Featured Man's relationship to God today

....and your point is???? Your distinctions prove my point not your point! Can you see the contrast between "past" and "at this time"? The natural objection would be that God would be unjust to remit sins prior to the provision being actually made in time. However, remission was made upon the validity of God's "promise" that Christ would come and would provide the provision. Time demonstrated God's promise to be true and declared God to be "just" in "justifying" Old testament saints when they believeThe issue is how could God be justified for remitting sins prior to the provision? Don't you realize it is Abraham that Paul is setting forth to illustrate this very thing?

 

That is all you have been doing "insult and assertion" and the readers know this. And I don't think if you take a poll of the readers you will find yourself on the winning side.

 

This statement was insultive to the orthdox Jew who believed the Gentiles were unclean and proselyted Gentile were at best second rate citizens in God's kingdom. I provided you the preceding context and as usual you ignore it becuase it doesn't fit your bias.

This is your own warped forced interpretation. The Bible repeated states that the gospel of Christ has been preached since the foundation of the world (Acts 10:43; 26:22-23; heb. 4:2; Rev. 13:8; etc.). Genitles as part of God's eternal purpose as a people as opposed to Israel was kept secret since the world began and manifested by Christ (Mt. 28:19; Acts 1:9) but only received by Jews beginning with Paul because the early all Jewish church would not accept it (Acts 1-11).

We also understand it as the Hidden Wisdom:


1 Corinthians 2:5-10

King James Version (KJV)


8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Rome crucified Christ. If you would have continued reading the context it is GENTILES who seek after wisdom whereas the Jews seek after signs (v. 20). The overall context of 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesian through Colossians teach the very same truth that Paul was sent to the Gentiles as this was the "mystery" of the gospel commission that required God calling a special apostle to reveal it.
Here...


Ephesians 3:4-6



6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:


.Plainly stated definition but you wont believe it.

Hebrews 1:1-2 has nothing at all to do with this issue. This text refers to do with past means of revelation versus present means. Christ speaks now through apostolic writings - the New testament scriptures.




1 Peter 1:9-12

King James Version (KJV)


9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

The TIME of Christ's coming and the TIME of the end of salvation or "the glory that should follow" but they were all INDWELT by the Spirit of Christ before Christ came - "the Spirit of Christ which was IN them".

The "grace" that should come unto "us" (apostles and New Testament believers) was the "time" when Christ came as prophesied. They understood the gospel of Christ sufficiently to be redeemed ("I know my redeemer") from sins and hope for glorification, but they did not understand all the details of final fulfillment, and no one else did, until the details were actually put in a TIME fulfillment context.


Ephesians 1:5-10

King James Version (KJV) - refers to all the elect or those "in Christ" which Abraham is explicitly such a case example (Gal. 3:17).





Colossians 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)


25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


Another self-evident explanation of the true nature of the mystery of the gospel that you won't accept.

 

You know you are being dishonest in your representations of my position above because I have already told you in black and white. So again, proof that you are just arguing whatever it takes to win an argument without any regard to honesty or truth.

Infants being quickened at death includes those dying in the womb. - no contradiction

infants have no ability to discern good and evil apart from divine intervention - no contradiction

However, you are so desparate to justify your irrational position that you don't think twice about misrepresenting your opponent. Sad!

 

Once again you are confusing belief in the Person of Jesus as the Christ and Son of the Living God with failing to understand and accept the specific but unfulfilled means by which Christ would die. Crucifixion was regarded as a "curse" by the Jews and it was unthinkable that the Christ would be crucified. Peter did not have complete picture to make sense of the cross until after it occurred.

So, the pre-cross gospel did not contain the cross as an essential for salvation, but nevertheless, it was consistent with the pre-cross gospel when the completed picture was fulfilled.

For example, the cross is not found in the gospel summarized by Paul according to the Old Testament Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4), but yet not inconsistent with it when fulfilled.

For example, the cross is not found in Paul's argument that he preached "none other things" which Moses and the prophets did say would come (Acts 26:22-23).

For example, the cross is not found in Peter's description of the Old Testament gospel (Acts 10:43) but was not inconsistent with it as Acts 10:37-42 demonstrate.

Redemption was not based upon unrevealed gospel aspects but only on revealed gospel aspects. Peter had already believed in the gospel preached by the last Old Testament prophet - John the Baptist and that gospel is preached in John 3:36 and John 1:29 all without mention of the cross as the specific means.

The cross was not essential to the gospel until after its occurrence and therefore did not alter the fact they already had their names written in heaven before the cross, already had eternal life by faith, already had the Holy Spirit dwelling "with" them individually as in personal indwelling but not as in institutional indwelling.

 

Yes, and they have always been in the context I just explained and yet you continue to dishonestly misrepresent me and my position even when it has been spelled out to you now twice. That is nothing but a character fault - dishonesty. You know your being dishonest because you have to reject my context and invent your own as the following words clearly show:

It isn't a matter of whether the infant dies in the womb or not in view...it is a matter of when they are made alive in Christ.- Darrell

You are so dishonest you must justify your dishonestly by placing my words in your context in order to maintain your charge of contradiction. Of course, when placed in your own framework they are contradictory. You are simply being dishonest and you know it! You are supposed to be showing a contradiction in my thinking and use, not a contradiction when placed in the context of your thinking and use. But go figure, this is your modus operandi as that is the only way you can win a debate.

 

No, this simple truth completely destroys your whole position and that is why you ridicule, make snide remarks BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HONESTLY DEAL WITH IN WITH REGARD TO YOUR POSITION. You have the holy Spirit working with those WITHOUT GOD, WITHOUT LIFE, WITHOUT LIGHT, WITHOUT HOLINESS which is oxymoronic - self -contradictory as you have them one and the same time WITH and WITHOUT God, at one and the same time WITH practical active righteousness but WITHOUT the very internal essentials necesssary for anyone to practice righteousness. Your position has them at one and the same time WITHOUT GOD but yet friends of God and walking with God. Your theory is simply false.

 

Who is denying his death is implicit in this post-cross passage? It is the "cross" as the instrument of death that was repugnant to the Jewish mind. Peter could not reconcile in his MIND the death of Christ as the king of Israel who was now alive in front of him. However, that does not mean he did not trust in him as Savior from his sins. His problem was one of understanding what had not yet been provided a historical context of fulfillment.

Peter and the rest (Old Testament saints) trusted "IN HIM" for salvation without understanding "how" it would be accomplished in time and space.

 

Who is denying his death is implicit in this post-cross passage? It is the "cross" as the instrument of death that was repugnant to the Jewish mind. Peter could not reconcile in his MIND the death of Christ as the king of Israel who was now alive in front of him. However, that does not mean he did not trust in him as Savior from his sins. His problem was one of understanding what had not yet been provided a historical context of fulfillment.

Peter and the rest (Old Testament saints) trusted "IN HIM" for salvation without understanding "how" it would be accomplished in time and space. Trust in "him" as redeemer is seen clearly in the gospel of Acts 10:43 and in Job's profession and in Romans 4:5 "who beleiveth ON HIM" and in John 3:36 the gospel preached and believed by Peter and the rest of the disciples.

 

Again, a diversion tactic. They are born sinners by birth as is all who don't die in infancy.

Tell me, is it contradictory to claim that WHEN (the point of death) an infant is in the womb they can die in the womb and AT the same point of death in the womb they can be supernaturally saved by divine revelation that provide regenerative faith, thus given ability to beleive AT the point of death in the womb which preivously they were without becuase there was no previous divine intervention up to that POINT in time??? Look if my words are too big or to difficult for you to understand, I can use one syllable terms?(lol).