I thought I'd respond to Tim's infant question, but unfortunately to get to it we'll have to go through some of his principle beliefs. Basically he's obsessed
with concepts he has developed about the law-- and applies it across everything (including salvation).
On his about page he states this:
Tim Alleman is an author and researcher. He has studied New Testament Koine Greek for over two decades and is the author of The Principled Legal Standard for the First Genuine Doctrinal Reformation of the Church.
if we pop over to his doctrines page:
Whether a person is undergoing punishment or is awaiting to be punished for criminal offenses that were completely avoidable, the criminal offender may repent of his preference for lawlessness and turn to God, even if he still has punishment to undergo for prior offenses.
Metanoia is *not* "repent" (repent or re-penance is an English word masked on top of metanoia that was derived when Catholics had to do penance for their sins). Anyone who has studied Greek for a few days should know that metanoia is composed of META and NOUS. Which if we were to do a literal translation would be "mind change". The English
word repent is not a word found in the Bible... ANYWHERE. No Christian (especially one that studies Greek) has an excuse to use it. Humorously he shows disdain for the "traditional church" yet utilizes their vocabulary occasionally.
On his book the "principled legal standard" he states everywhere on the webpages and on the book itself (and this is important to keep in mind when reading any of his material):
The original doctrines lost for nearly 1700 years have finally been reconstructed.
Any Christian who loudly exclaims they have found secret knowledge that was forgotten, especially for 1700 years
-- is basically making themselves a prophet or a pope. Nobody who is sane will ever make a claim like that: sure knowledge can be forgotten, but to proclaim YOU for the first time have REDISCOVERED everything (all of the "lost doctrines")? Give me a break. Furthermore it defies how God orchestrates time, if people had lost doctrines for that long, planet earth would have been aborted. And if you read his book, apparently he alienated everyone around him after enforcing a lot of his bizarre conclusions-- so he only had (apparently) one student remaining that was faithful to him. Of course when people get like that they blame others for not "being in the truth" when the reality is, it's because they're unpleasant people unwilling to listen to anyone.
Next we'll need to understand how he defines salvation and what he believes, we'll take a look at the video "can salvation be lost":
First and foremost salvation can't be lost. But he doesn't actually believe that salvation consists of *believe* (believe that Christ paid for your sins):
What are we delivered from? slavery of the flesh... the idea of the true circumcision is putting off of the flesh... and so I don't know how you go back into ignorance, how do you forget what you've learned. You know what the problem is with a lot of people, they haven't learnedthe right stuff to begin with, so they're not really delivered. I mean if you have false doctrines you're still suffering from ignorance: you see, those that are deceived. But once you do get the truth, I would like to know how you go back to ignorance. Well you really can't, can you. And being enslaved to the flesh, I would like to know how you get re-enslaved to it.
Salvation is not "putting off the flesh".
I've looked through his other writings and they always emphasize learning--and in this case putting off the flesh. Okay, salvation isn't about how much you know or if you know it, it's about believing that Christ paid for your sins:
NIV 2 Timothy 3:7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
BGT 2 Timothy 3:7 πάντοτε μανθάνοντα καὶ μηδέποτε εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν δυνάμενα.
NIV John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."
BGT John 6:40 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
There's no mention of "putting off the flesh" as a requirement for salvation or being associated to salvation. And notice he uses a prependism for a "true" circumcision (there's no such thing). He doesn't understand the doctrines of the refilling of the spirit-- so being re-filled vs. un-filled:
NIV Romans 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
BGT Romans 8:4 ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα.
If *you* had to "put off the flesh" (as an action for salvation), that wouldn't be living in the spirit anyways-- since you would be bypassing 1 John 1:9.
NIV 2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?
BGT 2 Corinthians 13:5 Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε· ἢ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετε ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν; εἰ μήτι ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε.
KJV Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
BGT Ephesians 5:18 καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι,
KJV Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
BGT Romans 7:14 Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν, ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν.
So yeah, putting off the flesh has NOTHING to do with salvation, but being re-filled in the spirit (1 John 1:9) and learning Bible Doctrine. It's post-salvation. None of that is pre-salvation, it can't be and would be ridiculous to claim. A new believer isn't going to KNOW the Bible in and out, and they WILL make mistakes. But Tim here says they have to instantaneously know "all true doctrines" and be "delivered from the flesh" (of course he associates that to a "work of God", but it's not that would be a work of yourself).
He continues (in regards to the unforgivable sin):
If a man actually did turn away from the truth on purpose, lie against the truth on purpose... one could argue well he deserves what he gets. But I would say this, there is something called maturity, and it's volition maturity and it has to do with the person's preference. And people make up their minds and they are not going to change.
The unforgivable sin is *never having believed (Christ paid for your sins)*! That's just it. It has nothing to do with *post* salvation or *post* maturity. It has nothing to do with believers... but unbelievers who *never* believe, that can't be forgiven since they haven't believed.
Christ explains that a Type 2 believer is one who believes for awhile (and gets saved as a result of that belief), but later switched to unbelief, so they're STILL SAVED but spiritually on standby, so they're carnal:
NIV Luke 8:13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.
BGT Luke 8:13 οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας οἳ ὅταν ἀκούσωσιν μετὰ χαρᾶς δέχονται τὸν λόγον, καὶ οὗτοι ῥίζαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν, οἳ πρὸς καιρὸν πιστεύουσιν καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται.
So let's pop over into one last video:
He goes between the difference between faith alone vs faith plus works. For starters PISTIS is not "faith" when used in this context, IT'S BELIEVE
. I guess those two decades of Koine Greek aren't
paying off. To be fair he's parroting the terminologies of the common argument, but he never corrects it. Then he states salvation is: "deliverance from the satanic accusation"
. There's the money shot. He goes on to say that this means you need to be delivered "from the flesh" and "false doctrines". The problem with this is that... all of that is POST-SALVATION, and it has nothing to do *with* salvation directly.
So he makes salvation a 'work' that requires YOU to instantaneously have all "true doctrines" in your frontal lobe and be delivered from "the flesh". His definition of salvation isn't belief + 0... nor does he ever say "believe Christ paid for your sins", as you'll notice.
Now we can get to the primary question (unfortunately he removed all of his responses so this is all I can comment on):
The question I asked was pertaining to what infants & those with mental defect, have done themselves that they can be held responsible for, that they could have avoided, which calls for them to be deserving of suffering infinite wrath, nailed to trees, agonizing suffering and a horrid death
For starters infants who die prematurely or those with a severe mental defect are auto-saved. So that's not an issue.
Fact: Everyone is born spiritually dead in the human body
Fact: God provided salvation, so it's not an issue
However because Tim doesn't believe salvation is by belief (and instead by "deliverance from the satanic accusation"), he will never come to that conclusion.
I am not sure whether or not he's saying that the infants / mentally ill would have to be nailed to crosses to pay for their sins-- I suppose he doesn't understand that *only* Christ could pay for sins (since as already mentioned everyone is born spiritually dead in a human body). Christ paid for sins with his thinking (blood), not physical blood:
NIV 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
BGT 1 Peter 3:18 ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι·
Because if we jump to Luke:
NIV Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
BGT Luke 23:46 καὶ φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. τοῦτο δὲ εἰπὼν ἐξέπνευσεν.
THAT moment is when sins were paid for... notice it wasn't the physical death.
So... Tim doesn't even understand how Christ paid for sins or salvation, it seems. But like any works salvation Christian, he IMMEDIATELY jumps to the "worst possible case" and uses that to defame common logic.
The answer is NOTHING, NADA ZIP. Infants have done nothing and are not able to do anything that they can be held accountable for, hauled into criminal court for, let alone be judged to be deserving of infinite suffering, agonizing death, etc.
As mentioned previously, Christ paid with his thinking and not physical death-- so if we were to take Tim's perspective it still wouldn't make sense SINCE A PHYSICAL AGONIZING DEATH CAN'T
PAY FOR SINS! Christ's physical death or our physical death would mean nothing
for a payment. Only Christ's thinking could pay for our sins.