Was the Spirit of God Indwelling the Redeemed before Pentecost?

[Eleanor]

I believe He did not indwell an entire group of people as He does after the crucifixion and resurrection. This idea comes from two places off the top of my head at the moment. Psalm 51: 11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
John 20:21-22 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you, as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He has said this, He breathed on them and said to them,"Receive the Holy Spirit."
We see in the OT the Holy Spirit equipping certain individuals for certain tasks, and leading them in that task. Among other things. After Pentecost the Holy Spirit indwells all believers and continually works in them to know and do the will of God. God, it seems to me, would have to regenerate anyone who believes and trusts Him to the level of the OT saints, since He also says "no one seeks me." The difference is that it was not all Israel, and it was attached to the Law which was the standard God established for a specific community.

Hope things went well for the cook and hostess. . .

I'm not sure I understand you here:
1) are you saying regeneration was attached to the law, that only those who obeyed the law received regeneration, or only those regenerated obeyed the law, or. . .?

To save time and space, let me address that, and then, in the that light, you can clarify to me what you mean.
The new birth (regeneration) in both the OT and the NT is by sovereign act of God, in and over which man has nothing to do (Jn 3:3-8).
The law has nothing to do with righteousness (right standing with God), it was never given to make righteous, for righteousness has always been by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-3, Gal 3:11).
The law was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20) and to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24), not to make righteous.

Where am I misunderstanding you here regarding regeneration and the law?

Some learned the spirit of the law, and spiritual things are only spiritually understood, and were obedient, though not perfectly, to that as well as the letter.

2) And actually, there is no "spirit of the law" nor "letter of the law" in the NT.
"For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (1 Co 3:6)
There is only the Holy Spirit, and there is the written code (letter).
It has nothing to do with an outward (by the letter) vs. an inward (by the spirit) obedience, a counterfeit obedience vs. a genuine obedience, as is commonly thought. It has to do with law vs. grace, works vs. faith, OC vs. NC.

The letter is the law, the written code, it is not Scripture in general. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit, not one's internal spirit.
The law kills because it curses all who rely on it (Gal 3:10), because it must be kept perfectly to make one righteous before God, no one can do that, so it condemns everyone to death-- the letter kills.

Under the NC, we are not made righteous by law keeping, but by the new birth of the Holy Spirit where, through faith in the person and work of Christ, we are justified--declared "not guilty" by God and in right standing with his justice, reconciled to him, and righteousness is reckoned, accounted, imputed to us. It's a forensic righteousness, not an actual righteousness as in sanctification (Ro 6:16, 19, 22).

So in 1 Co 3:6, there is no hidden spiritual meaning of the law discerned only by the spiritual.

 

[Eleanor]

That'd be silly!!! Of course the terms "Regenerated", and "Elected" are worthless since they have any number of meanings, depending on one's theological bias. Calvinists appear to believe that they, and they ALONE define them properly.

Actually, the Greek definitions of the words as they are used in the NT defines them properly.

The simple FACT is the God can, and DOES communicate whenever He desires to with Humans, REGARDLESS Of their spiritual condition, and Calvinist "Total Depravity" isn't GOD'S WORD.

And?. . .neither is "sovereignty" nor "trinity."

Try Ro 8:7-8 regarding the absolute powerlessness (Ro 5:6) of the unregenerated.

 

[ReverendRV]

Actually, the Greek definitions of the words as they are used in the NT defines them properly.

And?. . .neither is "sovereignty" nor "trinity."

Try Ro 8:7-8 regarding the absolute powerlessness (Ro 5:6) of the unregenerated.

I'm usually pretty Cool about things, but after a while stuff like "Total Depravity isn't in the Bible" start getting on my nerves. People shouldn't use that as a shield to remain in Cognitive Dissonance. The Terms are Doctrinal and Theological; they still Count as Biblically true...

What I would give to have someone say one day, "OH, that's neat; you are right". SHEESH...

 

[Arial]

Hope things went well for the cook and hostess. . .

It was wonderful!

Ok I will give your post a good try at being clear and answering those things you ask. I will begin with responding to your view so we can see where each stand on that, and then try and clarify my post.

The new birth (regeneration) in both the OT and the NT is by sovereign act of God, in and over which man has nothing to do (Jn 3:3-8).

I agree completely that it is all and always of God. What I am not sure of is if regeneration can be applied in the OT in the same way as it is in the new covenant. Though any understanding and faith and faithfulness to God can only be by His hand, regeneration is only referred to in the context of the new covenant. It regenerates to faith and faithfulness to God to what is now, because of the advent, death and resurrection of Christ the only way to God. And that in a substitutionary manner. Him taking our sins to meet justice for us, and in their place giving us His righteousness and faithfulness before God. Regeneration places us in this position by giving us what is necessary---trust in Jesus.

And it brings with it not only the rebirth by the Holy Spirit but His sealing in Christ and indwelling. For me, there are simply too many unknowns to make a definitive declaration of whether OT believers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which means already I have backed off a bit from this post to the second one I gave today. I only know OT believers all had the Holy Spirit. And that the Bible does not speak of regeneration or indwelling in the OT.

The law has nothing to do with righteousness (right standing with God), it was never given to make righteous, for righteousness has always been by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-3, Gal 3:11).
The law was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20) and to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24), not to make righteous.

Where am I misunderstanding you here regarding regeneration and the law?

If I made it sound like that is what I was saying, my bad. I agree with you here and I do not believe that the law regenerates. But there is much more within the law than the letter of it and we see in David's Psalms that he saw who God is, from the law. Psalm 119 is a particularly good example of this. He saw the God who gave the law in the law, and not just the letter. His obedience was to God, not the law, even though he communed with God and worshiped according to the law. David said things like "Your law is a lamp unto my feet." The law did not make one righteous but it indeed showed what righteousness was. Thus it is called a school master, and also condemned us. It still condemns the unregenerate. They just don't know it or believe it.

2) And actually, there is no "spirit of the law" nor "letter of the law" in the NT.
"For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (1 Co 3:6)

Here I have to disagree with you. I believe Jesus said other wise when He condemned the Pharisees for being strict observers of the law, even adding to its strictness, but ignoring the weightier matters of the law, mercy and justice. I believe Paul said otherwise in Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. (I quote that separated from its context for the sake of space and because I am lazy at the moment, but the full meaning and understanding what he means by that ofcourse is found within the context of the chapter. And I think supports the one sentence as meaning what it says. The law, though a written law that must be obeyed, has a spiritual aspect----that being the very character of God is contained within it. It is also consistent with first the natural then the spiritual. And if there is a natural, a spiritual also exists. The furnishing in the tent of meeting and the tabernacle were copies of what was in heaven. In fact everything that is given in the natural must of necessity be a product of and consistent with the One who gives it.)

There is only the Holy Spirit, and there is the written code (letter).
It has nothing to do with an outward (by the letter) vs. an inward (by the spirit) obedience, a counterfeit obedience vs. a genuine obedience, as is commonly thought. It has to do with law vs. grace, works vs. faith, OC vs. NC.

I am not exactly sure what you mean here but I will respond according to what I think it is saying. In the old covenant it does have to do with obeying outwardly but not inwardly from faith. This is seen in the judgements God announces on those who were doing outward obedience to the sacrifices, but their hearts were far from Him. They demonstrated this by also worshiping other gods and by offering sacrifices while they also were full of hate and oppression. But salvation, yes, has always been through faith, and I am not clear on precisely the role the Holy Spirit played in that, why some had faith and some did not. I know that faith then was full trust in God to be who He says He is and to do what He says He will do. Same as now. Only now our inability to always do this has our faith in Christ as Savior, reconciling us to God, to keep us from being condemned by the law. He was faithful and remains faithful. And it is trustworthy because we are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Christ. I am unable to definitively categorize in precisely the same way with the OT saints. In other words, God help me I will say it, I don't know.

The Spirit is the Holy Spirit, not one's internal spirit.

Yes I know that much.

The law kills because it curses all who rely on it (Gal 3:10), because it must be kept perfectly to make one righteous before God, no one can do that, so it condemns everyone to death-- the letter kills.

Agree.

Under the NC, we are not made righteous by law keeping, but by the new birth of the Holy Spirit where, through faith in the person and work of Christ, we are justified--declared "not guilty" by God and in right standing with his justice, reconciled to him, and Jesus' righteousness is reckoned, accounted, imputed to us.

Agree.

There is no hidden spiritual meaning of the law discerned only by the spiritual.

There are spiritual aspects in the law. It is from God and could not be otherwise. His very character and manner of being is in the law. It could not be otherwise. I believe it was a way of revealing Himself to Israel and to us. There is much we can learn about who God is from the law. And in particular His judgement against lawbreakers. His power. His sovereignty. Our weakness and need and hopelessness. As rescuer, provider. On and on. But, no it is not hidden. Why some OT saints got it and others did not---which is purely a heart thing---I do not know. I only know that in relation to the New Covenant.

 

[Arial]

From what I understand in the OT the Spirit was given to specific individuals... prophets and such and David was one of them.

I think David was afraid of God removing the Spirit from Him and losing His office.

I agree with the first part. As to the second part, I think David was afraid of losing God. Of being abandoned by Him. David asked God for everything. He knew God. I pray someday I will know Him that well and that confidently. David knew he cold slay lions only by the hand of God. He knew he could slay Goliath, but only by the hand of God.

 

[Eleanor]

It was wonderful!

Ok I will give your post a good try at being clear and answering those things you ask. I will begin with responding to your view so we can see where each stand on that, and then try and clarify my post.
I agree completely that it is all and always of God. What I am not sure of is if regeneration can be applied in the OT in the same way as it is in the new covenant. Though any understanding and faith and faithfulness to God can only be by His hand, regeneration is only referred to in the context of the new covenant. It regenerates to faith and faithfulness to God to what is now, because of the advent, death and resurrection of Christ the only way to God.

And that in a substitutionary manner. Him taking our sins to meet justice for us, and in their place giving us His righteousness and faithfulness before God. Regeneration places us in this position by giving us what is necessary---trust in Jesus.

I differ a little there, justification being not an actual righteousness but a declaration (dikaiosis) of a positional forensic righteousness, of right standing with God, no longer his enemy but now reconciled to him (Ro 4:25, 5:18--imputed), with actual righteousness (dikaiosune) being through obedience in/of the Holy Spirit which leads to (actual) righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19, 22).

And it brings with it not only the rebirth by the Holy Spirit but His sealing in Christ and indwelling. For me, there are simply too many unknowns to make a definitive declaration of whether OT believers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which means already I have backed off a bit from this post to the second one I gave today. I only know OT believers all had the Holy Spirit. And that the Bible does not speak of regeneration or indwelling in the OT.

That's kinda' where I am on that, too many unknowns to be definitive. What appears to be necessarily true just aren't treated of regarding the OT. Which is not to say they are not true, but that we have no authority for knowing they are.

If I made it sound like that is what I was saying, my bad. I agree with you here and I do not believe that the law regenerates. But there is much more within the law than the letter of it and we see in David's Psalms that he saw who God is, from the law. Psalm 119 is a particularly good example of this.

I see Ps 119 to be referring not just to the Mosaic law but to all God's requirements, decrees, commandments, ways, laws, testimonies, statues and judgments (Ge 26:5, Dt 4:45, 8:11, 11:1, 1 Kgs 2:3); i.e., to the entire Pentateuch, which was commonly called "the Law."

He saw the God who gave the law in the law, and not just the letter. His obedience was to God, not the law, even though he communed with God and worshiped according to the law. David said things like "Your law is a lamp unto my feet."

Well, I didn't mean to generate a long discussion, but it looks like I've done so.
Could I talk you into considering some parsing (hopefully not from the parsimonious ).

1) In post #41, I showed there is no "letter of the law" in Scripture. That is an invention of man.
The letter is the law, and it is the Holy Spirit who is its author.

The law did not make one righteous but it indeed showed what righteousness was. Thus it is called a school master, and also condemned us. It still condemns the unregenerate. They just don't know it or believe it.

Are not all born condemned by imputation of Adam's guilt?

Here I have to disagree with you. I believe Jesus said other wise when He condemned the Pharisees for being strict observers of the law, even adding to its strictness, but ignoring the weightier matters of the law, mercy and justice.

2) But note that it was not a matter of failing to see the inner meaning of those laws, as 1 Co 3:6 is commonly misused (for the letter of the law is the Spirit of the law, the Spirit being its very author), but rather a failure of either over-applying the laws or ignoring them altogether.

I believe Paul said otherwise in Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. (I quote that separated from its context for the sake of space and because I am lazy at the moment, but the full meaning and understanding what he means by that of course is found within the context of the chapter. And I think supports the one sentence as meaning what it says. The law, though a written law that must be obeyed, has a spiritual aspect----that being the very character of God is contained within it. It is also consistent with first the natural then the spiritual. And if there is a natural, a spiritual also exists. The furnishing in the tent of meeting and the tabernacle were copies of what was in heaven. In fact everything that is given in the natural must of necessity be a product of and consistent with the One who gives it.)

3) If you will allow me, there are several things here regarding natural and spiritual at which we could take a look some other time; i.e., Paul's use of "spiritual," and "if there is a natural, a spiritual also exists," etc.

I am not exactly sure what you mean here but I will respond according to what I think it is saying. In the old covenant it does have to do with obeying outwardly but not inwardly from faith. This is seen in the judgements God announces on those who were doing outward obedience to the sacrifices, but their hearts were far from Him.

Agreed. . .and my only point here is that this is not the point of 1 Co 3:6, which point is a contrast between law and grace, works and faith, OC and NC, not a contrast between inner and outer observance of the law.

And thanks for your thoughful reply.

 

[TMSO]

On occasion I have prayed that same prayer. And, though it shames me to say this, it is because I knew I was not listening to the counsel of the Holy Spirit according to His word, and going my own fleshly way. And my prayer was not because I thought God would remove the Holy Spirit from me, I know better. But it was in the sense that the Holy Spirit would back away from me and cease teaching me and being my help and interceding for me with the Father according to His will. It was not that I thought I would or could have the seal of/in Christ removed. That is not to say He would ever back away from me either other than corrective measures, but that was what was behind the prayer.

Possibly that was the case with David or something similar? Or also possibly because the Spirit was not in David but stood alongside of Him and David knew that he was dependant on the Spirit to love, keep, and know the law of God---to know God.

Nobody is perfect. I find myself in lines of thinking like this, but it is more because of my history then anything else. Never forget Ephesians 1. The Holy Spirit is your guarantee (not possibility) of the inheritance until you take material possession of it.

 

[Arial]

I differ a little there, justification being not an actual righteousness but a declaration (dikaiosis) of a positional forensic righteousness, of right standing with God, no longer his enemy but now reconciled to him (Ro 4:25, 5:18--imputed), with actual righteousness (dikaiosune) being through obedience in/of the Holy Spirit which leads to (actual) righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19, 22).

Yes I agree with this, I just didn't specify that it wasn't actual righteousness but a legal standing before God.I see Ps 119 to be referring not just to the Mosaic law but to all God's requirements, decrees, commandments, ways, laws, testimonies, statues and judgments

(Ge 26:5, Dt 4:45, 8:11, 11:1, 1 Kgs 2:3); i.e., to the entire Pentateuch, which was commonly called "the Law."

I tend to agree.

1) In post #41, I showed there is no "letter of the law" in Scripture. That is an invention of man.
The letter is the law, and it is the Holy Spirit who is its author.

I think there is simply a misunderstanding of what I mean by letter and spirit. By letter is simply meant the written code--in essence the legal document containing the law. The letters in it and their meaning of the words. By spirit is meant not Holy Spirit, but the unseen and unwritten concepts in the written code but also beyond it to permeate our own character. (Sorry, that was the best I could say it at the moment.) For example the laws concerning the land and letting it rest every seven years. That is a pretty big request when you think about it realize they were utterly dependant on each years crops to feed their family and themselves until the next harvest came in. The harvest of the sixth year would have to feed them for that year, the following year and until the crop came in the third year. To obey that law they had to really trust God to provide. And not only that, it was an agricultural good. Farmers,before all the fertilizers and chemical to force the land, let land rest or at least rotated crops on it. It is good for the land. You can take every written law of the covenant and see other principles in it that go beyond the precise command. And especially in the sacrifices and their law of worship.

Are not all born condemned by imputation of Adam's guilt?

Yes and all break the principles of the law.

I need to get more coffee before I go farther.

 

[Arial]

2) But note that it was not a matter of failing to see the inner meaning of those laws, as 1 Co 3:6 is commonly misused (for the letter of the law is the Spirit of the law, the Spirit being its very author), but rather a failure of either over-applying the laws or ignoring them altogether.

Not Spirit of the law but spirit of the law is the way I am using it and the way I believe Paul was using it. Meaning there is a spiritual aspect of the law, that yes, we can see if we have the Holy Spirit for that is how we discern these things. And discerning those things is part of our life time process of gaining knowledge and understanding from the word.

An aside and a for instance: The sacrificial worship system of the law. When first I read it which was early as I began reading from the beginning, I submitted to the system but did not understand it (and didn't like it as I am an animal lover.) But slowly I have seen the shadows and types in it and recognize more and more the uniformity of the one continuing story of redemption. Same with the Exodus. Connecting the dots, and still see new things that take my breath away at the awesome perfection of God etc. The very infinity of God is glimpsed more and more and the fact that He is never doing just one thing in anything He does but all of it connects perfectly in His perfection, and omniscience,omnipresence, omnipotence, and holiness. The magnitude of the results of the crucifixion alone are unfathomable, the greatness of that rescue that Jesus did, cannot be contained or expressed in words. And still I have only touched the edges.

Agreed. . .and my only point here is that this is not the point of 1 Co 3:6, which point is a contrast between law and grace, works and faith, OC and NC, not a contrast between inner and outer observance of the law.

Not for us but for the Israelites under the law, I think it was. That is why Jesus kept it outwardly and inwardly and why God would say of Solomon that his heart was not a heart after Him is was his father David's. The difference was inner that was shown outwardly. Solomon worshiped other Gods, David would not and did not even though he did sometimes sin.

 

[CrowCross]

I agree with the first part. As to the second part, I think David was afraid of losing God. Of being abandoned by Him. David asked God for everything. He knew God. I pray someday I will know Him that well and that confidently. David knew he cold slay lions only by the hand of God. He knew he could slay Goliath, but only by the hand of God.

I can agree with that.

Do you think David was in fear of his salvation?

 

[Eleanor]

Yes I agree with this, I just didn't specify that it wasn't actual righteousness but a legal standing before God.I see Ps 119 to be referring not just to the Mosaic law but to all God's requirements, decrees, commandments, ways, laws, testimonies, statues and judgments

I tend to agree.

I think there is simply a misunderstanding of what I mean by letter and spirit. By letter is simply meant the written code--in essence the legal document containing the law. The letters in it and their meaning of the words. By spirit is meant not Holy Spirit, but the unseen and unwritten concepts in the written code but also beyond it to permeate our own character. (Sorry, that was the best I could say it at the moment.) For example the laws concerning the land and letting it rest every seven years. That is a pretty big request when you think about it realize they were utterly dependant on each years crops to feed their family and themselves until the next harvest came in. The harvest of the sixth year would have to feed them for that year, the following year and until the crop came in the third year. To obey that law they had to really trust God to provide. And not only that, it was an agricultural good. Farmers,before all the fertilizers and chemical to force the land, let land rest or at least rotated crops on it. It is good for the land. You can take every written law of the covenant and see other principles in it that go beyond the precise command. And especially in the sacrifices and their law of worship.

I'll save this one for another time.

Yes and all break the principles of the law.

I need to get more coffee before I go farther.

 

[Eleanor]

Not Spirit of the law but spirit of the law is the way I am using it and the way I believe Paul was using it.

Is it not "Spirit" in the text; i.e., Holy Spirit, the author of the letter (2 Co 3:6)?

Meaning there is a spiritual aspect of the law, that yes, we can see if we have the Holy Spirit for that is how we discern these things. And discerning those things is part of our life time process of gaining knowledge and understanding from the word.

An aside and a for instance: The sacrificial worship system of the law. When first I read it which was early as I began reading from the beginning, I submitted to the system but did not understand it (and didn't like it as I am an animal lover.) But slowly I have seen the shadows and types in it and recognize more and more the uniformity of the one continuing story of redemption. Same with the Exodus. Connecting the dots, and still see new things that take my breath away at the awesome perfection of God etc. The very infinity of God is glimpsed more and more and the fact that He is never doing just one thing in anything He does but all of it connects perfectly in His perfection, and omniscience,omnipresence, omnipotence, and holiness. The magnitude of the results of the crucifixion alone are unfathomable, the greatness of that rescue that Jesus did, cannot be contained or expressed in words. And still I have only touched the edges.

. . .

Not for us but for the Israelites under the law, I think it was. That is why Jesus kept it outwardly and inwardly and why God would say of Solomon that his heart was not a heart after Him is was his father David's. The difference was inner that was shown outwardly. Solomon worshiped other Gods, David would not and did not even though he did sometimes sin.

Keeping in mind that 2 Co 3:6 is about law vs. grace, works vs. faith, OC vs. NC,

The contrast between inner and outer observance of the law is of another text.

 

[Arial]

Is it not "Spirit" in the text; i.e., Holy Spirit, the author of the letter (1 Co 3:6)?

Is it not "Spirit" in the text; i.e., Holy Spirit, the author of the letter (1 Co 3:6)?

I was quoting Romans 7:14 when I was referring to the spirit of the law being scriptural. There Paul is speaking of the law making sin known as sin and that the spiritual aspects of the law gives life, (i.e. in Christ as he concludes)while the letter of it, the written laws, enslave us and condemn us.

In 2 Cor 3:6 he is discussing a different thing. The new covenant in which it is the Holy Spirit who brings those dead in sin to life and teaches, sanctifies, etc. The letter of the law kills,, but the Spirit gives life.

Keeping in mind that 2 Co 3:6 is about law vs. grace, works vs. faith, OC vs. NC,

The contrast between inner and outer observance of the law is of another text.

If you notice the edited by moderator at bottom of your post and wondered what it the world was edited and why---- it is because you said 1 Cor and it is 2 Cor and I edited it for you.

 

[Arial]

I can agree with that.

Do you think David was in fear of his salvation?

He knew God was his salvation in all types of salvation, and so maybe. He seems to have been aware in some of his Psalms that the grave was not the end of him. And if God left Him by taking the Holy Spirit from him, he was helpless and hopeless.

 

[Hobie]

@Eleanor @Arial @ReverendRV @Reformedguy @Josheb @fastfredy0 @atpollard @His clay @Carbon @Ladodgers6 @Red Baker @Manfred @TMSO @Dave_Regenerated @CrazyCalvinistUncle @severalothers,nodoubt​

​

Please note: What I am saying below is what seems to me necessary to believe, but I don't stand behind it as though I am necessarily right, nor that I have even described the notion well. In fact, even what may be taken for defense of the notion is more intended to describe my point-of-view in the matter, and not to defend it.​

Seems a lot of Calvinists/Reformed think the Holy Spirit wasn't a fixture until after Pentecost. That is, (if I understand those to whom I have spoken about it), that perhaps the Holy Spirit regenerated people, before Pentecost, but that he didn't indwell them until after Pentecost.

But I don't see how anything we do, neither faith nor obedience, is done apart from his continuous work in us. To me, it is endemic to the gospel —though not at all to say that one must understand this as part of the gospel— that Salvation, to include everything from creation and election to regeneration to glorification, is wholly the work of God. As most of you probably know, I reject the notion of synergism completely —even after sanctification— in that it suggests a work of God is made valid or complete only if we cooperate.

It is true that the Holy Spirit does as it will, and cannot be restrained. (John 3) But I don't think that what I say here posits restraint upon it.

However, (to my mind, at least), not only Regeneration, but also Sanctification (of the Old Testament believers as well as those from the New) IS from the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in us. Sanctification is not only after it came and left. It remains in the believer. Faith is endemic throughout, and that IS the work of the Spirit of God.

As I understand it, and, from my POV/ experience (not that personal experience is any basis for doctrine), the indwelling of the Spirit of God is the ONLY way any of us are of any Christian integrity. Regeneration does not change a person to make them suddenly of integrity in their thinking and their decisions, but the Spirit of God in us is what causes this "ability" continuously.

It is not endemic of regenerated unglorified humans to know or understand (in the common sense) to any effective degree what they are doing or what they believe. Only God knows these things, and that, in their entirety. And I think it can be argued that even in Heaven, our very glorification does not enable us to do anything separately from God, but that it is the completed unity with (into?) God that glorifies us, and not a work done upon us in the common temporal notion.

Apart from him we can do nothing. And I think the case can be made that apart from him, we ARE nothing.

Why would they need it when they had Christ there with them...

 

[Josheb]

.​

Seems a lot of Calvinists/Reformed think the Holy Spirit wasn't a fixture until after Pentecost...............

But I don't see how anything we do, neither faith nor obedience, is done apart from his continuous work in us.

Aside from the grammatical error Those two sentences contradict each other.

If everything we do is a continuous work of God within us (which is the Calvinist/Reformed position) then a lot of everything before, during, and after Pentecost was "fixture," and Calvinists are correct in reading scripture accordingly. In point of fact, I would argue Pentecost is a case study in God's work in us and everyone else. Pentecost was predicted (prophesied) centuries before it happened. When it happened, it happened quite deterministically. Some might even say it was violent. None of those struck by the Spirit with speaking prophecy on that day were asked if the wanted to do so. If, as some interpret the passage, those prophesying were speaking in languages other than their own then their bodies were taken over by the Spirit and made (forced) to do and say things they were not previously capable of saying or doing. If their disposition with God was changed that day - if they left that experience different than when they had entered Jerusalem - then everything about their being was hijacked and changed - and changed eternally for divine purpose and not the will or work of the flesh. If, as some view the passage, the difference between those understanding what was being said in their own language and those hearing only the mumbling of drunkards was the work of the Spirit then, again, it wasn't just those who were saved that were ruled over by the Holy Spirit without their consent. The narrative concludes with the statement, "And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved," and nowhere does the passage, the entire chapter, ever attribute any causation to the flesh.

God did it = 100%
Human did it = 0%

.

To me, it is endemic to the gospel —though not at all to say that one must understand this as part of the gospel— that Salvation, to include everything from creation and election to regeneration to glorification, is wholly the work of God.

LOL!
And we now call that perspective "monergism," and that term is more colloquially called "Calvinism," even though the monergistic point of view you just stated can be found in the writings of many theologians long before Calvin and long subsequent to Calvin (and the Reformation). Calvinists get accused of preaching a different gospel quite often, but the fact is the work of God is endemic to the gospel and salvation includes everything from creation to glorification. All of it wholly the work of God.

As most of you probably know, I reject the notion of synergism completely —even after sanctification— in that it suggests a work of God is made valid or complete only if we cooperate.

I disagree and do so in multiple ways but won't digress.

It is true that the Holy Spirit does as it will, and cannot be restrained. (John 3) But I don't think that what I say here posits restraint upon it.

The only salient part relevant to soteriology is whether or not the Spirit is conditioned upon, restrained by, and incapable of working if the still-sinful will of the sinfully dead and enslaved, hostile-to-God flesh. Synergism argues salvation cannot be coerced and God has limited Himself to now acting unless the sinful human does X, Y, or Z.

However, (to my mind, at least), not only Regeneration, but also Sanctification (of the Old Testament believers as well as those from the New) IS from the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in us. Sanctification is not only after it came and left. It remains in the believer. Faith is endemic throughout, and that IS the work of the Spirit of God.

As I understand it, and, from my POV/ experience (not that personal experience is any basis for doctrine), the indwelling of the Spirit of God is the ONLY way any of us are of any Christian integrity. Regeneration does not change a person to make them suddenly of integrity in their thinking and their decisions, but the Spirit of God in us is what causes this "ability" continuously.

It is not endemic of regenerated unglorified humans to know or understand (in the common sense) to any effective degree what they are doing or what they believe. Only God knows these things, and that, in their entirety. And I think it can be argued that even in Heaven, our very glorification does not enable us to do anything separately from God, but that it is the completed unity with (into?) God that glorifies us, and not a work done upon us in the common temporal notion.

Apart from him we can do nothing. And I think the case can be made that apart from him, we ARE nothing.

You may as well give in.

You may be reluctant to apply the term to yourself, but you are Calvinist. Maybe you don't fit firmly in the "hole," or "box," but you're firmly on the Cal side of the debate if this post is what you believe. Remember: Calvinism is not monolithic; it is a spectrum of views all having consistency with a specific core set of beliefs that begin with God as the sole agent of salvation. Maybe use the term "monergist," like I do because I don't fit firmly in the box, either. It's okay. God likes diversity within orthodoxy .

 

[Josheb]

Anyhow, I'd appreciate if any of you can convince me that it is possible for the OT saints, though Totally depraved, Unconditionally elected, to be regenerated, and kept by their own integrity subsequent to the initial work of the Holy Spirit in changing their minds concerning God. To me, this denies the very meaning of the work of God, and our unity in Christ. It raises the creature to a substantial position very close to the Self-deterministic view, and the gall rising in my throat at the thoughts is a little hard to handle. We are IN Christ, not AT Christ.

I believe I can make that case, so let me know when you get back and can devote some dedicated time to the discussion. I've done so only once before (and that was in a different forum), but maybe we can set up a private discussion (see bottom of the CCCF front page). PM me when you're ready.

 

[Eleanor]

I was quoting Romans 7:14 when I was referring to the spirit of the law being scriptural. There Paul is speaking of the law making sin known as sin and that the spiritual aspects of the law gives life, (i.e. in Christ as he concludes)while the letter of it, the written laws, enslave us and condemn us.

As a Calvinist, I assume what Calvin teaches matters to you.
Paul is making a simple comparison between nature (carnal flesh) and (spiritual) law, not between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.
Paul speaks of the law being "spiritual" because it comes from God who is Spirit.
He does not speak of "the spirit of the law," nor does he state here that the law is "scriptural."
Those phrases are not the same things as Paul is stating there, and have to be "read into" the text.
To understand text correctly, it is necessary to adhere closely to the wording of the text.

Neither Ro 7:14 nor 2 Co 3:6 refer to nor address "the spirit of the law."
The "spirit of the law" (nowhere stated in Scripture) is the letter of the law, because the Spirit is the author of the letter.
where in 2 Co 3:6 it is the Holy Spirit who authored the law which in actuality deminishes the law.

This non-Biblical distinction regarding the law serves to diminish rather than magnify the law.
For the Spirit is the letter, because the Spirit is the letter's author.
There is no distinction in Scripture which separates the letter (law) from the Spirit (its author).
That is an unwarranted pietistic invention of man.

In 2 Cor 3:6 he is discussing a different thing. The new covenant in which it is the Holy Spirit who brings those dead in sin to life and teaches, sanctifies, etc.
The letter of the law kills,, but the Spirit gives life.

Keeping in mind:
1) there is no "letter of the law" nor "spirit of the law" in Scripture, there is only "the letter" and "the Spirit" (2 Co 3:6).
2) the "letter" (the written code, which if not kept perfectly) kills, while the Spirit (the author of the law) gives life.

The use of non-Biblical phrases allows for the introduction of error which Biblical phrases do not allow.

If you notice the edited by moderator at bottom of your post and wondered what it the world was edited and why---- it is because you said 1 Cor and it is 2 Cor and I edited it for you.

Cool! Thanks.

 

[Arial]

As a Calvinist, I assume what Calvin teaches matters to you.
Paul is making a simple comparison between nature (carnal flesh) and (spiritual) law, not between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.
Paul speaks of the law being "spiritual" because it comes from God who is Spirit.
He does not speak of "the spirit of the law," nor does he state here that the law is "scriptural."
Those phrases are not the same things as Paul is stating there, and have to be "read into" the text.
To understand text correctly, it is necessary to adhere closely to the wording of the text.

Neither Ro 7:14 nor 2 Co 3:6 refer to nor address "the spirit of the law."
The "spirit of the law" (nowhere stated in Scripture) is the letter of the law, because the Spirit is the author of the letter.
where in 2 Co 3:6 it is the Holy Spirit who authored the law which in actuality deminishes the law.

This non-Biblical distinction regarding the law serves to diminish rather than magnify the law.
For the Spirit is the letter, because the Spirit is the letter's author.
There is no distinction in Scripture which separates the letter (law) from the Spirit (its author).
That is an unwarranted pietistic invention of man.

Stating things in that way to one who you know takes getting it right and not misrepresenting the word seriously, and is careful to not read into scripture what is not there, tends to make me begin to start arguing from the wrong state of mind. I know I bear some responsibility in how I react, but it tends to devolve into where we have gone before. Nowhere but both of us feeling rung out and unable to communicate.

In saying that, I an not saying I don't like to be disagreed with, or that I can never be wrong, but if I am off base it is an honest case of not yet understanding something or not understanding it completely. And in the case above, I can support my assertion according to my understanding---and without it being an unwarranted pietistic invention, or reading into the text. But I will wait until I am not in reactive mode to do so. No hard feelings. Usually when this happens it is because I am not able to get across clearly what I mean and/or you are unable to understand what I mean for whatever reason.

 

[Eleanor]

Stating things in that way to one who you know takes getting it right and not misrepresenting the word seriously, and is careful to not read into scripture what is not there, tends to make me begin to start arguing from the wrong state of mind. I know I bear some responsibility in how I react, but it tends to devolve into where we have gone before. Nowhere but both of us feeling rung out and unable to communicate.

In saying that, I an not saying I don't like to be disagreed with, or that I can never be wrong, but if I am off base it is an honest case of not yet understanding something or not understanding it completely. And in the case above, I can support my assertion according to my understanding---and without it being an unwarranted pietistic invention, or reading into the text. But I will wait until I am not in reactive mode to do so. No hard feelings. Usually when this happens it is because I am not able to get across clearly what I mean and/or you are unable to understand what I mean for whatever reason.

Gotcha! Sorry about that.

I think I am understanding, and I am not denying, the concept to which you refer, only asserting that the concept is presented in either 2 Co 3:6 or Ro 7:14, which is the reason for the language you find offensive, and which is not meant personally, bur only of the teachers who have inculcated this notion.

2 Co 3:6 and Ro 7:14 are not about the inner vs. the outer meaning of the law, but only about the law in death vs. life (2 Co 3:6) and carnal vs. spiritual (Ro 7:14).
It is never a good thing to use Scripture to support that to which it does not relate (1 Co 4:6?).

But I understand and do not disagree with the concept you are presenting. You don't need to waste your time on me there.
You've been very gracious in answering my questions.