Man's relationship to God today

[Darrell C]

If God can cause John the Baptist in the womb to understand the good news of Christ's birth so that he jumps for joy,

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.

 

[Darrell C]

then how can you say God cannot REVEAL within the infant the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6) at the moment of death????

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Regeneration is in part a REVELATION within (2 Cor. 4:6; Mt. 16:17).

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Verses 13-14 prove that the death of infants and others who have no personal ability to discern right or wrong IN THEIR OWN LIFE TIME is due to their union with Adam and his act of sin in Genesis 2:17.

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

I gave John the Baptist as an example of what God can do in the womb with an infant. John heard the gospel and "leaped for joy" and was "filled' with the Spirit from the womb. Who says that God cannot save an infant, meaning enlightening the infant in the truth of the gospel at the point of death?

...?

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

John was still in the womb of his mother. He did not physically see anything. Therefore, his "joy" can only be accounted for by understanding something revealed to him while in the womb. The text tells us plainly what it was that John "leaped for Joy" which was heard by him in the womb. It was the announcement:

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

The fact is that a babe still in the womb can experience "joy" and filling of the Holy Spirit. The "joy" was in response to Mary's salutation. Moreover, the filling of Elizabeth was in direct connection with the "joy" of John in the womb and that filling announced the birth of the promised Savior "the mother of my Lord." His joy and filling from the womb is in direct connection to Mary and this prophecy of the birth of the Savior.

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.

I have explained this to you twice already but you do not have "ears to hear." John believed in the same gospel all prophets preached - remission of sins by faith in the coming Christ - Acts 10:43. However, when John was in the womb the Christ had not been born, but nevertheless he leaped for "joy" in connection with the birth of the Christ. Up to the coming of Jesus to John for baptism the personal identity of the Christ was not confirmed by heaven. John was told that the Father would confirm the identity of the Christ by the Holy Spirit coming upon him as a dove:

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

However, the personal identity of the Christ was not required to believe in the Christ (Acts 10:43a) or to obtain remission of sins by faith (Acts 10:43b). His personal identity was another aspect of progressive revelation. However, the gospel has from Genesis 3:15 contained sufficient information for the understanding to believe, be justified (sins remitted and imputed righteousness) and for God to use it as His creative word to bring them into spiritual union (regeneration)

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

What can't you understand about the preposition "AT"? They are saved "AT" death, not "AFTER" death but "AT" death. God instantly quickens them or to say it in another way he instantly reveals Himself to them as Jehovah our Savior ("Jesus").

 

[The Biblicist]

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

It is not either or but BOTH! Up to the point of death they have no ability to discern right from wrong but AT death they are quickened or receive a creative divine revelation of God as Jehovah Savior ("jesus") which REVEALS, GIVES KNOWLEGE/UNDERSTANDING and they embrace it by the power of the Holy Spirit just like you did in life.

 

[The Biblicist]

I

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.

Do you have a problem reading or understanding what you read or both??? The Old Testament saint is saved the very same way the dying infant is saved by DIVINE REVELATION (light) and regeneration (life) and righteousness (holiness). To be brought into spiritual union is to have LIFE and LIGHT and HOLINESS restored because you are now in UNION with God.

 

[Darrell C]

You are simply wrong! Sin is the problem and spiritual separation when conceived is the consequence. Sin brings death not death brings sin and death is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

The wages of SIN is death not the wages of death (spiritual separation) is sin!

So what sin is charged to the infant?

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

Verses 13-14 prove that the death of infants and others who have no personal ability to discern right or wrong IN THEIR OWN LIFE TIME is due to their union with Adam and his act of sin in Genesis 2:17.

...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.

 

[Darrell C]

We are all born into this world as infants Darrell and as sinners condemned "already" because the whole human nature existed and acted "in Adam" and when he sinned, the whole human race sinned and that is why infants don't need to be aborted in the womb to die, they can die of many of the same causes that adults die - "the wages of sin IS DEATH" not vice versa!!

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.

 

[Darrell C]

New birth was as necessary then as now - PROOF -

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. - Gal. 4:27

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Darrell, BY ONE MAN'S SIN CAME DEATH (spiritual separation) thus ALL HAVE SINNED when Adam sinned because they sinned in Adam when he sinned that ONE SIN and thus all are recipients of spiritual separation at their individual birth. Now, individually because they have already sinned in Adam and are spiritually separated at their own physical birth they bring forth SINS. So, Darrell their individual sins are the consequence of their spiritual separation which is due to their RACE SIN or BY ONE MAN's SIN. Ok? Again, RACE SIN (singular) produces spiritual separation which produces INDIVIDUAL SINS (plural).Got it?

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?

Because we are talking about those alive but yet incapable of determining right from wrong (dying infants) versus those alive who are capable (Old Testament saints) of discerning right from wrong and yet both are in an unwilling state. At death revelation occurs which enables them to respond just as God enabled John the Baptist in the womb to respond with "joy" and just as in the womb John the Baptist could be "filled with the Spirit" thus brought under the control of the Spirit. However, revelation saves both infants and adults and Revelation produces justifying faith in both.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

Ok, all infants do not come out of the womb into the world but all human beings are conceived in the womb and are conceived as infants not as adults.

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.

The aorist tense in Romans 5:12 says you are wrong "all have sinned" not "all will sin" or "all might sin".

The repetitive "by one man's sin" in verses 15-19 says you are wrong. He does not say by the sins of many, many be dead or by many men's sin many be condemned or by many men's sins many be made sinners but by ONE MAN'S SIN many be dead, condemned, made sinners.

We are not merely "in Adam" by representation, but we are "in Adam" by physical relation as the whole human nature actually existed in one man and acted when that one man acted.

The whole argument in versus 14-15 is to prove that the reason death reigned between Adam and Moses cannot be explained by any kind of indiviudal violation of any law or law of conscience, but can only be explained by mankind's violation of the Genesis 2:17 Law IN ADAM.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Darrell, BY ONE MAN'S SIN CAME DEATH (spiritual separation) thus ALL HAVE SINNED when Adam sinned because they sinned in Adam when he sinned that ONE SIN and thus all are recipients of spiritual separation at their individual birth. Now, individually because they have already sinned in Adam and are spiritually separated at their own physical birth they bring forth SINS. So, Darrell their individual sins are the consequence of their spiritual separation which is due to their RACE SIN or BY ONE MAN's SIN. Ok? Again, RACE SIN (singular) produces spiritual separation which produces INDIVIDUAL SINS (plural).Got it?

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.

RACE SIN (singular) produces spiritual separation which produces INDIVIDUAL SINS (plural).Got it?

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.

Darrell C said: ↑
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?

Because we are talking about those alive but yet incapable of determining right from wrong (dying infants) versus those alive who are capable (Old Testament saints) of discerning right from wrong and yet both are in an unwilling state. At death revelation occurs which enables them to respond just as God enabled John the Baptist in the womb to respond with "joy" and just as in the womb John the Baptist could be "filled with the Spirit" thus brought under the control of the Spirit. However, revelation saves both infants and adults and Revelation produces justifying faith in both.

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...

However, revelation saves both infants and adults and Revelation produces justifying faith in both.

...?

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Ok, all infants do not come out of the womb into the world but all human beings are conceived in the womb and are conceived as infants not as adults.

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.

The aorist tense in Romans 5:12 says you are wrong "all have sinned" not "all will sin" or "all might sin".

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...

 

[The Biblicist]

I am tired of this endless debate and so here are the absolute evidences that Darrel's complete Old Testament soteriology is false:


1. Old Testament saints were "in Christ":

PROOF - Abraham is the father or role model with regard to justification by faith "FOR ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and he was "in Christ" 430 years prior to Moses:

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



2. Old Testament saints were born again by the Spirit:

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. - Gal. 4:27

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Rom. 8:9




3. Old Testament Saints were not justified by their own righteousness manifested in works because:

"There is none righteous no, not one"

Rom. 4:5 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,



4. Old Testament Saints received remission of sins by faith in Christ or "on him" APART FROM SACRIFICES which never could take aways sins LITERALLY but only figuratively and this is true for the Old Testament saint not under the Law (Abraham) as well as the Old Testament man who was under the Law (David).

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

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
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.

Heb. 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Darrel's soteriology is EMPTY of meaning. His admission they were "saved the very same we are" "saved by grace through faith" are EMPTY words and false words as his view denies they are "saved" in any sense of the true meaning of the term.

 

[Darrell C]

The repetitive "by one man's sin" in verses 15-19 says you are wrong. He does not say by the sins of many, many be dead or by many men's sin many be condemned or by many men's sins many be made sinners but by ONE MAN'S SIN many be dead, condemned, made sinners.

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

We are not merely "in Adam" by representation, but we are "in Adam" by physical relation as the whole human nature actually existed in one man and acted when that one man acted.

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

The whole argument in versus 14-15 is to prove that the reason death reigned between Adam and Moses cannot be explained by any kind of indiviudal violation of any law or law of conscience, but can only be explained by mankind's violation of the Genesis 2:17 Law IN ADAM.

And this stands in direct contrast of this:

You are simply wrong! Sin is the problem and spiritual separation when conceived is the consequence. Sin brings death not death brings sin and death is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

I am tired of this endless debate

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...

 

[Darrell C]

and so there are the absolute evidences that Darrel's complete Old Testament soteriology is false:


1. Old Testament saints were "in Christ":

PROOF - Abraham is the father or role model with regard to justification by faith "FOR ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and he was "in Christ" 430 years prior to Moses:

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

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...