Featured Man's relationship to God today

This is just astounding. How can you possibly justify wresting this passage to justify your doctrine?

That Isaac was born after the Spirit has nothing to do with being born of the Spirit (regeneration). In view is the fact that Ishmael was born according to man's will, Isaac according to God's will.




Galatians 4:28-31

King James Version (KJV)


28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


1. In view is heritage, not of God, but of Isaac.

2. They are still children of the Promise.

3. The Promise is not fulfilled in Isaac.

4. Persecution due to physical heritage, not spiritual heritage is in view.

5. Paul makes it clear they are children of Isaac, there is nothing here about being children of God by heritage.


Could you present commentary by the teachers you admire that teach this is speaking about Isaac being born again at birth? That he was not born separated from God. I'd like to see that, so that at least I can see where your error derives from.


Continued...

 

Post-Pentecost statement.

And we already know men did not receive the Spirit of God under New Covenant standards, though you have vehemently denied this.


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)


38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)



Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


Continued...

 

It is true, the Old Testament Saint was not justified by their own righteousness, righteousness was imputed based on obedience, faith, and works.

Since works will be likely the one thing you will kick at, which I am sure will bring again a charge of works-based salvation, let me remind you that divorcing the works of the faithful of the Old Testament is unbiblical:


James 2:20-25

King James Version (KJV)


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?


Where this becomes works-based salvation is when...we impose a context of salvation into what James is saying.

The context is temporal justification, not Eternal Salvation.

Abraham and Rahab's works evidenced their belief and faith, and what is imputed was righteousness, which is based on their works, not the Work of Christ.

The entire context of this chapter is that of temporal justification before men. When one actually gives food to the hungry, and clothing to the cold, they are justified on a temporal basis, these works do not contribute to their salvation.

You are suggesting that Abraham saved himself through belief and faith, which nullifies the necessity of imputing righteousness. If he was righteous because of his works, then it is his righteousness, not imputed righteousness in view.


Continued...

 

The problem with that is you are teaching that men can be saved based only on a limited understanding and hope of Messiah coming.

If that is the case, many Jews outside of Christ, who literally reject Jesus as the Christ...are saved.

You really want to teach that?

Secondly, you nullify most of the Book of Hebrews teachings to Christians by teaching such a loose interpretation of Scripture. You have already denied that we are made perfect in Christ in regards to Remission of sins, then, you teach a completely contradictory doctrine in saying that the Old Testament Saint did receive that which we are told over and over was only accomplished in Christ on the Cross.

Your doctrine is contradictory, brother, and is in fact in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Eternal Redemption is through the Cross...alone.


Continued...

 

I have many times addressed this false argument.

Again, the Old Testament Saint was just as saved as we are by the Grace of God. Their Eternal Security was just as secure as ours.

That does not equate to "They were born again believers in the Risen Savior, who were eternally indwelt by God, reconciled to God through immersion into God which takes place when men are Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Just like the infant that dies and has no personal ability to discern right and wrong benefits from God's Grace and His Just nature in judging sin according to the revelation He provides them, even so the Old Testament Saint was judged in the temporal based on their response to the revelation provided to them. Abel, Noah, Abraham, and David...did not understand the Mystery of the Gospel, because it was not revealed in their day. But they did have the foundational faith spoken of in Hebrews 6:1-3, and thus were saved despite the fact God would still, at a future day, establish the New Covenant, and in establishing that Covennat, fulfill the promises made to all of humanity in regards to Eternal Redemption.


Continued...

 

It's not true.

They did not receive remission of sins.

As I said, you need to read Hebrews.

The vicarious deaths of animals was the only means of remission given to Old Testament Saints, and it was given until Christ died in the sinner's stead.

There is no "literal" remission of sins in the Old Testament on an eternal basis...that is why Christ had to die.

That is what is said here...


Hebrews 9:12 & 15

King James Version (KJV)


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


It is pulpit bred mythology that the Old Testament Saints received remission of sins. The above makes it absolutely clear...they did not.

Christ's Sacrifice redeemed their transgressions, they died...not having received that very basic Promise of God.


Continued...

That is precisely what the Prophets...foretold. It is propetic, that is why they are called...

...Prophets.

And I have given you post after post, Scripture after Scripture that shows that not one person was believing on the Name of Christ...not even the Disciples of Christ. Post after post affirming the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ was not revealed in prior Ages.


Continued...

 

And this principle applies to both Old and New Testament Saints, but, the remission of sins in view in an Old Testament context is not equable to Remission of Sins through Christ.

That is just basic.

But you are saying, in direct contradiction to what the Writer states in this Chapter...that sins were taken away.

That is error. The Writer makes it clear that it is through the New Covenant that these promises are fulfilled.

Also given to you numerous times:


Hebrews 10:14-18

King James Version (KJV)


14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Its such a simple teaching, and you are contradicting it. It is Christ's offering of Himself in view that makes the believer perfect forever (another direct Biblical Doctrine you reject), and that did not happen until the Lord died and established the New Covenant.

You are having trouble understanding the "receiving" of promise in the Redemptive History recorded in Scripture. The Old Testament Saint received promise, and we receive the promise. You ignore the prophetic tense of the Prophecy, and give it a past tense, which is in error.

And all of this because you will not accept that anyone can be saved apart from Regeneration and Eternal Indwelling.

You stumble around a defense of your position teaching infants were saved apart from these things and also that they were not saved apart from these things.

This should be basic, for us.


Continued...

 

...but his posts are chock full of of meaning.

Pity you will not give consideration to that meaning, and strive to teach a contradictory doctrine even you can't keep straight.

Not at all, and I have a documented Public Record that shows that. Additionally, I have a documented Public Record of the contradictions that arise in your own doctrine, as well as a record of your refusal to pursue this discussion. If you think that is a goad unto you...it is.



It's important to me that you understand these things.

The simple fact is that we do not have to impose the reception of promises clearly shown to be fulfilled in Christ into the Old Testament to consider the faithful of the Old Testament saved. We do not have to impose regeneration and eternal indwelling, clearly taught in the Scriptures as something bestowed through Christ alone into the Ages they were not present.

If you will simply set aside your emotion and consider the infant that dies, you will have your example of salvation apart from these New Covenant elements, both in the Old Testament, as well as in our day, for God's Grace is, without controversy, sufficient to save those who cannot save themselves.


God bless.

 

So just publicly state that the passage is stating that Isaac was born again at birth, thereby nullifying your own teaching that all are born separated from God.

I'd actually like to start a new thread on that.

So go ahead.


God bless.

 

Think I missed this, so to answer the question...yes.

It is easily explained when we understand the distinction between God revealing Christ as the True Messiah and the revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel.

John and Peter both had direct revelation as to the Person of Messiah but that does not equate to an understanding of how Christ would take away the sins of the World, and that is made clear in Peter's consistent opposition to the Gospel.

As shown before:


Matthew 16:20-23

King James Version (KJV)


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


This takes place immediately after the Father is clarified as revealing to the disciples (or at least unto Peter) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Again, we see Christ preach the Gospel, and Peter rebukes Him. The understanding that He was the Christ was revealed (as all spiritual truth is) by God, but, though Peter knew Jesus was the Christ, he did not understand the Gospel. The understanding Peter has of the Christ was of men, not God.

Peter will go on to try to keep Christ from completing the very mission He came to accomplish in the Garden, then deny with cursing he even knew Christ, deny Christ's Resurrection after the Lord rises from the dead, and the last glimpse into his carnal understanding is seen here:


Acts 1:4-6

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?


John preached he baptized with water, but Christ would Baptize with the Holy Ghost.

The Lord tells them, "This is going to happen in a few day."

The disciples...are still carnal in their understanding. They are still seeking out the physical and temporal fulfillment of the Promises of God, and because they have not been Baptized with the Spirit Who would lead and guide them into all truth, the One Paul makes clear enlightens men to the spiritual things of God...

...they do not understand the import of Christ's statement concerning the Promise of the Father.

Because the Gospel is a Mystery still at this point, we can full well understand why the disciples would still be carnal in their understanding, but...

...there is no reason why a born again believer in this Age should be.


God bless.

 

Right in the text:


Galatians 4:22-23

King James Version (KJV)


22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.



Galatians 4:27-31

King James Version (KJV)


27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


You are really going to make this refer to something other than physical birth, and impose an understanding that Isaac was born again and Ishmael wasn't?

Again...just publicly declare this.

In view is still...the Promise. The Promise was not fulfilled in Isaac's birth.

This is just basic.

Just answer the question.


God bless.

 

So the Lord was confused in thinking that it was a future time at which sin would be forgiven and no more relembered?

The Writer of Hebrews is mistaken to teach that remission of sin was made complete in Christ and there is no other source for remission of sins?

Biblicist is right, but Scripture is wrong.

So Christ did not die to take away David's sin. Wonderful.

I guess He did not die for Isaac's sin either, since Isaac was born again before he could actually commit sin.


The remission of sins was not complete by any method in the Old Testament, that is just one basic principle the Writer of Hebrews drives home. You nullify quite a bit of Scripture in your doctrine.

I'm still waiting to hear the individual sin of the infant, Biblicist.

If you say so. But I am not the one teaching men received remission of sins apart from the Sacrifice of Christ. I am not the one refuting clear teachings such as...


Hebrews 9:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Just set aside your emotion and ego for one minute and consider the Word of God:


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)


10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.


You want to show me where in Scripture we see justification for David being forgiven, or any man for that matter, who had no obligation to offer up sacrifice for sin?

There is no such passage in Scripture.

There is no other option for remission of sins in any period prior tot his Age.

False argument: I have never said the Old Testament Saint received remission of sins or had their sins taken away through the provision of vicarious animal death...in any Age.

Amazing that you would charge me with this when I have consistently denied that any man received remission of sins on an eternal basis.

Does this kind of tactic really sit well with you?

Quote me where I say "Animal sacrifice took away sins."

Your syllogistic approach is not only dishonest with what I have said, it is keeping you from understanding what I do say.

Minor premise: men cannot be saved if they are not forgiven;

Major premise: Darrell teaches that men were saved in the Old Testament;

Conclusion: Darrell teaches that men were forgiven, thus saved, by animal sacrifice.

The Reality: Darrell is teaching that remission of sins was temporal and temporary, and that Completion in regards to remission of sins is accomplished at the time of the Cross, whereby both Old Testament Saints and New Covenant believers are made perfect at the same time. The Old Testament Saint died having only offered up animal sacrifice for the provision of remission of sins in those Ages.

But most of your responses have been you debating with yourself, and me trying to get you to address what I do say. Your false arguments may soothe your conscience and ego, but they do nothing for a profitable discussion of the issues.

And your doctrine is obvious as well: you are making the types equivalent to the antitype. You equate what is only a shadow with the reality that was in Christ alone.


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.


But you are not alone. Most actually do this very thing, and like you, they are not aware of the diminishing of the Glory of the Gospel in their doctrine.

This is pulpit bred mythology that fails to convey the magnitude of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But until you learn to cede obvious error, you will continue to justify...Biblicist. It is clear you cannot justify your doctrine, yet you strive to maintain that public image that knows no humility.


God bless.