Featured Man's relationship to God today

Many Old Testament Saints were filled with the Holy Ghost...that is the Ministry God performed in those Ages.

John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Ghost does not equate to John being born again and eternal indwelt any more than the Apostles being filled with the Holy Ghost means it is a reference to regeneration and eternal indwelling.

Two entirely different issues. For example:


Acts 4:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,


Is Peter here receiving the Spirit of God again, as He did on the Day of Pentecost, or...being empowered by the filling of the Spirit?

God has always ministered in men and through man by His Spirit, this is nothing new to Redemptive History. But what He has only began doing after Christ was glorified and returned to Heaven is eternally indwelling them...

...which is the source of regeneration. We are new creatures because of the indwelling of God.

Just give it some thought, that's all I ask. Think about the infant that is saved, who, while physically alive...remained separated from God.

Then you will understand the magnitude of the Grace of God.

I do not deny the Ministry of the Holy Ghost in the lives of men, for He was with them, as Christ makes clear. but, we have to clarify that with the promise of the Father and Christ that He would be in them, and this...forever.

So it's up to you. I have needed to take my leave of the forum for several weeks, but I cannot, and will not do that while you are teaching your doctrine. I see it as in error, and the importance of this issue is such that it demands I follow up on it. So if you continue to teach what you have been teaching, it will not be over. I don't have a problem setting it to the side, and at a later date, after we have both had time to give the arguments presented further thought, taking it back up again. Again, the choice is yours.


God bless.

 

And I think that is it for me today, at any rate. Hope you, and all here have a blessed Fourth.


God bless.

 

And you completely ignore what I have said...again.

John was filled with the Holy Ghost...and?

So was Moses. So was David. So was Elizabeth.

Does that mean they were born again?

No.

Now, can you actually address the issue of your conflicting doctrine?

You are trying now to teach that God regenerates the infant in the womb and this with revelation. Quite a different approach from...

I've asked you before...which is going to be? This is what happens when one is forced to make things up as they go, and seek to justify positions that are faulty.


Continued...

 

It's your point...now. lol

One simple question has made you rethink your position. Glad you are, just wish you would be a little more honest about the apparent contradiction in what your point is.

Let's revisit your grammar lesson:

Now, let's compare that with the tact you have taken since being asked about infants:

But what happened to...

They are saved "AT" death, not "AFTER" death but "AT" death. God instantly quickens them

Up to the point of death they have no ability to discern right from wrong but AT death they are quickened


...?

Now here is the focal point, again: the infant is separated from God from conception, and yet you teach they are saved.

You are teaching the truth, you just don't understand why it is true. More important to you is your public image, and your fear of being wrong about something.

Well...too late. Not only are you wrong about the focal issue, that men were not Born Again prior to Pentecost, but your contradictory doctrine is publicly exposed, as well as your manner of making things up as you go.

And the more you try to justify your position, the more errors you are going to make in this discussion. You need to slow down and address the issues. Most would recognize the error and simply admit it. Why won't you?


Continued...

 

I would also add it does one little good to understand a preposition when they do not understand the verse it is found in.


Continued...

 

The parallel is that the "child" born of the flesh (Abraham and Sarai's attempts to produce an heir) is still, in Paul's day, persecuting the child born of the Spirit (God's intention and purpose of producing an heir). Not that Isaac was born again in the womb and Ishmael was not. That again conflicts with your stance that all men are conceived and born into separation.

Now if you stop and read the Chapter, you will see that Hagar and the child born after the flesh represent the Law, and that the child born after the Spirit represents the Redemptive Plan of God, and the Promise the Law did not bestow, nor nullify.

Let Scripture define this for you:



Galatians 4:23-29

King James Version (KJV)


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

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

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.


In view is a contrast between the Covenant of Law and the New Covenant (which you erroneously misconstrue with a mythical separate Covenant, not understanding that the New Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant).

Being born of the Spirit here is not a reference to being born again, but...being born of promise.

You are wresting Scripture to make it say what you want it to, eisegeting into the text that which is not there, and all so...you can justify your erroneous doctrine.

I asked you before, bring forth the teachers you admire and let us see their commentary on this passage.

But I know you will not. You will simply reiterate the same false arguments and again ignore what I actually say.


Continued...

 

You might want to balance that with...


Matthew 19:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


When you can learn to distinguish between good from an eternal perspective and good from a temporal perspective in Scripture you will be able to see that quite a bit of good was done by men prior to Pentecost.

You want to argue that Cornelius was a Born Again Christian indwelt by God prior to Acts 10:44-45?

Or that his works were not...good?

So this "real problem" you diagnose in my doctrine is not a problem at all, it is simply you generalizing an issue without discernment.


Continued...

 

So what good works does the infant accomplish, seeing that they are saved yet they have no works? You have already stated they have no personal ability to discern right and wrong (and then contradicted yourself with teaching now they receive revelation in the womb) and are made alive at death.

Keep it up, you are only giving me what I need to expose your doctrine as error. You have no goal but to justify Biblicist. Let's discuss the doctrine, my friend.

You know you can't accuse me of wresting your words, because they are...your words. You know, or should know, you can't deny the contradiction and evolution of your doctrine in this thread. I really don't want to discuss this issue like this, Biblicist, but you are really giving me no choice.


Continued...

 

Cornelius seemed to do okay. Well enough that God arranged for Peter to preach the Gospel so that he might be...

...Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Try to impose reconciliation and atonement into one who is a proselyte to Judaism.


Continued...

 

Why would I...not admit that? lol

My position is that despite being depraved...they benefited from the Grace of God.

And just like the infant that dies separated from God, they died separated from God (and this does not deny God's ministry in and through them under Old Testament Ministry of the Holy Ghost) but were saved by grace through faith. They were justified, but they still had to await the Cross to be eternally redeemed.

When you drop the false arguments and address what I actually see you will see, that like your contradictions in regards to infants, your arguments in regards to Regeneration are contradictory and erroneous.

That is why you are forced to debate with yourself about things I have never stated.


Continued...

 

Give me one verse that states "new birth is receiving a 'good' heart."

Just one will do.


Continued...

 

No, it only provides comedy relief to an important discussion.

You would actually have to address my position before it could be said you are addressing it. So far, all you have done is debate with yourself in the understanding of my doctrine you have.

You do not even address simple questions like "What sin do you lay to the charge of the infant?"


Continued...

 

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who will go at his false ideas of "no member of Israel being saved by the blood of Christ." I thought DC had at least come around to acknowledging the Truth presented Hebrew but I see now that was wrong. Keep up the good fight, contending for the faith.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Again, your doctrine fails to see some very basic truths:


Romans 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


You went to a lot of trouble before to deny that in view here is a contrast between those who have the Law and those who do not...performing the works of the Law. You wrest the point to saying I am saying they are saved through works and that is not the case: they are judged according to the revelation they have, which is how God has always judged men from the very beginning.

And the simple statement of Paul is the "doers of the Law shall be...justified."

These are not men who were regenerated according to New Covenant Provision, these are Gentiles who were not in relationship according to the provision of that day (the Covenant of Law) still performing that which was written on their hearts. Neither condition saved anyone, nor did either condition prevent men from being justified, or, being justified in the Judgment.


Continued...

 

I spend more time dealing with your own arguments which are contradictory and irrelevant to my doctrine.

As I said, the Saints of Old were led of God through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, even as we are. When they sinned, they did so according to the desires of the flesh. When they did do good, they did so according to the desires of the Spirit. Or in other words, either God was leading them or they held the reins.

Abraham lied because he feared for his life. David murdered because of his adulterous lusts. Peter rebuked Christ because he desired a physical Kingdom.

So tell me, what practical salvation do you ascribe to the infant that is separated from God?

Will you answer this? Not likely. What will likely happen is another carnal lecture that has only burying the questions you refuse to answer.


Continued...

 

Oh great, another lesson.

It is grace that kept God from effecting punishment of sin and instead provided a means for remission of sins that still demanded...death.

And the fact is that this is the same grace we can know is enjoyed by those who do not have the personal ability to discern good and evil.

I don't have to eisegete Scripture in order to defend my doctrine, simply present Scripture:


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.


The transgressions that were under the First Testament (The Covenant of Law) were redeemed by means of death. Not the deaths that actually occurred in the lifetimes of the Saints of Old, but by His Death:


Hebrews 9:12

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.


It was grace that provided this remission of sins, and you, with your pulpit bred mythology...nullify the many passages that teach that Christ died for the sins of the Old Testament Saint, which means, as is stated many times in the New Testament...

...they had not been forgiven on an eternal basis through those sacrifices.

Again, this is just basic.


Romans 3:25

King James Version (KJV)

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


God declared Christ's righteousness to be the propitiation for the sins that are past. His righteousness declared for the remission of sins.


Continued...

 

Where did I ever suggest that?

Have I not consistently shown the distinction between the substitutionary provision the Old Testament Saint had and the Provision Christ provided?

Again...more false argument with a goal of smearing your antagonist instead of dealing with his doctrine.

Not sure how that can sit well with your spirit, brother.

The entire Book of Hebrews deals with contrasting the type and antitype, and he does not equate the two as you do.


Continued...

 

Another fable you have concocted: the New Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant, and it is the same Redemption God promised beginning in the Garden.

And if you will stop trying to make Scripture mean what you want it to, and look at what it is saying...


Hebrews 13:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,


...you will see that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is still the foundation.

Now...what Covenant related to the Lord's Resurrection? What Blood is the Writer speaking of? Simple, the same Covenant he teaches about throughout the Book.

But you have made the Cross of Christ a mere formality for the Credit Salvation you teach (and if you want to deny that I will be glad to import your teaching from the other thread).

Those transgressions were redeemed only through the Cross of Christ. the only remission they received in their lifetimes was temporary, temporal, and had to be continually offered because they did not redeem the believer.


Continued...

 

False argument.

Again.

How does this kind of statement sit well with you? Of course, the possibility that you aren't reading the posts is very real, so perhaps that is why you can't correlate my own teachings concerning the provision of former Ages to the contrast consistently drawn in regards to the Provision of the New Covenant.

The provision for remission of sins, for example, has been repeatedly mentioned in detail, beginning with Abel's sacrifice. Remember when I posted Hebrews 12?

Here it is again, the provision of the Old Covenant contrasted with the New:


Hebrews 12:18-24

King James Version (KJV)


18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake)



22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Red equals First Covenant, bluish color equals New Covenant.

Christ's Sacrifice is better than the provision of the Old Testament.

And by the way, I highlighted "the spirits of just men made perfect," seeing you deny the Writer's (hence the Holy Spirit's) teaching that men were made perfect through the Sacrifice of Christ. You have publicly stated we will not be perfected until a future date. Another gross error on your part. And though I addressed it in detail, no response from you yet.


Continued...