Man's relationship to God today

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed some time after 8pm Pacific.

 

[Darrell C]

However, the most damning argument against your whole position is that Paul explicitly and clearly states that God's covenant with Abraham was "IN CHRIST" - Gal. 3:17.

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Abraham is not in view...its the Law in view.

"The Covenant of Law which came 430 years later cannot disannul the...

...promise."

The promise is confirmed...

...in Christ.

And this is "the most damning argument" against my position? Faulty understanding of a verse?

Nothing in there about Abraham being "In Christ," in view is the fact that the Covenant of Law did not invalidate the Promises written into the Abrahamic Covenant.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed some time after 8pm Pacific.

After 9 pages?

Why is that?

I have noticed many threads being closed before they get to ten pages, is there a rule or something that dictates closing these threads?

This is still a viable topic and a fair amount to be addressed in it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Paul is arguing that the Mosaic law cannot dissanul that covenant because it was made "IN CHRIST."

No, Biblicist, it was confirmed In Christ.


Galatians 3:13-14

King James Version (KJV)


13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

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.


Again, you need to understand the two sides of receiving a promise: when it is given, and when it is fulfilled.

The Promises were fulfilled in Christ.

That is why the Writer of Hebrews writes...


Hebrews 11:13

King James Version (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.


Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)

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.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Being "IN CHRIST" is what makes that covenant stand.

No, Biblicist, it stands because spoke it:


Hebrews 6:13-18

King James Version (KJV)


13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:


The fulfillment of promise is seen here...can you say how that was accomplished?

Abraham did not receive the Promise, that is made abundantly clear.

Israel, as a Nation did not receive the Promise, that too is made abundantly clear.

They will, though.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

This text forever repudiates your position and you have never been able to refute it.

I have not been able to refute such notions as Isaac was born again and Ishmael was not?

I have not been able to refute that your proof-texts that you use to say men were forgiven their sins prior to the Cross are not saying that?

I have not been able to refute the very OP...and show that even you acknowledge that it is possible to be saved yet not born again or eternally indwelt?

C'mon, Biblicist, lol.

Okay, if you say so.

So tell me again, when are the infants that die in the womb born again?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You have never been able to refute David's words that God has removed his sins from him as far as the East from the west.

I have on a number of occasions.

Let's try it again:


Luke 1:76-78

King James Version (KJV)


76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,


Now wait a minute...didn't David say that all sin was forgiven? That is your position, right?

So what exactly was it that John was to do?

How exactly was the salvation in view accomplished?

But we can't get any clearer than this:


Hebrews 9:12-15

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.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

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.


I will give you credit, as horrible as the commentary has been, and despite the error in your denial of what the above states, you are, to my knowledge, the only one that has ever even bothered to try to reconcile this passage to the pulpit bred mythology that equates the remission of sins under Law and in previous Ages to Eternal Redemption which holds eternal remission of sins. Now, if I could just get you to understand what this means...


Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


...then I will feel like something has been accomplished.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You have never been able to refute the PRESENT TENSE statement by David that his sins "ARE" forgiven.

It's not that hard, Biblicist. David is speaking about the remission of sins available in that day.

Let's look at something he also says:


Psalm 103:17-18

King James Version (KJV)


17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.


Now tell me, Biblicist, are you going to deny the if/then nature of the Law?

That David was under Law?

That the Law did not provide opportunity for remission of sins?

You can grammatically hang yourself with your "present tense salvation," but I will remind you that Israel would come under God's Judgment, and go into captivity...

...because they did not keep His Covenant.

Told you this before.

So what you are implying is that David was saved...through the Law. Something Paul makes very clear is an impossibility.

That is why God promised a New Covenant...


Hebrews 8:7-10

King James Version (KJV)


7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


Israel did not receive eternal redemption through the Law. They did not receive eternal remission through the Law. That is the illogical conclusion one is forced to conclude if they deny that Christ, alone, obtained Eternal Redemption and redeemed the transgressions that were past.

Your present tense remission of sins is the remission of the past. Today, eternal remission is made available to men. Then...they continued to offer up sacrifice as they were commanded by God.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You are not fighting me, you are fighting God and you need to think about that.

Not sure how I can be "fighting against God" when my doctrine is based precisely on what Scripture states.

I think the more relevant issue is that you expect people to just take what you say as truth and not question it.

But I do not even remotely embrace the gospel you preach.

You equate salvation in Christ with the salvation of the Old Testament Saint, the remission of sins as equable, and when you are challenged on it...you get upset. I'm used to that with people like you.

Doesn't mean I question your salvation, just your ability to understand Scripture. Clearly you have some trouble, which is evident in your "exposition" of some of these passages. I mean really...Isaac was born again and Ishmael was not? That is what Paul is teaching?

John the Baptist understood the Gospel in the womb? Because he was filled with the Holy Ghost?

Abraham was In Christ because God confirmed the promise of the Covenant in Christ?

Sins were forever forgiven in the Old Testament?

Okay, if you say so.

Again, I thank you for the responses, and will get to the rest as I can. I have broken these down so that the usual complaints of long posts is moot. Even though it is okay for others to do it, just not me, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Not sure if I missed these or not but if so, will address them at this time. They somehow ended up in my quotes, and think they have been addressed, but to be on the safe side...

In every context where the "mystery" of the gospel is mentioned it is contextually defined as applying to GENTILES and the "mystery" is that God would turn away from Israel to Gentiles and make the them fellowheirs in salvation and in the church. However, it seems you are incapable of understanding that, even if you read it.

So Israel was enlightened to Jesus Christ dying for them?

Could you show me someone in Israel that knew Christ would die for them?

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????

Yeah, I think I did already answer this.

Regardless, I will ask you a question: don't you realize that everyone was a Judaizer? lol

You do realize that Christ was born, and lived...under the Covenant of Law.

Salvation in Christ is not Gentiles now receiving what Jews previously received, but both receiving something neither received:


Colossians 3:9-11

King James Version (KJV)


9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.


You have an impossible task to try to place someone in Christ prior to the establishment of the Church.

This...


Galatians 6:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.

13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.


...reaches before the Law, and makes it clear that circumcision, which was commanded them, avails nothing. The new creature does.

The question to ask is where do we see the Law, or previous economies...producing the New Creature? We don't, we see only the promise of the new man.

Regeneration is associated with the fulfillment of the promises of God. The new birth is in fact a result of the Eternal Indwelling of God.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑

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?

But the "natural objections" are not my argument.

It is because of God's grace that He can forbear sin and save those who deserve death.

Remission was not "made on the validity of God's Promise," because the remission of the Old Testament was based on vicarious death of animals, contrasted with the Sacrifice of Christ.

There was no eternal value in the deaths of animals, none. That does not nullify the fact that God allowed this provision fo all Ages prior to this one. This Age is unique in that it not only does not allow for the sacrifices once demanded...

...it forbids it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The Biblicist said: ↑

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.

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.

Again, how can it destroy my position when I have been drawing the distinction between the external ministry of the Holy Ghost and the Eternal Ministry of the Comforter...throughout our entire discussion?

And yeah, I admit that was a little snide, lol, but, it was an honest reaction. Beats saying "Well...duh!" lol

You have the holy Spirit working with those WITHOUT GOD, WITHOUT LIFE, WITHOUT LIGHT, WITHOUT HOLINESS

If He is working with them, Biblicist...how is it that they are without God?

No man has ever understood spiritual truths apart from the Holy Ghost showing them.

The primary difference between His Ministry then and His Ministry now is the content of the revelation He is providing, namely...the Mystery of the Gospel.

God would not demand men be holy because He is Holy if there were no way for them to obey. The revelation that provided the means for holiness are found in the revelation provided in every Age.

which is oxymoronic - self -contradictory as you have them one and the same time WITH and WITHOUT God,

God is coming upon them. That is familiar terminology...

...that still applies today for those God is coming in to.

No contradiction unless one thinks that God ministering to natural men by His Spirit must demand regeneration. This has been spoken to many times in these discussions as well.

That is simply the normal course for God to enlighten men to the revelation He provides, and this principle remains constant in all Ages.

Here is this principle in this Age:


John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)


7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


But what you refuse to accept is that this is different than it was in previous Ages.

You teach that the same ministry has always been performed, and this is error.

at one and the same time WITH practical active righteousness but WITHOUT the very internal essentials necesssary for anyone to practice righteousness.

Again...deny practical active righteousness in Cornelius before he is clearly saved. Clearly Baptized with the Holy Ghost. Clearly granted repentance...

...unto life.

And how that occurred is that he heard, for the first time...the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's just a matter of Record that, while you might deny it, and wrest the passages to suit your doctrine...cannot be denied.

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.

Sorry, but it is simply Basic Bible Truth.

Cornelius is the one example I would give you that shows this principle. If you want to deny Cornelius was not yet saved, be glad to look at it with you.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
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.

Who is denying His death is implicit in this post-cross passage?

Not sure how you go from...

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.

To...

Who is denying his death is implicit in this post-cross passage?

Let's put my statement in regards to yours back in:

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.

Darrell C said: ↑
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...

Now lets look at a little more of your statement to see what you said:

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.

Again...your question:

Who is denying his death is implicit in this post-cross passage?

And now, the moment you've been waiting for...the answer: completely irrelevant to the Post Cross Gospel.

And that is the point you refuse to admit...understanding of the Gospel was not given to men in the Old Testament.

No-one would mistake Paul's statement as referring to anything other than the Cross of Christ. No-one.

Unless they were Old Testament Saints, or perhaps the disciples of Christ prior to their conversion.

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.

You are stumbling all over yourself here. Peter was not relenting to any death of Christ, not just the death of the Cross.

He is seen to be in opposition several times, and even to refuse to believe the Lord actually rose from the dead.

Your statement gives the impression that Peter would have been amenable to a more noble death, which tries to cater to the fallacious implication that Peter knew Christ would die for his sins...

...period.

The Scriptures just do not allow for such erroneous implication.

However, that does not mean he did not trust in him as Savior from his sins.

After all the times Peter's opposition has been posted, Biblicist, you still think this is a credible statement?

Peter didn't even know his condition, for if he had...he would have not resisted Christ when He preached the Gospel to him.

His problem was one of understanding what had not yet been provided a historical context of fulfillment.

Now if I could just believe you believed that.

Peter did not need a "historical context," he needed to be born again.

He needed the Spirit of God to enlighten his mind to the Gospel.

Fulfillment was already accomplished in Christ's death for his sin, and that did not keep him from going back to his former life ("I go a fishing..."). He did not continue to be a fisher of men during that roughly forty days, and would not fish for men until he was Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Peter did not receive the Promised Spirit until Pentecost. That is just a Basic Bible Truth.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
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.

It's not a diversion tactic, lol: its a focal point of the discussion.

You say man's primary sin is sin and separation, as opposed to my view the primary problem is separation.

And the infant is an example of the condition of separation still applicable even though they...have not sinned. And they have not sinned according to the similitude of Adam either.

Here is your erroneous doctrine again:

You are simply wrong! Sin is the problem and spiritual separation when conceived is the consequence. Sin brings death not death brings sin and death is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION.

We can go right back to the beginning of this thread to see that you continually evade a direct answer to a very simple question, and here it is again...

What charge do you lay to the infant?

The condition if separation is realistic in the life of the infant...not sin which leads to spiritual death. The infant would first have to have spiritual life, then die spiritually, then your doctrine would be correct.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
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,

Yes, particularly when you are trying to teach "they have no personal ability to discern right and wrong.

All to avoid the one obvious fact that bothers you the most: you destroyed your own OP.

How embarrassing is that?

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???

How does that warrant a grammar lesson about prepositions? lol

Honestly, been a while since I have seen someone so adamant about not admitting a blunder.

All of this is irrelevant in regards to the fact that while alive...

...they were not regenerate.

That is the point, Biblicist.

Now, will you just admit that it is not absurd to say that one can be saved yet not regenerate?

That their salvation is made complete in Christ after death is the same for the infant as well as the Old Testament Saint.

Look if my words are too big or to difficult for you to understand, I can use one syllable terms?(lol).

You can use whatever words you choose, Biblicist, and you can try to grammatically conform the Word of God to your doctrine.

It's not going to change my own doctrine, and it is not going to refute it.

Infant death is a prime example of salvation apart from regeneration while alive. Slavation apart from eternal indwelling.

Just admit it. And you can get off the dance floor you have subjected yourself to.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

You minimize the importance of the Name...

...Jesus.


Acts 4:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


Now look at another Name which sets forth this present dispensation as separate from those that preceded it:


Isaiah 7:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Matthew 1:23

King James Version (KJV)

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


Would you care to tell me how the Incarnation is not the fulfillment of Promise distinct in its fulfillment, and not something occurring when the Promise is given?

A few more to consider:


Philippians 2:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;


Matthew 1:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

In other words, men did not need to know that Christ would die in this fashion, they just needed to know He would die in order for them to be eternally indwelt and regenerate.

Do I have that right?

So again...who knew?

How are you going to explain away the unbelief of the Disciples, not just before the Cross...but after?

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.

According to the Scriptures He died for our sins. So is the fact that Paul does not mention the Cross here negate Paul's standard?

Here...

1 Corinthians 1:13


Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


1 Corinthians 1:23


But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


1 Corinthians 2:2

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


...is what Paul had already said to them prior to this point. Do you get the idea that Christ being crucified was an important detail to those He preached the Gospel to?

The point is this: the revelation of the Gospel Mystery unfolds Post-Pentecost.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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).

Acts 26:22-23

King James Version (KJV)

22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


Again, the implication that I deny the Gospel is found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

This doesn't mean that Moses preached Christ. It means that Moses and the Prophets prophesied of the same Messiah that Paul preached.

Paul frequently correlated Moses and the Prophets to the fulfillment. For example...


Galatians 3:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

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.

Acts 10:43

King James Version (KJV)

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.


What is inconsistent is this:

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.

One does not receive eternal remission of sins on an eternal basis apart from belief in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Just a Basic Bible Truth.

When one does receive eternal remission of sins apart from specific faith, it is because they died not having opportunity to receive the Gospel through the Ministry of the Holy Ghost. This is true for the infant that dies, as well as the Old Testament Saint.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Sorry, but salvation has always been based on the Death of Christ for the remission of sins.

You confuse yourself with thinking the "Everlasting Covenant" is a Covenant separate from the New Covenant.

That has always been Plan A.

That is the fulfillment of all the Promises of God, in every mention of the Gospel of Christ throughout Redemptive History.

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.

I agree their names were written in Heaven, I just don't agree that...they went there when they died. The Old Testament Saint, that is. The disciples died after the Cross, so they did.

Job didn't. Abraham didn't. Noah didn't. And no...Enoch and Elijah didn't either.

Eternal Life has one source...God. God manifested in the flesh and came to this world to bestow the True Bread. That Bread was not available before the Incarnation.

Their salvation was secure because they were Justified through faith, but, that was based on the Grace of God, Who did not exact from them the penalty of their sin, which was not atoned for until Christ died for them.

One more time, I ask you to reconsider your understanding of a very simple statement:


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)


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

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


You have consistently taught that men had the eternal indwelling, and that they had the Spirit of God spoken of here and in Christ's other teachings, quite in contradiction with Scripture. While the Spirit of God ministered in men without question, that does not justify nullifying the distinctions Christ makes in regards to the Comforter. He is the Promised Spirit we receive when we believe on Christ, and that did not take place in the Old Testament. To teach that it did contradicts the very teachings of Christ.

Lastly, as mentioned many times, you yourself have to admit that men can be saved apart from receiving, in their physical lives, the Promised Spirit and regeneration. That happens when infants die. That is precisely what happened when Old Testament Saints died. They benefited from the Grace of God just as the infant does.


God bless.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed some time after 8pm Pacific.