Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
**Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
**New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
**Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
**New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.
I still don't understand how you come up with this notion of Abel being an apostle or prophet. Is this something you read in Scripture? Is it only something that makes sense to you? How does it make sense to you?
What are you talking about here? What are you referring to by "the setting up of a person"?
We don't know that from the text.
Genesis only says that (apparently after*) Enos, men began to call upon the name of the Lord. We don't even know what that means in this context. It could even mean that men began to practice organized religion or even superstitious religion, instead of dealing directly with God as was apparently the case with Adam's early family.
*The sequential placement of "then" in the text may or may not designate just when it began. It could even designate a causal result of the previously mentioned events, time-irrelevant, or maybe Eve's statement of Seth's replacement of Abel. I think you are spiritualizing beyond what is warranted by Scripture.
By the way, you are getting better at writing in an understandable fashion. Thank you for being careful with that.
Eve's statement? We have the statement of Christ as it is written.
I still don't know why it seems you are confused to the meaning of the word apostle. Sent messenger with no extra meaning applied.
Catholicism and the use of what they call "patron saints" a legion of his and hers gods as if they were sent as apostles. They have named apostolical succession of dying mankind oral traditions. I heard it through the legion of father's grapevine In order to give the illusion of what some call angel as fake word an invisible power other than that of our one Holy Father.
Ask yourself. Who sent you with the living word? He still sends them out two by two
Of course, we know what it means the context is second born seed (Christ) which genealogy ended with the birth of Jesus the Son of man ..the first born of sons of God
The law a person must be born again is not only a New Testament law it began in Genisis. Marvel not a person must be born from above
Abel prophesied the gospel. Satan silenced it by working in Cain the first murder of a sent one
So, your notion of the Holy Spirit's filling and the Holy Spirit's indwelling are one and the same?
I see the filling as a matter of degree, but the indwelling and all resulting virtues, and particularly the regeneration and faith, are a matter of validity, and not degree. He either does, or does not, indwell, change and keep us.
I believe that the filling is being more under the control of the Holy Spirit. I think that for the most part, it's a process, like our practical sanctification. But, the Apostles had a purpose to fulfill. Their filling stepped out of the process and supernaturally (for lack of a better word), prepared them for their ministry. Many times they were filled, and yet filled again a short time later.
One of my most vehement arguments for monergism has to do with what it means to be "in him". It is not only a legal placement, but an actual change of existence, from death to life. Not just an entrance to a new life, but the substance of that new life, which Jesus characterized as "stream (spring, fountain) of living water". If, as I believe, this is endemic to the Gospel, and the Gospel is the same from Genesis to Revelation, and the means of continuing belief is not the regeneration being "one and done", but, rather, continuing power of the Spirit of God living within, then how were the Old Testament saints regenerated and saved, if not the same way as New Testament?
I never really considered it a reformed vs others view. It's just not something that people taught until recently. Not that I've seen anyways.
The OT saints believed what was revealed to them. Still, while regeneration was lacking in the OT, it was still able to bring someone to faith. Like the Apostles before Pentecost.
If that was all 'Apostle' meant, that would be one thing, but that is not all that is generally meant by the word, "apostle". Secondly, I see no precedent use of Abel as a "sent messenger". What are you talking about, there?
Catholicism and the use of what they call "patron saints" a legion of his and hers gods as if they were sent as apostles. They have named apostolical succession of dying mankind oral traditions. I heard it through the legion of father's grapevine In order to give the illusion of what some call angel as fake word an invisible power other than that of our one Holy Father.
Ask yourself. Who sent you with the living word? He still sends them out two by two
Of course, we know what it means the context is second born seed (Christ) which genealogy ended with the birth of Jesus the Son of man ..the first born of sons of God
The law a person must be born again is not only a New Testament law it began in Genisis. Marvel not a person must be born from above
You never considered WHAT, to be a reformed vs other view? If you are talking about monergism, I disagree that it is something not taught until recently.
The OT saints believed what was revealed to them. Still, while regeneration was lacking in the OT, it was still able to bring someone to faith. Like the Apostles before Pentecost.
I don't follow this, unless you think regeneration (i.e. the Spirit of God taking up residence in the erstwhile lost person) and the filling of the spirit such as at Pentecost, are one and the same thing. If that is what you think, then we have only so far stated our positions, and I have yet to hear HOW one had salvific faith before Pentecost, if after Pentecost it comes by the indwelling Spirit of God.
To me, the gift of salvific faith is not just an ability granted, but is, rather, so completely dependent on the continuing work of the Spirit that one is not wrong to say that the indwelling of the Spirit IS the salvific faith, (or maybe I should say it the other way around). They are inseparable, in my book. He does not reside in the lost. He does, however very much work through and in the lost as demonstrated time and again in the OT. "Is Saul also among the prophets?"
If that was all 'Apostle' meant, that would be one thing, but that is not all that is generally meant by the word, "apostle". Secondly, I see no precedent use of Abel as a "sent messenger". What are you talking about, there?
It is all together one thing. Apostle "sent messenger" How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel.
God set the precedent with the prophet Abel the beginning of the second born seed. (Christ in us)
What is the missing function of an apostle seeing you say the word has more than one understnding ?
Give a couple examples of this power you say dying mankind has? There are many examples in the Bible that support the one meaning of apostle . . .Errand men, UPS, Fed X, Amazon, Uber. They bring loving commandments of our Holy Father not seen . Satan who has no spiritual insight makes them into commandments of men.
Luke 11:51From the blood of Abel (Martyr) unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Hebrews 11:4By faith Abel (Martyr) 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.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
It is all together one thing. Apostle "sent messenger" How beautiful are their feet shod with the gospel.
God set the precedent with the prophet Abel the beginning of the second born seed. (Christ in us)
What is the missing function of an apostle seeing you say the word has more than one understnding ?
Give a couple examples of this power you say dying mankind has? There are many examples in the Bible that support the one meaning of apostle . . .Errand men, UPS, Fed X, Amazon, Uber. They bring loving commandments of our Holy Father not seen . Satan who has no spiritual insight makes them into commandments of men.
Luke 11:51From the blood of Abel (Martyr) unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Hebrews 11:4By faith Abel (Martyr) 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.
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Very good. You win this round! I think I can see that Abel can rightly be called, at least a kind of prophet and message-bearer. I do not, however concede that he was so in the usual sense of OT prophet and NT apostle.
And, I won't bother to do more than mention the kind of language, the method of speaking, that is used in the Hebrews quotes. As for the Luke quote, I think it can be used to help understand what I mean concerning the Hebrews quotes.
As for your mention of UPS etc "errand men", where do you get the notion that I said dying mankind has any power? I have not said it nor implied it. Knowing what little I do of your thought processes and the words you use to represent your assumptions/conclusions, I don't want to claim that paragraph is a red herring nor strawman. But that is what it looks like, to me --one or the other. I don't know why you wrote it.
You never considered WHAT, to be a reformed vs other view? If you are talking about monergism, I disagree that it is something not taught until recently.
Maybe the context of the labels are wrong. I understand the purpose of the labels, it saves time, but I wouldn't be boxed in by them either. If the context of scripture leaves a few unanswered questions, I'm content to hold to that and continue searching. Sometimes the answers are simply not there.
I don't follow this, unless you think regeneration (i.e. the Spirit of God taking up residence in the erstwhile lost person) and the filling of the spirit such as at Pentecost, are one and the same thing. If that is what you think, then we have only so far stated our positions, and I have yet to hear HOW one had salvific faith before Pentecost, if after Pentecost it comes by the indwelling Spirit of God.
I was just saying that some of the difference between their lack of understanding in the OT and understanding in the NT cannot all be attributed to OT vs. NT relationship with the Holy Spirit. Some of it was the filling given so the Apostles could fulfill their ministries.
Judicially, nobody could be saved before the cross. It's impossible. That's why we had Sheol, translated Hades in the NT. It kept them until the the conditions were met to make peace between them and God.
To me, the gift of salvific faith is not just an ability granted, but is, rather, so completely dependent on the continuing work of the Spirit that one is not wrong to say that the indwelling of the Spirit IS the salvific faith, (or maybe I should say it the other way around). They are inseparable, in my book. He does not reside in the lost. He does, however very much work through and in the lost as demonstrated time and again in the OT. "Is Saul also among the prophets?"
The Bible separates them. Wouldn't that be evidence vs. merit? We even have theological terms to describe the difference. Positional sanctification vs. practical or progressive sanctification. Your statement makes me think that you might be Catholic. Are you Catholic?
The OT saints were not lost, they just had to wait for what was owed to them. That being the Promise of the Father. That's how I separate them.
While Paradise is not now a part of Sheol/Hades it will be mentioned here because it was located in Sheol/Hades at one time. Before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ everybody who died went to Sheol/Hades, which was at that time divided into at least two compartments. One was a place of torment while the other was a place of blessing, which was referred to as Abraham's Bosom (Lk. 16:22-25). As we mentioned before, Tartarus may be a specific place in Sheol/Hades.
We know that Jesus Christ went "into the lower parts of the earth" (Eph. 4:9), that is to Sheol/Hades, "in the heart of the earth," for three days and nights while his body was in the grave (Mat. 12:40). The Lord Jesus told the repentant thief that he would join Him in Paradise that same day (Lk. 23:42,43). This tells us that Paradise was located in Sheol/Hades at that time. We believe that this was the same place referred to as Abraham's Bosom in Luke 16. However, after Jesus Christ rose from the dead He ascended to the Father, taking the saints who were in Abraham's Bosom to heaven with Him. Thus, He took "captivity captive" (see Eph. 4:8-10).
That Paradise was moved to heaven is confirmed to us by the Apostle Paul who speaks of a man who was "caught up into Paradise" where he "heard unspeakable words" (II Cor. 12:3,4). With Jesus Christ's work complete, the believers who had been confined to Sheol/Hades were now taken to Heaven to wait in God's presence until the time of their resurrection to enter His Kingdom on Earth. Since that time, at death all believers go to Paradise in Heaven to await the time of their resurrection. This is true whether they belong to the Kingdom Church of the future or the Body of Christ Church of the present Dispensation of Grace.
-----------------------------
Maybe the context of the labels are wrong. I understand the purpose of the labels, it saves time, but I wouldn't be boxed in by them either. If the context of scripture leaves a few unanswered questions, I'm content to hold to that and continue searching. Sometimes the answers are simply not there.
That's a good attitude, and a useful way of dealing with any information. Jumping to conclusions can be impressive and garner one a following, for a while, but it is not accuracy nor trustworthy.
I was just saying that some of the difference between their lack of understanding in the OT and understanding in the NT cannot all be attributed to OT vs. NT relationship with the Holy Spirit. Some of it was the filling given so the Apostles could fulfill their ministries.
Judicially, nobody could be saved before the cross. It's impossible. That's why we had Sheol, translated Hades in the NT. It kept them until the the conditions were met to make peace between them and God.
I disagree, if by "before" you are referring to time passage (as over against a cause-and-effect "before"), and I have to conclude that you are referring to the cross's placement in time, since you depend on Bible statements concerning Sheol/Hades as time-relevant. The Cross is the event that accomplished it --agreed-- and Jesus was made sin for us "at just the right time" --agreed-- but that it makes ANY difference whether one is born before or after the cross, I disagree vehemently. (But, more below along these lines.)
makesends said: To me, the gift of salvific faith is not just an ability granted, but is, rather, so completely dependent on the continuing work of the Spirit that one is not wrong to say that the indwelling of the Spirit IS the salvific faith, (or maybe I should say it the other way around). They are inseparable, in my book. He does not reside in the lost. He does, however very much work through and in the lost as demonstrated time and again in the OT. "Is Saul also among the prophets?"
!he difference. Positional sanctification vs. practical or progressive sanctification. Your statement makes me think that you might be Catholic. Are you Catholic?
I'm not following you here. "The Bible separates" who? Wouldn't [what] be evidence vs. merit? Evidence as to what? The difference between what? Can you rewrite that paragraph?
And LololoLOL! NOOOO! I'm not even nearly Catholic! You're not likely to find someone more opposed to the RCC than me. I'm a monergist, and most people seem to identify me with the Reformed or Calvinism. I came to what is very close to the Reformed or Calvinist tenets, but not by any training nor by hearing/reading Reformed nor Calvinist proponents/ teachers.
Not sure what you are referring to that they had to wait for. That some never saw occupation of the Promised Land? I agree. But they did receive the promise of Heaven, and that, upon death. In my view, Sheol and Hades don't hold anyone but corpses. It may be provable to me that the reprobate souls are there throughout time until the end, but not the Redeemed. More on why I think this, below, (if I remember to get to it).
The article, like your thinking, is entirely time-dependent, which I find irrelevant as to God's ways, outside of this temporal frame.
From our point of view, we can say they left us when they died, and so must be somewhere until the resurrection, which to us is necessarily in the future. But from God's point of view, and, I think, from our point of view upon our resurrection and glorification, we will go "immediately" (for lack of a better, time-irrelevant, word) to resurrection and glorification. To put it in a graphic way, though not necessarily accurate, we may well see Adam, Abraham, David, Elisha, Mary and Joseph, Peter, John Owen, and every other redeemed believer rising from the grave as we do. Yet none of us experiencing time-passage from the moment we left our temporal bodies to our resurrection, and no awareness of any "gloomy dark place" called Hades/ Sheol/ The Grave or anywhere else. (Jesus told the thief, "Today you will be with me in Paradise", and while I think the logic is valid that speculates that he meant that by his death that day, the thief would be saved, (and though that too is true), I don't think it is what he was talking about, as God does not operate bound by time. When the thief died, he went to Paradise, and did not have to wait until Jesus himself was raised 3 days later, to be with Jesus in Paradise.)
To put this into more rigid form, God 'invented' time --it depends on him and he is not subject to it, though he can operate within it (and does). I have had atheists, supposing to prove it is irrational to believe in GOD, since, if he was omnipotent God, and had in mind to take people to Heaven, ask, why didn't He just do it and be done, instead of making us go through all this mess, and have to wait til the resurrection before we can be there with Him in Heaven. I tell them, "Maybe he did just that. Spoke the end result into being and it is done, as far as He is concerned. The fact it has taken these 6000 years, (or 14 billion, if you wish), to accomplish it, is irrelevant to the fact that God need not wait, nor need anyone else wait, whose soul/spirit exists outside of time. I believe that from the perspective of our Heavenly existence, the temporal isn't even a blink in the eternal frame. Eternity is not infinite time. It is outside of time.
Now, granted, I could be wrong, and often am, but if so, I think, it is because my conception of this order of things falls short of the facts, rather than contradicting the facts.
The Bible likens this temporal existence to a vapor, compared to the solid reality of God's economy. Time has a beginning and will have an end, and it does not govern anything but this temporal 'envelope'.
Very good. You win this round! I think I can see that Abel can rightly be called, at least a kind of prophet and message-bearer. I do not, however concede that he was so in the usual sense of OT prophet and NT apostle.
And, I won't bother to do more than mention the kind of language, the method of speaking, that is used in the Hebrews quotes. As for the Luke quote, I think it can be used to help understand what I mean concerning the Hebrews quotes.
As for your mention of UPS etc "errand men", where do you get the notion that I said dying mankind has any power? I have not said it nor implied it. Knowing what little I do of your thought processes and the words you use to represent your assumptions/conclusions, I don't want to claim that paragraph is a red herring nor strawman. But that is what it looks like, to me --one or the other. I don't know why you wrote it.
The foundation of the second born seed....Mankind must be born again.
When Cain had talked with his brother the good news turned out as death to apostle Abel the first listed martyr.
Because of it the lord increased the workload . . .a burden too heavy for Cain who was not yoked with Christ as was Abel a lighter load.
Cain 666 natural uncovered mankind tried to bargain with the Lord and reduce the daily suffering the pangs of hell .The Lord said to him markmylivingwordwhat I say comes to pass
Genesis 4:4-9And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?;If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.;And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Genesis 4:15And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
The foundation of the second born seed....Mankind must be born again.
When Cain had talked with his brother the good news turned out as death to apostle Abel the first listed martyr.
Because of it the lord increased the workload . . .a burden too heavy for Cain who was not yoked with Christ as was Abel a lighter load.
Cain 666 natural uncovered mankind tried to bargain with the Lord and reduce the daily suffering the pangs of hell .The Lord said to him markmylivingwordwhat I say comes to pass
Genesis 4:4-9And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?;If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.;And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Genesis 4:15And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
That's a good attitude, and a useful way of dealing with any information. Jumping to conclusions can be impressive and garner one a following, for a while, but it is not accuracy nor trustworthy.
I'm glad that you said that, because this topic will require one of the two responses. The better option being our staying within the boundaries of scripture.
I disagree, if by "before" you are referring to time passage (as over against a cause-and-effect "before"), and I have to conclude that you are referring to the cross's placement in time, since you depend on Bible statements concerning Sheol/Hades as time-relevant. The Cross is the event that accomplished it --agreed-- and Jesus was made sin for us "at just the right time" --agreed-- but that it makes ANY difference whether one is born before or after the cross, I disagree vehemently. (But, more below along these lines.)
It makes every bit of difference. It seems God's attributes, including His Justice, and His mercy, which are both dependent on His holiness, are all time dependent. By His design, of course. If for no other reason than He is not the Author of confusion. His attributes lay a foundation that provide boundaries for His attributes. Constrained by His holiness, if you will.
We can ask, if Adam and Eve were already considered redeemed just after they sinned and fell, then why were they removed from God's presence? Don't rack your brain, because Paul gives us the answer here in Romans.
Romans 3:24-26 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Removing, or not allowing someone to be in Gods presence, seems to be a way of postponing God's justice so that He could pass over the sins previously committed. This is why the OT saints needed to be kept in Paradise, otherwise called Abrahams bosom, until the cross. Remember, the NT begins at the cross, or better, in Acts, not Matthew chapter one.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus said that unless a person is born again, they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. He also said that nobody had ascended to the Father except Him. I believe that is in reference to the Holy Spirit in the OT. Remember, this is still OT dispensation up until the cross. We also see this overlapping in John 14:16-17. Which also tell of the difference in relationship between man and the Holy Spirit from the OT to the NT.
John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever--the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
Nobody could be born again before the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, because the means by which we are born again did not exist before that. No atonement was yet made for sin. No righteousness of God established, that being Jesus, as fully man and fully God, living a perfectly righteous life. No death and resurrection for us to identify with to die, and be raised up in (born again). All through out scripture we are told that we are saved through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It had to actually happen before we could be justified.
Old Testament saints all died in faith not having received the promises made to Abraham (Gen. 17:4, 18:18, 22:18; Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:7, 9, 14, 29...The Promise of the Father given at Pentecost.
I must say, your position on God's justice not being bound by time sounds eerily similar to the infa supra debate. I stopped at Dabney, who used the Bible for context, as we both agreed earlier to do. I would remind you that we were elected from a position of guilt (John 15:19), not a position of neutrality. Again, God's justice and mercy dependent on time.
I'm not following you here. "The Bible separates" who? Wouldn't [what] be evidence vs. merit? Evidence as to what? The difference between what? Can you rewrite that paragraph?
It is my understanding that Catholicism sees the fruit of the Spirit as the "righteousness of God" that justifies us. Thus the process...but this is not what the Bible means when it speaks of the righteousness of God that justifies. It was His (Jesus) righteousness demonstrated, for Jesus is Just, and the Justifier for all who believe. I believe that scripture is clear in this matter in many ways, one of them being the way it often pits our "efforts", or works, against our Fathers grace by faith (Romans 10:1-4 to name one).
While it is true that a living faith manifests itself with good...
And LololoLOL! NOOOO! I'm not even nearly Catholic! You're not likely to find someone more opposed to the RCC than me. I'm a monergist, and most people seem to identify me with the Reformed or Calvinism. I came to what is very close to the Reformed or Calvinist tenets, but not by any training nor by hearing/reading Reformed nor Calvinist proponents/ teachers.
I'm reformed also. I read from Monergism.com all the time. Your argument sounded familiar is all. The link above. Soyeon was making a similar argument.
I'm going to make a post in The Gospel and Acts forum. It's too much to post here.
First, to grasp what was happening in Acts, you must understand that the OT saints were also saved by faith. They put their faith in God that He would provide a Savior. God had passed over their sins until Christ died on the cross.
Hebrews 10:1-4 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more...
This.
I like to think of it using the terms "ANOINTED" in the OT and "INDWELT" on the NT. The first is a Holy Covering and the second is a permanent deposit guaranteeing redemption of a new life. In both cases ... the LORD "... will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." - Romans 9:15 [ESV] (also Exodus 33:19).
This.
I like to think of it using the terms "ANOINTED" in the OT and "INDWELT" on the NT. The first is a Holy Covering and the second is a permanent deposit guaranteeing redemption of a new life. In both cases ... the LORD "... will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." - Romans 9:15 [ESV] (also Exodus 33:19).
I googled the 'filling of the Holy Spirit in the OT' and came across some interesting stuff. I would think that a person would need to be indwelt to be filled, right? David was indwelt, right? He begged God not to take His Holy Spirit from him.
OT: 1 Samuel 16:14 [NASB20] Now the Spirit of the LORD left Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrified him.
NT: Ephesians 1:13-14 [NASB95] In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of [God's own] possession, to the praise of His glory.
OT & NT … same Spirit, but not really the same thing (IMHO).
I'm glad that you said that, because this topic will require one of the two responses. The better option being our staying within the boundaries of scripture.
It makes every bit of difference. It seems God's attributes, including His Justice, and His mercy, which are both dependent on His holiness, are all time dependent. By His design, of course. If for no other reason than He is not the Author of confusion. His attributes lay a foundation that provide boundaries for His attributes. Constrained by His holiness, if you will.
We can ask, if Adam and Eve were already considered redeemed just after they sinned and fell, then why were they removed from God's presence? Don't rack your brain, because Paul gives us the answer here in Romans.
Romans 3:24-26 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
I expect you recall that the reason they were removed is to deny them access to the Tree of Life. Spiritualize it as you like, I don't see any relevance to "when" they were already considered redeemed. I believe they were regenerated at some point after falling, and I don't know or care when that happened, since Scripture doesn't say. Your comment here, and, in fact, your whole reasoning, seems to me very temporal-oriented. That's not how God thinks, even though he 'invented' it. We cannot see from his point-of-view.
Removing, or not allowing someone to be in Gods presence, seems to be a way of postponing God's justice so that He could pass over the sins previously committed. This is why the OT saints needed to be kept in Paradise, otherwise called Abrahams bosom, until the cross. Remember, the NT begins at the cross, or better, in Acts, not Matthew chapter one.
That's temporally-derived comment. There is no need to be "kept in Abraham's Bosom" until a further event, unless you need that construction as spiritualistic human conception of what happened --as demonstrating why the difference between those raised to life and those to everlasting condemnation. For us, still walking about "down here", there is a waiting for the resurrection. For those whose bodies and in the grave, except perhaps those dead condemned, I see no sense of 'waiting'.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus said that unless a person is born again, they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. He also said that nobody had ascended to the Father except Him. I believe that is in reference to the Holy Spirit in the OT. Remember, this is still OT dispensation up until the cross. We also see this overlapping in John 14:16-17. Which also tell of the difference in relationship between man and the Holy Spirit from the OT to the NT.
John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever--the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
Nobody could be born again before the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, because the means by which we are born again did not exist before that. No atonement was yet made for sin. No righteousness of God established, that being Jesus, as fully man and fully God, living a perfectly righteous life. No death and resurrection for us to identify with to die, and be raised up in (born again). All through out scripture we are told that we are saved through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It had to actually happen before we could be justified.
Again, you are making a time-derived statement. The fact of what happened/happens is not time-derived. They are God-Speaks-derived. the fact we see it inside time-constraints is irrelevant.
Old Testament saints all died in faith not having received the promises made to Abraham (Gen. 17:4, 18:18, 22:18; Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:7, 9, 14, 29...The Promise of the Father given at Pentecost.
"Not having received the promises" is not referring to salvation, nor life IN CHRIST, nor the indwelling of the Spirit of God. It's talking about Canaan.
I must say, your position on God's justice not being bound by time sounds eerily similar to the infa supra debate. I stopped at Dabney, who used the Bible for context, as we both agreed earlier to do. I would remind you that we were elected from a position of guilt (John 15:19), not a position of neutrality. Again, God's justice and mercy dependent on time.
I'm not assuming neutrality at all. Quite to the contrary. You seem to assume things about my thinking, and I'm puzzled as to why.
But I repeat God's mercy and judgement are not in the least dependent on time. When he doles them out, in one sense, is dependent on time as they are doled out reactively to what we do, in our POV, and only as we are bound to think about these things. We don't know how to do otherwise. But we were chosen and the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. In one way to put it, God spoke the finished product --the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Children of God, the Dwelling Place of God-- into completion with a word. It was done. The fact we must go through this long temporal process is irrelevant to God's mercy and judgement (as attributes). God does not change.
I googled the 'filling of the Holy Spirit in the OT' and came across some interesting stuff. I would think that a person would need to be indwelt to be filled, right? David was indwelt, right? He begged God not to take His Holy Spirit from him.
Depending on what it means to be filled, I suppose. I call it filling when the Spirit works extraordinarily through a person in more-or-less spectacular ways, not concerning one's own salvation, but concerning God's immediate use of that person. He did this with Balaam, and we have that saying, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" The Spirit does what it will, but our regeneration is not a mere temporal fact. He doesn't come and change us and then leave.
I was debating with myself in how I should answer your post. The idea that you're presenting here, seems to be that God's omnipresence overrides the logic and time of scripture. It's a song and dance that makes it easy for you, since we both cannot fully comprehend what it means to not be bound by time, so your ideas are artificially defended because the person confronting them cannot ex-plain God's omnipresence, but neither can you. Yet you override scripture with that same idea. I disagree with that premise a number of reasons. Time is not an illusion, it's reality. And God does work in time, and at the same time is omnipresence. That I cannot explain, but I know scripture is true.
By your definition, only the end game is reality. Anything leading to that never really was, it's just a penciled in after thought. Your position would make God creator of evil and sin. Jesus didn't need to die to activate His Testament, it always was. The OT was just a penciled in after thought. But your reply would be that those are time dependent statements and God is not time dependent. That's a logical cop out.
The questions that I asked and points made were legitimate questions and points made. But you used your cop out to dance around them. I'm not trying to be mean, but I just don't know any way around this without confronting it.
In fact, when you were replying to the point that I made about Adam and Eve, I couldn't help but to think that you would also need to make the same argument against the Roman's passage that was also quoted.
Romans 3:24-26 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Your response?
your quote Your comment here, and, in fact, your whole reasoning, seems to me very temporal-oriented. That's not how God thinks, even though he 'invented' it. We cannot see from his point-of-view.
See what I mean? It's an argument you're making with God and His Word, not me. I would ad that the "the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world" is speaking of God's eternal decree, His ordaining all thing. Not His omnipresence. If you claim that this is His omnipresence, then it directly contradicts the Romans 3:24-26 scripture that God wrote, quoted above. Please address your response to Him, He wrote it, not me.
you said That's temporally-derived comment. There is no need to be "kept in Abraham's Bosom" until a further event, unless you need that construction as spiritualistic human conception of what happened --as demonstrating why the difference between those raised to life and those to everlasting condemnation. For us, still walking about "down here", there is a waiting for the resurrection. For those whose bodies and in the grave, except perhaps those dead condemned, I see no sense of 'waiting'.
Yet that's exactly what scripture teaches. Now you can use God's omnipresence as a cop out, but they were kept in Abraham's bosom and had to wait in time none the less. Just like the dead are waiting for the white thrown judgment. The OT saints needed to wait for the cross. That's what scripture says. And, that's when Adam and Eve would be redeemed. Along with all the others who had not yet ascended. That's what Romans 3:24-26 says with regards to God's justice. He may have decreed it, and sees the beginning and the end all at once, but in time, which He also created, "God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." It's reality.
you said "Not having received the promises" is not referring to salvation, nor life IN CHRIST, nor the indwelling of the Spirit of God. It's talking about Canaan.
Gen. 17:4 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.
Gen 18:18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 22:18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."
Romans 4:13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Gal 3:7,9,14,29 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham....So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham....that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith....And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Did the Spirit of God indwell Peter when he made this confession, was he born of God ? Matt 16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
In light of this Truth 1 Jn 4:15
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Did the Spirit of God indwell Peter when he made this confession, was he born of God ? Matt 16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
In light of this Truth 1 Jn 4:15
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
The Promise of the Father, the NT indwelling of the Holy Spirit was not given until Pentecost. So Matthew 16 was before Pentecost. 1 John was written to NT Christians, after Pentecost who already had the NT indwelling.
The pre-cross OT saints, like Peter, had some exposure to God, but it was lacking. This is evident in how Peter was before and then after Pentecost. These OT passages explain what was to come. The Promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit. All of these passages speak of what was later fulfilled at Pentecost.
John 14:25-26"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
John 7:38, 39, He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (fulfilled at Pentecost)
16:7, 13: Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14:16, 17: And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever--the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
There is one of two ways one could interpret John 14:16-17. The "and will be in you" is in reference to the Promise of the Father, the NT indwelling of the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost. The "He dwells with you" could be Jesus speaking of Himself in His incarnation, or it could be a reference to the OT relationship between man and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps a reference to the Holy Spirit "coming upon" a believer, as it is usually referred to in the OT. And in that light, Peter could have spoken a truth from the Father, before the NT indwelling was given. It's still from the Holy Spirit, but that relationship got a lot better at Pentecost.
Be careful taking some passages too literally. We know Peter was a believer, I'm just making the point to be careful to hang your hat on those passages taken too literally. We could pit Romans 10:9 against Matthew 7:20-23 to make that point. I would consider Jesus' statement to Peter in Matthew 16:17 to be meaning something more like "your genuine profession from faith could have only come from the Father", or something along those lines. Just sayin'.
