Man's relationship to God today

[Darrell C]

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.

What is dishonest about my statement? That is the central issue in the contradiction you teach.

Here are your words...

It is not either or but BOTH! Up to the point of death they have no ability to discern right from wrong but AT death they are quickened or receive a creative divine revelation of God as Jehovah Savior ("jesus") which REVEALS, GIVES KNOWLEGE/UNDERSTANDING and they embrace it by the power of the Holy Spirit just like you did in life.

It is not either or but BOTH! Up to the point of death they have no ability to discern right from wrong but AT death they are quickened or receive a creative divine revelation of God as Jehovah Savior ("jesus") which REVEALS, GIVES KNOWLEGE/UNDERSTANDING and they embrace it by the power of the Holy Spirit just like you did in life.

You would deny that you are here saying it is at death this occurs?

You even say it here, though we see the beginnings of your new doctrinal position, which was forced by your error:

Because we are talking about those alive but yet incapable of determining right from wrong (dying infants) versus those alive who are capable (Old Testament saints) of discerning right from wrong and yet both are in an unwilling state. At death revelation occurs which enables them to respond just as God enabled John the Baptist in the womb to respond with "joy" and just as in the womb John the Baptist could be "filled with the Spirit" thus brought under the control of the Spirit. However, revelation saves both infants and adults and Revelation produces justifying faith in both.

You switch from a dogmatic position that they have no personal ability to discern right and wrong...

...to they can. Giving John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb

I'm not the one being dishonest about this point.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Man is born with a depraved nature. At least admit that human beings that know right and wrong that "there is none good, no, not one.....there is none that doeth good....there is none righteous" and therefore in order for any fallen man to be good or do good the Holy Spirit must perform a supernatural change on their INSIDE or else it is impossible for them to either be or do good.

Why would I do that?

First we would have to distinguish the distinction between temporal and eternal and then whether the context of any relevant passage is salvific.

There is a general command in the Law...


Leviticus 11:45

King James Version (KJV)


45 For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.



Leviticus 5:4

King James Version (KJV)


4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.


The idea that no-one could "do good" without being regenerate, or that God does not demand this...simply isn't a concept found in Scripture.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
I do not deny the Ministry of the Holy Ghost in the lives of men, for He was with them, as Christ makes clear.

Your interpretation of "with" denies this.

It's not my interpretation, lol, it is the teaching of Christ:


John 14:15-18

King James Version (KJV)


15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


And I have repeatedly given the commentary of the Bible as to what He is speaking about. Here is more teaching directly from Christ:


John 14:20-23

King James Version (KJV)

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Now you want to say that Christ is not speaking of a future date in time when He and the Father and the Holy Ghost...will make their abode with the disciples?

This is the very thing you continually dodge, and the very reason why we can't get anywhere in this discussion.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You don't realize it, but your position denies any kind of real salvation in any practical sense for anyone prior to the cross and Pentecost.

Sorry, but that is your position, because you have to assert false arguments. I guess you have to have something to say.

You simply do not understand the difference between Eternal Redemption and the redemption that was available to men, nor the difference between temporal remission of sins and Eternal Remission in the Atonement.

This is why you see the remission of sins in the past as identical to that obtained through the Work of Christ.

Your words "saved by grace" "justified by faith" as being "the same" as us is simply a lie

Its a Basic Bible Teaching, Biblicist.

They were saved because they were declared Just, but that does not mean they had been Eternally redeemed or that their sins were forgiven.

Any more than the infant that dies in the womb has been while they yet live in a state of separation from God.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

as you very well know that our salvation is nothing like that at all.

Excuse me, but that is my argument...lol.

No, our salvation is nothing like the salvation of the Old Testament Saint in the sense that we receive remission of sins on an eternal basis, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and are born again...when we are saved in this Age.

That doesn't nullify the fact that they were saved.

Doesn't nullify that infants can be saved. But neither received the Bread of Life which came down from Heaven. Not in their physical lives.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Our salvation actually is saving us from the problem of sin and spiritual separation from God

And the Spirit of God worked within men to do the very same thing in regards to sin in their lives.

That doesn't equate to being born again and indwelt with the Holy Ghost.

When God ministers in your life in regards to the sin in your life...are you receiving the indwelling presence of God all over again? Are you constantly being born again?

No...that is progressive sanctification, not positional sanctification.

But as far as the Old Testament Saint being reconciled...

...didn't happen.


2 Corinthians 5:18-19

King James Version (KJV)


18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Your mythology has God reconciling men unto Himself prior to the Incarnation, and it did not happen. The bread they had then was manna, not the True Bread.

The trespasses in view here are those sins which came before...the Cross.

We have the Ministry of Reconciliation...the Prophets did not.

We are Ministers of the New Covenant...the Prophets were not.

Just basic, Biblicist.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

whereas your kind of salvation has no practical value to deal with the INTERNAL problem of sin and spiritual separation that wholly and totally prevents them from living a godly life or a life of faith!

A false argument, again.

You base this on your own understanding that men cannot do good unless they are regenerate and indwelt by God.

Cornelius would beg to differ with you.

Your syllogism is ludicrous.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Such a life of faith or godliness is IMPOSSIBLE until God changes them INTERNALLY with regard to sin (law of indwelling sin)

Explain Cornelius:

Acts 10

King James Version (KJV)


1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?


22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

We know he was not "internally changed:"


Acts 11:12-17

King James Version (KJV)


12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

That is when Cornelius was "internally changed."

Deny that...again.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

and there can be no possible relationship with God IN A SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED STATE from God and even common sense should make you realize that?

So the Covenant of Law was not a relationship with God?

The fact remains that men were in relationship with God through that Covenant, which provided remission of sins and instruction in righteousness.

So were men internally changed because they were part of that Covenant Relationship?


Romans 10

King James Version (KJV)


1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


Deny that Israel was in relationship with God if you like, it will fit right in with other basic principles of Scripture you deny.

Doesn't make it true, though.

Now pay attention:


5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

That is the nature of that relationship: it is an if/then relationship. If they obeyed, they would live.

Consider Uzzah, who probably had his heart in the right place when he tried to steady the Ark, but...was put to death.


Leviticus 18:5

King James Version (KJV)

5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.


Now, do you see this as a reference to eternal life? Or physical?

Answer me that.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Your position is even without common sense much less being completely unbiblical.

Right, because it is unbiblical to recognize God was in relationship to men through the Covenant of the Law, and that this is not to be confused with Eternal Redemption, which no man under Law ever received.

If you say so.

It is undeniable that your theory demands that fallen men, with the law of indwelling sin operating within them can do what post-Pentecost people of God cannot do and that is live a life of godliness apart from the indwelling Spirit of God.

Here are just a few for you to consider:


Matthew 13:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.


Luke 1

King James Version (KJV)

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


You can read Hebrews 11 for an extensive list of people who had not received the Spirit of God nor had their sins redeemed.

Those were the Just men made perfect in Christ.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Romans 7:14-25 makes it clear that Paul could not do good, even though he delighted in the law that defines good, even though his will was inclined to do good (v. 18) but he had nothing in himself (including the new nature or new inward man) that had inherent power to overcome indwelling sin. His ability to overcome in dwelling sin was not in his own will or person but rested entirely in another indwelling power - the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-16).

And this proves the Old Testament Saint was born again and eternally indwelt how?

Cornelius was a just man...why do you keep ignoring him?

But let's get back to infants...when exactly are they eternally indwelt and what sin is it that you charge to them? When are they quickened, Biblicist? While alive and separated from God? Or dead...

...just as is the case with the just men made perfect in Christ?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Romans 7:14-25 makes it clear that Paul could not do good, even though he delighted in the law that defines good, even though his will was inclined to do good (v. 18) but he had nothing in himself (including the new nature or new inward man) that had inherent power to overcome indwelling sin. His ability to overcome in dwelling sin was not in his own will or person but rested entirely in another indwelling power - the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-16).

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

What does a post-conversion statement do to justify your doctrine?

Nothing at all.

This does not deny that unregenerate men can, in the temporal...do good.

This was demanded of all men throughout Redemptive History.

Men could do good by being obedient to the revelation provided them, and based on their obedience they will be judged, whether in the Law or out.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Jesus said the very same thing before Pentecost - "without me ye can DO NOTHING."

And this is true.

The disciples did not heal, preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, and cast out demons apart from Christ.

But the basic truth you ignore is that they had not received the Spirit promised by God and taught of by Christ:


Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


They were not Baptized with the Holy Ghost until Pentecost.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Your theory demands the Old Testament saint is superior than us because you have them doing what we cannot do - live a life for God apart from the indwelling power of God to overcome indwelling sin in us.

You're getting ever more bizarre in your reasoning than ever, lol.

First, let's remove your first false premise which is to suggest I deny the ministry of the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament. I guess you think that if you wait long enough it will be forgotten that we have spoken on this numerous times already.

The superiority is in Eternal Indwelling, that is a basic truth, and here are a few passages already given you before:


Ezekiel 36:27

King James Version (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.



John 7:37-38

King James Version (KJV)


37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.


Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.



Galatians 3:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.



Ephesians 1:13

King James Version (KJV)

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Just basic, my friend.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Your theory is not only unbiblical but completely irrational.

Not at all, it actually make sense of a number of issues that might be confusing otherwise.

Now, Biblicist, you know what to say when people ask you why Peter and the other ten disciples refused to believe Christ had risen from the dead.

Now, Biblicist, you can explain to people why we do not believe God sends babies to Hell.

Now, Biblicist, you can explain why Christ's Ministry was specific to Israel, and that He did not allow His disciples to go to the Gentiles and Samaritans.

Now, Biblicist, you can explain to people who think the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is a second or subsequent event in the life of those saved.

Completely rational, completely logical, and completely in order, unlike the doctrine you have presented which has several times tried to say the same things at once.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You are so busy focusing on winning an argument you can't see the practical implications of your theory.

Doesn't take a whole lot of focus to point out that someone is very confused about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But I will not "win" this argument until you have embraced the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its full glory and power.

"Winning" is only a relevant term when the truth is understood, and it is you that will win, Biblicist, not me.

But go ahead, cater to your audience. When you're ready to take on the issues let me know. If you are satisfied with pats on the back, okay. But you have your reward.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You have no salvation at all to offer pre-pentecost saints because you deny the very essentials to deal with their internal problem of sin.

God dealt with their sin in a very obvious and oft repeated and mentioned manner: vicarious animal death. Of course, provision was made for the poor as well, but wouldn't want to complicate this any more for you.

Their sin was dealt with, from the Garden, with animals dying to cover their sin. This is why those sacrifices had to be repeated, as they were...

...until the Cross.

And I guess I will again point out that saying they could not be saved because they were not born again, had not received the Eternal Indwelling of God, and their sins were not yet redeemed...

...is like saying we are not saved because our flesh has not yet been redeemed.

You should come to understand Perfection as taught by the Writer of Hebrews. I tried to help you with that already. This willhelp you understand the rest of what he is saying.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You have no salvation at all for them because your position demands they must remain in a state of spiritual separation from God, thus WITHOUT GOD.

But it's okay for you to say the infant that is without controversy in a state of separation...can be considered saved.

That you will not admit that blunder is remarkable.


Continued...

 

[Yeshua1]

The question would actually be if those who were saved by God under the Old covenant were regenerated AND filled with the Spirit just as we are now under the new Covenant, and would say the answer is "nope"

 

[Darrell C]

Your view is simply absurd.

Not as absurd as teaching infants that have no personal ability to discern right and wrong receive revelation from God in the womb. Or after death.

Not sure, because you have not yet told me which of your teachings you are going to go with.

And definitely not as absurd as making the Baptism with the Holy Ghost a "public accreditation of the administration of the Church."

At least Charismatics still involve the Holy Ghost in their error.


Continued...