At what point in our salvation is the blood of Christ applied?

[Inquisitor]

Your A! appears to be Plato-gnostic. Like Platonists and gnostics, the AI alleges a complete divorce between the pysical and spiritual. It sees spiritual and physical as absolutely separate realms. The OT Hebrews understood that there is an overlap between the spiritual and the physical. Physical things can also be spiritual.

So your AI lists -
1. Baptism: Physical → Spiritual
2. Circumcision: Fleshly → Spiritual
3. Bread & Manna: Physical → Christ as Spiritual Bread
4. Temple: Physical → Spiritual Body
5. Sacrifices: Animal → Christ’s Spiritual Sacrifice
6. Priesthood: Levitical → Christ & Believers
7. Mount Zion and Jerusalem: Earthly → Heavenly

These are biblically false dichotomies.
1. Water baptism before Jesus' resurrection (b J r) involved physical water and physical bodies, but had a spiritual intention (turning to Yahweh and receiving forgiveness of past sins).
Water baptism after Jesus's resurrection (a J r) involved physical water and physical bodies, but had a spiritual intention (turning to a risen physical Jesus and accepting the forgiveness of past sins He provided by His death).

2. Circumcision b J r involved a physical person being integrated into a community of physical people whose allegiance was to Yahweh by the removal of a foreskin hiding the source of physically manifest fruit.
Circumcision a J r involves a physical person being integrated into a community of physical people whose allegiance is to a risen physical Jesus by the removal hypocrisy that hides the reality of the heart, the source of physically manifest fruit.

3. Bread and Manna b J r were physical manifestations that fueled all kinds of invisible processes inside the physical person that enabled them to maintain the health of their physical body so it can express their will in physical actions.
The Bread of Life a J r is physical manifestations (the risen Christ and the scriptures) that fuels invisible processes inside physical persons that enables them to maintain the health of a physical body (their own or the church of which they are a member) so these can express the will of a risen physical Jesus.

4. The temple b J r was a physical assembly of stones etc. where God chose to manifest His abiding glory in a special visible way on the physical planet that is not seen outside of the temple.
The temple a J r is a physical assembly of physical "living stones" where a physically resurrected Jesus chooses to manifest His abiding glory in special visible ways on the physical planet that are not seen outside the temple.

5. Animal sacrifices b J r were physical animal being offered and accepted by God as substitutes for physical humans who admitted they were not physically expressing attitudes and behaviour Yahweh expected of his people.
Jesus sacrificed His physical body which was accepted by God as a substitute for physical humans who admit they have not physically expressed attitudes and behaviour that Jesus expects of His people.

6. Priesthood b J r entailed physical men appointed by Yahweh, to advocate for Yahweh to men and for men to Yahweh, with one High Priest to advocate on behalf of the other priests.
Priesthood a J r entails physical men appointed by God, to advocate for God to men and for men to God, with a risen physically Jesus as the one chosen advocate on behalf of all the other kingdom of priests.

Mount Zion b J r was a physical mountain upon which God's temple stood where God's people assembled for convocations and above which, in heaven, a non-terrestrial assembly also acknowledge Yahweh. as Lord
Mount Zion a J r is a geographically disperse physical location (wherever Gods' people on earth are assembling) and the non-terrestrial assembly in the heavens also gathered to acknowledge God and Jesus as Lord.

Yes, there are novel spiritual evolutions expressed in the New Covenant: deeper and more transformative spiritual realities. But there are still many of the same physical elements included in representing visibly the spiritual dynamics that are working out invisibly.

I disagree with your AI's radical separation between physical and spiritual. It is not Hebraic but Plato-gnostic

Ai quoted directly from the scripture.

What was your reply all about?

2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which
are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

1 Corinthians 4:20
For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.

Nothing comes from your heart or your mind, Paul Thompson?

That is why we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

So that we can love others!

AI quoted from the scripture but you did not.

 

[PaulThomson]

Ai quoted directly from the scripture.

What was your reply all about?

2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which
are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

1 Corinthians 4:20
For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.

Nothing comes from your heart or your mind, Paul Thompson?

That is why we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

So that we can love others!

AI quoted from the scripture but you did not.

You AI's list of seven contrasts reveals a Plato-gnostic false dichotomy between spiritual and physical.

So your AI lists -
1. Baptism: Physical → Spiritual
Both the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus had both seen and unseen aspects, temporal and enduring aspects. Neither the turning to God that John's water baptism expressed, nor the turning to Jesus that the water baptism of Jesus expressed were supposed to be temporary. Both of the water baptisms and both the turning to God and the turning to Jesus were spiritual. According to the Hebrews, spiritual was not necessarily invisible. However, according to Plato-gnostic categories, the physical is purely phenomena (the changing world we perceive through our senses, and the spiritual is purely noumena (the true nature of reality existing as perfect invisible forms /ideas). IMHO that is not the way the Bible defines the spiritual. We are a spiritual house for the Lord, but we are physical.

2. Circumcision: Fleshly → Spiritual
1Pe 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[fn] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

I would suggest that the Old Covenant's outwardly visible rite of circumcision, which was a spiritual rite that had both visible and invisible aspects, was replaced with the New Covenant outwardly visible rite of water baptism, which is a spiritual rite that has both visible and invisible aspects. An Old Testament Gentile who was committing Himself to Yahweh and His community through the outward rite of circumcision, was in circumsidion's invisible aspects, doing and experiencing the same things invisibly as a New Testament convert to Jesus does when they go through water baptism. When he was being circumcised in his flesh by men, the Old Testament convert was also having his heart circumcised by God, receiving a clean conscience before God.

The AI's invalid (IMHO) dichotomy between physical and spiritual is obvious in it's headings, which I quoted. Anyone can find scriptures that they can claim validated their ideas, even an AI. I agree with the AI's scriptures, but I disagree with the frmework through which the AI is evaluating the meaning of those verses.

1. Baptism: Physical → Spiritual
2. Circumcision: Fleshly → Spiritual
3. Bread & Manna: Physical → Christ as Spiritual Bread
4. Temple: Physical → Spiritual Body
5. Sacrifices: Animal → Christ’s Spiritual Sacrifice
6. Priesthood: Levitical → Christ & Believers
7. Mount Zion and Jerusalem: Earthly → Heavenly

 

[greenonions]

We cannot claim or follow the promises given to individuals. The promise that is given to us is in Acts 2.

Acts 2:37-41 NIV
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

There are many promises given to many people in the Bible but to simply claim that they apply to us is unwise.

There is this promise that applies to us:

Romans 4:22-25 NIV
This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

 

[Mem]

You AI's list of seven contrasts reveals a Plato-gnostic false dichotomy between spiritual and physical.

So your AI lists -
1. Baptism: Physical → Spiritual
Both the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus had both seen and unseen aspects, temporal and enduring aspects. Neither the turning to God that John's water baptism expressed, nor the turning to Jesus that the water baptism of Jesus expressed were supposed to be temporary. Both of the water baptisms and both the turning to God and the turning to Jesus were spiritual. According to the Hebrews, spiritual was not necessarily invisible. However, according to Plato-gnostic categories, the physical is purely phenomena (the changing world we perceive through our senses, and the spiritual is purely noumena (the true nature of reality existing as perfect invisible forms /ideas). IMHO that is not the way the Bible defines the spiritual. We are a spiritual house for the Lord, but we are physical.

2. Circumcision: Fleshly → Spiritual
1Pe 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[fn] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

I would suggest that the Old Covenant's outwardly visible rite of circumcision, which was a spiritual rite that had both visible and invisible aspects, was replaced with the New Covenant outwardly visible rite of water baptism, which is a spiritual rite that has both visible and invisible aspects. An Old Testament Gentile who was committing Himself to Yahweh and His community through the outward rite of circumcision, was in circumsidion's invisible aspects, doing and experiencing the same things invisibly as a New Testament convert to Jesus does when they go through water baptism. When he was being circumcised in his flesh by men, the Old Testament convert was also having his heart circumcised by God, receiving a clean conscience before God.

The AI's invalid (IMHO) dichotomy between physical and spiritual is obvious in it's headings, which I quoted. Anyone can find scriptures that they can claim validated their ideas, even an AI. I agree with the AI's scriptures, but I disagree with the frmework through which the AI is evaluating the meaning of those verses.

1. Baptism: Physical → Spiritual
2. Circumcision: Fleshly → Spiritual
3. Bread & Manna: Physical → Christ as Spiritual Bread
4. Temple: Physical → Spiritual Body
5. Sacrifices: Animal → Christ’s Spiritual Sacrifice
6. Priesthood: Levitical → Christ & Believers
7. Mount Zion and Jerusalem: Earthly → Heavenly

The relationship is illustrated scripturally in terms of types and shadows, that is the shadow of the spiritual can be seen in the natural. However, it's an exercise in futility to try and embrace a shadow. A shadow is merely a representative of sorts of the reality that casts it. But the reality doesn't disappear if there is no longer shadow, it's just that the light source no longer (sees the need, shall I say?) to generate it.

You AI's list of seven contrasts reveals a Plato-gnostic false dichotomy between spiritual and physical.

So your AI lists -
1. Baptism: Physical → Spiritual
Both the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus had both seen and unseen aspects, temporal and enduring aspects. Neither the turning to God that John's water baptism expressed, nor the turning to Jesus that the water baptism of Jesus expressed were supposed to be temporary. Both of the water baptisms and both the turning to God and the turning to Jesus were spiritual. According to the Hebrews, spiritual was not necessarily invisible. However, according to Plato-gnostic categories, the physical is purely phenomena (the changing world we perceive through our senses, and the spiritual is purely noumena (the true nature of reality existing as perfect invisible forms /ideas). IMHO that is not the way the Bible defines the spiritual. We are a spiritual house for the Lord, but we are physical.

2. Circumcision: Fleshly → Spiritual
1Pe 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[fn] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

I would suggest that the Old Covenant's outwardly visible rite of circumcision, which was a spiritual rite that had both visible and invisible aspects, was replaced with the New Covenant outwardly visible rite of water baptism, which is a spiritual rite that has both visible and invisible aspects. An Old Testament Gentile who was committing Himself to Yahweh and His community through the outward rite of circumcision, was in circumsidion's invisible aspects, doing and experiencing the same things invisibly as a New Testament convert to Jesus does when they go through water baptism. When he was being circumcised in his flesh by men, the Old Testament convert was also having his heart circumcised by God, receiving a clean conscience before God.

The AI's invalid (IMHO) dichotomy between physical and spiritual is obvious in it's headings, which I quoted. Anyone can find scriptures that they can claim validated their ideas, even an AI. I agree with the AI's scriptures, but I disagree with the frmework through which the AI is evaluating the meaning of those verses.

1. Baptism: Physical → Spiritual
2. Circumcision: Fleshly → Spiritual
3. Bread & Manna: Physical → Christ as Spiritual Bread
4. Temple: Physical → Spiritual Body
5. Sacrifices: Animal → Christ’s Spiritual Sacrifice
6. Priesthood: Levitical → Christ & Believers
7. Mount Zion and Jerusalem: Earthly → Heavenly

The relationship is illustrated scripturally in terms of types and shadows, that is the shadow of the spiritual can be seen in the natural. However, it's an exercise in futility to try and embrace a shadow. A shadow is merely a representative of sorts of the reality that casts it. But the reality doesn't disappear if there is no longer shadow, it's just that the light source no longer (sees the need, shall I say?) to generate it.

Speaking of Jesus, John the Baptist's statement that he must decrease and He increase, to me, generates an illustration of a shadow waning at the approach of noon until it is directly under the Man who casts it. And that seems to be mirrored by John's confession that it is him that should be baptized by Jesus. So, in short, I'm not convince that everyone should see us dunked in water as much that I am that everyone should see us dunked in Jesus.

 

[TrustandObey]

There is this promise that applies to us:

Romans 4:22-25 NIV
This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Agreed, this promise like Acts 2:37-41 are written to apply directly to us.

Both verses direct us toward a resurrected Jesus.

32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

 

[PaulThomson]

The relationship is illustrated scripturally in terms of types and shadows, that is the shadow of the spiritual can be seen in the natural. However, it's an exercise in futility to try and embrace a shadow. A shadow is merely a representative of sorts of the reality that casts it. But the reality doesn't disappear if there is no longer shadow, it's just that the light source no longer (sees the need, shall I say?) to generate it.

My point is that both the shadow and the real are physical. The shadow is cast by a physical reality upon other physical realities. So, explanations of the real that are not attached to physical realities are not biblical, but philosophical.

 

[Mem]

My point is that both the shadow and the real are physical. The shadow is cast by a physical reality upon other physical realities. So, explanations of the real that are not attached to physical realities are not biblical, but philosophical.

I do suppose that there must a present need for shadow for whatever good reason. And hearing that in the world to come there will be no need for the sun, I can't help but wonder if there will be any shadow.

 

[PaulThomson]

I do suppose that there must a present need for shadow for whatever good reason. And hearing that in the world to come there will be no need for the sun, I can't help but wonder if there will be any shadow.

Rev 21:23
The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,[fn] for the glory[fn] of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

Rev 22:5
There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

It's the city to come that has no need of the sun, Mem, because the Lord's glory lights it. Beyond the precincts of the city, they may well need the sun. After all, it does not say the city had no need of a sun, which could allude to there being no sun. But it says the city has no need of THE sun, implying there is a son, but the HOLY CITY does not need THE sun.

I agree that the shadow is not the antitype. What I am pushing back on is the AI assumption that because the shadow is physical , the antitype must be not physical.

 

[Mem]

Rev 21:23
The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,[fn] for the glory[fn] of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

Rev 22:5
There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

It's the city to come that has no need of the sun, Mem, because the Lord's glory lights it. Beyond the precincts of the city, they may well need the sun. After all, it does not say the city had no need of a sun, which could allude to there being no sun. But it says the city has no need of THE sun, implying there is a son, but the HOLY CITY does not need THE sun.

I agree that the shadow is not the antitype. What I am pushing back on is the AI assumption that because the shadow is physical , the antitype must be not physical.

Although I think I get what you are pushing back on, it may take me some time to calibrate exactly what you are holding up against it.

I believe I have been given a glimpse, within a dream, of such 'place' (I'll call it). It came to mind in the course of reading your reply, and where I had always been at a loss to describe the vision, I now do think that 'without any shadow' is an adequately fitting description. I was in the apartment that I lived in while attending grade school and, as a matter of fact, its dimness was quite notable but I, well, I mean, it seemed that I was looking at "I" but I didn't recognize "I" as much as I couldn't shake the feeling that "I" knew me...anyway... I, after having been sitting on the couch in the family room... next to Pat Robertson...rose up from the couch and went to the open door and put 'my' hand on the latch on the storm door, all the while without taking 'my' eyes off of me, and opened it into my front yard that was 'flooded' with light. Not a blinding light but a rather crisp clear, and now I realize, shadowless light.

 

[PaulThomson]

Although I think I get what you are pushing back on, it may take me some time to calibrate exactly what you are holding up against it.

I am pushing back on the idea that the physico-spiritual OT reality/antitype which corresponds to a NT shadow/type has no physical component but is only spiritual. I am holding up that the NT confirming of the covenant from the converts side is a physical act of baptism, wheee the OT conforming of the covenant from the convert's side was a physical act of circumcision.

 

[Mem]

I am pushing back on the idea that the physico-spiritual OT reality/antitype which corresponds to a NT shadow/type has no physical component but is only spiritual. I am holding up that the NT confirming of the covenant from the converts side is a physical act of baptism, wheee the OT conforming of the covenant from the convert's side was a physical act of circumcision.

I see. What are your thoughts of Jesus having also been circumcised?

 

[PaulThomson]

I see. What are your thoughts of Jesus having also been circumcised?

Jesus' purpose in coming was to unite in one body, one household, one commonwealth, the Jews and the Gentiles (Ephesians). He needed to be a law-keeping member of the Hebrew nation, circumcised from the eighth day. But also a member of the Gentiles, uncircumcised from birth before the eighth day. Had he not been circumcised according to the Law, he would not have been a faithful law-keeping Jew, but a transgressor (paraptOma/parapiptO), and an imperfect sacrifice. Had He not lived perfectly according to God's original design for man, He would not have been a faithful Gentile, showing the law written on his heart. He would have fallen short of the glory of God (hamartia, hamartanO), and an imperfect sacrifice.

 

[Adino]

Absolutely. God knows the end of a matter just as well as the beginning. God is omniscient.

"While we were yet sinners Christ died for us."
That verse there speaks volumes.

So....
Let's get to this "moment" of "salvation" idea.

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear.

From God's viewpoint in eternity there has never been a moment anywhere in creation when/where the saved are not saved. Those of us living within creation do not observe or experience salvation that way but that is, nonetheless the logically necessary reality of an externally-exiting omni-attributed Creator's salvation of sinners.

In other words, that question this op asks is misguided. It's a sort of red herring. It's like asking, "Is this the first ime you've been found in the closet wearing a rubber glove on your head clucking like a chicken?" The answer to that question is, "I have never been in any closet wearing a rubber glove on my head clucking like a chicken, found or otherwise." So, too, the answer to, "At what point in our salvation.....?" is "There are no "points" in salvation from the ternal point of view." Yes, humans have invented a doctrine called the ordo salutis, but that's a human invention designed to better understand salvation as a process, and our experience thereof..... and there isn't uniform agreement on that invention's particulars. It's like asking, "Which color tastes best?"

Those of us alive in this mortal coil have not really been "saved" yet.

Scripture says otherwise.

Scripture uses three different conjugations when speaking of salvation:

1. We are saved,
2. We are being saved,
3. We will be saved.

The three are mutually existing conditions, NOT mutually exclusive conditions AND the fact remains that from God's pov the matter is an already done deal. He has already saved those He is saving and will save. We are saved right now. If you or I died before we finished the next sentence you and I would die already saved. We'd also die in the midst of our being saved. Having died we would resurrect; our bodies being transformed from corruptible and mortal bodies of flesh and blood to incorruptible and immortal spiritual bodies of flesh and bone (assuming Jesus' resurrected body is the prototype).

We are alive and will not truly die. But we are accustomed to God ALWAYS keeping his promises. So we talk about future events in the past tense as if they have already happened. Just like God did with Abraham.

I encourage you to do three things:

1. Study the diversity with which the Bible uses the word and concept of "dead" and "death," because there about five different definitions and they should not be confused or conflated.
2. Do the same with the word and concept of "save(d)" and "salvation," because God uses that word/concept in at least two different ways and some of the time the two iterations ARE related to one another soteriologically, but sometimes not.
3. Try putting aside all the sectarian and/or denominational doctrinal filters when you do the above. Let scripture speak for itself.

.

In truth, we are "saved" when we physically die. Once for all eternity. Or....we find out that Jesus says He never knew us. Before then, we have faith which changes us.
Yes, the first part of that is correct but from the eternal perspective there is no "before." There is no "after," either. There is only what is...... and you is saved. If God saved you then there is no point anywhere at anytime in creation when you are not saved. You plod through time as if a certain cause-and-effect exist, but it all gets traced back to Genesis 1:1 and the Uncaused Cause that is God.

It gives us hope, a new outlook, attitude, and a new sense of purpose.

Yes, I suppose, but there is a subtle but important distinction between hope in what will be and hope in what definitely is. Some place their hope in God keeping a yet to be kept promise in the future. Others place their hope in the fact God has already kept His promises. The former hopes in what might be. The latter hopes in what is. This can be very, very, very important because for example, there is a large swath of Christians in Christendom who place their hope in a specific kind of return because they believe God has not yet kept certain promises, whereas a larger swath of Christians place their hope in a completely different kind of return because God has, in fact, kept those same certain promises. The former follow preachers and teachers who chronically make prognostications that NEVER happen, and the net result is that they prove themselves chronically false teachers and their followers end up entrenched in ever-occurring but never-fruitful maybes.

When it comes to salvation, it is best to place one's hope in what God has done because when that moment of examination comes it will not be the time for hope. It'll be too late.

This is what happens when we take languages with limited vocabulary and extremely different construction and put them into English which is noun based and has an exponentially larger vocabulary. Things get confusing on our side.

Yeah..... No. I'm not doing that. I will readily acknowledge language can be a problem, but the simple undeniable facts are that God had His people right down His revelation of Himself using words, His revelation is revealed for the purpose of being known and understood, and He has made His people with the ability to understand what He has revealed.

Appeals to the problem of language are a cop-out. Scripture is not that difficult to understand correctly. A little work goes a long way and learning the long-held and well-established rules of sound exegesis and the basic concepts of logic/reason facilitate the process. When it comes to the subject of salvation, and the point at which the blood of Christ is applied, scripture informs us that blood was applied before either of us were ever born and asking about the application in a temporal sense misses reality. Those saved were never truly. Every single person God saves is picked from the exact same population: sinners.

 

[Mem]

Jesus' purpose in coming was to unite in one body, one household, one commonwealth, the Jews and the Gentiles (Ephesians). He needed to be a law-keeping member of the Hebrew nation, circumcised from the eighth day. But also a member of the Gentiles, uncircumcised from birth before the eighth day. Had he not been circumcised according to the Law, he would not have been a faithful law-keeping Jew, but a transgressor (paraptOma/parapiptO), and an imperfect sacrifice. Had He not lived perfectly according to God's original design for man, He would not have been a faithful Gentile, showing the law written on his heart. He would have fallen short of the glory of God (hamartia, hamartanO), and an imperfect sacrifice.

*Happily? Idk, but this post was saved before the latest technical difficulty... so I'll go ahead and click send... and if it happens again..ahh forget it


And likewise, in the case of His receiving baptism, Jesus suffered John's baptism 'in order to fulfill all righteousness.' I think the key word here is all righteousness. Iyo, are we now, then, also required to fulfill the same measure of righteousness? It doesn't seem that I really have any true works to offer, except one mess after another. I did receive a water baptism the summer I turned 14 (when I lived at the setting of the dream I shared earlier) but I haven't been back to that church, or any other, since. Would you then regard me to be apostate? It's okay if that is your opinion. I gathered that a majority of the church population indeed think so.

 

[JohnDB]

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear.

From God's viewpoint in eternity there has never been a moment anywhere in creation when/where the saved are not saved. Those of us living within creation do not observe or experience salvation that way but that is, nonetheless the logically necessary reality of an externally-exiting omni-attributed Creator's salvation of sinners.

In other words, that question this op asks is misguided. It's a sort of red herring. It's like asking, "Is this the first ime you've been found in the closet wearing a rubber glove on your head clucking like a chicken?" The answer to that question is, "I have never been in any closet wearing a rubber glove on my head clucking like a chicken, found or otherwise." So, too, the answer to, "At what point in our salvation.....?" is "There are no "points" in salvation from the ternal point of view." Yes, humans have invented a doctrine called the ordo salutis, but that's a human invention designed to better understand salvation as a process, and our experience thereof..... and there isn't uniform agreement on that invention's particulars. It's like asking, "Which color tastes best?"


Scripture says otherwise.

Scripture uses three different conjugations when speaking of salvation:

1. We are saved,
2. We are being saved,
3. We will be saved.

The three are mutually existing conditions, NOT mutually exclusive conditions AND the fact remains that from God's pov the matter is an already done deal. He has already saved those He is saving and will save. We are saved right now. If you or I died before we finished the next sentence you and I would die already saved. We'd also die in the midst of our being saved. Having died we would resurrect; our bodies being transformed from corruptible and mortal bodies of flesh and blood to incorruptible and immortal spiritual bodies of flesh and bone (assuming Jesus' resurrected body is the prototype).

I encourage you to do three things:

1. Study the diversity with which the Bible uses the word and concept of "dead" and "death," because there about five different definitions and they should not be confused or conflated.
2. Do the same with the word and concept of "save(d)" and "salvation," because God uses that word/concept in at least two different ways and some of the time the two iterations ARE related to one another soteriologically, but sometimes not.
3. Try putting aside all the sectarian and/or denominational doctrinal filters when you do the above. Let scripture speak for itself.

.

Perhaps I was not clear myself.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just try not to use the $5 words you have been using. (Think about using a 3rd grade reading level language....it's not as easy as you think....I myself find it difficult to not use some of those words when trying to explain things)

We were "saved" at the cross with Jesus's crucifixion which happened BEFORE the cosmic foundations of the Earth were put in place and we will be saved for all eternity. So....kinda hard to put a timeline on that.

We, have the distinct disadvantage of living currently in the third dimension without any cognitive ability to understand the next one due to the exponential capabilities achievable in the next dimension of space/time. (Which is where Heaven is)
(OH dear....$5 word usage again)

English language only uses one of three states of past, present, and future at a time. The perfect tense is as close as we get to using more than one. Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Early Latin all have tense capabilities of all three or just two tenses at the same time. (Languages the scriptures were written in)

Also Hebrew and Aramaic are verb based metaphorical language while English is noun based and without as much idioms or metaphors. Early Latin had construction capabilities to where they can form new words to adjust easier than Hebrew, English, or Aramaic. And when discussing timelessness or throughout all of time itself....there comes a point where no language can properly explain the meaning. Which is how this "point in time" language came about. When in truth as you have said....there really is not one.

 

[PaulThomson]

Christ’s blood has been SHED for the entire human race, but that doesn’t mean everyone has it. If that were true then no one would be lost because it’s the blood of Christ that removes our sins. And not everyone has had their sins removed.

Or, arguably, everyone has had sins listed in the Old Covenant removed, carried away by the sin-bearer -
Act 13:39
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

And we are now under the New Covenant and are judged according to the terms of the New Covenant.
Jhn 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Under the New Covenant we need to love Jesus and love others.
Jhn 14:23
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.
Jhn 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Maybe we have all been transferred to the New Covenant by His blood.
Act 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Heb 13:12
Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Col 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
2Pe 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.