Featured Man's relationship to God today

Can you show me where John the Baptist understood the good news of Christ's birth in Scripture?

Then, can you explain why John sent two disciples to inquire if Jesus were the Christ they awaited?


Matthew 11:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?


God bless.

 

Again...at the moment of death.

The focal point is while they are alive, and are clearly separated from God.

You say they are saved even though the condition of separation exists while they are alive, and have to place salvation after they die.

You are just not going to get past that.


God bless.

 

I agree. Because regeneration does not take place apart from the understanding of men. It is normative for regeneration to take place while men are alive, and we do not, as Baptists, assign the possibility that men can be saved after they die.

Right?

Regeneration is the spiritual resurrection of the believer, which is contrasted with the physical resurrection that believers will also one day enjoy.

Yet you are saying in all Ages there are those who can be saved even though they are separated from God. You allow this for the infant, but not the Old Testament Saint, who did not have remission of sins, was not reconciled to God, did not have the eternal indwelling of God.

Go figure.


God bless.

 

But wait, which is going to be? They have no personal ability to discern right or wrong, or...

...?

And you are still faced with the problem of the physical death of the infant, which does not help you, because if they are enlightened in the womb then you cancel out your argument that they have no personal ability to discern right or wrong, and if you say that it happens after they die...you dismantle the OP.

So pick one, Biblicist, you cannot teach both. Which is going to be?


God bless.

 

Think about what you have said here, Biblicist: You are saying...

1. Sin is the problem;

2. Spiritual separation when conceived (at conception) is the consequence of sin.

3. Death is spiritual separation.


I agree with that. That is what I have been saying, and you are denying, because you are not distinguishing between the absence of Life from an eternal persepctive and physical death (which is the focal point in the case of the infant).

What that means is that, contrary to your statement above...

...death brings sin.

That is just a basic truth you kick against to prove men cannot be saved except they be regenerate and eternally indwelt while physically alive.

I agree that separation, which creates the condition of absence of Life from the eternal persepctive...is the result of sin. Adam's sin.

Not the infant's sin.

So this...


Sin brings death not death brings sin...


...is in error. Just admit it, and we can move on.

We know here...


Sin brings death not death brings sin and death is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION.


...that the absence of Life is caused by spiritual separation from God, rather than physical death, because we are conceived with that absence of Life because we are conceived separated from God.

Now, what sin is laid to the charge of the infant?

And, we already know you deny their being brought into union with God while physically alive, so how can you say that they are saved at death, when they die, yet deny this possibility for the Old Testament Saint? And just so the consistent teaching I always brings is not forgotten, I am not saying that the Old Testament Saint was brought back into union with God at death, I consistently teach they were brought back into union with God when Christ made Atonement for their sins. That is, just as Hebrews states, at the time of His death.


God bless.

 

So what sin is charged to the infant?

If they have no personal ability to discern right and wrong...

...how can you possibly say they have sinned?

Which takes us back to the point that it is not sin that is their primary problem (and this does not deny Adam's sin as the root cause for their condition), it is their separation from God, and...

...they are never brought back into union with God in their lifetime.

Your teaching demands that men can be "saved" apart from being regenerated or eternally indwelt. Just admit it so we can move on.


God bless.

 

No, Biblicist, we are not all born into this world as infants. Millions are murdered in foundational stages of development.

You and I did not "act" in Adam, for it is impossible that we should sin after the similitude of Adam...our sin is unique to ourselves. Adam's sin is the cause for the condition we were conceived and born into, and just as Levi paid tithes to Mechisadec, but was not the one handing over goods, even so we sinned in Adam though we did not commit his sin. Sinners are not going to be judged for Adam's sin, they are going to be held accountable for their own sin. Adam's sin resulted in their condition that has no course but to sin.

The infant is dead spiritually because of Adam's sin, but, the infant does not die physically because of their own sin, for they do not have the "personal ability to discern good and evil."

Right?

Or is your teaching wrong there too? Will you now do a jig around a "truth" and a "proof" you have yourself offered up?


God bless.

 

Your "proof" is Isaac?

So you are saying that Isaac being born after the Spirit is interpreted as Isaac was born...born again?

Then not all infants are conceived separated from God? Adam's sin did not affect all of his descendants?

You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you?

Just admit your error so we can move on. I am not going to let this point go until you admit it.


God bless.

 

Yeah, I got it, lol, as I have said numerous times already.

So name the individual sins of the infant.

We both agree Adam's sin brought about separation, and that is the condition all men are conceived/born into.

So what individual sins do you charge to the infant. This is now what, about the fourth time I have asked you this, and you still will not answer?

And you do not cede that your teaching above teaches that...

...death brings sin, contrary to your teaching. You are teaching two things at once, as you have done before, which has been pointed out, yet your pride will not allow you to admit error on your part.

Again, you contradict yourself in the same statement.

If they do not have a personal ability to discern right and wrong, as you have taught, then how can you say...

...?

The point you won't admit to yourself is that we have an example of those, while physically alive, who remained separated from God, thus still subject to the death brought upon all men in Adam (to be distinguished from their individual sins, which in no way can laid to their account)...

...were saved.

They did not need to be justified, regenerated, or eternally indwelt for them to benefit from the Grace of God.

Just admit it so we can move on.


God bless.

 

Okay, I'm going to pretend that you did not just agree with me on something.



The point, Biblicist, is that all men are conceived/born into the condition of separation from God, and because of that...they do not have the Life that comes only through union with God.

When you start addressing the focal issue you will see the truth that despite having sinned, they are still in need, upon conception, of being brought back into union with God that they might enjoy the opposite of eternal separation, eternal life.

I'm not wrong, Biblicist, because I am not denying the condemnation all men are born into.

What you are overlooking is what type of death is in view here.

Have you not several times been forced to go back to the singular condition the verse is referring to? That is...spiritual death?

That is what came upon all men, but, in view is not spiritual death, we both agree this is the condition for all men. Right?

In view is the infant while still having physical life...is still in that condition in the womb. They are not given a pass from the condition that all men are born into, they are still separated from God.

You try to distinguish them being saved "at" death, rather than "after" they are dead...as though that makes any difference to either my point or yours.

The bottom line is that infants benefit from the Grace of God despite the fact that they have not received revelation, do not have the "personal ability to discern right and wrong," and are still, when they die, and while they are alive physically...

...separated from God.

Cede the point and we can move on.


Continued...

 

Your arguing something I have not denied nor is it relevant to the physical state of the infant that dies.

Your arguing something I have not denied nor is it relevant to the physical state of the infant that dies.

And this stands in direct contrast of this:

You are saying that sin brings separation, and that is true in Adam, but, we are still left with the fact that because of the separation visited on mankind because of Adam's sin...it is separation that first applies to us at conception/birth.

Thus...separation brings about the individual sin in the life of the natural man.

And it is made clear by Paul that Adam's sin is not specifically charged to those who sinned in the Era/s apart from Law:


Romans 5:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


Now, the infant has not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression...

...so what sin do you lay at their charge?


God bless.

 

Being interpreted as: you are asking questions which I cannot answer lest my error be exposed to the public, and my ego being more important to me than truth, I will claim victory and reiterate the same false arguments I have sought to make myself look reasonable with through this entire discussion.

It can end, Biblicist, when you admit that we have, in the infant that is saved by the Grace of God...an example of people being saved despite the fact that they never, while physically alive...

...were born again, eternally indwelt, or had received remission of sins through Jesus Christ.

If you think I am going to let this point die, you are sadly mistaken. So walk away, I hope your conscience bothers you greatly, because there is no way you can possibly reconcile the doctrine you are teaching with the points made, or, can it sit well with you that your points say two opposite things in order to preserve your public image.


Continued...

 

Christ confirmed the Covenant of Law, and this is "proof" that Abraham was regenerate and eternally indwelt?

The Promise is still intact, Biblicist, the point being...the Covenant of Law did not nullify the Promise.

You are making this say "And this I say, that Abraham, who was confirmed in Christ..."

C'mon, Biblicist.


Continued...