Featured Man's relationship to God today

Today, is there a natural born human being who is neither lost or saved? Is there a natural born human being who is neither regenerate or unregenerate? Is there a natural human being neither "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit"? Is there a natural human being who is neither in the kingdom of Satan or the kingdom of God's dear Son? Is there a natural born human being who is neither a sinner or a saint? Is there a natural born human being who is neither condemned or justified? Is there a natural born human being who is neither spiritually separated from God or in union with God? Does such a natural born human being exist today? If sin and spiritual separation is the common lot of all natural born human beings is it possible for such a natural born human being to ever exist that could not be characterized by one or the other of these contrasting conditions? For example, could a natural born human being at any period in history be anything but lost, unregenerate, in the flesh, in the kingdom of Satan, a sinner, condemned, spiritually separated from God???? Is it possible that any natural born human being who is a sinner and spiritually separated from God be considered anything less than all of these characteristic since such characteristics today inherently demand these characteristics or are there two different kinds of natural born human beings existing, one kind before the cross and another kind after the cross??? For example, if a natural born human being could not be characterized by these negatives does not that automatically demand they must be characterized by those characteristics listed above which are in contrast to those negatives?

Can any human being today be said to be "saved" who is spiritually separated from God, thus WITHOUT GOD. Can any human being today be said to be "saved" who is not justified by faith, thus still in sin and still condemned by sin? Can any human being today be said to be "saved" whose sins are not remitted? Can any human being today be said to be "saved" who is without righteousness before God? If sin and spiritual separation is the common lot of all natural born humans in all ages, is it possible for such a natural born human being could be regarded as "saved" but WITHOUT GOD = spiritually separated from God, "saved" but STILL IN THEIR SINS?

Is it possible that animals sacrifices could ever LITERALLY atone for human sin? If the first sacrifice of a lamb in the Bible by Abel did not procures remission of sins but only gave "witness" that he was already righteous by faith in the gospel promise:

1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Therefore, his justified condition (righteousness) before God was not obtained by the sacrifice but the sacrifice obtained only the "witness" that he "WAS" already justified "by faith" before he offered the sacrifice. Hence, the sacrifices were like baptism and the Lord's Supper - DECLARATIVE rather than sacramental in obtaining justification (remission of sins and righteousness).

If it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could ever take away sins (Heb. 10:4) LITERALLY but were only a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1) removal, thus CEREMONIAL or TYPICAL, then how could the prophets speak in the present tense that God had removed their sins from them "as far as the East is from the West" and "remember them no more" and David claim to be "the blessed man" who possessed present tense forgiveness of sins then and forever (Rom. 4:6-8)?

As you consider these questions, how is it possible that any human being living prior to Pentecost could be set forth as not only OUR EXAMPLE for justification "before God" by faith but also THE EXAMPLE for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regard to justification "before God" if there sins could not be remitted, thus they could not actually be justified "before God" as supposedly only we can after the cross?

If the problem is indwelling sin and its power coupled with spiritual separation as its consequence, how can there be any kind of present tense salvation where the power of indwelling sin and spiritual separation from God REMAINS? How can there be any kind of progressive sanctification? How can there be any "fruit of the Spirit" such as "joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, gentleness" if there is no indwelling Spirit or no regenerate new nature like God's nature? How can any such human "walk with God" or be called "the friend of God" if indwelling sin and spiritual separation from God is their actual condition?

I declare that there can't be any kind of salvation existing in such a state at any time in history and that salvation has always been the same and equal to the problem of sin and spiritual separation. Only those who embrace the false doctrine of church salvation (universal church theories - visible and invisible) teach contrariwise and must because their salvation is inseparable from the church by their perverted view of the baptism in the Spirit which both are 4000 years too late for the problem of sin and spiritual separation from God. I say that the elect, all of the elect from Genesis to Revelation were chosen "in him" before the world began (Eph. 1:4) and outside of him there is no salvation, no gospel or good news for anyone at any time. I say those who oppose this eternal truth fail to distinguish between things that differ, namely, the difference between individual (1 Cor. 6:19) and institutional indwelling (1 Cor. 3:16). I say they fail to understand the "mystery" of the gospel which has nothing to do about the APPLICATION or SUFFICIENCY of the gospel salvation at any time in history from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 14:6 but has to do with the revealed means of Christ's death "the cross") and the revealed equality of gentiles in the kingdom of God through the great Commission (Eph. 3;1-5) and other revelatory details, but absolutely nothing to do with salvation application before or after the cross.

I say that if justification which is based solely on the cross can be applied to individuals BEFORE the cross so can any other aspect of salvation with the lone exception of final salvation or being made "perfect" in spirit, soul and body (Heb. 11:39-40).

 

The whole debate revolves around the issue of applying anything prior to the life of Christ that was actually dependent upon the life, death and resurrection of Christ..

The problem is universal and the same before and after the coming of Christ, which is sin and spiritual separation as these things are inherent in the fallen nature in all natural born human beings.

Does "saved" and "justified" when used of pre-cross persons contain the same meaning as for post-cross persons? Do these terms refer to the same problem (sin and spiritual separation) or are they applied to some other problem that post-cross persons do not have?

When we use the term "saved" (past tense) by New Testament definition it refers to regeneration and justification. When we use the term "save" (present tense) it refers to progressive sanctification or the Holy Spirit working out the new nature received in regeneration. When we use the terms "shall be saved" we are referring to the future glorification of the body.

Now, there is no disagreement about the future tense "shall be saved" application. However, those who deny regeneration/spiritual union or justification is the content of the word "saved" or "justified" when used of pre-cross persons must provide some Biblical content to define what these terms mean? If they are defined by New Testament scriptures they mean regeneration/spiritual union and remission of sins and the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, thus "saved" (regeneration and justification).

However, the content meaning of these terms must be rejected by those who demand no application of the life, death and resurrection of Christ can precede his incarnation. Yet, Paul demands that the New Testament content of these terms are applied previous to the incarnation and he uses Abraham and David as examples for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regard to justification. He explicitly uses the present tense application to their lives (Rom. 4:5-6a) as well as the future tense denial that sin can be imputed to them once becoming believers (Rom. 4:6b) and that this is a completed action prior to either one submitting to divine ordinances (Rom. 4:9-11). He defines the "faith" or the act of believing, which God imputes righteousness, to have for its sole object Christ as preached in the pre-cross gospel (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-26; Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2) as does Peter (Acts 10:43).

Therefore, the application is not based upon the actual provision being first in time, but upon the promise of God which is based upon "the blood of the everlasting covenant" or his purpose of redemption. The event in time merely "justifies" God's application prior to the cross:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

No one can dispute that sin and spiritual separation is the universal problem between fallen man and God. No one can dispute the term "justified before God" can only mean that problem is resolved. Yet it was not resolved by animal sacrifices or divine ordinances (Rom. 4:9-11; 12-15). The law could not justify anyone before God then or now and never was designed to do so. Therefore, this justification and "saved" condition cannot be a result of obedience to the Law, ceremonial law (sacrifices) or moral law. The New Testament writers consistently say it was due to "faith" in the gospel of Christ as preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2).

 

The "old" versus the "new" covenant when properly understood does not pose any problems to the view I am setting forth.

For example, the book of Hebrews was written in the middle or late A.D. 60's when the temple was still standing in Jerusalem. Therefore, going back under the "old" covenant meant only going back under the VISIBLE ADMINISTRATION of the "old" Covenant because the "old" covenant could never justify anyone at any time in history because it was never designed for that purpose.

It was designed to be a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1) or an external type that would be fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Those who practiced these "shadow" ordinances did not do it to LITERALLY obtain either salvation (regeneration/justification) but were to do it because they already were saved (regenerated/justified) by faith and their obedience to such types simply gave "witness" that they were already righteous (imparted and imputed righteousness) as clearly stated in Hebrews 11:4 concerning the first prophet and first recorded sacrifice.

Hence, the purpose of the "old" covenant prior to the coming of Christ was to define sin and lead them to faith in the coming Christ as presented in the pre-cross gospel as preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43; Gal. 3:20-25).

When the writer of Hebrews speaks of the "new" covenant, he is also referring to the VISIBLE ADMINISTRATION of that covenant. Some had forsaken the assembling of themselves (Heb. 10:25) which was the visible forsaking of the "new" covenant administration. The visible administration of the "new" covenant saves no one any more than the visible administration of the "old" covenant did (Heb. 9:1). What saves is the Person and work of Christ which fulfilled the "old" covenant types and is what the "new" covenant administration declares to be the fulfillment.

God is the author of both covenant administrations and God is not the author of confusion. Both covenants are based upon "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20). Both manifest the "the blood of the everlasting covenant." The Abrahamic covenant illustrates the personal application of "the blood of the everlasting covenant." The "old" covenant provides the external typical application of "the blood of the everlasting covenant." The "old" covenant declares the holiness/righteousness of God "in Christ" through the sacrificial types of Christ that anticipate the first coming of Christ. The "new" covenant declares those types as fulfilled and anticipates the second coming of Christ but both proclaim the very same gospel. The "new" replaces the "old" because the "new" is based upon fulfillment rather than anticipation of the redemptive work and therefore it is a "better" covenant, not because it declares another gospel, but because declares the same gospel "better" than did the "old" as fulfillment is better than anticipated types of the fulfillment. Both declare the very same gospel (heb. 4:2).

The actual provision by Christ does not repudiate the gospel declared in the "old" covenant but compliments it by fulfilling it.

The invalidation of the temple, priesthood and ordinances by the life, death and resurrection of Christ is due to Christ fulfilling them not because they are flawed gospel declarations. The actual provision of the Person and redemptive work of Christ is salvation, but does not invalidate the application of that salvation by faith previous to that provision but rather justifies God's application of it before the provision was made. The application was obtained on the basis of faith in God's promise it would be made in keeping with the "everlasting covenant" which transcends time.

 

The question is somewhat off the topic but I will be glad to give you my view. Yes, I believe all who are born into this world without the capability of discerning good and evil and die in that state are saved "in Christ" just as they were condemned "in Adam." Paul says where sin abounded, grace did MUCH MORE abound. Jesus said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven" and David said that of his infant dead uncircumcised child that he would go to be with him (Septuagint renders it "go beyond to him"). The Holy Spirit revealed Christ (regeneration - 2 Cor. 4:6) to John the Baptist while he was yet in the womb and filled with the Spirit from the womb proving that God can save infants in the womb, much less infants outside the womb. No natural born human will enter heaven, so they too must be regenerated (revelation) and brought into spiritual union with God in connection with the gospel. God preached the gospel to Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15) and unto Abraham (Gal. 3:8) and therefore he can just as easily do the same to those who die in the state of inability to discern good from evil.

Finally, ETERNAL judgement is based upon OUR WORKS DONE IN OUR OWN BODY (Rev. 20:12-15) and discernment between good and evil is necessary for such works to exist. Infants dying in the womb have no such works, and infants dying outside the womb have no such works. Original sin is sufficient to bring them under TEMPORAL condemnation because of participation as one human nature in the body of Adam, but original sin is not sufficient to bring them under eternal condemnation as that is reserved for individual sins on the day of judgement. John the Baptist said "behold the lamb of God that taketh away THE SIN of the world." I don't believe anyone will be condemned to hell for the singular sin of Adam, as Christ removed eternal condemnation for that sin, but did not remove the penalty of sins for the non-elect. Death is appointed by God (heb. 9:27) and God has appointed the death of infants and all who are without ability to discern good from evil. I believe all of these are part of those chosen in Christ before the world began and that is why where sin abounded GRACE DID MUCH MORE ABOUND, and those in heaven will outnumber those in hell.

PLEASE IF ANYONE WANTS TO DISPUTE THIS LET US DO IT ON A THREAD DEDICATED TO THAT SUBJECT AND NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD.

 

As you can see Darrell does not believe Old Testament believers were justified by grace without works through faith in Christ but he believes they were justified on the basis of faith PLUS obedience as he says:

The Justification of the Old Testament Saint was not based on the Cross, it was based on faith evidenced in obedience to God. - Darrell

He says they died unforgiven of their sins:

And I praise God I have not obtained a good report, but eternal redemption in Christ. I have that which the Old Testament Saint died without. - Darrell

However, both of these statements are flatly contradicted by inspired writers of Scripture: They did receive remission of sins and therefore did not die without redemption from sin:

Rom. 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Paul is quoting David to prove his point about Abraham being justified without works and David used the PRESENT TENSES as underlined above showing present possession of remission of sins. David makes this crystal clear:

Ps 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.


Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

And on what basis were their sins forgiven, blotted out, removed from them as far as the east is from the west? Just mere faith? NO! It was faith in Christ as proclaimed by all the prophets:

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. - Acts 10:43

Darrell does not believe Peter or Paul when they both claim the same essential gospel of Christ was preached and believed by Old Testament saints by which they obtained remission of sins.

Darrell says it was not God's righteousness (which is the righteousness of Christ) but their own righteousness that justified them and I quote:

So do we equate the righteousness of Christ to the righteousness of Abel, who was obedient to offer up acceptable sacrifice for his sin? The answer is no. - Darrell

In other words Darrell is clearly teaching that Old Testament saints were justified by their own good works or their own righteousness as it is manifested in good works. However, Paul repudiates this when speaking of both Abraham and David:

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Notice that the "faith" which is imputed righteousness is not mere faith, but a faith which has a specific object "on him" just as Peter defines it in Acts 1043 "whosoever believeth IN HIM" just as Paul has already predefined it in this context:

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Jesus plainly tells us that Abraham "saw" Christ's day by faith (Jn. 8:58) and Paul tells us plainly that God preached the gospel of Christ or the promised "seed" to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) and Paul plainly concludes his illustration of Abraham as the father "of all who are of faith" that is all who are of faith "in Christ" by saying:

23 ¶ Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Note the exact wording describing the object of justifying faith "believe on him" just as in Romans 4:5 "believeth ON HIM" thus same faith, same object of faith, same gospel of faith. You see Abraham was "in Christ" by faith based on justification (positionally in Christ) and regeneratively ("created in Christ") as Paul says:

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. - Gal. 3:17

430 years before the law was given unto Moses, God made a covenant (the blood of the everlasting covenant) with Abraham "in Christ" as that is the only covenant of salvation God has or will ever have.

Darrell's use of terms like "justified" and "saved" for Old Testament saints are EMPTY words. He does not understand what those terms mean as they only have meaning in relationship to universal sin and spiritual separation from God. He does not understand the purpose of the Law or the purpose of sacrifices. He actually thinks they are the basis for justification and faith in the Old Testament. However, they are mere types and understood as mere types that manifest Old Testament believer's faith IN CHRIST as preached by all the prophets - Acts 10:43; Heb.42: Acts 26:22-23.

In other words, born again, justified believers offered up sacrifices to bear "WITNESS" of their already regenerated, justified condition as believers in the coming Christ.

One thing Darrel is right about, God regenerated and justified them "according to the revelation" provided them. Since Genesis 3:15 the gospel has been preached. It was the promised "seed" that would destroy Satan and thus redeem them from sin in Genesis 3:15 that was the object of justifying faith and it was this faith being declared by the sacrifice of Abel. It was this promised "seed" of a redeemer that Abraham believed in (Gal. 3:8). At about the same time Abraham lived, Job also lived and knew Christ as "my redeemer" (Job 19). This gospel was gradually expanded with progressive revelation until Jesus came and then it was fully expanded as found in the "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However, Job believed in this promised seed as his "redeemer."

Darrells' foolish attempt to claim that this was not the same gospel is not only repudiated explicitly by the writer of Hebrews when he says:

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

(continued)

 

But Paul claims that the gospel he preached was "according to the Scriptures" and the very same gospel preached by Isaiah:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Did Isaiah preach the same gospel of redemption in Christ? Yes, he did:



1 ¶ Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

1. Notice, this is the gospel about a man "HE....him.....him...he...he."

2. Notice this is a gospel about a substitutionary redeemer of our sins -"for our transgressions..for our iniquities...laid on him the iniquity of us all...make his soul an offering for sin...he shall bear the sins of many....he shall bear their iniquities"

3. Notice this is a gospel about his death, burial and resurrection "brought as a lamb to the slaughter....made his grave with the wicked and with the rich....in his death.....unto death" " he shall prolong his days"

4. Notice this is a gospel that justifies "my righteous servant shall JUSTIFY many" thus repudiating Darrell's claims that Christ death was not the basis for justification by faith previous to the cross.

Did Isaiah and David at least understand the basics of this gospel of a redeemer from their sins by faith? Peter says they did:

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Peter admits they did not understand everything they predicted but they did understand the basic good news of a coming redeemer and that by faith they could right then be justified by faith before God by receiving this gospel. The writer of Hebrews admits this and blames the Jews who died in the wilderness for not believing the gospel in their hearts:

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. - Heb. 4:2

The sufficiency of the gospel was not the problem but the lack of belief was the problem. Isaiah claims the same thing. He claimed he preached this same gospel but the nation of Israel as a whole would not "believe" it:

Isaiah 53: 1 ¶ Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Job claimed to have believed the essence of the gospel:

23 ¶ Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job lived about the same time as Abraham and shows how much of the gospel they understood - enough to be justified by faith "in Christ".

No, they did not understand about the precise instrument of death ("the cross"). No, they did not understand that gentiles would be brought to equal relationship with the Jews in both salvation and service as THEY WERE GENTILES long before the Jews existed. No, these things were MYSTERIES yet unrevealed. However, what was revealed was sufficient for faith "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) and justification by faith.

What Darrell does not undertand is that "justification" IS remission of sins and IS the righteousness of God imputed to them on the basis of faith "on him" or "in him". Is he going to keep rattling off his misintepretations of the law, of sacrifices? Yes, but just reread these two last posts and you will be able to see his views are all misinterpretations of God's Word.

 

Here is all you have to know in order to expose Darrells' position as false. Most Bible scholars recognize the book of Job as the earliest written book in the Bible. Most believe he lived about the time of Abraham.

Darrell argues that neither the gospel of Christ nor justification by faith was based upon the gospel of Christ prior to the cross. He argues that Old Testament believers were justified by their own righteousness manifested by works. This passage by Job is sufficient by itself to complete repudiate Darrell's whole pre-cross soteriology:

23 ¶ Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

1. Darrell says they did not know their redeemer but Job says "I KNOW my redeemer"

2. Darrell says they did not know Christ PRESENTLY in their own life, but Job says "I KNOW my redeemer LIVETH" - present tense

3. Darrell says that had no present redemption but Job says "I know MY redeemer" and that redemption guaranteed his resurrection over death "after my skin words destroy this body, yet IN MY FLESH shall I see God"

4. Darrel says they did not know Christ as their redeemer but Job says "I KNOW MY REDEEMER...I shall see GOD:WHOM I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold and not another"

5. Darrell says they did not have a gospel of redemption through personal faith in a personal redeemer but Job says "I KNOW" that I do.

6. Darrell says pre-cross believers did not have a gospel sufficient for personal justification by faith in the promised redeemer from the redemption of sin but Job says "I KNOW MY REDEEMER" and He knew what that redemption would ultimately free him from the very presence of sin.

If Job knew this much about his sin problem and the solution by faith in "my redeemer" and enough about the gospel to realize ultimate victory over indwelling sin and death, then imagine how much more was known by the time of Moses, and then by the time of David and then by the time of Isaiah?

Job knew more about the essential character of the gospel then Darrell knows now.

 

What can you expect from a person who is simply not honest with God's word? He won't be honest with my words either.

1. Infants are born condemned under sin and the proof is death. What I said is that they are "saved" WHEN they die and that statement demands they were in a lost condition or else they do not need to be saved at all.

2. Darrell avoids dealing with my posts as they are written containing the Biblical evidence that supports what I said.

a. For example I proved that Job did "KNOW" the "essentials" of the gospel of Christ revealed and it is that very "essential" that Darrell denies they could know. Thus Job knew more about the "ESSENTIALS" of the gospel then Darrell knows now. The "mysteries" were not essentials at that point in history. They did not need to know that the "cross" was the instrument of death, only that he would die for their sins. They did not need to know that Gentiles were going to be equal in the house of God (Eph. 3:15) because only Gentiles existed at the time of Job and Abraham.

b. For example, I proved by scriptures they were "justified by faith" IN HIM not by mere faith evidenced by works which is another way of saying justified by works whereas Abraham said they were justified "WITHOUT works."

This man has no scrupples about perverting my words or God's Word and he will continue doing it over and over again.