Featured What OT passages suggest that ALL OT believrs had the Holy Spirit JUST as we have Him

It is amazing the ignorance that abounds on the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration. There are some truths that should be obvious to all.

1. Man's fallen nature has not changed since the day Adam sinned. - Rom. 5:12 - and neither has the only possible divine solution for dealing with by Christ as all humanity is either spiritually related to Adam or Christ - Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21; 40-48.

2. There has never been and never will be any kind of salvation OUTSIDE of Christ but only "in Christ" as there are no other possible options. - Gal. 4:22-23

3. Fallen man is OUTSIDE of Christ regardless at what point in history he lives as that is the state of any fallen man.

4. The fallen condition of the human heart cannot please God any more before Pentecost than it can after Pentecost - Rom. 8:8 - because it is a matter of its condition not a matter of when it exists.

5. If there is no change of heart there is no salvation regardless if that heart exists before or after Pentecost.

6. That change of heart is always a supernatural work of God that brings it from spiritual separation from God who is life/light unto spiritual union with God who is life/light apart from which there is no possible way it can please God whether before Pentecost - Deut. 5:29/29:4 - or after Pentecost.

7. Regeneration is simply giving LIFE by bringing the separated spirit of man (dead) into spiritual union with LIFE which is God.

8. No spiritual union is possible without indwelling as they are inseparably related. - Rom. 8:8-9

9. No spiritual union is possible without sealing as they are inseparably related because the Spirit is the seal. 2 Cor. 1:21-22 and if one is regenerated (living spiritually) they are in spiritual union with God or else they are spiritually separated (dead) from God and spiritual union IS indwelling by the Spirit which IS being "sealed" by the Spirit.

What these fellows don't understand or recognize is the difference between INDIVIDUAL indwelling as in 1 Cor. 6:19 as a temple of the Holy Spirit and INSTITUTIONAL indwelling as in 1 Cor. 3:16 as a temple of the Holy Spirit.

INDIVIDUAL indwelling has been the historic condition of all the elect of God from Adam to the present. Institutional indwelling has been existent only since the first "house of God" was built and only occurs once immediately upon completion of a new public house of worship (Acts 2:1-3) that is characterized by a divine building plan, a qualified ministry (1 Tim. 3:1-13) and qualified ordinances (1 Pet. 2:5).

 

:thumbsup: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2181191#post2181191

 

I agree and appreciate the semantic differences between INDIVIDUAL and INSTITUTIONAL concepts although I had not specifically identified a generic label of categorization for them.

HankD

 

Think through what I am about to say before answering it. The Old Covenant did not begin until Moses - right! So the Old Covenant was never about the salvation of INDIVIDUAL'S as Abraham who preceded Moses and the Old Covenant by 430 years is given as the pattern for INDIVIDUAL justification by faith. Hence, the Old Covenant was given as a NATIONAL covenant which Paul explains could never convey eternal life to any individual or to the nation (Gal. 3:19-20) but was a schoolmaster to teach them. The "new" covenant promise in the Old Testament is given to the NATION of Israel in direct contrast to the OLD Covenant (Jer. 31:33-34; Ezek. 36:25-28) but the basis of this "new" covenant is the basis for INDIVIDUAL salvation as well (Heb. 8:12-15; 10:15-17) and always has been (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2). Therefore, the Old Covenant was NATIONAL and never a basis for individual salvation, not then, not now, not ever.

So your constant reference to the Old Covenant in regard to INDIVIDUAL salvation is a misnomer. You need to go back 430 years prior to Moses to Abraham to see the PATTERN of individual salvation from the Garden of Eden to Christ comes again. That pattern is according to the "blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20) as the very same gospel was preached unto Moses and individual Israelites living then for personal salvation (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43).

The gospel ("blood") of the "everlasting covenant" has always been and always will be the covenant which God administers personal salvation to all of his elect in all ages regardless when they lived.

So, before we can deal with the individual applications of the "everlasting covenant" we must first get rid of the dispensational nationalistic "Old" covenant idea of individual salvation from your mind as it never was designed to save anyone at any time.

 

1) Where is that found?

2) If your statement seems to say what the words indicate then the reason is that the Messiah had not yet come and the "church" (ecclesia) had not yet been revealed.

3) I never said it was EXACTLY the same.

To be forthright I don't know all the details, there is one passage which shows a difference (perhaps)

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

A one time baptism?

The reason I used the ASV is because it translates the preposition ev as "in" rather than "with" (as the KJV). "with" is possible but "in" is better (IMO).

"with" may have been better for the OT "indwelling".

And yes I have taken 3 semesters of koine Greek, 2 of Hebrew and 1 of modern Hebrew. Not an expert by most measures but I admit I am not sure of the differences concerning the individual and institutional characteristics of the Spirit's function when it comes to Israel vs. the Church.


HankD

 

For the second (or is it the third) time I did not use the phrase "in the same fashion" which words you seem intent upon putting in my mouth (or at least implying the same) Yeshua and in fact I denied that it was in the same fashion.

In fact I gave you an instance in which I noted the difference between the water baptism of John (Mikvah) and the Spirit baptism of Jesus Christ who alone is worthy to baptize in the Spirit (of which function John put in the future tense "...He shall baptize you in the holy Spirit...").

Like I said, it has to do with prepositional phrases..."with" rather than "in", etc. and the office of the administrator.

Personally and obviously, I am a NT believer and my focus is there on the matters of the Holy Spirit except to say that I believe that the OT saints were regenerated for the sake of answering the O/P at least in part.

HankD

 

If Calvinism is true, then the OT saints could not obtain approval through faith unless they had been regenerated, born anew, altered to overcome their total spiritual inability. So the argument in favor of indwelling of the OT saints is an agenda driven argument.

According to scripture those OT Saints who believed in God were taken to "Abraham's bosom" when they died. They did not immediately enter heaven, because Jesus says no one ascended into heaven. After, Jesus died on the cross, Jesus led captive the "captives" i.e. saints in Abraham's bosom to heaven. Thus they had to wait, until Christ died as the Lamb of God, before they could be made perfect, faultless, and enter heaven.

Here is how the NASB95 renders Galatians 4:28-29:

Note that the second "who was born" was added by the translators and is not part of the inspired text. Thus the verse can be understood to say those who were born according to the flesh (i.e. all fallen folks) persecuted Isaac who was "according to the Spirit." Isaac was a believer in God and a child of the promise, but had not yet been born anew under the provision of the New Covenant; he too had to wait in Abraham's bosom.

The fact that the Holy Spirit came upon and influenced OT Saints, including being "in" them to inspire them is not at issue. The issue is "were the OT saints indwelt (sealed in Christ) before Christ died? And the answer is no.

Often, when a word or phrase is added to the text, because in the original something was not said, i.e. an ellipsis, the validity of what was added is justified because something was left out. However, other choices are available to fill in what may have been omitted. For example, Isaac might have been “guided” or “influenced” according to the Spirit. No need to insert an agenda driven idea.

The comparison between then, Isaac’s time, and now, Paul’s time, remains believers were persecuted by those born of the flesh in both periods,

And the issue is not that all OT Saints were eventually born anew, the issue is when were they born anew. Were the OT Saints born anew before Christ died? The answer is no. The alternate view has the OT Saints being born anew yet somehow inexplicably not made perfect. You have the OT Saints being sealed in Christ before Christ died on the cross, yet unable to enter heaven.

Does the Greek word, “anothen” always mean “above” when used by John? Of course not! If Jesus had said, “you must be born from [heaven]above, Nickodemus would have gathered that he must reenter his mother’s womb.

Another argument for OT Saints being born anew prior to gaining approval through faith, was “how do you know it did not occur?” Thus speculation not contradicted by scripture is said to be solid biblical doctrine. Fiddlesticks. We are to base our beliefs on what the Bible says, not on what it does not say. For example, the Bible does not say God did not put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. How do you know it did not occur? J

Were the OT Saints made perfect, holy and blameless before Christ died? No. Was their faith credited as righteousness, and were their sins not held against them? Yes. When they died, they went to Abraham’s bosom, not Hades. But they had to wait until Christ died, to be made perfect and faultless.

 

I understand your point, but you are mistaken. The issue is not about faith, as faith is a "fruit" of the Spirit. Nor is it really about inability being reversed. The issue is "spiritual death" due to sin. Adam died spiritually "in the day" he ate. He was spiritually separated from God the instant he sinned. God IS life and God IS Light both before and after Pentecost. The only possible solution for "spiritual SEPARATION" is "spiritual UNION" with God. It is just that simple.

In Judistic literature "Abraham's bosom" was merely an expression to be with or close to Abraham the father of Israel just as John leaned upon rested upon the "bosom" of Christ here on earth. David plainly states that his expectation at physical death was heaven and that he would enter heaven. The translation on the mountain with Moses and Elijah proves that Old Testament saints were already in heaven before the cross as the Bible explicitly states that God took Elijah up to heaven.

This is an OLD TESTAMENT expression used by Barak when he captured those who held Israel in Captivity and led them in his triumphant return to Jerusalem. Likewise, by the cross Jesus won a victory over sin, death and hell, taking them captive in his triumphant entry into heaven and thus he holds the keys of death and hell as the Captain of our salvation.

this is what translators call an "ellipsis" and is very common, instead of repeating the term "born". Moreover, your translation creates a problem for you as the text says "AS THEN.....EVEN SO NOW" and by removing "born" from before "after the Spirit" you just eliminated "NOW" anyone "born after the Spirit" and thus destroyed his whole application.

The very same language "came upon" is used AFTER Pentecost (Acts 8:14) and always in every instance refers to being EQUIPPED or EMPOWERED by the Spirit then and now.

The Spirit was "in" those who did not write by inspiration and were not prophets (Caleb, the Seventy).

spiritual union, indwelling and sealing are all INSEPARABLE truths. The human spirit is the object of new birth (Jn. 3:6) and the human spirit resides WITHIN man at all times. Hence, for it to be in spiritual union with God requires the Holy Spirit to INDWELL man as it is impossible to be in spiritual union with God INSIDE OF MAN and not be indwelt by the Spirit. It is this indwelling spiritual union that IS sealing as the Spirit Himself IS the seal.

John 3:3-6 is stated as a present fact not something anticipated in the future. Aorist tense verbs are used without any future tense verbs. Nicodemus is rebuked for being a teacher and not understanding this as Old Testament prophets spoke of this as something commonly understood:

Eze 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Notice that Ezekiel did not respond like Nicodemus by asking what do you mean? It stated and received as common knowledge. So Old Testament saints were circumcised in heart and were given "another heart" and the generic phrase "the upright in heart" is a common description of the saints in the Old Testament.

Nicodemus understood it to mean "again" as he says "a second time" he did not respond by referring to something "above" - period end of story.

Your theory demands ANOTHER WAY OF SALVATION for pre-cross verus post cross saints but the scriptures deny that. In fact, it is Abraham that is used to be the pattern for ALL WHO BELIEVE regardless when they live in regard to JUSTIFICATION which consists of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to them due to the fact that Christ is the OBJECT of his faith and remission of sins which does not exist apart from INTERNAL WASHING from sins - Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:5-8.

 

Posted Anew

1) The argument for indwelling of OT Saints before Christ died is agenda driven.
2) Adam was separated, and therefore all mankind is conceived in a separated sinful state, i.e. they are made sinners.
3) Nether David nor any other OT Saint entered heaven when they died, John 3:13.
4) Yes, after Christ died, He led the captives in Abraham's bosom to heaven, for by the blood of Christ, they had now been made perfect.
5) Often, when a word or phrase is added to the text, because in the original something was not said, i.e. an ellipsis, the validity of what was added is justified because something was left out. However, other choices are available to fill in what may have been omitted. For example, Isaac might have been “guided” or “influenced” according to the Spirit. No need to insert an agenda driven idea.
6) The issue is not that the Holy Spirit came upon and equipped OT Saints, the issue is they were not sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit until after Christ died.
7) Again, since the OT Saints were not made perfect, they were not reborn in Christ, a new creation, for in Christ we are made holy and blameless and perfect.
8) The scriptural view of OT Saint salvation is the same as the NT Saint Salvation. The OT Saints simply had their perfection in Christ delayed, they had to wait in Abraham's bosom until Christ died.

 

While these elements have some credibility you have given scripture for number 3 only "heaven" presumably being the uncreated dwelling place of God. The others are also presumptive (unless you have scripture references of course).

Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand Him when He spoke of the new birth:

John 3
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?


HankD

 

1) No scriptural support, but the logic is inescapable.
2) Romans 5:19
3) John 3:13
4) Ephesians 4:8
5) No scriptural support, but the logic is inescapable.
6) Ephesians 1:13
7) Hebrews 11:39-40
8) Hebrews 11:39-40

 

The only problem is that your "inescapable" logic is only as good as your interpretation of these scriptures and that is where it becomes flawed as your interpretations are not exegetically based but eisgetically based.

 

This has been IMO a really good exercise - no ad hominems of any seriousness and a some good thoughts on both sides.

Van, I do appreciate your "inescapable logic", on the other hand "inescapable logic" does seem to require more scriptural meat. Keep looking.

There is a reason why it is an illusive subject (the work of the Spirit in the OT venue) don't know why.
Prepositions can often be the most troubling grammatical particles in a Hebrew to Greek (or vice/versa) translation.

Here is a passage which could be used to show that the OT presence of God in an indwelling way (or so it seems) was temporary (at least for Samson):

Judges 16:20 And she said, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And he awoke out of his sleep, and said, I will go out as at other times before, and shake myself. And he wist not that the LORD was departed from him.

However "depart" in the Hebrew nuances can mean "to turn aside" or to "depart" and IMO in both senses so we still have a question hanging over the passage.

Although in the end, Samson's prayer was answered and he brought the Pagan temple down upon the blasphemers of Jehovah.

HankD

 

Again, Hank, the indwelling per the New Covenant is forever!

Scripture does not address the motives of present day commenters, so no need to look further into scripture for #1, and likewise for number 5, the motives of those who "fill" an ellipsis with agenda driven additions; other than the several verses that say do not add to scripture.

 

The "new" covenant is merely an earthly administration of the "everlasting covenant" that has been applied consistently since Genesis to the present. Regeneration is clearly found in scripture as a present reality long before the cross (Ezek. 44:7,9; Jn. 3:3-11; Gal. 3:17; "in Christ"; 4:29; Rom. 8:8-9; etc.).

Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. – Ezek. 44:9

Ezekiel did not ask what do you mean? He understood what God was saying to him. All the Old Testament people of God understood the necessity to have a heart circumcised or transformed by God. The promise of a future NATIONAL salvation does not invalidate present INDIVIDUAL salvation under the same covenant presently (Ezek. 36:26; Jer. 31:33-34 with Heb. 8:12-15; 10:15-17; 2 Cor. 3:3-6; Acts 10:43; Heb. 4;2).

1. Circumcise the heart – Deut. 30:6 (compare to Col. 2:11)
2. Give you a new heart – Deut. 29:4; Ezek. 36:26
3. Quicken – Psa. 80:18
4. another heart – 1 Sam. 10:9
5. The clean of heart – Psa. 73:1
6. The upright in heart – Psa. 7:10; 11:2; 36:10; 97:11
7. The Upright – Psa. 112:4
8. The pure in heart – Prov. 15:26
9. The uncircumcised in heart – Ezek. 44:7,9
10. The Spirit was “in” Old Testament saints – Gen. 41:38; Numb.
27:18

When the terms “clean of heart…..upright in heart…. upright and pure in heart” are accompanied by the definite article (“the”) it refers to those born again believers as a class of people distinguished from others. More than just prophets, priests and kings had the "Spirit of Christ in them" (1 Pet. 1:11) but ordinary people like Caleb. The Spirit still comes "upon" people in Post-pentecost times to empower or spiritual equip by gifts (Acts 8:14; etc.).
__________________

You mean like your agenda driven motive???

Your theory completely repudiates the very essence of salvation and denies the very essence of the fall of man. The very essence of the fall of man is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God due to sin. The Bible says God IS life and God IS Light and God IS righteousness, and so to be spiritually separated from God is to be "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) and alienated from the light of God or a darkened heart (Jn. 3:19-20; Eph. 4:18) and alienated from the righteousness of God spiritually (Rom. 4:5 "the ungodly"). This is not a post-cross condition of fallen mankind as the fall happened in Genesis not after the cross. The only possible solution to reverse that fallen condition is is revesal of the spiritual separation from God back into spiritual union with God. Just that simple and any doctrine devised by you or others to deny that is irrational, unbiblical and is driven by some kind of doctrinal agenda.

Your theory is irrational because if any human existing between Genesis and Matthew was without LIFE/LIGHT/RIGHTEOUSNESS, and thus existing in continued spiritual separation from God there could be no possible acceptance by God of such a people as that condition constitutes what the Old Testament and New Testament characterize as the WICKED. There could be possible justification, no possible faith, no possibly walking by faith, no possible application of any kind of salvation in their daily lives - zilch! Your theory demands another kind of salvation, another kind of Savior and another kind of gospel all of which the New Testament vehemently denies (Mt. 7:13-14 - two ways not three; Jn. 14:6 one right way; Acts 10:43; heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23 as there can be no kind of salvation for anyone that exists in spiritual separation from God, as they are spiritually separated from LIFE from LIGHT and from RIGHTEOUSNESS and in that state there is NO SAVIOR, NO SALVATION, NO GOSPEL - and that is YOUR POSITION by the very nature of your doctrine. Abraham could not be justified by faith if YOUR THEORY was true, BECAUSE there is no righteousness for anyone SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God. However, Biblical justification not merely imputes righteousness due to the gospel object of faith but REMITS SINS (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:7-8) which YOUR POSITION repudiates.

Your theory demands a THIRD kind of human being invented after the cross whereas Paul restricts all human beings into just TWO classifications (1) those "in the flesh" - Rom. 8:8 versus those (2) "in the Spirit = indwelling - Rom. 8:9. Your theory demands that all pre-Pentecost human beings lived and walked "in the flesh" all of which Paul says are "NONE OF HIS" - Rom. 8:9b

Your theory of hades is merely a Protestant version of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Your interpretation of John 3:13 ignores the obvious immediate context as he is not denying Elijah or david did not go to heaven previously, but he is denying that any man went to heaven previously and came back to tell about it. Even Paul AFTER PENTECOST went to heaven (2 Cor. 12) BUT WAS COMMANDED NOT TO TELL WHAT HE SAW. Your whole interpretational structure is agenda driven.

 

I guess I should have said that "turn aside" of the Spirit in Samson's case would be the "wane" of the waxing and waning of the Spirit and not the permanent departure.

I certainly understand what Biblicists is saying and have always felt the way - regeneration of the OT saints.

The fact that Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand the new birth (or birth from above) seems to settle it for me.

Let me ask you then: Why did Jesus have this expectation of Nicodemus - a master of Israel.

Just curious. Thanks

HankD

 

Hi Hank, you are conflating the expectation that teachers of the Old Testament would know you have to be born anew, which is taught in scripture, with the idea that they had received that rebirth in the past.

However, they had to wait to be made perfect, thus none had been reborn, and none had entered heaven.

You said you agreed with Biblicist that OT saints had been born anew,
because if "pure of heart" is preceded by a definite article, that means they were born anew. This is hogwash. It simply takes an obscure phrase and redefines its meaning to support the view. Eisegesis.

If you are claiming that the Spirit never left OT Saints and only "waned" again, that argument simply redefines departed. Consider the OT King Saul, and what happened to him. (1 Sam. 16:14)