Featured Would this happen at the Rapture?

While David was not privy to the Gospel,

Not privy to the Gospel?

mess David “saved”, if so how since he was not privy to the Gospel?

 

This is true. Now, when someone can show me a Biblical Basis for this doctrine

Ephesians 2:3

 

Correct: not privy to the Gospel.

Not even the disciples were privy to the Gospel of Christ for most of His ministry. They were privy to the truth that He was the Son of GOd and the prophesied Messiah:


Matthew 16:13-17 KJV


13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


But when Christ did preach the Gospel to them, late in His ministry ...


Matthew 16 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.


... Peter rejects the Gospel. Given to him by Christ Himself.

A moment of weakness? No, it's just a matter of the Gospel still being a mystery at this time. It was truth not revealed to men in that Age (the Age of Law).

God bless.

 

God is omnipresent. The separation is a being forsaken. Remember Psalms 139:7 and Psalms 22:1.

 

How were they saved?


You never answered that. I mean OT Saints?

 

__________________________

The question is about whether children will go with the church in the rapture.

The verses you have quoted from the psalms does not address the question in my opinion, or if it does it puts your answer as a definite “no,” And that is okay. Others will agree with you.
However, if Psa 58:3 is true of one person it is true of all and every babe that is born is wicked and goes forth speaking lies. This means that both you and I came into the world speaking lies and sinning in the womb.

So, only those who are born again will be taken at the rapture according to your reasoning because of the very clear statement in the scriptures concerning liars.

Revelation 21:7-8
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (born again)
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

1 John 5:10
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

It is not possible for a babe to believe the record God has given of his son but that is the unambiguous requirement to be born again and to be a son of God. The fact that one believeth not indicates to me that he must have intellect, reason, and will. This is something a babe does not possess. Clearly there is a personal choice to be made if these passages makes any sense.
-====================

 

That is not a Biblical Basis for inheriting sin in the sense that you are guilty before you have conscious thought. It simply states that man's nature allows only for sin. You have the potential for murder, but have you killed anyone recently?

God bless

 

You never asked, but thanks for asking, lol.

Old Testament saints were saved the same way we are, by grace through faith. The popular teaching today (and for many they don't realize they are teaching it) is that men are saved by faith through grace.

The complete opposite of what Scripture always teaches, both implicitly as well as explicitly.

One of the reasons, in my view, why this has become so blurry for most is due to the failure to recognize the difference between temporal justification and Eternal Justification. The righteousness of Christ was bestowed after Christ died and arose, not before. The Old Testament saints were "saved" from an eternal perspective through their faith in the revelation God provided them at that time. In Abraham's case, it was faith in the fact that God would give him a son and that all nations would be blessed through that "seed." We now know that the Seed is singular and refers to Christ. That is why it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Abraham did not know that. You can read about that in Genesis 12, 15, and Romans 4. But you will need to back up to Romans 3 to read about eternal justification.

The Gospel was a mystery until Pentecost, even to the Disciples of Christ.

This is why both James and Paul are correct: men are justified (not saved, that is not the context of the two passages) by faith and works, and—why men are justified by faith alone. Because the justification was in a temporal context, even as James' example in chapter two is temporal.

God bless.

 

difference between temporal justification and Eternal Justification.

I have never seen those 2 terms in scripture.
Can you please point me to where?

 

This is why both James and Paul are correct: men are justified (not saved, that is not the context of the two passages) by faith and works, and—why men are justified by faith alone. Because the justification was in a temporal context, even as James' example in chapter two is temporal.


Romans 5:1. Paul here equates justification w/ faith only

Titus 3:5-7. Here Paul expressly rules out works for justification


Titus 3:5-7 KJV - Not by works of righteousness which we - Bible Gateway

 

is not possible for a babe to believe the record God has given of his son but that is the unambiguous requirement to be born again and to be a son of God. The fact that one believeth not indicates to me that he must have intellect, reason, and will. This is something a babe does not possess. Clearly there is a personal choice to be made if these passages makes any sense.

Totally disagree.

how do we know that God has not imparted faith to young children, or regenerated them?

man act of the will? Paul, John,and James (et al) all state that salvation is not by the will of man

 

Actually, separation is not being forsaken, in either the condition of man or Christ. The fact that God is omnipresent is a hint to that effect. Unless you think Christ stopped being the Son of God while He was on the Cross, died, and then went to Hades?

Consider:

John 16:32 KJV

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

It is not possible for God to be separated from Himself. If you keep reading Psalm 22 you will find God did not abandon David, nor does the Record of Scripture allude to that:

Psalm 22 KJV

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.


The Lord quotes this Psalm as a confirmation that He is the Messiah, not because God has in fact abandoned Him.

Man was separated from the physical presence of God that he had in the Garden. Death came upon all men because access to the Tree of Life was removed:


Genesis 3 KJV

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.


Man sins because he no longer has direct communion with God from birth/creation. And it is God in Christ Who accomplishes the reconciliation of God and man, and it is God reconciling man to Himself.

And again I will point out the point that no-one has addressed yet: the Old Testament Saint died not having been reconciled to God through Christ, nor placing specific faith in the Risen Savior. How then were they saved?

By God's grace through faith in the revelation that was provided to them during their lifetimes. That is what they will be judged according to, no more, no less. Why would we think it odd that God would bestow that same grace to the unborn child?

Thanks to all for the responses, but have to get going. I look forward to a continuation of this discussion.

God bless.

 

Job 19:24-27

Job said that he has a redeemer in the OT

 

Job also believed in the resurrection

 

Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see His day

 

Again, two different contexts.

Consider:


Luke 18 KJV

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Was this man eternally redeemed?

If you say yes, then we have two ways for men to be justified on an eternal basis. However, justification, being declared righteous, having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us...

...that is eternal.

Abraham was not eternally justified because he believed God would give him a son that all nations of the earth would be blessed through, he was temporally justified for that faith.

He was eternally justified based on his faith during his lifetime when Christ died in his stead.

Eternal Justification has only one source: the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in our stead.


God bless.

 

Resurrection in the Old Testament - The Aquila Report

 

This is true: Abraham rejoiced in the expectation of the blessing God promised, but he died not receiving that promise:

Hebrews 11 KJV

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

There's a difference between receiving a good report and...

... being eternally redeemed through the Sacrifice of Christ.

Thanks, again for the responses, I'll see you guys at the next appointed time.

God bless.

 

Back on topic.

in regards to the “Rapture”

how central is the Resurrection to Pre Mill?

it seems to me that the nation of Israel is more important to some? No?

 

Shouldn't we equate more the resurrection and rapture especially if post trib?