David uses the PRESENT TENSE (Rom. 4:6-8) and his only use of the future tense is that this PRESENT REMISSION OF SINS is complete and so sin "will not" in the future be imputed to him.
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.
David says that his sin were already REMOVED from him as far as the east is from the west.
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.
It does not matter how much evidence, how clear the evidence is, and how technical (grammar) the evidence may be, you do not possess "ears to hear" or "eyes to see" and so you will remain in your darkness and misinterpretations of God's word.
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.
The writers of Hebrews says it was IMPOSSIBLE for such sacrifices to do what you are claiming they did, but does that matter to you? Not at all!
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.
Your proof texts are only claiming the obvious and that is Christ had to come and fulfill the types and make the provision but the application was made prior to the cross based upon the promise of God according to "the blood of the everlasting covenant" in heaven rather than having to wait for the historical but necessary provision. Easy to see for those who have eyes to see.
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.
