" no. How can a creation that doesn't exist yet be atoned for "in time". As soon as creation is commenced; redemption requires the incarnation, death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

You seem to keep taking some implication of what I'm saying, that I do not at all mean. I have no objection to these happening 'in time'. I see no rule bending. All I'm saying is that I see no reason that God should respect chronology how we do. We always consider effect to follow cause, as a function of time. God need not see it that way at all. The Heavenly economy need not operate according to that either. It may even be that some things that are put chronologically is for our sakes, because we would not otherwise understand. For example, the references taken to support "soul sleep" may well be for our sake, to explain why the dead don't actually go to their final destination until much later, while to them, it may well have been instantaneous.

Another example: you ask, '"In eternity" yes; but "in time" no. How can a creation that doesn't exist yet be atoned for "in time".' It's kind of humorous to me, that we come at this from opposite directions -- I say it is obvious the atonement happened "in time" or "during this temporal existence" because that is when Christ was sacrificed. So why would there be a problem? If it happened during time, how does that preclude and timeless fact being caused? Likewise the inverse --if God determined, and spoke the fact of it into existence, how does that preclude it from happening during this temporal existence?

I don't know where I have said what you have put into quotes here, but the whole notion you claim I support --that this temporal reality is not real --or so it sounds-- is not what I believe: You say, "Now I'm not accusing you of being a gnostic; but with no "in time material manifestation that accomplished the atonement" you are into heresy. "If Christ didn't come in the flesh...." Which at this point; I'm not thinking that's what you are saying". ----- Where have I said, 'no "in time material manifestation that accomplished the atonement" or, "If Christ didn't come in the flesh...." Something really screwy is going on here.

I do believe that we attribute substance to the current 'way of things', including subscribing to the constancy and universal application of time passage to all things- including the spiritual, and that, to include Heaven and Hell. I just don't see it. God rules; time only rules where he put it to rule. But yes, this vapor of existence will be swallowed up in the solid reality of the presence of God. The "old system of things will pass away"

 

[The Righterzpen]

I don't know where I have said what you have put into quotes here, but the whole notion you claim I support

Well, let's start here: First off, because I "put something in quotes"; doesn't mean I'm quoting you. And I'm not sure why you assume that is the case?

This here is quoting you:

Where have I said, 'no "in time material manifestation that accomplished the atonement" or, "If Christ didn't come in the flesh...." Something really screwy is going on here.

"If Christ didn't come in the flesh....." ("Christ came in the flesh" is a quote from Scripture.)

"In eternity"; yes. (Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.)
"In time"; no. (Jesus can not be "slain from the foundation" of a world that did not exist yet; because God can not die and in order for the Son to die; he had to take on mortality. This was the reason for being incarnated. He "could not" take on material form until there was a material creation, because by definition, even if the incarnation had been the first act of creation; the action still would have manifest material substance. Thus defining "God having created something".)

All I'm saying is that I see no reason that God should respect chronology how we do. We always consider effect to follow cause, as a function of time. God need not see it that way at all. The Heavenly economy need not operate according to that either.

God respects the chronology of time as we understand it, because He created that chronology. (We obey "time" because we have no other choice.) In order to be an appropriate sacrifice; Jesus had to be incarnated in the likeness of Adam; (because Adam was created in the image of God). Adam was subject to the laws of the universe God created; so therefore Jesus was also subject to those laws.

This is not because God of His own essence "had to be" subject to time. ("Another example" that is "not a quote of you".)

The entity that God is, is a very different being than the creation He made. God as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal, and having no beginning and no end; obviously is not confined to time. Yet everything God does in context of the creation is confined to time. This is because of the nature of creation; not the nature of God.

In what God does within creation; He subjects Himself to the rules by with He set to rule the creation. This is true in all instances except where God wishes to demonstrate some aspect of His Divinity. Examples of demonstration of His Divinity would be things like the plagues on Egypt, Joshua stops the sun from setting (i.e. stopped the planet from turning), Moses strikes the rock and water comes out, Elijah calls down fire from heaven.

Jesus bore this type of demonstration in a more direct way by multiplying food, healing people and raising the dead. Those were actually demonstrating acts of creation of a "substance" that wasn't previously there.

I say it is obvious the atonement happened "in time" or "during this temporal existence" because that is when Christ was sacrificed. So why would there be a problem?

I'm not the one who has a problem with this. The atonement was part of time. And there was a "different set of rules" regarding how the Holy Spirit interacted with elect individuals before the atonement, as opposed to after the atonement. The atonement obviously preceded Pentecost.

Now you can argue with this verse all you want in regards to the Spirit being "with" someone as opposed to "in" someone; but I'm not the one who came up with this idea. This is what Scripture says:

John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
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.

If it happened during time, how does that preclude and timeless fact being caused? Likewise the inverse --if God determined, and spoke the fact of it into existence, how does that preclude it from happening during this temporal existence?

God had to have a plan before that plan came to pass. The plan was determined "in eternity". It was made manifest "in time". In order for it to be "manifest in time"; there had to be a material substance for it to be manifest into.

The elect are elect before time begins. But they can not be regenerated until they actually exist. And they were not atoned for "in time" until the atonement took place "in time".

I do believe that we attribute substance to the current 'way of things', including subscribing to the constancy and universal application of time passage to all things- including the spiritual, and that, to include Heaven and Hell. I just don't see it. God rules; time only rules where he put it to rule.

Now here's the other thing I think you may not be realizing.

Prior to God creating anything. God was the only "object" that existed. There was no heaven. There was no hell. There wasn't even a "space" for creation. There only existed God.

So "in the beginning God...." commences the existence of something in addition to God, that is other than God. Heaven and hell are not eternal in the sense that they have a beginning. So in that regard, they very much are confined to "time"; despite the fact that we consider them "outside of time".

We could argue for "three layers" of "time".
1. We have "temporal time" = beginning of this heavens and earth to destruction of this heavens and earth.
2. We have "timeless time" = anything that will exist continuing past "temporal time".
3. Eternal time = That which constitutes the separate existence of God alone.

"Eternal time" is that which is not subject to any other time.

"Timeless time" is all that is subject to God's authority outside of the material existence of temporal time. Keeping in mind though that "timeless time" still has its own "material existence". This includes the new heavens and the new earth; but also the Lake of Fire.

"Temporal time" is all the current material world, including heaven and hell. This heavens and earth are recreated at the end of temporal time and death and hell are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the "cross over" to "timeless time" where "temporal time" no longer exists. "Temporal time" no longer exists because the current creation (which is subject to death and corruption) no longer exists.

"Timeless time" though still has a "material creation" with a material heavens and a Lake of Fire. It's just not a corruptible material creation. It will exist for the rest of "eternity".

"Timeless time" and "timeless material creation" exist though because the Son was incarnated into "temporal time".

The "temporal creation" (including all humanity) exist in "timeless creation" because of the atonement. One is either elect in the "timeless creation" or one is eternally condemned in the Lake of Fire.

This is true of "non-material substance entities" too. (What we general think of as angels and demons.) The world "angel" is also translated "messenger" and the "messenger" can be a living human, a disembodied saint, or a "non-fallen non-carbon based material entity". We see one example in Revelation where John meets an "angel" (the word angel is used) who tells John, "Don't worship me; I am one of your brethren." (He's likely a disembodied saint.)

What I'd call a "carbon based spirit entity" is a disembodied human. Disembodied saints currently reside in heaven. OT Scripture also calls them "watchers". Unredeemed disembodied humans we generally call "ghosts". Although all of what we think are "ghosts" in our present world, are most likely demons.

All these entities also continue to exist in "timeless time"; except those disembodied saints in "temporal time" have now received "glorified bodies". This is likely true too of animals and plants on this current earth; as well as what ever extra-terrestrial life may exist. (They would also be "raised incorruptible"; as the creation itself is part of what was delivered from corruption as part of the atonement.)

Fallen angels and unredeemed humans are cast into the Lake of Fire. This would include any other entity God has created that is accountable for its sin; whether "created in God's image" or not. Although I'm not inclined to think this includes animals because animals don't have sentience. (They aren't capable of considering their actions in regards to their "transgression" before their Creator.) We know animals are technically capable of "sin" because the Scripture says they are. Scripture also says land can "sin". In regards to plants and animals though; I think their "sin" has more to do with them being corruptible and made subject to death because of mans' transgression.

We know angles are accountable for their sin because they are capable of being condemned. Is there other sentient life in this universe? (Probably.) Revelation does talk about "beasts" that worship God in heaven; which I do not think is a reference to earthly animals. It may be a symbolic reference to something else (like the "24 elders") in heaven; or may represent sentient life that exists elsewhere in the universe that we are not aware of. There are "angles" in heaven; which we know aren't human. So are these "beasts" some other type of life form? That would make logical sense.

 

[JM]

Worth watching.