Man's relationship to God today

[The Biblicist]

Romans 3:25-26

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;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Underlined refers to God the Father, emboldened refers to the Son.

Ultimately this is moot seeing that Christ is God.

Maybe you can entertain yourself with the prepositions. You're certainly not interested in the statements themselves.

Not hard to correlate the forbearance of God with retroactive remission of sins of the past.

Now is that the second time you have made me address this? Third? Perhaps the fourth?

Oh, that's right, the fourth was yesterday...


Continued...

....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?

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't "want to win," I am winning.

Because I can address your questions and doctrine, yet you cannot return the favor.

Insult and assertion does not deal with the issues.


God bless.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

My oh my! Job did not say or know that "Jesus" is the Christ!!! He said, "I know MY REDEEMER" which signified he knew he was a sinner but had found redemption from sin by a Savior. MOreover, You are pitting one scripture against another scripture. Don't you see that Christ pronounced it a blessing "BLESSED" to know and believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God and in the context purposely promoted this response by the very questions he asked the disciples?????
However, most Jews, in fact, as a nation, Israel was primarily unbelievers and were looking not for Christ as savior from their sins but power to overthrow Rome and set up a universal kingdom. Hence, Jesus knew how the overall public would respond, thus he forbid his disciples and every individual believer he revealed it to, not to publicly broadcast it because the general public would respond not in repentance and faith in him as Savior, but respond for a violent purpose to overthrow Rome. Of course this probably a little over you head to understand.

You act as though confession of the Risen Savior is not a New Testament Basic.

It is clear you do not understand the difference between what is foundational and what is complete, what is sad is that even though this is pointed out to you...you still carry on teaching that the provision of the Old Testament is the Same as that of the New Covenant.

And make up your mind, here: do they know, or are they blessed because they believe and...

...don't know.

And...Israel was primarily unbelievers? I agree. So who exactly is it that you present as believers? How can you deny that all of Israel benefited from the provision of God available at that time?

And how on earth can you equate that with the Provision of Christ?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

....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?

Amazing.

The simple fact is that the sin is forgiven through the Death of Christ, not in the past, as your doctrine teaches.

You are again making the Cross of Christ a mere formality.

Paul sets forth Abraham as justified, not one who received the Spirit of God Who Christ taught would come after He returned to Heaven.

Once again, who are the spirits of just men made perfect, Biblicist?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Since I am not catering to an audience, but dealing directly with you, take your poll, and pat yourself on the back for having people who agree with pulpit bred mythologies that produce doctrine that cannot even keep itself straight.

I will consider myself winning until you begin answering the questions posed to you.

If having agreement with the Peanut Gallery is your idea of winning, then you are, without doubt, the undisputed victor here.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

No, you do like you normally do, change the subject, ignore the context in order to merely win an argument by hook or by crook. YOu argue just to argue.

Sorry, but arguing for the sake of arguing would be popping into a discussion to hurl an insult and pat whoever it is you don't like on the back, despite the fact that their doctrine is absurd.

What I do is address the arguments presented, like...

...infants are quickened at death, no wait, infants are quickened in the womb...

...and...

...infants have no personal ability to discern good and evil, no wait, infants can discern good and evil and this must be true because they receive revelation in the womb...

Absolutely contradictory and all of the arguments you present replicate this same kind of confusion.

Now, pointing this out is not arguing for the sake of arguing, it is addressing arguments that are absurd.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, but we do not see Gentiles specifically stated here:


Romans 16:24-26

all nations for the obedience of faith:

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.

It is not Gentile Inclusion that was kept secret since the world began. It is the Gospel which is the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the Mystery.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Deny this again...


Ephesians 3:4-6

King James Version (KJV)


4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

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


Go ahead and argue that the Mystery of Christ applies...only to Gentiles. Just bear in mind that the moment you do, you have just created a scenario where God only revealed the Gospel unto Jews, and that only they understood it. And just as I have said before numerous times...

...you then have to justify your denial that both Jew and Gentile are made into the new man that didn't exist before.

Darrell, this was a complete surprise to the Jews as Acts 1-11 clearly testifies. Even water baptized born again church members after Pentecost were still struggling to accept this "mystery" of the gospel to the gentiles and their equal standing in the same congregational body of water baptized believers. So you argument is silly and pointless. You only prove my point. You can't take the text in its context, so you jerk it out and make it mean what you want - typical!

If this were all I have given you to show that men did not understand the Gospel, your claim might be seen as reasonable.

But because this is not the only passage that shows that the Gospel of Christ was a Mystery not revealed in past Ages...your claim is as hollow as the rest of your speech.

I know you are counting on people not reading all of the posts, but you have. You know full well that Peter is an unbeliever even after the Resurrection of Christ.

You are suggesting several things that are in error, one of which would be that the Jews knew...but not the Gentiles, then...even the Jews don't know in Acts 1-11.

That is how all of your teaching is...conflicting, and trying to say two things at once.

How many times are you going to continue reiterating the same weak defense of your doctrine? When are you going to address the points made in regards to the Mystery itself?

Show me the Born Again believers here...


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, but arguing for the sake of arguing would be popping into a discussion to hurl an insult and pat whoever it is you don't like on the back, despite the fact that their doctrine is absurd.

What I do is address the arguments presented, like...

...infants are quickened at death, no wait, infants are quickened in the womb...

...and...

...infants have no personal ability to discern good and evil, no wait, infants can discern good and evil and this must be true because they receive revelation in the womb...

Absolutely contradictory and all of the arguments you present replicate this same kind of confusion.

Now, pointing this out is not arguing for the sake of arguing, it is addressing arguments that are absurd.


Continued...

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!

 

[Darrell C]

Again, look at who he is specifically applying this to as he tells you plainly in the chapter preceding this:

8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
17 ¶ I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

Right. I see Prophecy, Christ, and a clear reference to Gentile Inclusion which was given to men in the Hebrews Scriptures. In numerous passages.

How does that negate the fact that you are denying that it was a Mystery?

In your doctrine...eye hath seen, ear had heard, and it had entered into the hearts of Gentiles, oh sorry, it says men...that which God prepared for them that loved Him.

In your doctrine only Gentiles didn't know. How utterly absurd, lol.

So again, as mentioned many times over, show those who knew full well that Christ would die for their sins. You can pick anyone from Old Testament times right up to Pentecost.

Your use of David and Job fail because neither of them understood Christ's death in their stead for their sins.

Explain why the disciples did not believe the Lord had risen.

And explain, if you don't mind, how the Gentiles didn't know seeing it is presented clearly in Prophecy. You make a case that since the Gospel is found in Prophecy...it was revealed unto men. The same should be true for Gentiles as well, shouldn't it?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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!

What is sad is you ignore the blatant contradiction...of your own teachings.

Those are your words, Biblicist...your doctrine.

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.

You aren't going to dance your way out of those contradictions, and a smokescreen of insult isn't going to make it go away. You are going to be held accountable for your words, and nothing I have said misrepresents your doctrine.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Now, look again at the very last verse you quoted. What does it say?

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Don't you realize the whole Judaizer movement dealt with in Acts 15 and in Galatians were Jews who rejected this "mystery" but attempted to make Gentiles Jewis proselyties by circumcision????

All nations includes Israel, lol.

Now pay attention to the "But now is made manifest" and see if you can figure out what not being manifest means.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

You know full well that Peter is an unbeliever even after the Resurrection of Christ.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

Just think for a moment. The problem of sin and spiritual separation from God is not an EXTERNAL issue or problem but an INTERNAL issue and problem.

Wow, what a great revelation.

I would think the four thousand posts already discussing that issue would be enough to clarify that this is not a point that needs further clarification.

What needs further clarification is your teaching that infants are quickened in the womb, or, you can clarify your teaching that infants are quickened at death.

You choose.

Your OP states it is absurd to think one could be saved yet separated from God.

Right?

Yet you have seen your view dismantled because the obvious point is that infants are saved though while physically alive they remain separated from God. You have had to flip flop your doctrine because of your failure to think this through, or be familiar with the subject before teaching about it, and it continues to get worse for you because you keep making ludicrous statements.

So just focus on that issue, and give a definitive statement as to when it is that the infant that dies in the womb receives the life of Christ.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

What is sad is you ignore the blatant contradiction...of your own teachings.

Those are your words, Biblicist...your doctrine.

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.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

I'll come back to this post but wanted to point out that the Cross is very much found in this statement.

Simply amazing.

We don't need to see "The Cross" to know that is the Death being referred to. lol


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

Wow, what a great revelation.

I would think the four thousand posts already discussing that issue would be enough to clarify that this is not a point that needs further clarification.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'll come back to this post but wanted to point out that the Cross is very much found in this statement.

Simply amazing.

We don't need to see "The Cross" to know that is the Death being referred to. lol


Continued...

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

What sin do you lay to the charge of infants?

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

Which is it, infants are quickened at death, as you have taught, or they are quickened through God giving them revelation in the womb, as you have taught.

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).