Was the Spirit of God Indwelling the Redeemed before Pentecost?

[Arial]

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.

It is not their own definition. It comes directly from Jesus in John 3. First He says that unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. Considering that even the born again do not visibly see the kingdom, what does that mean? There are several other passages that might clear that up.

John10:25-28 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." ( and full context of the chapter.)

John 12:36-40 When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:"Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said. "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."

So not being able to see the kingdom unless one is born again means they cannot believe the gospel.

Later in that same discourse Jesus says that no one can enter the kingdom unless He is first born again.

Calvinist do not teach that regeneration is not salvation, they merely make a distinction in the things that take place. If one is born again from above when they hear the gospel they believe it. If they have not been born again, when they hear the gospel they will not believe it.

 

[Arial]

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.

Historic Arminianism does teach total depravity, and their work around the sovereignty of God in salvation is that He dispenses enough grace to all to counteract that total depravity, so all can make their own choice. If you do not believe in total depravity you simply say it isn't true, disregarding what the Bible might actually say about it. In either case, man's freedom from God is the crucial necessity rather than God Himself being central and utmost. It is at the very core of our falleness. The desire to be free of God and control our own lives as we so choose.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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.

I'm not "Arminian" - and I don't really either know, or care what they teach academically (other than that they don't buy OSAS, and tend to put MAN more in control than he is). The Assembly of God Denomination is nominally "Arminian", but the influx of former Charismatics has modified that significantly over the last 30 years. I don't pay all that much attention to their "Official theology" either. But I DO like their Missionary orientation - most effective one going.

But this DOES illustrate the USELESSNESS of the word "Regenerate", since nobody agress on what it means. I never use it myself.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Calvinist do not teach that regeneration is not salvation.

Sure they do, over and over again right here.

"Born again" is a MUCH BETTER TERM since it's "the whole package", without obsessing about meaningless details.

If they have not been born again, when they hear the gospel they will not believe it.

UNLESS the Holy Spirit CONVICTS THEM of their SIN, and of judgement - THEN they'll listen, and possibly respond - and enter life.

 

[makesends]

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.

Then, I guess I need to think of "covenant" in a different way from what I am used to. To me, though the old covenant as described or stated does not mention 'regeneration' as such, regeneration of the fallen human creature is still logically necessary within it for there to be salvific faith.

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.

Yet, pretty obviously, God spoke to the hearts of the OT saints, as is shown in many places, and so visibly in their emotions as described in the books of poetry. Differently, yes, but also the same. These places leave me with no recourse but to believe that the Spirit of God lived within the believers.

25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart
and my portion forever.

25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!"

But it is not just a question of immediate scriptural evidence, but of reason, as we have already discussed. If it is true for modern fallen man, that he must first be regenerated to have salvific faith, and that salvific faith depends on the continuous Spirit of God [in some sense] 'within' us, then it is logically necessary to be so also for ancient fallen human man, who were no different from us in that regard. —Or so it seems logically necessary to me: Else I must abandon what I took to be Reformed thinking on the inability of man, and hope for something more Arminian in nature, which at this point seems logically preposterous.

(I'm hoping you et al can convince me of something else than this last. I happily and maybe all too easily accept that I need not adopt a final conclusion of the matter before I die, but my heart wants one.)

 

[makesends]

I'm not "Arminian" - and I don't really either know, or care what they teach academically (other than that they don't buy OSAS, and tend to put MAN more in control than he is). The Assembly of God Denomination is nominally "Arminian", but the influx of former Charismatics has modified that significantly over the last 30 years. I don't pay all that much attention to their "Official theology" either. But I DO like their Missionary orientation - most effective one going.

But this DOES illustrate the USELESSNESS of the word "Regenerate", since nobody agress on what it means. I never use it myself.

But you do insist on "Born again" or "Born from above" or "Born of the Spirit", no? After all, the Bible uses those.

 

[Josheb]

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

Clarify that. What, specifically, would be mercy? What am I to understand the "that" references?

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Correct, in the NT the terms do not mean the same thing.

"Regeneration" is the new birth from spiritual death into eternal life (Jn 3:3-8).
"Salvation" is from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) at the Judgment.
"Faith" is believing in and trusting on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's guilt.
"Justification" (dikaiosis) is imputation of forensic righteousness (positional, right standing with justice; i.e., not guilty). (Ro 8:30)
"Sanctification" is actual righteousness in obedience of the Holy Spirit, which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16-22).
"Glorification" is the new spiritual body of the resurrection (1 Co 15:35-49).

Nevertheless, where there is regeneration there is faith, and
where there is faith there is salvation, and
where there is salvation there is justification, and
where there is justification there is sanctification, and
where there is sanctification there is glorification,
but that does not mean they are all the same thing, although they all do occur in the redeemed.

 

[Josheb]

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.

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.

Okay. But let's be consistent with both scripture and our agreed-upon, shared doctrinal povs because we understand salvation to necessarily be a work of God and God alone. We also read scripture to explicitly states salvation is a gift from God that is by grace through faith and nothing of ourselves. Both of those views accompany the points already stated (approval of God, knowledge of the gospel, etc.) found stated in epistolary that have already been posted. While the epistolary was written by a regenerate NT believer to regenerate NT believers mostly about regenerate NT believers we could apply these texts to the OT believer and readily, logically conclude they were regenerate because there's no other alternative espoused in scripture. There is a thesis, and it is singular and without exception or alternative.




For the sake of clarity: I've read where some of my Reformed siblings do not think regeneration is an indwelling. I disagree. The whole-scripture view (as I have endeavored to articulate it) is that the Spirit indwells many people in many ways at many times for many purposes. David was indwelt. The OT prophets were indwelt. The gospel era disciples (not just the twelve) were indwelt but they were not indwelt the same way as that which occurred at Pentecost. Because regeneration is a rebirthing of the spirit within a person (literally: born anew from above = gennethe anothen) it is a form of the Spirit indwelling a person. It simply is not identical to other forms indwelling.
.

 

[Eleanor]

Clarify that. What, specifically, would be mercy? What am I to understand the "that" references?

To me, loss of existence would be mercy, which you presented as the ultimate punishment, worse than suffering forever.

 

[makesends]

Okay. But let's be consistent with both scripture and our agreed-upon, shared doctrinal povs because we understand salvation to necessarily be a work of God and God alone. We also read scripture to explicitly states salvation is a gift from God that is by grace through faith and nothing of ourselves. Both of those views accompany the points already stated (approval of God, knowledge of the gospel, etc.) found stated in epistolary that have already been posted. While the epistolary was written by a regenerate NT believer to regenerate NT believers mostly about regenerate NT believers we could apply these texts to the OT believer and readily, logically conclude they were regenerate because there's no other alternative espoused in scripture. There is a thesis, and it is singular and without exception or alternative.




For the sake of clarity: I've read where some of my Reformed siblings do not think regeneration is an indwelling. I disagree. The whole-scripture view (as I have endeavored to articulate it) is that the Spirit indwells many people in many ways at many times for many purposes. David was indwelt. The OT prophets were indwelt. The gospel era disciples (not just the twelve) were indwelt but they were not indwelt the same way as that which occurred at Pentecost. Because regeneration is a rebirthing of the spirit within a person (literally: born anew from above = gennethe anothen) it is a form of the Spirit indwelling a person. It simply is not identical to other forms indwelling.
.

Agreed. If you have the time, read post #165 in answer to @Arial #157 (I don't know how to link to 165 directly until someone quotes it.)

https://christcentered.community.fo...eemed-before-pentecost.1291/page-8#post-51141

 

[makesends]

Loss of existence, which you presented as the ultimate punishment, worse than suffering forever.

"It would be better for him if he had not been born."

 

[Arial]

But it is not just a question of immediate scriptural evidence, but of reason, as we have already discussed. If it is true for modern fallen man, that he must first be regenerated to have salvific faith, and that salvific faith depends on the continuous Spirit of God [in some sense] 'within' us, then it is logically necessary to be so also for ancient fallen human man, who were no different from us in that regard. —Or so it seems logically necessary to me: Else I must abandon what I took to be Reformed thinking on the inability of man, and hope for something more Arminian in nature, which at this point seems logically preposterous.

As long as we do not reason into the Bible what is not there. I do not have a problem with knowing something to be true because of what Scripture says regarding man's condition and God's sovereignty in all who are saved without adding the words regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit to where they are not given. Any who were saved in the OT were saved by God and were kept by God. The difference between those who were and those who weren't was a heart condition. And there were people saved long before the Sinai covenant by the same faith in/trust in God. Also don't forget it is God who blinds eyes and God who opens them. As to covenants, other than the blinding and the opening, nothing is said of regeneration, and though we see the Holy Spirit at work in the OC we never see indwelling spoken of. To me regarding the indwelling at least, it says it is specifically a part of the new covenant---in that it is for the entire community of NC believers. The Reformed position on the inability of man does not depend of whether or not regeneration and indwelling are attached to OT believers in the same way as they are in the new covenant. We know they were in the same condition spiritually as we are. But regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit pertain to believing in Christ and Him crucified.

(I'm hoping you et al can convince me of something else than this last. I happily and maybe all too easily accept that I need not adopt a final conclusion of the matter before I die, but my heart wants one.)

Well the heart wants what the heart wants. Take comfort that it is your heart that wants. It will be satisfied. I am simply not pressed on that particular thing, but your words reminded me of something this morning, and in remembering it received anew that fresh joy of finding what my heart was crying out for, and the absolute perfection of two prayers, one mine, one my brothers, being answered together. I must recount it and will try to be brief.

Every morning my brother would go out to breakfast at a particular coffee shop and had become friends with a group of three or four men who did the same thing. One of them was a Christian and everyday they talked about the things of God. But my brother also prayed each morning that God would send someone to him that he could share the gospel with and bring to Christ. He was A'ist as was I. Days went by with nothing so one morning he prayed, "Well if you are not going to send me to someone, send someone to me." That very morning Butch gave him a book, by Dr. Kennedy, "Truths That Transform."

Meanwhile back at my house, and not that same day but not many days before, I was coming down the stairs on my way to church and I had such a longing for something that I knew I was not going to get at that church service. The only way I knew to express it was to say to myself, "I want to hear about God." I did not know exactly what I meant, only that I was not getting it. I checked out a few other churches looking for it and could not find it.

My brother read the little book written by a Presbyterian and on the sovereignty of God. He was so excited to see those things presented, a duck to water, he brought the book to me saying, "This book will change your life." He was actually grinning ear to ear. I had read many of those life changing Christian books, full of formulas and such, and I said "There is no such book." But I read it. I hadn't gotten to page three before I said to myself, "This book is about God!" And I began a quest into Reformation theology that still is ongoing twenty years later.

 

[Josheb]

Nor was it presented to be so.

It was.

The question asked, "Does a plan deny reason....." was predicated upon the upholding of God's law and being saved from that law. Whether intended or not, the law was used to justify the reason or denial of reason twice, in two different ways.

I am unaware of any scripture stating we are saved from the law. Galatians 3:13 states we are saved from the law's curse, not from the law. Is there some scripture of which I am unaware stating we're saved from the law? If so I'd like to see it because one of the most profound and undeniable realities of the epistolary is that all the NT writers often and repeatedly applied the law (and the Law) to their Christian readers (including the Gentile converts). They simply did not do so as a means of obtaining righteousness or justification.

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).

That is incorrect. The word "simply" does not belong. The purpose, efficacy, effect, limits and application, of the laws (or Law) of God is not singular or simple. There are, in fact, multiple reasons for the Law cited in both Old and New and if we took all the many things said about the law there is no reason to think that list would be exhaustive. What you have observed is (mostly) correct but it is not complete. That which is incomplete is often also wrong wherever the incomplete is assumed complete .

For example,

• The law is good (when used lawfully).
• The law is spiritual.
• The law is applied to the converts to Christ, both Jewish and Gentile.
• The law is abrogated or annulled as a means of obtaining righteousness and justification.
• The law informs us of sin.
• The law is the means of accounting for sin.
• The law is one small portion of what may be and often is called the "Mosaic covenant" but that covenant is one small portion of a much larger covenant that runs through the entirety of scripture.

That partial list demonstrates the law is anything but "simply" to reveal sin. You've taken Hebrews 8:13 out of context. Go back and read the larger Hebrews 8 text and combine it with what Paul wrote about the law. Verse 13 certainly cannot be made to conflict with verse 10 . Re-read (because I am confident you have read them before ) Paul's commentaries on the law in Romans 3-8 and 10. NOTE that he specifies to conditions, two specific contexts, for his comments. The first is the law as a means by which someone might be justified (a legal term indicating a valid basis for standing before God) and righteousness.

Aside from those two specified application Paul often and repeatedly applies the laws of God to his audiences! So too do all the other NT writers. The NT authors constantly referenced, cited, and quoted the OT laws and applied them to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.

But they never did so teaching the law makes a person righteous.


And we're getting far afield of the op. What's relevant about the law to the op is that the law is planted in the convert's heart by grace, through faith solely via the inner working of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the law put into our minds and written on our hearts is a form of indwelling. I will go even further to say the standard precedent established in the NT is that regeneration and indwelling are not normally two separate events and those exceptions found in the NT are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule.

 

[Eleanor]

As long as we do not reason into the Bible what is not there. I do not have a problem with knowing something to be true because of what Scripture says regarding man's condition and God's sovereignty in all who are saved without adding the words regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit to where they are not given. Any who were saved in the OT were saved by God and were kept by God. The difference between those who were and those who weren't was a heart condition. And there were people saved long before the Sinai covenant by the same faith in/trust in God. Also don't forget it is God who blinds eyes and God who opens them. As to covenants, other than the blinding and the opening, nothing is said of regeneration, and though we see the Holy Spirit at work in the OC we never see indwelling spoken of. To me regarding the indwelling at least, it says it is specifically a part of the new covenant---in that it is for the entire community of NC believers. The Reformed position on the inability of man does not depend of whether or not regeneration and indwelling are attached to OT believers in the same way as they are in the new covenant. We know they were in the same condition spiritually as we are. But regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit pertain to believing in Christ and Him crucified.

Well the heart wants what the heart wants. Take comfort that it is your heart that wants. It will be satisfied. I am simply not pressed on that particular thing, but your words reminded me of something this morning, and in remembering it received anew that fresh joy of finding what my heart was crying out for, and the absolute perfection of two prayers, one mine, one my brothers, being answered together. I must recount it and will try to be brief.

Every morning my brother would go out to breakfast at a particular coffee shop and had become friends with a group of three or four men who did the same thing. One of them was a Christian and everyday they talked about the things of God. But my brother also prayed each morning that God would send someone to him that he could share the gospel with and bring to Christ. He was A'ist as was I. Days went by with nothing so one morning he prayed, "Well if you are not going to send me to someone, send someone to me." That very morning Butch gave him a book, by Dr. Kennedy, "Truths That Transform."

Meanwhile back at my house, and not that same day but not many days before, I was coming down the stairs on my way to church and I had such a longing for something that I knew I was not going to get at that church service. The only way I knew to express it was to say to myself, "I want to hear about God." I did not know exactly what I meant, only that I was not getting it. I checked out a few other churches looking for it and could not find it.

My brother read the little book written by a Presbyterian and on the sovereignty of God. He was so excited to see those things presented, a duck to water, he brought the book to me saying, "This book will change your life." He was actually grinning ear to ear. I had read many of those life changing Christian books, full of formulas and such, and I said "There is no such book." But I read it. I hadn't gotten to page three before I said to myself, "This book is about God!" And I began a quest into Reformation theology that still is ongoing twenty years later.

So you're saying the NT is clear on the matter, but the OT is not?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

But you do insist on "Born again" or "Born from above" or "Born of the Spirit", no? After all, the Bible uses those.

I generally refer to the "Salvation package" as being "Born Again", since that's how Jesus termed it in John 3.

I realize that "Man's Theology" has issues with even THAT terminology, But I'm comfortable with it.

 

[Arial]

Sure they do, over and over again right here.

"Born again" is a MUCH BETTER TERM since it's "the whole package", without obsessing about meaningless details.

Show me. You simply do not understand distinctions.

What do you think born again means? What do you think regeneration means if not being generated again? The unregenerate person born in Adam, cannot understand the gospel to believe it. 1 Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. This is our natural condition. Regeneration is the Holy Spirit, by whom things are spiritually discerned, changing the heart condition of the person back to the way in which it was created, and that was lost in the fall. Why quibble over words?

UNLESS the Holy Spirit CONVICTS THEM of their SIN, and of judgement - THEN they'll listen, and possibly respond - and enter life.

It isn't about being convicted of sin. It is about believing in the person and work of Jesus. If one believes that quite naturally they are convicted of sin. Otherwise they scoff. Where do the Scriptures tell us that choosing Christ comes from being convicted of sin? What it does say is John 6:43-44 "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father draws them: and I will raise him up on the last day." So it isn't being convicted of sin, it is the Father drawing. And this drawing is not a matter of choosing for Jesus says all who are drawn by God He will raise up on the last day.

Instead of just reasserting your position, support it, and also address the scriptures that are given to you and the posters assertions. You never do this. It is disingenuous.

 

[Arial]

So you're saying the NT is clear on the matter, but the OT is not?

On the use of the terms, yes. The OT does not use them.

 

[makesends]

Eleanor said:
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).

That is incorrect. The word "simply" does not belong. The purpose, efficacy, effect, limits and application, of the laws (or Law) of God is not singular or simple. There are, in fact, multiple reasons for the Law cited in both Old and New and if we took all the many things said about the law there is no reason to think that list would be exhaustive. What you have observed is (mostly) correct but it is not complete. That which is incomplete is often also wrong wherever the incomplete is assumed complete .

Being rather (and, yes, extremely, I suppose) partial to @Eleanor, I could be wrong, but I am thinking you are mistaking her argument here. She uses "simply" only in context of the point she is trying to make. She does not mean that "the purpose, efficacy, effect, limits and application, of the laws (or Law) of God is [not] singular or simple."

But, yes, the fact that it is not simple is to some degree relevant to her argument.

 

[makesends]

I generally refer to the "Salvation package" as being "Born Again", since that's how Jesus termed it in John 3.

I realize that "Man's Theology" has issues with even THAT terminology, But I'm comfortable with it.

"Man's Theology" has issues with all truth. So what? It is what it is. Deal with it. No need for the contentious attitude. Your continual scornful mocking is out of place. Just saying.