Was the Spirit of God Indwelling the Redeemed before Pentecost?

[Eleanor]

Would you believe that which you didn't grasp or at least spiritually perceived? I don't deny grasping or perceiving is a work of God.

I may not believe what I can grasp or perceive because it seems absurd e.g. a deity that gives to you what he requires of you.

Ho-hum, nice thought. . .pass the pickles.

 

[Eleanor]

I had said "Abraham was justified when he believed God. Is there something we need to add?"

So we should add to Scripture?

Romans 3:28 NKJV
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

I give up. . .should we?

 

[fastfredy0]

But the Author himself doesn't just insert, but maintains the reality of the story, VERY intimately. This rings true biblically, experientially and philosophically/logically.

Totally agree .... that why I quoted the verse: 28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], as even some of [a]your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

If God could cease to exist ... then so would we.
Job 34:14 If [God] should set His heart upon him [man] and withdraw His [life-giving] spirit and His breath [from man] to Himself, 15 All flesh would perish together, and man would turn again to dust.
If things live, God is in them, and gives them life; if things move, God is in them, and gives them motion; if things have any being, God is in them, and gives them being; if God withdraws himself; they presently lose their being. As his presence was actual with what he created, so his presence is actual with what he preserves, since creation and preservation do so little differ; if God creates things by his essential presence, by the same he supports them; if his substance cannot be disjoined from his preserving power, his power and wisdom cannot be separated from his essence.
Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God . Kindle Edition.

.... so verses and doctrine like this gives me pause when people talk about God indwelling people. God 'indwells' everyone, so my guess is that when you see the 30 or so verses about God "indwelling" or "abiding" or "being with" or whatever ... it talking about God being there to the benefit of whom He indwells ... but I can't prove it.

 

[fastfredy0]

it is logically self-contradictory for God to sin, since sin is rebellion against God.

Agreed. God makes the rules and everything goes His way; He never rebels from Himself and as He is the First Cause, there is no WHY (pre-established rules) for which He is answerable to.

 

[Eleanor]

Does a plan deny reason that renders mercy at the same time it executes judgment?

No, not always or usually but there is a judgment pending where there will be no mercy and any "plan" about that judgment holding another view does deny reason.
I would further say that, temporally speaking, all judgments are also acts of mercy because God could simply speak a sinner's existence out of existence

To me that would be mercy, rather than suffering for an eternity.

 

[Eleanor]

But we're not talking about BIBLICAL usage. We're talking about MAN'S THEOLOGY about what the Bible says.

Nor am I willing to surrender those words of God to man's misuse of them.
For where does it stop, what comes next, surrender of the gospel?

I will labor for God's words to be correctly understood rather than regarding them as meaningless.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Nor am I willing to surrender those words of God to man's misuse of them.
For where does it stop, what comes next, surrender of the gospel?

I will labor for God's words to be correctly understood rather than regarding them as meaningless.

So what do YOU THINK "Regeneration" means???

 

[makesends]

Exactly. I get a Provisionist to admit I'm a Brother, then I agree with him God can't Sin; so why is my God a Monster?

"Because he's not fair."

It's mainly Unconditional Reprobation that they think is Monstrous. But that's Supra / Infra Lapsarian stuff. Did God Elect before or after the Fall? After the Fall would take the "God Monster" Accusation out of the equation, because God would Elect or Reprobate out of the concept of Original Sin; without people doing anything Good to deserve Election, or anything Bad to deserve Reprobation...

Does God Elect from the same Lump of Unfallen Clay, or from the same Lump of Fallen Clay?

I don't see any excuse for God, if God is God, regardless of one's stance. If Infra, God still caused it, and the fall. If God is God, there is no mistake, no chance, no random fact. He planned whatsoever comes to pass. But, of course, God needs no excuse. We are the idiots who think we need to lighten his load, and make it easier for the self-determinist and the unbelievers to like God.

 

[prism]

I give up. . .should we?

Personally, I wouldn't..

Revelation 22:18 NKJV
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;

 

[Eleanor]

So what do YOU THINK "Regeneration" means???

Greek = palingenesia = new birth (palin = again, genesia = birth)

We are born without eternal life, the new birth is to eternal life.
It is a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, based in nothing but his choice to do so, and who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8).
It is the source of all that is salvific; i.e.,
faith,
remission of sin,
condemnation removed,
declared positionally righteous (justification, sentence of acquittal),
sanctification (actual righteousness in death to sin, Ro 6:16-22) and
glorification.

 

[makesends]

Hebrews 11:39-40
And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

makesends said:
That passage seems to me to be referring to no lack of completion in faith or regeneration, however. Time irrelevant, I think.

Explain that, please.

The NIV puts it, that together with us, they are made complete. (I don't know if that is accurate to the use of the Greek, that says only that they are made complete "not apart from us", but it makes sense to me. Particularly taking into account the contextual discussion about the the offspring of those old ones, in Hebrews and in other places, the promises and prophecies being fulfilled after they died.) So I don't see their faith concerning the gospel nor any part-regeneration, described here. Those were complete —at least, in effect. As complete as our own, (though we have more facts to throw at it). That's all I meant.

Yes. That is the case because absent the Spirit the sinner has only the flesh and that flesh and all its constituent components are sinful. Regardless of "total depravity," the premise means God uses something sinful to save from sin and that is both circular and contradictory. Sin saves from sin? The righteous God uses unrighteousness to make on righteous? Both those questions (and a plethora of others like them) dey reason.

I don't either. They were, by grace through faith, accepted, gained approval, and deemed righteous. Perhaps someone could explain otherwise, but given the whole of scripture it's enormously inconsistent to think these men were left alone with their sinful flesh an the exact same state described in the NT among the ecclesia. That would mean there are three categories of humans, not two (dead in sin, alive in Christ, and dead in sin and righteous but not alive in Christ). Remember: the gospel was preached to Abraham and David understood the promise of an eternal thrown to reference the resurrection and he knew the LORD's Lord was more significant than he.

They knew and believed the gospel that saves.

I haven't shot anyone in cyberspace yet .

 

[makesends]

I had said "Abraham was justified when he believed God. Is there something we need to add?"

So we should add to Scripture?

Romans 3:28 NKJV
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Scripture adds to scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

All temporal judgment is, in fact, intended for some purpose in addition to the judgment itself and as such is an act of mercy for all that survive. This is because - as I have often posted - ALL acts of God glorify God. God is glorified when he - by grace - saves a purpose from sin AND God is also glorified when He metes out the just recompense for sin.

However, the "law" is not the justification for God's action. The law is God's partial explanation for His actions. His holy righteousness is His justification.

Nor was it presented to be so.
It is simply the terms of the old covenant contract with man, and is all that is relevant to that contract.
It was given simply to reveal sin (Ro 3:20), nothing more and nothing less, which is why it was made obsolete with that covenant (Heb 8:13) and summed up in one rule in the New Covenant by the Holy Spirit; i.e., love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:8-10, 1 Co 9:20, Mt 22:37-40).

 

[makesends]

A person does not need the indwelling to be reborn. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as the indwelling. Jesus describes the new birth to Nicodemus in John 3. Being filled with the Spirit is the indwelling. And maybe it amounts to the same thing before Christ's incarnation, I do not know. And I don't think anyone does unless they just happen to guess correctly. The Bible does not speak of regeneration or indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT. The NT believer is in the incarnate Christ which cannot happen until He is incarnate and does the work of redemption. That is the covenant relationship.

What I am calling indwelling is not what you are calling indwelling —i.e. not what is referred to by "filling". But I'm not trying to argue terminology here. My point is that I see no way a person can be regenerated, nor have faith, by getting hit over the head, a one-time slam, that is immediately abandoned. But that doesn't mean I claim regeneration and sanctification are the same thing —all through the NT the language associated with regeneration and salvation is of continuous action by God, sustaining and providing the spiritual source of that faith. "Rivers of living water" does not sound like something that a person finds within himself when the Spirit is no longer there to generate his faith. It is the very unity of the Spirit within the person that is the essence of regeneration. Being 'in-Christ'.

Nevertheless, Christ before the incarnation is present in the Godhead. Just as Israel worshiped a triune God whether they understood Him as triune or not. We know that no one has the faith that trusts in God as we are all at enmity with Him. So He has to give that faith, and He has to sustain that faith. The details of this I can only know how it is in the new covenant because He tells us. I cannot peer into the mind of God and I cannot peer into the mind of any in the OT.

Yes. I don't see how it could be monergistic in the NT and not in the OT. God doesn't change and the natural man has no ability to change himself in that regard. But that does not necessarily translate to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT. It also does not necessarily discount it.

Jesus was chiding him for not knowing what the water and Spirit in Is 32:15;44:3; Ezek 35:25-27. Water and Spirit were linked there to express the pouring out of God's Spirit in the end times (the end times being the time between His first and second coming) and the purification and new life that flow from His arrival.

Jesus was chiding him for not knowing what it is to be born of the water and of the Spirit, I think. But anyhow, I don't give Salvation and Sanctification the stark difference between the old and new covenants, that you seem to. But, you may be right.

 

[prism]

Scripture adds to scripture.

Yes, true and…?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Greek = palingenesia = new birth (palin = again, genesia = birth)

We are born without eternal life, the new birth is to eternal life.
It is a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit, based in nothing but his choice to do so, and who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:3-8).
It is the source of all that is salvific; i.e.,
faith,
remission of sin,
condemnation removed,
declared positionally righteous (justification, sentence of acquittal),
sanctification (actual righteousness in death to sin, Ro 6:16-22) and
glorification.

I agree completely. In short, a person who has been "regenerated" has been Born agai, Indwelled by the Holy Spirit and is a "Christian".

Calvinists, however, have THEIR OWN definition, and teach that "Regeneration" IS NOT "salvation". They appear to see it as the "Work around" for their "Total Depravity" theology.

 

[Arial]

What I am calling indwelling is not what you are calling indwelling —i.e. not what is referred to by "filling". But I'm not trying to argue terminology here. My point is that I see no way a person can be regenerated, nor have faith, by getting hit over the head, a one-time slam, that is immediately abandoned. But that doesn't mean I claim regeneration and sanctification are the same thing —all through the NT the language associated with regeneration and salvation is of continuous action by God, sustaining and providing the spiritual source of that faith. "Rivers of living water" does not sound like something that a person finds within himself when the Spirit is no longer there to generate his faith. It is the very unity of the Spirit within the person that is the essence of regeneration. Being 'in-Christ'.

Jesus was chiding him for not knowing what it is to be born of the water and of the Spirit, I think. But anyhow, I don't give Salvation and Sanctification the stark difference between the old and new covenants, that you seem to. But, you may be right.

I am nor sure in what way you think I am presenting a stark difference----what exactly you think that is. However, though God remains the same, and humanity remains the same in relation to God, the two covenants are starkly different. There was no regeneration into the old covenant. There is regeneration into the new covenant.

God spoke to the people in the OC in far different way than He speaks to us today. Then it was through prophets, and through the law. Now it is in Christ Jesus and His word, and it is the Holy Spirit who illuminates that word to us. It is living word. And I keep stressing, and will stress again, my position on the matter. No one is saved of their own volition. No one remains in that condition of their own volition. That is a given. What is not a given are the inward in man details of this concerning the old testament saints, that are clearly given for the new covenant, that is, regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit. Since that is the case, I accept what is said, that salvation is always through faith, always of God, and there was salvation unto eternal life before the incarnation, and I do not speculate about what is not said.

 

[makesends]

Scripture adds to scripture.

@Eleanor had used scriptural truth to show that what you were using for 'proof text' was not stand-alone proof. You then claimed she was adding to scripture. She was not. She was showing scriptural truth that adds to the scripture you were using. Scripture adds to scripture.

 

[makesends]

I agree completely. In short, a person who has been "regenerated" has been Born agai, Indwelled by the Holy Spirit and is a "Christian".

Calvinists, however, have THEIR OWN definition, and teach that "Regeneration" IS NOT "salvation". They appear to see it as the "Work around" for their "Total Depravity" theology.

Arminianistic theologies also do not claim that regeneration is salvation. They claim that a person first becomes saved, and so then the Spirit of God moves in. This is their work-around for after-all not-quite-total depravity.

 

[makesends]

Personally, I wouldn't..

Revelation 22:18 NKJV
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;

Yet, you did it right there. You added scripture to proof text what you tried to claim was scriptural truth.