Man's relationship to God today

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Jun 29, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,149
    Likes Received:
    207
    Today, is there a natural born human being who is neither lost or saved? Is there a natural born human being who is neither regenerate or unregenerate? Is there a natural human being neither "in the flesh" or "in the Spirit"? Is there a natural human being who is neither in the kingdom of Satan or the kingdom of God's dear Son? Is there a natural born human being who is neither a sinner or a saint? Is there a natural born human being who is neither condemned or justified? Is there a natural born human being who is neither spiritually separated from God or in union with God? Does such a natural born human being exist today? If sin and spiritual separation is the common lot of all natural born human beings is it possible for such a natural born human being to ever exist that could not be characterized by one or the other of these contrasting conditions? For example, could a natural born human being at any period in history be anything but lost, unregenerate, in the flesh, in the kingdom of Satan, a sinner, condemned, spiritually separated from God???? Is it possible that any natural born human being who is a sinner and spiritually separated from God be considered anything less than all of these characteristic since such characteristics today inherently demand these characteristics or are there two different kinds of natural born human beings existing, one kind before the cross and another kind after the cross??? For example, if a natural born human being could not be characterized by these negatives does not that automatically demand they must be characterized by those characteristics listed above which are in contrast to those negatives?

    Can any human being today be said to be "saved" who is spiritually separated from God, thus WITHOUT GOD. Can any human being today be said to be "saved" who is not justified by faith, thus still in sin and still condemned by sin? Can any human being today be said to be "saved" whose sins are not remitted? Can any human being today be said to be "saved" who is without righteousness before God? If sin and spiritual separation is the common lot of all natural born humans in all ages, is it possible for such a natural born human being could be regarded as "saved" but WITHOUT GOD = spiritually separated from God, "saved" but STILL IN THEIR SINS?

    Is it possible that animals sacrifices could ever LITERALLY atone for human sin? If the first sacrifice of a lamb in the Bible by Abel did not procures remission of sins but only gave "witness" that he was already righteous by faith in the gospel promise:

    1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
    2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
    3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
    4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.


    Therefore, his justified condition (righteousness) before God was not obtained by the sacrifice but the sacrifice obtained only the "witness" that he "WAS" already justified "by faith" before he offered the sacrifice. Hence, the sacrifices were like baptism and the Lord's Supper - DECLARATIVE rather than sacramental in obtaining justification (remission of sins and righteousness).

    If it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could ever take away sins (Heb. 10:4) LITERALLY but were only a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1) removal, thus CEREMONIAL or TYPICAL, then how could the prophets speak in the present tense that God had removed their sins from them "as far as the East is from the West" and "remember them no more" and David claim to be "the blessed man" who possessed present tense forgiveness of sins then and forever (Rom. 4:6-8)?

    As you consider these questions, how is it possible that any human being living prior to Pentecost could be set forth as not only OUR EXAMPLE for justification "before God" by faith but also THE EXAMPLE for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regard to justification "before God" if there sins could not be remitted, thus they could not actually be justified "before God" as supposedly only we can after the cross?

    If the problem is indwelling sin and its power coupled with spiritual separation as its consequence, how can there be any kind of present tense salvation where the power of indwelling sin and spiritual separation from God REMAINS? How can there be any kind of progressive sanctification? How can there be any "fruit of the Spirit" such as "joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, gentleness" if there is no indwelling Spirit or no regenerate new nature like God's nature? How can any such human "walk with God" or be called "the friend of God" if indwelling sin and spiritual separation from God is their actual condition?

    I declare that there can't be any kind of salvation existing in such a state at any time in history and that salvation has always been the same and equal to the problem of sin and spiritual separation. Only those who embrace the false doctrine of church salvation (universal church theories - visible and invisible) teach contrariwise and must because their salvation is inseparable from the church by their perverted view of the baptism in the Spirit which both are 4000 years too late for the problem of sin and spiritual separation from God. I say that the elect, all of the elect from Genesis to Revelation were chosen "in him" before the world began (Eph. 1:4) and outside of him there is no salvation, no gospel or good news for anyone at any time. I say those who oppose this eternal truth fail to distinguish between things that differ, namely, the difference between individual (1 Cor. 6:19) and institutional indwelling (1 Cor. 3:16). I say they fail to understand the "mystery" of the gospel which has nothing to do about the APPLICATION or SUFFICIENCY of the gospel salvation at any time in history from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 14:6 but has to do with the revealed means of Christ's death "the cross") and the revealed equality of gentiles in the kingdom of God through the great Commission (Eph. 3;1-5) and other revelatory details, but absolutely nothing to do with salvation application before or after the cross.

    I say that if justification which is based solely on the cross can be applied to individuals BEFORE the cross so can any other aspect of salvation with the lone exception of final salvation or being made "perfect" in spirit, soul and body (Heb. 11:39-40).
     
    #1 The Biblicist, Jun 29, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2016
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,149
    Likes Received:
    207
    The whole debate revolves around the issue of applying anything prior to the life of Christ that was actually dependent upon the life, death and resurrection of Christ..

    The problem is universal and the same before and after the coming of Christ, which is sin and spiritual separation as these things are inherent in the fallen nature in all natural born human beings.

    Does "saved" and "justified" when used of pre-cross persons contain the same meaning as for post-cross persons? Do these terms refer to the same problem (sin and spiritual separation) or are they applied to some other problem that post-cross persons do not have?

    When we use the term "saved" (past tense) by New Testament definition it refers to regeneration and justification. When we use the term "save" (present tense) it refers to progressive sanctification or the Holy Spirit working out the new nature received in regeneration. When we use the terms "shall be saved" we are referring to the future glorification of the body.

    Now, there is no disagreement about the future tense "shall be saved" application. However, those who deny regeneration/spiritual union or justification is the content of the word "saved" or "justified" when used of pre-cross persons must provide some Biblical content to define what these terms mean? If they are defined by New Testament scriptures they mean regeneration/spiritual union and remission of sins and the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, thus "saved" (regeneration and justification).

    However, the content meaning of these terms must be rejected by those who demand no application of the life, death and resurrection of Christ can precede his incarnation. Yet, Paul demands that the New Testament content of these terms are applied previous to the incarnation and he uses Abraham and David as examples for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regard to justification. He explicitly uses the present tense application to their lives (Rom. 4:5-6a) as well as the future tense denial that sin can be imputed to them once becoming believers (Rom. 4:6b) and that this is a completed action prior to either one submitting to divine ordinances (Rom. 4:9-11). He defines the "faith" or the act of believing, which God imputes righteousness, to have for its sole object Christ as preached in the pre-cross gospel (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-26; Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2) as does Peter (Acts 10:43).

    Therefore, the application is not based upon the actual provision being first in time, but upon the promise of God which is based upon "the blood of the everlasting covenant" or his purpose of redemption. The event in time merely "justifies" God's application prior to the cross:

    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.


    No one can dispute that sin and spiritual separation is the universal problem between fallen man and God. No one can dispute the term "justified before God" can only mean that problem is resolved. Yet it was not resolved by animal sacrifices or divine ordinances (Rom. 4:9-11; 12-15). The law could not justify anyone before God then or now and never was designed to do so. Therefore, this justification and "saved" condition cannot be a result of obedience to the Law, ceremonial law (sacrifices) or moral law. The New Testament writers consistently say it was due to "faith" in the gospel of Christ as preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2).
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,149
    Likes Received:
    207
    The "old" versus the "new" covenant when properly understood does not pose any problems to the view I am setting forth.

    For example, the book of Hebrews was written in the middle or late A.D. 60's when the temple was still standing in Jerusalem. Therefore, going back under the "old" covenant meant only going back under the VISIBLE ADMINISTRATION of the "old" Covenant because the "old" covenant could never justify anyone at any time in history because it was never designed for that purpose.

    It was designed to be a "shadow" (Heb. 10:1) or an external type that would be fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Those who practiced these "shadow" ordinances did not do it to LITERALLY obtain either salvation (regeneration/justification) but were to do it because they already were saved (regenerated/justified) by faith and their obedience to such types simply gave "witness" that they were already righteous (imparted and imputed righteousness) as clearly stated in Hebrews 11:4 concerning the first prophet and first recorded sacrifice.

    Hence, the purpose of the "old" covenant prior to the coming of Christ was to define sin and lead them to faith in the coming Christ as presented in the pre-cross gospel as preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43; Gal. 3:20-25).

    When the writer of Hebrews speaks of the "new" covenant, he is also referring to the VISIBLE ADMINISTRATION of that covenant. Some had forsaken the assembling of themselves (Heb. 10:25) which was the visible forsaking of the "new" covenant administration. The visible administration of the "new" covenant saves no one any more than the visible administration of the "old" covenant did (Heb. 9:1). What saves is the Person and work of Christ which fulfilled the "old" covenant types and is what the "new" covenant administration declares to be the fulfillment.

    God is the author of both covenant administrations and God is not the author of confusion. Both covenants are based upon "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20). Both manifest the "the blood of the everlasting covenant." The Abrahamic covenant illustrates the personal application of "the blood of the everlasting covenant." The "old" covenant provides the external typical application of "the blood of the everlasting covenant." The "old" covenant declares the holiness/righteousness of God "in Christ" through the sacrificial types of Christ that anticipate the first coming of Christ. The "new" covenant declares those types as fulfilled and anticipates the second coming of Christ but both proclaim the very same gospel. The "new" replaces the "old" because the "new" is based upon fulfillment rather than anticipation of the redemptive work and therefore it is a "better" covenant, not because it declares another gospel, but because declares the same gospel "better" than did the "old" as fulfillment is better than anticipated types of the fulfillment. Both declare the very same gospel (heb. 4:2).

    The actual provision by Christ does not repudiate the gospel declared in the "old" covenant but compliments it by fulfilling it.

    The invalidation of the temple, priesthood and ordinances by the life, death and resurrection of Christ is due to Christ fulfilling them not because they are flawed gospel declarations. The actual provision of the Person and redemptive work of Christ is salvation, but does not invalidate the application of that salvation by faith previous to that provision but rather justifies God's application of it before the provision was made. The application was obtained on the basis of faith in God's promise it would be made in keeping with the "everlasting covenant" which transcends time.
     
  4. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    What about infants? Are they safe?
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,149
    Likes Received:
    207
    The question is somewhat off the topic but I will be glad to give you my view. Yes, I believe all who are born into this world without the capability of discerning good and evil and die in that state are saved "in Christ" just as they were condemned "in Adam." Paul says where sin abounded, grace did MUCH MORE abound. Jesus said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven" and David said that of his infant dead uncircumcised child that he would go to be with him (Septuagint renders it "go beyond to him"). The Holy Spirit revealed Christ (regeneration - 2 Cor. 4:6) to John the Baptist while he was yet in the womb and filled with the Spirit from the womb proving that God can save infants in the womb, much less infants outside the womb. No natural born human will enter heaven, so they too must be regenerated (revelation) and brought into spiritual union with God in connection with the gospel. God preached the gospel to Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15) and unto Abraham (Gal. 3:8) and therefore he can just as easily do the same to those who die in the state of inability to discern good from evil.

    Finally, ETERNAL judgement is based upon OUR WORKS DONE IN OUR OWN BODY (Rev. 20:12-15) and discernment between good and evil is necessary for such works to exist. Infants dying in the womb have no such works, and infants dying outside the womb have no such works. Original sin is sufficient to bring them under TEMPORAL condemnation because of participation as one human nature in the body of Adam, but original sin is not sufficient to bring them under eternal condemnation as that is reserved for individual sins on the day of judgement. John the Baptist said "behold the lamb of God that taketh away THE SIN of the world." I don't believe anyone will be condemned to hell for the singular sin of Adam, as Christ removed eternal condemnation for that sin, but did not remove the penalty of sins for the non-elect. Death is appointed by God (heb. 9:27) and God has appointed the death of infants and all who are without ability to discern good from evil. I believe all of these are part of those chosen in Christ before the world began and that is why where sin abounded GRACE DID MUCH MORE ABOUND, and those in heaven will outnumber those in hell.

    PLEASE IF ANYONE WANTS TO DISPUTE THIS LET US DO IT ON A THREAD DEDICATED TO THAT SUBJECT AND NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD.
     
  6. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    The simple answer is yes, but we have to keep in mind why they are "safe."

    Infants are just as separated from God as the adult that has not been brought into relationship with God.

    The good news is that God has always judged men according to their response to the revelation He has provided them, no matter what Age that falls in, and to what extent the revelation has progressed. For example, we understand that God revealed to Adam that which he was to accomplish, and that which he was not to do. Adam was judged according to that revealed to him when he sinned.

    So I would not view infants as being "safe" as though they have an innocence which nullifies the condition of separation they are born into. What they do benefit from, even though separated from God, is of course the same thing that the Old Testament Saint benefited from...

    ...the Grace of God.

    It was the Grace of God that allowed for man to continue living without the Penalty of sin being exacted at the time of the sin. It was the Grace of God that allowed Old Testament Saints to first receive the revelation of God, then be judged according to their response, and this too warranted more credit to God's Grace, because no-one actually kept God's will perfectly.

    And it was the Grace of God that made provision for the Old Testament Saint, who died apart from having their sins redeemed, not to go into eternity with no hope of eternal redemption. It was because of their response to that revelation, a response of faith and obedience, that God judged them and justified them. They died in faith, not having received the promise of eternal inheritance, but ensured of it.

    The infant that dies benefits from that same grace. God will be just to judge them according to their response to the revelation He has provided, and the simple truth is that they never progress to the point where they can respond. That does not mean they are "safe" because they are innocent, because that is not their problem. Again, their problem is separation from God, and sin is a consequence of that separation, rather than the cause. So I think we have to be careful to give God the Glory for His grace, rather than embrace a system that perhaps unwittingly teaches a good/bad grading scale which determines whether one will be saved or lost.

    So we see an example in the infant that dies of someone that is not "saved" yet will not enter into eternal separation. They do not hear the Word of God, nor do they respond to the Word of God, yet God's Grace does not fail them, and those infants will be saved. This is not identical to the Old Testament Saint, but the principle is the same. Just like the infant, they enjoyed Eternal Security based on God's judgment concerning their response to the revelation provided them. That does not nullify the fact that they still awaited eternal redemption, and died not having their sins atoned for. The last sacrifice great men of faith like Noah, Abraham, David, and even John the Baptist would have offered up would have been those sacrifices commanded by God for the purpose of the temporary and temporal remission of sins they provided.

    Those sacrifices did not remove their sin.

    The same is true for the infant, they die apart from the Sacrifice of Christ being applied to their behalf in the standard procedure that it is in this Age. That is, men hear the Gospel, are led to conviction by the Comforter, and respond to that revelatory work of God. Some will receive Christ, more will reject Him (Christ taught a many/few ratio), but, it is when men turn to Christ that we see the New Covenant standard of salvation, and it is at that time men are saved.

    So do we say the infant that dies was not saved? Basically...yes. But are they saved? Yes, and this according to the Grace of God, and His Just nature in dealing with men.


    God bless.
     
  7. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Why would whether infants are "safe" or not be off topic?


    God bless.
     
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    An infant that dies at the hands of a murderer, the infant is elect regardless of whether the parents are elect, yes?
     
  9. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Through my own studies it is my personal belief that, yes, God has chosen to bestow grace upon those that fall victim to the consequences of sin before they can personally become culpable for sin, which, as I mentioned before, is the consequence of separation from God.

    It is the same principle applied to the Old Testament Saint, differing only in the aspect of temporal existence, where the Old Testament Saint received revelation from God and was judged according to their response to that revelation. Doesn't mean the Old Testament Saint was declared righteous because they were righteous, but because they obeyed through faith. Both the infant and the Old Testament Saint still had/have to have their sins forgiven through Christ.

    If we equate the bestowal of God's grace with a literal righteousness, we nullify Grace altogether. It suggests that imperfect obedience to incomplete revelation is sufficient and equable to the obedience and righteousness of Christ. It is not.

    And that is why we call it grace.


    God bless.
     
  10. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    The Justification of the Old Testament Saint was not based on the Cross, it was based on faith evidenced in obedience to God.

    Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the thinigs hoped for is...the substance. The reality.

    We can't equate the two.


    And I praise God I have not obtained a good report, but eternal redemption in Christ. I have that which the Old Testament Saint died without.

    Faith demands imperfect knowledge, else it ceases to be faith. Blessed is he that has not seen and believes.


    So do we equate the righteousness of Christ to the righteousness of Abel, who was obedient to offer up acceptable sacrifice for his sin? The answer is no. Neither that sacrifice nor his obedience can in any way be compared to the Sacrifice and Righteousness of Christ. We see numerous men (and women) declared righteous in Scripture, yet that righteousness is temporal, not eternal.


    Continued...
     
  11. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    A quick look at what the Writer of Hebrews means concerning perfection:


    Hebrews 7:11-12

    King James Version (KJV)


    11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

    12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.



    The context seeks to point out that the Priesthood of the Law has a superior in the temporal realm in Melchisadec, which goes further to point out that Christ's Priesthood is superior to that of the Levitical Priesthood. We could actually expand the fuller context back to the beginning of Chapter 5, where the teaching concerning Christ's Priesthood and it's superiority over that of the Priesthood of the Law (the entire Book seeks to convince First Century Hebrews entrenched in the Law that they are to advance to that which is Complete, that is, the New Covenant) is interupted by a severe rebuke at the infantile understanding these Jews were possessed of. Perfection is exhorted there too, and we will get to that.

    The point here, as it is in other places, is that the services of the Levitical Priesthood could not bring to an end, or make complete, the services it was designed to perform, which is namely the remission of sins and deals directly with man's relationship with God. The Levitical Priest stood in the position of mediator. A simple description given often is "a Priest is someone that speaks to God for man, and a Prophet is someone who speaks to men for God." That is an apt definition.

    And here, the question is asked, "If that Priesthood made men complete...why would God change that Prisethood?"

    The demanded response is that this is the point...it could not make men complete.


    Hebrews 7:18-19

    King James Version (KJV)


    18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

    19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.



    (I have left out..

    g3762

    οὐδείς oudeis

    ...for the sake of brevity)


    The point is, the Law made nothing, and no man perfect, or, complete, and here we are told there was a weakness and unprofitable nature to it, which is primarily found in man, rather than the Covenant, as is testified of elsewhere.

    Now, notice that the "bringing in of a better hope does in fact make perfect. That cannot be denied when we understand the Writer in the fuller context of this Epistle.

    And that is how...we draw nigh unto God, through that which replaced that which was disannulled, that is the Commandment that went before.

    Now, we take a look at the exhortation of the Writer to his Hebrew brethren:


    Hebrews 6

    King James Version (KJV)


    1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

    2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

    3 And this will we do, if God permit.



    If we back up to Chapter Five, we see the Writer want to instruct them concerning Christ's Priesthood, but, He cannot. He must first rebuke them concerning their understanding of the First Principles of the Oracles of God (the Word of God they had, the Hebrew Scriptures), and then exhort them to go on unto Perfection...which is found in Christ and the New Covenant relationship now available to them. They are told not to lay again that which is foundational, which in regards to Christ would be accomplished by continuing to seek to be in relationship with God through the Law, which God has abrogated and nullified as the means of relationship with Himself.

    All Old Testament Saints lacked that perfection, and were under economies that provided temporal and foundational provision not to be compared with that which is Perfect, or, Complete.

    So when we look into Chapter 11, we do not dismiss everything the Writer speaks about in regards to Perfection, and what that relates to. Written into the Promise of the New Covenant is remission of sins in completion, as contrasted with the incomplete nature of remission of sins which was provided through sacrifices associated with Pre-New Covenant economies. That is why the Writer will say that the SAcrifice of Christ speaks better things than that of the sprinkling of blood of Abel. So he (the Writer, and ultimately the Holy Ghost) makes if clear that starting with vicarious sacrifice offered by Abel, all the way through to the very last acceptable sacrifice offered through the Covenant of Law...none of them could make perfect the one offering it, or the one who it was offered for.

    Two more passages I will present for now, which does not exhaust our look at Perfection, but with distinction drives home the Writer's point:


    Hebrews 10

    King James Version (KJV)


    1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

    2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

    3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

    4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.



    (I have left off...

    g4334
    προσέρχομαι proserchomai

    ...for the sake of brevity)


    The simple point he makes here is that the Law only contained a shadow of the good things to come (which places the good things in a category of promised yet not received while the promise remained) and could never, with those sacrifices...make the comer thereunto (those approaching in relationship to what the services offered) perfect.

    It did not make them complete, and here, in this chapter, the context is that of remission of sins.

    He hammers it home by saying "For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins."

    What that means is that though they received remission of sins, it was not complete.

    Now, contrast that with the New Covenant believer, sanctified by the Sacrifice of Christ:


    Hebrews 10:10-14

    King James Version (KJV)


    10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

    12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

    13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

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



    This is, in my personal opinion, the clearest statement of Eternal Security in all of Scripture.

    The First Century audience would have understood what the Writer was teaching, though for us, because we have the issue of wading through the modern connotations associated with words like perfect. Because we understand, that though we are saved, we are not perfect in practice, the idea that a believer can be called perfect seems to bring contradiction. But if we understand that Perfection is in relationship to our relationship with God, rather than our temporal existence (where none of us are "perfect"), then we understand the immensity of the teaching of Hebrews.

    When we understand that because we have been sanctified by Christ's sacrifice, rather than through the offering that precede the New Covenant relationship, and that we are made perfect/complete in regards to remission of sins, we begin to understand the magnitude of God's salvation in Christ. While we still see the distinctions between the temporal and eternal perspectives that are given in regards to our relationship, we must first understand that when we have been forgiven by God, it is, as He promised...complete. He really does not remember our sins any more. But that is from the eternal perspective,and does not nullify judgment in the temporal. It is not a license for sin, but the opposite, it should generate gratitude on our parts and drive us to live in a manner pleasing to God. "Be ye holy, for God is holy..." applies in the temporal. Being holy by declaration of God is an eternal declaration.

    When we understand what the Writer is teaching, we can better understand the relationship of God and man in previous economies. Yes, men were in relationship with God in the Old Testament. Yes, men were ministered to by the Holy Spirit, and everything which pertained to that which belongs in the category of the spiritual things of God was revealed by Him at all times.

    But, the Old Testament was not made perfect, because the Law could not accomplish that which only Christ, when He came...could do. The Old Testament Saint died not having been made perfect, but, they have been made perfect through Christ's Sacrifice.


    God bless.
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,149
    Likes Received:
    207
    As you can see Darrell does not believe Old Testament believers were justified by grace without works through faith in Christ but he believes they were justified on the basis of faith PLUS obedience as he says:

    The Justification of the Old Testament Saint was not based on the Cross, it was based on faith evidenced in obedience to God. - Darrell

    He says they died unforgiven of their sins:

    And I praise God I have not obtained a good report, but eternal redemption in Christ. I have that which the Old Testament Saint died without. - Darrell

    However, both of these statements are flatly contradicted by inspired writers of Scripture: They did receive remission of sins and therefore did not die without redemption from sin:

    Rom. 4:7
    Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
    8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

    Paul is quoting David to prove his point about Abraham being justified without works and David used the PRESENT TENSES as underlined above showing present possession of remission of sins. David makes this crystal clear:

    Ps 103:12
    As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.


    Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

    And on what basis were their sins forgiven, blotted out, removed from them as far as the east is from the west? Just mere faith? NO! It was faith in Christ as proclaimed by all the prophets:

    To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. - Acts 10:43

    Darrell does not believe Peter or Paul when they both claim the same essential gospel of Christ was preached and believed by Old Testament saints by which they obtained remission of sins.

    Darrell says it was not God's righteousness (which is the righteousness of Christ) but their own righteousness that justified them and I quote:

    So do we equate the righteousness of Christ to the righteousness of Abel, who was obedient to offer up acceptable sacrifice for his sin? The answer is no. - Darrell

    In other words Darrell is clearly teaching that Old Testament saints were justified by their own good works or their own righteousness as it is manifested in good works. However, Paul repudiates this when speaking of both Abraham and David:

    4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
    5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
    6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,


    Notice that the "faith" which is imputed righteousness is not mere faith, but a faith which has a specific object "on him" just as Peter defines it in Acts 1043 "whosoever believeth IN HIM" just as Paul has already predefined it in this context:

    Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
    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.


    Jesus plainly tells us that Abraham "saw" Christ's day by faith (Jn. 8:58) and Paul tells us plainly that God preached the gospel of Christ or the promised "seed" to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) and Paul plainly concludes his illustration of Abraham as the father "of all who are of faith" that is all who are of faith "in Christ" by saying:

    23 ¶ Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
    24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;


    Note the exact wording describing the object of justifying faith "believe on him" just as in Romans 4:5 "believeth ON HIM" thus same faith, same object of faith, same gospel of faith. You see Abraham was "in Christ" by faith based on justification (positionally in Christ) and regeneratively ("created in Christ") as Paul says:

    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. - Gal. 3:17

    430 years before the law was given unto Moses, God made a covenant (the blood of the everlasting covenant) with Abraham "in Christ" as that is the only covenant of salvation God has or will ever have.

    Darrell's use of terms like "justified" and "saved" for Old Testament saints are EMPTY words. He does not understand what those terms mean as they only have meaning in relationship to universal sin and spiritual separation from God. He does not understand the purpose of the Law or the purpose of sacrifices. He actually thinks they are the basis for justification and faith in the Old Testament. However, they are mere types and understood as mere types that manifest Old Testament believer's faith IN CHRIST as preached by all the prophets - Acts 10:43; Heb.42: Acts 26:22-23.

    In other words, born again, justified believers offered up sacrifices to bear "WITNESS" of their already regenerated, justified condition as believers in the coming Christ.

    One thing Darrel is right about, God regenerated and justified them "according to the revelation" provided them. Since Genesis 3:15 the gospel has been preached. It was the promised "seed" that would destroy Satan and thus redeem them from sin in Genesis 3:15 that was the object of justifying faith and it was this faith being declared by the sacrifice of Abel. It was this promised "seed" of a redeemer that Abraham believed in (Gal. 3:8). At about the same time Abraham lived, Job also lived and knew Christ as "my redeemer" (Job 19). This gospel was gradually expanded with progressive revelation until Jesus came and then it was fully expanded as found in the "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However, Job believed in this promised seed as his "redeemer."

    Darrells' foolish attempt to claim that this was not the same gospel is not only repudiated explicitly by the writer of Hebrews when he says:

    Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

    (continued)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,149
    Likes Received:
    207
    But Paul claims that the gospel he preached was "according to the Scriptures" and the very same gospel preached by Isaiah:

    But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

    Did Isaiah preach the same gospel of redemption in Christ? Yes, he did:



    1 ¶ Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
    2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
    3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
    4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
    5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
    6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
    7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
    8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
    9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
    10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
    11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
    12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


    1. Notice, this is the gospel about a man "HE....him.....him...he...he."

    2. Notice this is a gospel about a substitutionary redeemer of our sins -"for our transgressions..for our iniquities...laid on him the iniquity of us all...make his soul an offering for sin...he shall bear the sins of many....he shall bear their iniquities"

    3. Notice this is a gospel about his death, burial and resurrection "brought as a lamb to the slaughter....made his grave with the wicked and with the rich....in his death.....unto death" " he shall prolong his days"

    4. Notice this is a gospel that justifies "my righteous servant shall JUSTIFY many" thus repudiating Darrell's claims that Christ death was not the basis for justification by faith previous to the cross.

    Did Isaiah and David at least understand the basics of this gospel of a redeemer from their sins by faith? Peter says they did:

    Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
    31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption
    .

    Peter admits they did not understand everything they predicted but they did understand the basic good news of a coming redeemer and that by faith they could right then be justified by faith before God by receiving this gospel. The writer of Hebrews admits this and blames the Jews who died in the wilderness for not believing the gospel in their hearts:

    For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. - Heb. 4:2

    The sufficiency of the gospel was not the problem but the lack of belief was the problem. Isaiah claims the same thing. He claimed he preached this same gospel but the nation of Israel as a whole would not "believe" it:

    Isaiah 53: 1 ¶ Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

    Job claimed to have believed the essence of the gospel:

    23 ¶ Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
    24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
    25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
    26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
    27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.


    Job lived about the same time as Abraham and shows how much of the gospel they understood - enough to be justified by faith "in Christ".

    No, they did not understand about the precise instrument of death ("the cross"). No, they did not understand that gentiles would be brought to equal relationship with the Jews in both salvation and service as THEY WERE GENTILES long before the Jews existed. No, these things were MYSTERIES yet unrevealed. However, what was revealed was sufficient for faith "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) and justification by faith.

    What Darrell does not undertand is that "justification" IS remission of sins and IS the righteousness of God imputed to them on the basis of faith "on him" or "in him". Is he going to keep rattling off his misintepretations of the law, of sacrifices? Yes, but just reread these two last posts and you will be able to see his views are all misinterpretations of God's Word.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,149
    Likes Received:
    207
    Here is all you have to know in order to expose Darrells' position as false. Most Bible scholars recognize the book of Job as the earliest written book in the Bible. Most believe he lived about the time of Abraham.

    Darrell argues that neither the gospel of Christ nor justification by faith was based upon the gospel of Christ prior to the cross. He argues that Old Testament believers were justified by their own righteousness manifested by works. This passage by Job is sufficient by itself to complete repudiate Darrell's whole pre-cross soteriology:

    23 ¶ Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
    24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!
    25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
    26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
    27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.


    1. Darrell says they did not know their redeemer but Job says "I KNOW my redeemer"

    2. Darrell says they did not know Christ PRESENTLY in their own life, but Job says "I KNOW my redeemer LIVETH" - present tense

    3. Darrell says that had no present redemption but Job says "I know MY redeemer" and that redemption guaranteed his resurrection over death "after my skin words destroy this body, yet IN MY FLESH shall I see God"

    4. Darrel says they did not know Christ as their redeemer but Job says "I KNOW MY REDEEMER...I shall see GOD:WHOM I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold and not another"

    5. Darrell says they did not have a gospel of redemption through personal faith in a personal redeemer but Job says "I KNOW" that I do.

    6. Darrell says pre-cross believers did not have a gospel sufficient for personal justification by faith in the promised redeemer from the redemption of sin but Job says "I KNOW MY REDEEMER" and He knew what that redemption would ultimately free him from the very presence of sin.

    If Job knew this much about his sin problem and the solution by faith in "my redeemer" and enough about the gospel to realize ultimate victory over indwelling sin and death, then imagine how much more was known by the time of Moses, and then by the time of David and then by the time of Isaiah?

    Job knew more about the essential character of the gospel then Darrell knows now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    And this is the problem with the premise of the OP: today.

    We have already seen the premise defeated in the example of the infant, yet that is overlooked.

    We can create any doctrine and make it seem reasonable...if we first set the qualifications ourselves. But when we allow Scripture to present the qualifications, and we factor all that is relevant into the equation, we can bring out of Scripture the Doctrine it presents.

    To answer a few of these:

    You seem to think there is:



    You seem to think there is:

    You seem to think there is:


    You seem to think there is:

    You seem to think there is:

    You seem to think there is:

    You seem to think there is:

    So why can you not understand how this relates to those who died in faith who were not regenerate, did not have the Eternal Indwelling of God, were not members of the Church, and had not had their sins forgiven?

    And you impose a false concept into your doctrine:


    Sin is not a disease inherited, it is the result of the true problem man is faced with...separation from God.

    Sin determines the level of punishment, but it is separation that is the constant state of men, which is why they are determined to be condemned already.

    Babies do not come into a existence with, as you suggest in your teaching, a "present tense salvation."

    They are separated from God from the first moment of conception until death. That is the condition of all men.

    So how do you reconcile these two very contradicting statements you make in your effort to deny a very simple truth...



    ...?


    God bless.
     
  16. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Scripture refutes this.

    You are looking at the above...

    to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,


    ...as though the remission is past tense. It is not.

    It is saying the same thing the Writer of Hebrews states here:


    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.



    Look at it again:


    Romans 3:24-26

    King James Version (KJV)


    24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

    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.



    Redemption in Christ Jesus is contrasted with redemption under previous economies.

    It is God's forbearance that restrained the penalty of sin being imposed upon men for the sins they committed...that were not redeemed through the blood of bulls and goats.

    Paul is not declaring, "Hey guys, Christ's Sacrifice proves God was remitting sin through the blood of bulls and goats," but rather...

    "...God has at this time declared the Righteousness of Christ to be the means of propitiation through faith...in His Sacrifice. And it is His righteousness through which the sins of the past are forgiven."


    It is an identical statement to Hebrews 9:15.


    God bless.
     
  17. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    No, actually Job did not.

    Job did not have the revelation of the Mysteries of God in order to base his theology on. One simple illustration that evidences a superiority in Soteriological matter sis that Job, as a priest, offered up the sacrifice of animals...hoping that it would cover the sins of his children.

    I, as a Priest, offer up the Sacrifice of Christ...knowing that is brings remission of sins in completion to the one believing on the Name of Christ.

    Big difference.

    Another matter I understand better than Job is that not only do I affirm the Resurrection of the Dead...I know what kind of Body that will be. I know that the Church, which began at Pentecost...will be raised in that glorified body as a whole. Not one member of the Body of Christ will be left behind.

    I know the Order of it. The dead in Christ shall arise, then they which remain shall be caught up.

    I know the order of Resurrection: Christ the Firstfruits, the Firstborn from the Dead, then we the Church, then those who come to saving knowledge during the Tribulation, then finally, that Resurrection Job (and Daniel) only had a limited understanding of, where the dead (those who do not have the Life of Christ) are raised to stand at a judgment and be cast into the Eternal Separation Job did not understand as clearly as I do.

    Again, we see the imposition of revelation for those...who did not have it. Their understanding was foundational in regards to the Doctrine of Christ...ours is complete. There is nothing that is ever going to change about the Redemption we have in Christ, there will never be another Sacrifice that will replace it, as His did every sacrifice offered up in obedience for the temporal covering of sin they provided.

    The concept of pre-application of remission of sins on an eternal basis is a false doctrine that is refuted by Scripture.


    God bless.
     
  18. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Agreed.

    Did the hearer understand it as we do?

    Not at all. The Revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not revealed until Pentecost.

    Isaiah does also say...


    Isaiah 64:4

    King James Version (KJV)

    4 For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.



    And when Paul expounds upon that, it becomes clear that this is the Hidden Wisdom of God, unknown, not just to the princes of this world, but unknown to all men, and revealed by the Spirit of God:


    1 Corinthians 2:5-10

    King James Version (KJV)


    5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

    6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

    7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

    8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

    9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

    10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.



    In both passages the Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed, yet only in this Age is it understood.

    Only in this Age do we see men trusting in Christ, not for temporal blessing and relationship, but for Eternal Relationship with God, which all men are born outside of, for they are separated from God from conception forward.

    But as you have made an allowance for salvation for the infant, understand that the Grace of God has always made allowance for Man.

    That is why men have always been saved by grace through faith.

    And I hate to disappoint you, but I have to be going. I thank you for the OP, as it gives ample opportunity to illustrate the weakness of your position, for we see the contradictions that arise when we step outside of what Scripture actually teaches, and declare that which we think it teaches.

    Thanks also for the following posts, for they too present an opportunity to see the weakness of a view that imposes an identical quality to the redemption enjoyed by the Old Testament Saint, and the Redemption they awaited on.


    God bless.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,149
    Likes Received:
    207
    What can you expect from a person who is simply not honest with God's word? He won't be honest with my words either.

    1. Infants are born condemned under sin and the proof is death. What I said is that they are "saved" WHEN they die and that statement demands they were in a lost condition or else they do not need to be saved at all.

    2. Darrell avoids dealing with my posts as they are written containing the Biblical evidence that supports what I said.

    a. For example I proved that Job did "KNOW" the "essentials" of the gospel of Christ revealed and it is that very "essential" that Darrell denies they could know. Thus Job knew more about the "ESSENTIALS" of the gospel then Darrell knows now. The "mysteries" were not essentials at that point in history. They did not need to know that the "cross" was the instrument of death, only that he would die for their sins. They did not need to know that Gentiles were going to be equal in the house of God (Eph. 3:15) because only Gentiles existed at the time of Job and Abraham.

    b. For example, I proved by scriptures they were "justified by faith" IN HIM not by mere faith evidenced by works which is another way of saying justified by works whereas Abraham said they were justified "WITHOUT works."

    This man has no scrupples about perverting my words or God's Word and he will continue doing it over and over again.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Am I being dishonest to point out the contradiction in these statements...


    The Biblicist said:
    Yes, I believe all who are born into this world without the capability of discerning good and evil and die in that state are saved "in Christ" just as they were condemned "in Adam."

    The Biblicist said:
    If the problem is indwelling sin and its power coupled with spiritual separation as its consequence, how can there be any kind of present tense salvation where the power of indwelling sin and spiritual separation from God REMAINS?


    ...?

    It doesn't matter that you qualify the salvation as "present tense," the point is still...can men be saved that are separated from God.

    All men are conceived in separation from God, and if those separated can be saved by the grace of God though they have not received His Spirit, have not been born again, then you dismantle, with on statement...your entire OP.

    Now you are forced, according to your doctrine, to show how the infant or young child that dies is either regenerated or eternally indwelt.

    Your statement is present tense:


    The Biblicist said:
    Yes, I believe all who are born into this world without the capability of discerning good and evil and die in that state are saved "in Christ" just as they were condemned "in Adam."


    They are saved in Christ, I agree, but...they are not born again or Eternally indwelt while alive. Your entire OP seeks to deny that men can be saved apart from these characteristics of New Covenant salvation in Christ.

    That is the same principle we see in regards to the salvation of the Old Testament Saint.


    God bless.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...