OSAS origins and comparison

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
rogerg said:
OMC, thanks for the post, but you are making the exact same category mistakes as Dave. You are trying to invent middle-ground categories that the plain letters on the page of the King James Bible do not allow.
First, trying to say unborn babies are fallen but not conscious rebels does not fix the problem. Psalm 51:5 says we are shapen in iniquity. Psalm 58:3 says the wicked are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they are born. Romans 3:10-12 gives a flat no way, that there is none righteous, no, not one. If infants are human beings, then that includes them too. You also failed to show a single verse that demonstrates exactly when this fake transition from a child to a guilty adult occurs and which would be critical information. There is no middle ground for a human soul. You are either dead in Adam or alive in Christ (1 Cor 15:22). If an Old Testament saint was alive to God, it was only because they were regenerated by the Holy Spirit, not because they were in a safe zone of ignorance.

Second, you admit that the Holy Spirit was actively inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses. But then you manufacture a theory out of thin air that there are two separate kinds of indwelling based on a calendar. Show me the verse where God says He has two different ways of living inside His people based upon a timeline. Romans 8:2 calls the Spirit's work the law of the Spirit of life. An eternal law of God does not change operational rules based upon a human history timeline. Romans 8:9 explicitly tells us that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. So, if regular Old Testament believers did not have the Spirit inside them for life, they simply did not belong to Christ.

Third, you are twisting the meaning of Romans 4:3 by claiming the source of that faith was Abraham himself.
Romans 4:11 explicitly says his circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. The only righteous faith is Christ's faith, not man's faith. Romans 5:17 explicitly tells us that by calling it the gift of righteousness from Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1:1 explicitly states that we obtain our faith through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ alone, not through man. Man's own flawed human belief nor his faith can manufacture perfect righteousness. It was only by the faith of Christ, placed on his account, that did so and which made him a holy saint.

You say there is one salvation, one Spirit, and one faith (Eph 4:4-5), but your system splits that one Spirit's work into two separate operations. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed between the testaments, you would need a second savior to back up that second system, but no such second savior exists within Scripture. The operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, one specific Savior: The Savior, His salvation, the Holy Spiri's operation and the rules upon which salvation is based, comprise and operate as one unchanging, cohesive, integrated, unit. The Holy Spirit's mode of operation could only change if the Savior to which He was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of the kind - only that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors. Scripture, in the Old Testament, tells us of many people who were saved referring to them as saints (KJV and ESV, and in the NIV as "faithful ones") Psalms 16:3, 31:23, 37:28. For them to be saved or faithful means the Holy Spirit had to be dwelling within them.
I would remind you regarding salvation of the simplicity found in Christ (2 Cor 11:3).
Click to expand...

Roger

How did these believe who Jesus is speaking of here?

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Have a nice day.

for you to read later if you want to know my thoughts on total depravity.

D

Thread 'Romans 3:10-11 "There is none righteous, ...who understands, ...who seeks after God, no, not one;'

What does it really mean?

Romans 3:10-11 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.

The immediate context. Vs. 9 "We" Paul is referring to Jews. "Them" is referring to Gentiles. Both Jew and Gentile under the same condition. This is the bigger context also.

Romans 3:10-12, quotes Psalms 14 and Isaiah 53 in general.

Romans 3:13-18 Paul quotes Psalms 14.

Romans 3:23 quotes Isaiah 53:6 and other places Isaiah 53 overall is drawn from by Paul when making his point in Romans.

It's clear that many people 'seek...
 
rogerg said:
OMC, thanks for the post, but you are making the exact same category mistakes as Dave. You are trying to invent middle-ground categories that the plain letters on the page of the King James Bible do not allow.
First, trying to say unborn babies are fallen but not conscious rebels does not fix the problem. Psalm 51:5 says we are shapen in iniquity. Psalm 58:3 says the wicked are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they are born. Romans 3:10-12 gives a flat no way, that there is none righteous, no, not one. If infants are human beings, then that includes them too. You also failed to show a single verse that demonstrates exactly when this fake transition from a child to a guilty adult occurs and which would be critical information. There is no middle ground for a human soul. You are either dead in Adam or alive in Christ (1 Cor 15:22). If an Old Testament saint was alive to God, it was only because they were regenerated by the Holy Spirit, not because they were in a safe zone of ignorance.

Second, you admit that the Holy Spirit was actively inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses. But then you manufacture a theory out of thin air that there are two separate kinds of indwelling based on a calendar. Show me the verse where God says He has two different ways of living inside His people based upon a timeline. Romans 8:2 calls the Spirit's work the law of the Spirit of life. An eternal law of God does not change operational rules based upon a human history timeline. Romans 8:9 explicitly tells us that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. So, if regular Old Testament believers did not have the Spirit inside them for life, they simply did not belong to Christ.

Third, you are twisting the meaning of Romans 4:3 by claiming the source of that faith was Abraham himself.
Romans 4:11 explicitly says his circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. The only righteous faith is Christ's faith, not man's faith. Romans 5:17 explicitly tells us that by calling it the gift of righteousness from Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1:1 explicitly states that we obtain our faith through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ alone, not through man. Man's own flawed human belief nor his faith can manufacture perfect righteousness. It was only by the faith of Christ, placed on his account, that did so and which made him a holy saint.

You say there is one salvation, one Spirit, and one faith (Eph 4:4-5), but your system splits that one Spirit's work into two separate operations. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed between the testaments, you would need a second savior to back up that second system, but no such second savior exists within Scripture. The operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, one specific Savior: The Savior, His salvation, the Holy Spiri's operation and the rules upon which salvation is based, comprise and operate as one unchanging, cohesive, integrated, unit. The Holy Spirit's mode of operation could only change if the Savior to which He was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of the kind - only that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors. Scripture, in the Old Testament, tells us of many people who were saved referring to them as saints (KJV and ESV, and in the NIV as "faithful ones") Psalms 16:3, 31:23, 37:28. For them to be saved or faithful means the Holy Spirit had to be dwelling within them.
I would remind you regarding salvation of the simplicity found in Christ (2 Cor 11:3).
Click to expand...
Scripture teaches that infants are genuinely fallen in Adam (Ps 51:5; Ps 58:3; Rom 3:10–12) and therefore not in any “safe zone,” yet it also acknowledges a distinction between fallen nature and conscious moral discernment (Deut 1:39; Isa 7:15–16) without creating a third ontological category.
Old‑covenant saints truly belonged to Christ and therefore had the Spirit (Rom 8:9), because regeneration has never existed apart from Him, yet John 7:39 marks a real historical shift in the public, corporate, new‑covenant outpouring of that same Spirit at Pentecost, not a second salvation system or a second kind of indwelling.
And while righteousness is Christ’s alone, Romans 4 still says Abraham himself “believed God,” with his Spirit‑enabled faith functioning as the instrument by which Christ’s righteousness was counted to him, not as the source of that righteousness; collapsing Abraham’s believing into Christ’s own believing flattens Paul’s contrast between works and faith.
The unity of salvation, Spirit, and Savior stands firm, but Scripture itself maintains distinctions of administration, awareness, and covenantal unfolding that do not violate that unity.
 
Dave123 said:
Really?

What I said was the context of the whole Bible did not match the the interpretation of that passage. So we look for alternative, yet legitimate translation options, albeit not the most "popular ones", that does line up with the rest of the Bible.

Please, for you and Roger both, if you're going to reply to my posts and make those kinds of accusations, please take the time to actually quote me so we know what it is that you're actually arguing against. Otherwise you could be making things up and misrepresenting other people. We wouldn't want that, right? :)
Click to expand...
I DID quote your entire message, but this is the part I was referring to:

" I think that "in them" would be an inappropriate translation"
 
Dave123 said:
Roger

How did these believe who Jesus is speaking of here?

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Have a nice day.

for you to read later if you want to know my thoughts on total depravity.

D

Thread 'Romans 3:10-11 "There is none righteous, ...who understands, ...who seeks after God, no, not one;'

What does it really mean?

Romans 3:10-11 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.

The immediate context. Vs. 9 "We" Paul is referring to Jews. "Them" is referring to Gentiles. Both Jew and Gentile under the same condition. This is the bigger context also.

Romans 3:10-12, quotes Psalms 14 and Isaiah 53 in general.

Romans 3:13-18 Paul quotes Psalms 14.

Romans 3:23 quotes Isaiah 53:6 and other places Isaiah 53 overall is drawn from by Paul when making his point in Romans.

It's clear that many people 'seek...
Click to expand...

Dave, copying and pasting a link to an old thread doesn't change the plain words on the page of Romans 3. Paul quotes the Psalms to show that the entire human race is under sin. None righteous, no, not one, means exactly what it says. You are just jumping onto OMC's theory, but both of you still failed to show a single verse that demonstrates exactly when this fake transition from a child to a guilty adult occurs. You completely ran away from my three questions because your human timeline cannot survive Genesis 41:38, Numbers 27:18, and Isaiah 63:11.

As for your broken record on John 7:38-39, I have already answered it multiple times. If your calendar says the Holy Spirit was not given for spiritual life before the cross, you are calling God a liar when He says the Spirit was inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses. John 7 describes the global outpouring at Pentecost, not a total absence of the Spirit and the giving of spiritual life.
You and OMC are manufacturing dual systems out of thin air that divide the work of the Holy Spirit. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed based upon a calendar, then you need a second savior to back up that second system. The operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, one specific Savior. The Savior, His salvation, and the Holy Spirit's operation comprise one cohesive, integrated unit. His mode of operation could therefore only change if the Savior to which He was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of that kind. Jesus alone is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors. I will let the plain words speak for themselves.

Thanks for the discussion.
 
rogerg said:
As for your broken record on John 7:38-39, I have already answered it multiple times. If your calendar says the Holy Spirit was not given for spiritual life before the cross, you are calling God a liar when He says the Spirit was inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses. John 7 describes the global outpouring at Pentecost, not a total absence of the Spirit and the giving of spiritual life.
You and OMC are manufacturing dual systems out of thin air that divide the work of the Holy Spirit. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed based upon a calendar, then you need a second savior to back up that second system. The operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, one specific Savior. The Savior, His salvation, and the Holy Spirit's operation comprise one cohesive, integrated unit. His mode of operation could therefore only change if the Savior to which He was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of that kind. Jesus alone is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors. I will let the plain words speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
Scripture distinguishes Spirit upon, Spirit filling, and indwelling, and Christ identifies the last as future. You accuse me of inventing dual systems, but the only “system” here is the one Jesus stated: the Spirit’s mode of operation changes when the Son is glorified (John 16:7). That does not require a second Savior, because the change is not in who saves but in how the Spirit applies what the one Savior accomplished. One Savior, one Spirit, one salvation — but the administration of that salvation shifts when promise becomes fulfillment. That is not manufacturing anything; it is simply refusing to flatten Christ’s own timeline.
 
OMC said:
Scripture distinguishes Spirit upon, Spirit filling, and indwelling, and Christ identifies the last as future. You accuse me of inventing dual systems, but the only “system” here is the one Jesus stated: the Spirit’s mode of operation changes when the Son is glorified (John 16:7). That does not require a second Savior, because the change is not in who saves but in how the Spirit applies what the one Savior accomplished. One Savior, one Spirit, one salvation — but the administration of that salvation shifts when promise becomes fulfillment. That is not manufacturing anything; it is simply refusing to flatten Christ’s own timeline.
Click to expand...

OMC, you are using a lot of complicated words to shift your ground again. First, you claimed infants were in a safe zone of innocence, and now you are trying to split the Holy Spirit's identity away from His operation by saying internal indwelling was strictly future. Dave and I have already been through all of this repeatedly over the last few rounds, so I would highly encourage you to review those posts, so we don't have to repeat the same arguments here. John 16:7 is talking about the physical departure of Christ so the Comforter could be poured out globally at Pentecost, not that the Spirit was using a different, internal salvation operation before the cross.
You admit that the Holy Spirit was actively inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses, and you admit that righteousness belongs to Christ alone. But then you claim the Spirit changed His method of operation based upon on a calendar timeline. The King James Bible explicitly puts the Holy Spirit inside the Old Testament saints in the clear past tense. Genesis 41:38 says Joseph was a man in whom the Spirit of God is. Numbers 27:18 says Joshua was a man in whom is the spirit. Isaiah 63:11 says God put His Holy Spirit within him during the Exodus. The words in and within mean exactly what they say—the Holy Spirit lived inside them. Romans 8:2 calls the Spirit's work the law of the Spirit of life. An eternal law of God does not change its operational rules based on human history. Romans 8:9 clearly says that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed between the testaments, you need a second savior to back up that second system of which you will find none in Scripture - the operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, only one specific Savior. That Savior, His salvation, and the Holy Spirit's operation comprise one cohesive, integrated unchangeable unit. His mode of operation could only change if the Savior to which the Holy Spirit was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of that kind. Jesus alone is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors. I am willing to rest upon the plain words in the King James Bible and let them speak for themselves. I will leave it at that. Thanks for the discussion.



 
  • Like
Reactions: TheLordIsMyRedeemer
rogerg said:
you are using a lot of complicated words to shift your ground again. First, you claimed infants were in a safe zone of innocence, and now you are trying to split the Holy Spirit's identity away from His operation by saying internal indwelling was strictly future. Dave and I have already been through all of this repeatedly over the last few rounds, so I would highly encourage you to review those posts, so we don't have to repeat the same arguments here. John 16:7 is talking about the physical departure of Christ so the Comforter could be poured out globally at Pentecost, not that the Spirit was using a different, internal salvation operation before the cross.
You admit that the Holy Spirit was actively inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses, and you admit that righteousness belongs to Christ alone. But then you claim the Spirit changed His method of operation based upon on a calendar timeline. The King James Bible explicitly puts the Holy Spirit inside the Old Testament saints in the clear past tense. Genesis 41:38 says Joseph was a man in whom the Spirit of God is. Numbers 27:18 says Joshua was a man in whom is the spirit. Isaiah 63:11 says God put His Holy Spirit within him during the Exodus. The words in and within mean exactly what they say—the Holy Spirit lived inside them. Romans 8:2 calls the Spirit's work the law of the Spirit of life. An eternal law of God does not change its operational rules based on human history. Romans 8:9 clearly says that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed between the testaments, you need a second savior to back up that second system of which you will find none in Scripture - the operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, only one specific Savior. That Savior, His salvation, and the Holy Spirit's operation comprise one cohesive, integrated unchangeable unit. His mode of operation could only change if the Savior to which the Holy Spirit was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of that kind. Jesus alone is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors. I am willing to rest upon the plain words in the King James Bible and let them speak for themselves. I will leave it at that. Thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...
No complicated words,

The Holy Spirit did not change how He saves people. He did not switch to a “new way” after Jesus went back to heaven.
He did not start living inside people only after Pentecost. In the Old Testament, the Spirit was inside Joseph, Joshua, Moses, David, and the prophets — the Bible says this plainly. If the Spirit was inside them, then they were God’s people, because Romans 8:9 says anyone who does not have the Spirit does not belong to God.

So the Spirit has always worked the same way:He gives life.He gives faith.He helps people obey God.He lives inside God’s people.
Pentecost did not change the Spirit’s saving work.Pentecost only changed how many people He was given to — instead of a few leaders, He was poured out on everyone who believes, all over the world.
There is one Savior, Jesus.
There is one Spirit, the Holy Spirit.
There is one way God gives life. And that way has never changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheLordIsMyRedeemer
OMC said:
No complicated words,

The Holy Spirit did not change how He saves people. He did not switch to a “new way” after Jesus went back to heaven.
He did not start living inside people only after Pentecost. In the Old Testament, the Spirit was inside Joseph, Joshua, Moses, David, and the prophets — the Bible says this plainly. If the Spirit was inside them, then they were God’s people, because Romans 8:9 says anyone who does not have the Spirit does not belong to God.

So the Spirit has always worked the same way:He gives life.He gives faith.He helps people obey God.He lives inside God’s people.
Pentecost did not change the Spirit’s saving work.Pentecost only changed how many people He was given to — instead of a few leaders, He was poured out on everyone who believes, all over the world.
There is one Savior, Jesus.
There is one Spirit, the Holy Spirit.
There is one way God gives life. And that way has never changed.
Click to expand...

OMC, I am glad you finally threw away your timelines and now agree with everything I have been posting this entire week. I am content to let my arguments stand on that. Thanks again for the discussion

 
rogerg said:
Dave, copying and pasting a link to an old thread doesn't change the plain words on the page of Romans 3. Paul quotes the Psalms to show that the entire human race is under sin. None righteous, no, not one, means exactly what it says. You are just jumping onto OMC's theory, but both of you still failed to show a single verse that demonstrates exactly when this fake transition from a child to a guilty adult occurs. You completely ran away from my three questions because your human timeline cannot survive Genesis 41:38, Numbers 27:18, and Isaiah 63:11.

As for your broken record on John 7:38-39, I have already answered it multiple times. If your calendar says the Holy Spirit was not given for spiritual life before the cross, you are calling God a liar when He says the Spirit was inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses. John 7 describes the global outpouring at Pentecost, not a total absence of the Spirit and the giving of spiritual life.
You and OMC are manufacturing dual systems out of thin air that divide the work of the Holy Spirit. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed based upon a calendar, then you need a second savior to back up that second system. The operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, one specific Savior. The Savior, His salvation, and the Holy Spirit's operation comprise one cohesive, integrated unit. His mode of operation could therefore only change if the Savior to which He was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of that kind. Jesus alone is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors. I will let the plain words speak for themselves.

Thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...

It's a simple question. No need for a song and dance.

How did these believe?

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
 
Dave123 said:
It's a simple question. No need for a song and dance.

How did these believe?

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Click to expand...

True belief? By God.
 
NightTwister said:
I DID quote your entire message, but this is the part I was referring to:

" I think that "in them" would be an inappropriate translation"
Click to expand...

It's actually a quote from post # 261

That's just the conclusion I made to the argument that I also made, not the reason that I would not translate 1 Peter 1:11 that way. Here is the reason why I reached that conclusion. Quote is from post #261, at the top of page 13 in this thread.

"1 Peter 1:11 can be translated in three different ways, and does not necessarily mean "in them". It can be translated "among them" also. Given the rest of the Bible, I think that "in them" would be an inappropriate translation, and not good hermeneutics (the many interpret the few).

Also the fact that all those same prophets had the Holy Spirit upon them at various times to do certain tasks, tells me that the Spirit of God was not "in them". If He were, He would not need to be upon them also. And also, that passage is only speaking of the prophets, so even if the Holy Spirit were in them (which I still disagree with), that would not include all OT believers who have no mention of the Spirit being in, only with them through the presence of Him in the Temple, Tabernacle, and the Prophets themselves (upon them). And Jesus, God incarnate.

Interesting that there is even a debate between scholars on that passage. Some argue that the passage does not automatically imply the permanent, saving indwelling experienced by New Covenant believers. Instead, it describes an internal, prophetic inspiration unique to their office. In other words, the text simply means the Spirit of Christ was testifying "by means of" or "through" the prophets. like in 2 Peter 1:21. "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Either way, that makes no difference to me. I think the interpretation that claims that they had the NT indwelling goes against too much clear Scripture. I would need to see more to take "in them" as a proper translation for that passage seriously."

I hope that clears thing up, even if you still disagree, that my opinion on the interpretation of 1 Peter 1:11 is not made flippantly, but thought out carefully.

Dave
 
Dave123 said:
It's actually a quote from post # 261

That's just the conclusion I made to the argument that I also made, not the reason that I would not translate 1 Peter 1:11 that way. Here is the reason why I reached that conclusion. Quote is from post #261, at the top of page 13 in this thread.

"1 Peter 1:11 can be translated in three different ways, and does not necessarily mean "in them". It can be translated "among them" also. Given the rest of the Bible, I think that "in them" would be an inappropriate translation, and not good hermeneutics (the many interpret the few).

Also the fact that all those same prophets had the Holy Spirit upon them at various times to do certain tasks, tells me that the Spirit of God was not "in them". If He were, He would not need to be upon them also. And also, that passage is only speaking of the prophets, so even if the Holy Spirit were in them (which I still disagree with), that would not include all OT believers who have no mention of the Spirit being in, only with them through the presence of Him in the Temple, Tabernacle, and the Prophets themselves (upon them). And Jesus, God incarnate.

Interesting that there is even a debate between scholars on that passage. Some argue that the passage does not automatically imply the permanent, saving indwelling experienced by New Covenant believers. Instead, it describes an internal, prophetic inspiration unique to their office. In other words, the text simply means the Spirit of Christ was testifying "by means of" or "through" the prophets. like in 2 Peter 1:21. "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Either way, that makes no difference to me. I think the interpretation that claims that they had the NT indwelling goes against too much clear Scripture. I would need to see more to take "in them" as a proper translation for that passage seriously."

I hope that clears thing up, even if you still disagree, that my opinion on the interpretation of 1 Peter 1:11 is not made flippantly, but thought out carefully.

Dave
Click to expand...
So you accuse me of not quoting you, and when shown that I did you don't retract your accusation. So I guess the bearing false witness stands.
 
NightTwister said:
So you accuse me of not quoting you, and when shown that I did you don't retract your accusation. So I guess the bearing false witness stands.
Click to expand...

Because the quote that you used was deliberately partial to paint a false picture. You quoted the conclusion that I made, not the evidence that I presented of which the conclusion was drawn from. the evidence part was deliberately left out of your quote of me, as you tried painting the conclusion as the evidence. A summery statement, the conclusion, is not the evidence presented. You get the difference right?

I tried sparing you the embarrassment of being exposed by treading lightly, even though you deserved worse, but I see you took that as an opportunity to double down on your deliberate bearing of false witness against me. I better stop writing before I write something I'll regret. You got exposed, deal with it.

Dave
 
Dave123 said:
Because the quote that you used was deliberately partial to paint a false picture. You quoted the conclusion that I made, not the evidence that I presented of which the conclusion was drawn from. the evidence part was deliberately left out of your quote of me, as you tried painting the conclusion as the evidence. A summery statement, the conclusion, is not the evidence presented. You get the difference right?

I tried sparing you the embarrassment of being exposed by treading lightly, even though you deserved worse, but I see you took that as an opportunity to double down on your deliberate bearing of false witness against me. I better stop writing before I write something I'll regret. You got exposed, deal with it.

Dave
Click to expand...
Again, I originally quoted your entire message, so the context was there. I had to point out the part I responded to because you accused me of not quoting you. I'm not embarrassed at all. I did the right thing. You, on the other hand simply can't take responsibility for your actions, and instead stand by bearing false witness against me. Grace and Peace.
 
Dave123 said:
I agree, but how, if they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit and did not yet have the life (Romans 8:9-11)? There must be another Biblical option, right?
Click to expand...

No. Remember I posted (to you) previously that in Gen 41:31, Num 27:18 and Isa 63:18, how the Holy Spirt was already residing within people during the OT era which was why there were saints then - just as there would be saints of the NT. This precedent proves that before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit resided within certain people. Receiving the Holy Spirit is different than of Him taking up residence within (indwelling) someone. Your verse is saying that the Holy Spirit would bring forth from them "rivers of living waters". What was meant by that is not that they would begin to be indwelt, but that by the Holy Spirit they would begin to preach the true gospel - that living waters would flow from them -living water is symbolic of the gospel. Because they (of the verse) had already believed (present tense) that with the receiving of the Holy Spirit living waters "shall (future tense) flow from them". For it to be stated in that manner - and because true faith and belief only come from God (with which you agreed)- it meant they had already become saved and indwelt by/with the Holy Spirit.
 
Dave123 said:
I agree, but how, if they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit and did not yet have the life (Romans 8:9-11)? There must be another Biblical option, right?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Dave, I quoted the wrong verses in the first sentence of my post. Here are the corrected references

Genesis 41:38 KJV Joseph: "And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?"

Numbers 27:18 KJV Joshua: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;"

Isaiah 63:11 KJV Moses/Exodus: "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMC
rogerg said:
OMC, I am glad you finally threw away your timelines and now agree with everything I have been posting this entire week. I am content to let my arguments stand on that. Thanks again for the discussion

Click to expand...
I’m glad the discussion has been fruitful for you, but I need to be clear: I haven’t “thrown away timelines,” and I haven’t shifted into agreeing with everything you’ve posted this week. What I have done is acknowledge every place where your arguments were grounded in Scripture, where your reasoning was consistent, and where your appeals to the canon were legitimate. I’ve affirmed those points because they deserved affirmation — not because I abandoned my own hermeneutical commitments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheLordIsMyRedeemer and rogerg
rogerg said:
Sorry, Dave, I quoted the wrong verses in the first sentence of my post. Here are the corrected references

Genesis 41:38 KJV Joseph: "And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?"

Numbers 27:18 KJV Joshua: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;"

Isaiah 63:11 KJV Moses/Exodus: "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?"
Click to expand...
Are we going to continue this song and dance? Ok, I'll play.

-----------------
Genesis 41:38, This is Pharaoh recognizing that the Spirit of God is working through Joseph. It's Pharaohs perspective recorded, and he could not know if the Spirit of God was in Joseph or upon him. He only recognized that what happened through Joseph was from God, not Joseph. It's called a 'narrative description' rather than a source for strict systematic doctrine.
-----------------
Numbers 27:18 There is no "the" before the word "spirit" in the original languages of this passage, only "spirit". KJV translators added "the" it to make the English smoother, and was never added to make the claim the the Spirit was within him. It literally reads "a man in whom is spirit". The lack of the definite article has most credible theologians agreeing that that passage is speaking of a quality, or attitude of spirit. however, in numbers 11:17, this is how the Hebrew language works when they want to specify the Divine source, they use a definite article. Speaking to Moses.....Numbers 11:17 " Then I will come down and talk with you there. I will take of the Spirit that is upon you and will put the same upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself alone."
------------------
Isaiah 63:11 KJV reflects back to that same Numbers 11:17. Remember, "upon you", and "upon them" from Numbers 11:17? Same people. The literal translation options for Isaiah 63:11 are "in the midst," "the inner part," or "among them". When applied to the camp of Israel, a collective group (which is what "within him" from Isaiah 63:11 is speaking of), it's always translated "in the midst", or "among them". Remember, the singular suffix ("his") in Isaiah 63:11 refers to the corporate body of Israel.
-------------------

Your turn.

Would you explain John 7:38-39 please? Give me context and your interpretation of what it means and how it lines up with what you believe. Like I did. If they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit and did not yet have the life (Romans 8:9-11), how did God allow them to believe? There must be another Biblical option, right?

You can address these also, since I gave you three. It's only fair, right? ;) Galatians 3:2-3, and Ephesians 1:13-14.

Dave
 
NightTwister said:
What perspective? You're saying you know better than all of these translators, even though you admit you're not an expert, but don't give any reason why. What it seems is really happening is you just don't like the clear meaning of scripture in this case.
Click to expand...

NightTwister said:
Yes, you certainly answered. My response stands as well. I trust the translators, and they are correct. You on the other hand could simply say, "the translation is correct, but I believe that in the context of all of scripture it is saying something different.". I could respect that. But what you said is all of these translations are wrong while you also admit that you are not an expert.
Click to expand...

NightTwister said:
I DID quote your entire message, but this is the part I was referring to:

" I think that "in them" would be an inappropriate translation"
Click to expand...

The entire post #261 is my reason, not a half of a sentence quoted form it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back