OSAS origins and comparison

[OMC]

So both possessed eternal life. How does one possess eternal life apart from the life of Christ? In other words, how can it be possessed apart from the Spirit indwelling the individual? Or do they possess eternal life apart from the life of God?

no one can possess eternal life apart from the life of God, because Scripture defines eternal life as participation in God’s own life through union with Christ. Jesus says eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son — not merely receiving a “thing,” but entering a relationship grounded in the Spirit’s indwelling. So if someone is said to “possess eternal life,” that possession is necessarily tied to God Himself; there is no independent, creaturely version of eternal life. The Spirit is the One who imparts life (John 6:63), Christ is the life (John 14:6), and the Father is the source of life (1 John 5:11). Therefore, eternal life cannot be possessed apart from the Spirit, apart from Christ, or apart from God’s own life — because eternal life is God’s life shared with the believer.

 

[Cameron143]

no one can possess eternal life apart from the life of God, because Scripture defines eternal life as participation in God’s own life through union with Christ. Jesus says eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son — not merely receiving a “thing,” but entering a relationship grounded in the Spirit’s indwelling. So if someone is said to “possess eternal life,” that possession is necessarily tied to God Himself; there is no independent, creaturely version of eternal life. The Spirit is the One who imparts life (John 6:63), Christ is the life (John 14:6), and the Father is the source of life (1 John 5:11). Therefore, eternal life cannot be possessed apart from the Spirit, apart from Christ, or apart from God’s own life — because eternal life is God’s life shared with the believer.

Right. So if Abraham knew God, he possessed eternal life. If he possessed eternal life, he had the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

 

[OMC]

Right. So if Abraham knew God, he possessed eternal life. If he possessed eternal life, he had the indwelling Spirit of Christ

here’s the unavoidable, point‑by‑point answer, and it’s where your inference breaks down.
Abraham knew God, yes. But knowing God in the Old Covenant is not identical to possessing eternal life in the Johannine sense, because Jesus defines eternal life as knowing the Father through the Son in the Spirit (John 17:3). That relational reality did not exist until Christ was glorified and the Spirit was given (John 7:39). Old Testament saints truly knew God, truly trusted Him, truly received grace — but they did not yet participate in the indwelling life of Christ, because that life is a New Covenant gift, tied to the Spirit’s arrival, union with Christ, and regeneration. So Abraham’s “knowledge of God” was real, saving, and covenantal — but it was not the full New Covenant experience of eternal life that Jesus and Paul describe. Eternal life, as the New Testament defines it, cannot be possessed apart from the Spirit; therefore Abraham’s saving relationship with God was genuine, but it was anticipatory, not indwelling.

 

[Cameron143]

here’s the unavoidable, point‑by‑point answer, and it’s where your inference breaks down.
Abraham knew God, yes. But knowing God in the Old Covenant is not identical to possessing eternal life in the Johannine sense, because Jesus defines eternal life as knowing the Father through the Son in the Spirit (John 17:3). That relational reality did not exist until Christ was glorified and the Spirit was given (John 7:39). Old Testament saints truly knew God, truly trusted Him, truly received grace — but they did not yet participate in the indwelling life of Christ, because that life is a New Covenant gift, tied to the Spirit’s arrival, union with Christ, and regeneration. So Abraham’s “knowledge of God” was real, saving, and covenantal — but it was not the full New Covenant experience of eternal life that Jesus and Paul describe. Eternal life, as the New Testament defines it, cannot be possessed apart from the Spirit; therefore Abraham’s saving relationship with God was genuine, but it was anticipatory, not indwelling.

That's just a bunch of parsing words. Eternal life is knowing God and Christ. He knew God and he knew his Messiah. Here's the proof. One can only know God through Christ. If you assent that he knew God, he could have only known Him through Messiah.

 

[OMC]

That's just a bunch of parsing words. Eternal life is knowing God and Christ. He knew God and he knew his Messiah. Here's the proof. One can only know God through Christ. If you assent that he knew God, he could have only known Him through Messiah

Your point actually reinforces the heart of the gospel rather than weakening it.
If eternal life is knowing God and if one can only know God through Christ, then to say someone truly knew God is to say—by definition—that they were already responding to the revelation of the Messiah.
Scripture never treats “knowing God” as mere intellectual awareness; it is covenantal, relational, and always mediated through the Son. Jesus says, “No one comes to the Father except through Me,” which means every genuine knowledge of God—whether before the incarnation or after—flows through the Christ as the one mediator.
So if you grant that he truly knew God, you have already granted the mechanism: he knew Him through the Messiah, because there is no other way to know the Father.
This doesn’t reduce the argument to parsing words; it simply recognizes the theological structure Jesus Himself gives. If you want, we can trace how this plays out in passages like John 1, John 17, and Hebrews 11 through a deeper look at eternal life. I am really enjoying the work you're putting me though on this. It has been a minute since someone really picked my brain. This has been a great refresher exercise for me.

 

[Cameron143]

Your point actually reinforces the heart of the gospel rather than weakening it.
If eternal life is knowing God and if one can only know God through Christ, then to say someone truly knew God is to say—by definition—that they were already responding to the revelation of the Messiah.
Scripture never treats “knowing God” as mere intellectual awareness; it is covenantal, relational, and always mediated through the Son. Jesus says, “No one comes to the Father except through Me,” which means every genuine knowledge of God—whether before the incarnation or after—flows through the Christ as the one mediator.
So if you grant that he truly knew God, you have already granted the mechanism: he knew Him through the Messiah, because there is no other way to know the Father.
This doesn’t reduce the argument to parsing words; it simply recognizes the theological structure Jesus Himself gives. If you want, we can trace how this plays out in passages like John 1, John 17, and Hebrews 11 through a deeper look at eternal life. I am really enjoying the work you're putting me though on this. It has been a minute since someone really picked my brain. This has been a great refresher exercise for me.

I agree that Abraham was in covenant relationship with God. That, too, had to be mediated through Messiah.

No need to go through the other passages, though I appreciate the offer. I was simply attempting to establish that OT salvation was largely the same as what any believer experiences regardless of time period.

Grace and peace.

 

[GWH]

I believe in Free Will. I don't believe God predestined anybody to Hell, or the Lake of Fire. God determined the exact number of HIs elect from before the creation of the world. The number that extend beyond His Elect are the result of human sin.

Those who act in accordance with their natural desire to rebel against God can freely choose Christianity. And they do at times, receiving the corresponding benefits that God gives those who obey Him.

But when they fall back from their Christian obedience and determine to maintain independence from God, they show that they have not been produced as the Elect by God. They prove that human sin, acting in rebellion against God, produces like children who rebel against God's Word. They begin as Christians and end in a contradiction with that commitment.

Yes, although we should recognize that no one achieves moral perfection in this life (Phil. 3:12), so a person who claims to be godly but who is behaving in an ungodly/unloving (untruthful) manner may be in one of the following six categories:

a. a normally loving person observed during a rare moment when he/she acted uncharacteristically (Phil. 3:12-16),
b. an immature Believer, who is making progress–you should have known him/her a year ago! (1Cor. 3:1-3, Eph. 4:11-15)
c. a truthseeker who has not yet learned the correct interpretation of God’s Word (1Cor. 6:9-11, Eph. 5:8-9), or
d. a pseudo-Christian (Matt. 7:21, 1John 2:19), who affirms Jesus as Messiah but rejects His Lordship.
e. an apostate or heretic (1John 2:19, Heb. 6:4-6), who once believed but became blasphemous or foolish and ship-wrecked their faith (1Tim. 1:19-20).
f. An atheist, who may imitate divine love without glorifying the One whose power makes it a golden rule rather than merely a pyrite suggestion.

We should also understand that hell is the just consequence of rebellion against God, and after justice is achieved such souls are destroyed. Evil people punish/torture themselves by experiencing delayed karma (Rom. 2:5-11), just as those who experience appropriate justice during this earthly existence also punish themselves or reap what they have sown and send themselves to jail.
This view makes souls responsible for breaking the rules rather than blaming evil on the judges (or Judge) who enforce them.

The purpose of earthly punishment is to promote repentance, but the reason for retribution in hell is to attain justice. It is difficult to imagine, but somehow even someone as evil as Hitler will receive perfect justice, perhaps experiencing the agony of the millions of deaths he caused in accordance with the principal of “eye for eye” (Matt. 5:38), after which their souls are destroyed forever (per John 17:12, Rom. 9:22, Gal. 6:8, Phil. 3:19, 2Thes. 1:9, 2Pet. 3:7 & Rev. 20:13-14).

 

[rogerg]

I appreciate the care you’re taking to defend the unity of God’s revelation, and I agree with you on the most important point — Jesus is YHWH, and salvation has always been through Him alone. Isaiah 6 and John 12:41 make that unmistakably clear: when Isaiah saw YHWH, he truly saw the glory of the Son. And Genesis 18 is indeed a real encounter with YHWH; Christians affirm that the Son shares fully in that divine identity. Where I’d offer gentle correction is in how we distinguish theophany from incarnation, and how we understand the Spirit’s work across covenants. The Old Testament saints genuinely encountered God, and the Spirit truly worked in them — empowering prophets, filling John the Baptist, and sustaining David. But the New Testament also teaches a new administration of the Spirit tied to Christ’s glorification: the Spirit who was “with” God’s people would now be “in” them in a permanent, covenant‑defining way (John 14:17). Pentecost wasn’t the beginning of the Spirit’s existence, but the beginning of His universal indwelling and sealing. That doesn’t create “saved but spiritually dead” believers; it simply recognizes that God unfolded His one plan of salvation in stages, with Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension bringing the fullness of what the prophets longed for. So we agree on the essentials: one Savior, one Spirit, one gospel — revealed progressively, fulfilled perfectly in Jesus.

OMC, you are using a lot of academic labels to smooth over an unsupportable position, but your "gentle correction" completely fails the test of Scripture. It also creates a dangerous trap for anyone new to the faith reading this thread.
You claim that separating these eras into "stages" doesn't create a 'saved but spiritually dead' believer, but that is exactly what your positiion does do. If an Old Testament believer lacked the new birth, lacked union with Christ, and lacked the indwelling Spirit, they were spiritually dead. To say someone can have saving faith while remaining in that dead condition creates a second way of salvation that Romans 8:8 completely disallows. A dead heart cannot produce true faith or a spiritual understanding of the gospel. Salvation itself must occur first as a sovereign act of God, and from that salvation, all follow-on attributes—including the gift of the faith of Jesus Christ—instantly flow into the believer. Therefore, everyone who is saved must come to faith in Christ—whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament—as a direct result of that salvation.
Furthermore, you are misapplying John 14:17 to claim the Holy Spirit was only "with" Old Testament believers and not "in" them. When Jesus spoke those words, He was standing right there, next to His disciples during His earthly ministry. The Spirit was 'with' them at that moment because He was present in/as Christ - He was the Holy Spirit, standing right there. To say the Spirit was never internally 'in' Old Testament saints directly contradicts 1 Peter 1:11, which explicitly says the prophets had 'the Spirit of Christ which was in them.' It doesn't say 'with' them; it says 'in' them. Otherwise, how would you suggest the books of the Old Testament were even written without the Holy Spirit having been present within the writers?
Finally, your vocabulary lesson trying to split hairs between a "theophany" and the "incarnation" is just a smoke screen to hide from the text. Whether it was a temporary appearance in Genesis 18 or His human birth later on, it was still the exact same Person: Jesus Christ. When Abraham looked at the visitor at his tent, he was looking face-to-face at the pre-incarnate Son of God. This is exactly why the Jews asked Jesus, 'hast thou seen Abraham?' (John 8:57). They knew Jesus was claiming a real, personal encounter—not an abstract vision of a future timeline.
For the sake of anyone reading this thread: God has only ever provided one plan of salvation, one Covenant of Grace, and one way to be saved. As Jesus Himself declared in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'" We cannot separate salvation from the Savior's work upon us.
The main difference between the Old and New Testaments is not a change in the nature of salvation, but the massive scale of it. In the Old Covenant, the Spirit's visible, powerful work was mostly concentrated around specific holy men and prophets. But at Pentecost, the floodgates opened to begin a massive global downpour, gathering a harvest of both Jews and Gentiles into the one body of Christ.
The Old Testament saints were placed in Christ by God (and the retroactive power of His blood), and as a result, they trusted in the promise of the coming Redeemer, just as we are placed in Christ by God (and the power of His blood), and as a result, look backward to the cross. Our security and our assurance can never rest on human timelines, man-made systems, or our own sinful performance. It rests completely on the finished work of Jesus Christ alone. I will let the plain words of Scripture stand on their own against human systems. I wish you the best!

---

---

 

[OMC]

You claim that separating these eras into "stages" doesn't create a 'saved but spiritually dead' believer, but that is exactly what your positiion does do. If an Old Testament believer lacked the new birth, lacked union with Christ, and lacked the indwelling Spirit, they were spiritually dead. To say someone can have saving faith while remaining in that dead condition creates a second way of salvation that Romans 8:8 completely disallows. A dead heart cannot produce true faith or a spiritual understanding of the gospel. Salvation itself must occur first as a sovereign act of God, and from that salvation, all follow-on attributes—including the gift of the faith of Jesus Christ—instantly flow into the believer. Therefore, everyone who is saved must come to faith in Christ—whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament—as a direct result of that salvation.
Furthermore, you are misapplying John 14:17 to claim the Holy Spirit was only "with" Old Testament believers and not "in" them. When Jesus spoke those words, He was standing right there, next to His disciples during His earthly ministry. The Spirit was 'with' them at that moment because He was present in/as Christ - He was the Holy Spirit, standing right there. To say the Spirit was never internally 'in' Old Testament saints directly contradicts 1 Peter 1:11, which explicitly says the prophets had 'the Spirit of Christ which was in them.' It doesn't say 'with' them; it says 'in' them. Otherwise, how would you suggest the books of the Old Testament were even written without the Holy Spirit having been present within the writers?
Finally, your vocabulary lesson trying to split hairs between a "theophany" and the "incarnation" is just a smoke screen to hide from the text. Whether it was a temporary appearance in Genesis 18 or His human birth later on, it was still the exact same Person: Jesus Christ. When Abraham looked at the visitor at his tent, he was looking face-to-face at the pre-incarnate Son of God. This is exactly why the Jews asked Jesus, 'hast thou seen Abraham?' (John 8:57). They knew Jesus was claiming a real, personal encounter—not an abstract vision of a future timeline

The core issue: does “no new birth yet” = “spiritually dead unbeliever”?
No — because Scripture itself distinguishes regeneration from salvation, and it distinguishes spiritual life from Pentecostal indwelling. Your argument collapses categories the Bible keeps separate.
Romans 8:8 does not apply to Old Testament saints.
Romans 8:8 (“they that are in the flesh cannot please God”) is describing those who reject Christ after the gospel has come, not Abraham, David, or the prophets. Paul is contrasting:
those in the flesh (unbelievers rejecting Christ)
those in the Spirit (believers after Pentecost)
He is not retroactively declaring Abraham “unable to please God.” Scripture explicitly says the opposite: “By faith… they pleased God.” (Hebrews 11:5–6)
If Romans 8:8 applied universally to all pre‑Pentecost humans, then no one in Hebrews 11 ever pleased God, which is impossible.
So your use of Romans 8:8 is hermeneutically misapplied.
Faith does not require the New Testament new birth.
You assert that “a dead heart cannot produce true faith,” but Scripture says: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” (Gen 15:6)
Abraham believed before Pentecost, before union with Christ, before the Spirit’s indwelling. Therefore, biblical faith did exist without the NT new birth.
Your claim that “salvation must occur first, and faith flows from salvation” reverses the biblical order:
Faith → justification (Rom 5:1) not, justification → faith
Your model is closer to hyper‑Calvinism than Scripture.
Old Testament saints were spiritually alive — but not yet indwelt.
The Bible uses “life” in multiple senses:
Covenantal life (Ps 119:93)
Spiritual vitality (Ps 51:10–12)
Regenerative new‑creation life (John 3; Eph 2)
OT saints possessed the first two, not the third. That does not make them “spiritually dead unbelievers.”
It makes them pre‑Pentecost believers awaiting the fullness of the Spirit.
This is exactly Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:23–25 — they were saved, but awaiting the faith that would come, the Gospel era.
John 14:17 — your interpretation contradicts Jesus’ own words.
You claim “the Spirit was ‘with’ them because Jesus was standing there.” But Jesus explicitly distinguishes Himself from the Spirit
“I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter.” (John 14:16)
If the Spirit were simply “Jesus standing there,” then Jesus is praying for the Father to send… Himself. That is not Trinitarian theology; it is modalism.
Jesus’ actual statement: “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
This is a temporal contrast:
with you (present reality during Jesus’ earthly ministry)
in you (future reality after His glorification)
John confirms this explicitly, “The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:39)
Your interpretation requires John 7:39 to be false.
You argue this proves full NT indwelling.
But Peter is describing prophetic inspiration, not regenerative indwelling.
The Spirit “in” the prophets is:
charismatic empowerment
prophetic revelation
inspiration for Scripture
This is the same Spirit who:
filled Bezalel for craftsmanship (Ex 31:3)
came upon Samson (Judg 14:6)
departed from Saul (1 Sam 16:14)
rested upon David (Ps 51:11)
None of these are the permanent, sealing, union‑creating indwelling of the New Covenant.
If 1 Peter 1:11 meant NT indwelling, then:
Saul was “born again” before losing the Spirit
David feared losing his “new birth” in Psalm 51
John 7:39 is meaningless
Pentecost accomplished nothing new
Your interpretation collapses the entire biblical doctrine of the New Covenant.
Theophany vs. Incarnation — why the distinction matters.
Theophanies are temporary manifestations.
Examples are,
Genesis 18
Exodus 3
Joshua 5
Daniel 3
These appearances do not involve,
human birth
human nature
human lineage
human growth
human suffering
human death
human resurrection
The Incarnation is permanent.
Hebrews 2:14–17 says He took on flesh — permanently. Philippians 2:7 says He became man — permanently.
If Genesis 18 were the incarnation, then:
Jesus was already human centuries before Bethlehem
He had a human body before Mary
He had two incarnations
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are false
Your position unintentionally destroys the doctrine of the incarnation.
John 8:57–58 does not teach a pre‑Bethlehem human body
Jesus does not say: “I saw Abraham.”
He says: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
He claims eternal divine existence, not a prior human encounter.
The Jews misunderstood Him — as they often did (John 2:19–21; 6:52; 7:35).
So as you accurately stated, The scripture speaks for itself.

 

[rogerg]

The core issue: does “no new birth yet” = “spiritually dead unbeliever”?
No — because Scripture itself distinguishes regeneration from salvation, and it distinguishes spiritual life from Pentecostal indwelling. Your argument collapses categories the Bible keeps separate.
Romans 8:8 does not apply to Old Testament saints.
Romans 8:8 (“they that are in the flesh cannot please God”) is describing those who reject Christ after the gospel has come, not Abraham, David, or the prophets. Paul is contrasting:
those in the flesh (unbelievers rejecting Christ)
those in the Spirit (believers after Pentecost)
He is not retroactively declaring Abraham “unable to please God.” Scripture explicitly says the opposite: “By faith… they pleased God.” (Hebrews 11:5–6)
If Romans 8:8 applied universally to all pre‑Pentecost humans, then no one in Hebrews 11 ever pleased God, which is impossible.
So your use of Romans 8:8 is hermeneutically misapplied.
Faith does not require the New Testament new birth.
You assert that “a dead heart cannot produce true faith,” but Scripture says: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” (Gen 15:6)
Abraham believed before Pentecost, before union with Christ, before the Spirit’s indwelling. Therefore, biblical faith did exist without the NT new birth.
Your claim that “salvation must occur first, and faith flows from salvation” reverses the biblical order:
Faith → justification (Rom 5:1) not, justification → faith
Your model is closer to hyper‑Calvinism than Scripture.
Old Testament saints were spiritually alive — but not yet indwelt.
The Bible uses “life” in multiple senses:
Covenantal life (Ps 119:93)
Spiritual vitality (Ps 51:10–12)
Regenerative new‑creation life (John 3; Eph 2)
OT saints possessed the first two, not the third. That does not make them “spiritually dead unbelievers.”
It makes them pre‑Pentecost believers awaiting the fullness of the Spirit.
This is exactly Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:23–25 — they were saved, but awaiting the faith that would come, the Gospel era.
John 14:17 — your interpretation contradicts Jesus’ own words.
You claim “the Spirit was ‘with’ them because Jesus was standing there.” But Jesus explicitly distinguishes Himself from the Spirit
“I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter.” (John 14:16)
If the Spirit were simply “Jesus standing there,” then Jesus is praying for the Father to send… Himself. That is not Trinitarian theology; it is modalism.
Jesus’ actual statement: “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
This is a temporal contrast:
with you (present reality during Jesus’ earthly ministry)
in you (future reality after His glorification)
John confirms this explicitly, “The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:39)
Your interpretation requires John 7:39 to be false.
You argue this proves full NT indwelling.
But Peter is describing prophetic inspiration, not regenerative indwelling.
The Spirit “in” the prophets is:
charismatic empowerment
prophetic revelation
inspiration for Scripture
This is the same Spirit who:
filled Bezalel for craftsmanship (Ex 31:3)
came upon Samson (Judg 14:6)
departed from Saul (1 Sam 16:14)
rested upon David (Ps 51:11)
None of these are the permanent, sealing, union‑creating indwelling of the New Covenant.
If 1 Peter 1:11 meant NT indwelling, then:
Saul was “born again” before losing the Spirit
David feared losing his “new birth” in Psalm 51
John 7:39 is meaningless
Pentecost accomplished nothing new
Your interpretation collapses the entire biblical doctrine of the New Covenant.
Theophany vs. Incarnation — why the distinction matters.
Theophanies are temporary manifestations.
Examples are,
Genesis 18
Exodus 3
Joshua 5
Daniel 3
These appearances do not involve,
human birth
human nature
human lineage
human growth
human suffering
human death
human resurrection
The Incarnation is permanent.
Hebrews 2:14–17 says He took on flesh — permanently. Philippians 2:7 says He became man — permanently.
If Genesis 18 were the incarnation, then:
Jesus was already human centuries before Bethlehem
He had a human body before Mary
He had two incarnations
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are false
Your position unintentionally destroys the doctrine of the incarnation.
John 8:57–58 does not teach a pre‑Bethlehem human body
Jesus does not say: “I saw Abraham.”
He says: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
He claims eternal divine existence, not a prior human encounter.
The Jews misunderstood Him — as they often did (John 2:19–21; 6:52; 7:35).
So as you accurately stated, The scripture speaks for itself.

OMC, you are throwing a massive wall of labels and accusations at me, but your argument completely falls apart when you look at the plain text of the Bible.
First, you claim that Romans 8:8 does not apply to Old Testament saints. But you completely skipped the very next verse. Paul says explicitly in Romans 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Your system teaches that Old Testament saints did not have the indwelling Spirit of Christ. By your own logic, you are saying Abraham, David, and the prophets were "none of his." That is a dangerous mistake. The Bible never says a person can belong to God while completely lacking His Spirit inside them.
Second, you are making up a theory that there are different kinds of spiritual life, claiming they had "vitality" but weren't "born again." The Bible never splits life into stages like that. Ephesians 2:1-5 makes it very clear: you are either spiritually dead, or you are made alive with Christ - there is no middle ground. A dead heart cannot have "spiritual vitality" to please God until and unless God saves them and gives them a new heart first.
Third, let me clarify what I meant about John 14:17. I am not confusing Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They are distinct Persons. My point was simple: the Spirit was present 'with' the disciples at that moment because Christ—who holds and gives the Spirit without measure—was standing right there with them. You cannot separate the work of the Son from the work of the Spirit. Further, your claim that the Spirit 'in' the prophets in 1 Peter 1:11 was just a temporary power completely falls apart. If the Spirit of Christ was inside them, they had internal spiritual life, period, full-stop. Otherwise, how were the books of the Old Testament even written?
Where did they came from? Do you think the prophets just made it all up on their own? Finally, saying I am destroying the incarnation is just a smoke screen to dodge the text. I never said Jesus had a physical human body before Bethlehem. I said Abraham had a personal encounter with the pre-incarnate Son of God in Genesis 18, where the text says the visitor was YHWH. John 12:41 confirms that when Isaiah saw YHWH, he was seeing the glory of Jesus.
For the sake of anyone reading this thread: this is the danger of letting man-made timelines override the Bible. It forces you to claim that Abraham wasn't born again, that the prophets lacked the internal Spirit, and that Old Testament believers were "none of his" under Romans 8:9. God has only ever had one plan of salvation, so that everyone who becomes saved will come to faith in Christ—whether in the Old or New Testament—as a direct consequence of that salvation. I am completely content to leave the thread right here and let the plain text of Scripture stand against your claims. Thanks for the discussion.

---

 

[OMC]

First, you claim that Romans 8:8 does not apply to Old Testament saints. But you completely skipped the very next verse. Paul says explicitly in Romans 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Romans 8:9 is absolutely true — anyone living after Christ who does not have the indwelling Spirit is not Christ’s. But this verse does not apply to Old Testament saints, because the indwelling Spirit did not exist before Christ’s glorification. They belonged to God under the old covenant, and we belong to Christ under the new covenant. The verse defines the new‑covenant boundary, not the old‑covenant status

 

[OMC]

Second, you are making up a theory that there are different kinds of spiritual life, claiming they had "vitality" but weren't "born again." The Bible never splits life into stages like that. Ephesians 2:1-5 makes it very clear: you are either spiritually dead, or you are made alive with Christ - there is no middle ground. A dead heart cannot have "spiritual vitality" to please God until and unless God saves them and gives them a new heart first.

This is not a theory. It is Paul’s own structure. Ephesians 2:1–5 does not erase the spiritual life of Old Testament saints; it describes the new‑creation life that only exists after Christ’s resurrection. Scripture itself distinguishes between old‑covenant life and new‑covenant regeneration. Old Testament saints were spiritually alive in covenant terms, but they were not “made alive with Christ” because Christ had not yet risen. Your interpretation collapses the covenants and unintentionally declares every Old Testament believer spiritually dead — which Scripture explicitly denies.

 

[OMC]

Third, let me clarify what I meant about John 14:17. I am not confusing Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They are distinct Persons. My point was simple: the Spirit was present 'with' the disciples at that moment because Christ—who holds and gives the Spirit without measure—was standing right there with them. You cannot separate the work of the Son from the work of the Spirit. Further, your claim that the Spirit 'in' the prophets in 1 Peter 1:11 was just a temporary power completely falls apart. If the Spirit of Christ was inside them, they had internal spiritual life, period, full-stop. Otherwise, how were the books of the Old Testament even written?
Where did they came from? Do you think the prophets just made it all up on their own?

You’re pressing the right texts, and you’re right about one big thing: the Spirit’s presence “in” the prophets was real, and the Old Testament is not human invention. Where we differ is not on whether they had the Spirit, but on what kind of work the Spirit was doing in them before Christ’s death and resurrection.
John 14:17 — “with you” vs “in you” “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
You’re saying, the Spirit was “with” them because Christ was physically present, and you can’t separate Son and Spirit.
I agree on the unity of their work—but Jesus Himself still draws a real distinction:
Present tense: “He dwells with you”
Future tense: “He shall be in you”
If “with” already meant “indwelling,” the sentence becomes meaningless. Christ is promising a change in the mode of the Spirit’s presence that had not yet occurred: “The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:39)
So yes, the Spirit was truly active with and among them because Christ was there, but the indwelling, sealing, new‑covenant presence was still future.
You’re right: Peter says the Spirit of Christ was in the prophets.
But notice what Peter is describing, “The Spirit of Christ which was in them testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” (1 Pet. 1:11)
That “in” is:
prophetic inspiration
revelatory illumination
foretelling Christ’s sufferings and glory
It is not described as:
union with Christ’s resurrection
new‑creation life
sealing as sons
indwelling as in Romans 8
The same Spirit can:
be in someone to inspire prophecy,
without yet giving the post‑resurrection indwelling that unites believers to Christ’s finished work.
If we collapse those into one, we end up saying:
every prophet had the same experience as Romans 8, Ephesians 2, and John 14:17—even though Jesus explicitly says that indwelling was not yet given.
They had real spiritual life—I’m not denying that.
What I’m saying is:
Old Testament spiritual life = real, but pre‑cross, pre‑resurrection, pre‑Pentecost
New Testament spiritual life = real, but united to Christ’s death and resurrection, sealed, indwelt, new‑creation
Same Spirit, different covenantal administration.
The prophets did not “make it up.” They spoke as, “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pet. 1:21)
But that prophetic “in” is not identical to, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” (Rom. 8:9)
Romans 8:9 is a boundary marker for the new‑covenant era, not a retroactive denial of every believer before Pentecost.

You are treating every mention of the Spirit “in” someone as identical to post‑resurrection, new‑covenant indwelling.
I’m saying Scripture itself distinguishes pre‑Pentecost prophetic indwelling from post‑Pentecost regenerative indwelling.

 

[Chester]

no one can possess eternal life apart from the life of God, because Scripture defines eternal life as participation in God’s own life through union with Christ. Jesus says eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son — not merely receiving a “thing,” but entering a relationship grounded in the Spirit’s indwelling. So if someone is said to “possess eternal life,” that possession is necessarily tied to God Himself; there is no independent, creaturely version of eternal life. The Spirit is the One who imparts life (John 6:63), Christ is the life (John 14:6), and the Father is the source of life (1 John 5:11). Therefore, eternal life cannot be possessed apart from the Spirit, apart from Christ, or apart from God’s own life — because eternal life is God’s life shared with the believer.

Excellent: explained well

 

[rogerg]

You’re pressing the right texts, and you’re right about one big thing: the Spirit’s presence “in” the prophets was real, and the Old Testament is not human invention. Where we differ is not on whether they had the Spirit, but on what kind of work the Spirit was doing in them before Christ’s death and resurrection.
John 14:17 — “with you” vs “in you” “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
You’re saying, the Spirit was “with” them because Christ was physically present, and you can’t separate Son and Spirit.
I agree on the unity of their work—but Jesus Himself still draws a real distinction:
Present tense: “He dwells with you”
Future tense: “He shall be in you”
If “with” already meant “indwelling,” the sentence becomes meaningless. Christ is promising a change in the mode of the Spirit’s presence that had not yet occurred: “The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:39)
So yes, the Spirit was truly active with and among them because Christ was there, but the indwelling, sealing, new‑covenant presence was still future.
You’re right: Peter says the Spirit of Christ was in the prophets.
But notice what Peter is describing, “The Spirit of Christ which was in them testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” (1 Pet. 1:11)
That “in” is:
prophetic inspiration
revelatory illumination
foretelling Christ’s sufferings and glory
It is not described as:
union with Christ’s resurrection
new‑creation life
sealing as sons
indwelling as in Romans 8
The same Spirit can:
be in someone to inspire prophecy,
without yet giving the post‑resurrection indwelling that unites believers to Christ’s finished work.
If we collapse those into one, we end up saying:
every prophet had the same experience as Romans 8, Ephesians 2, and John 14:17—even though Jesus explicitly says that indwelling was not yet given.
They had real spiritual life—I’m not denying that.
What I’m saying is:
Old Testament spiritual life = real, but pre‑cross, pre‑resurrection, pre‑Pentecost
New Testament spiritual life = real, but united to Christ’s death and resurrection, sealed, indwelt, new‑creation
Same Spirit, different covenantal administration.
The prophets did not “make it up.” They spoke as, “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pet. 1:21)
But that prophetic “in” is not identical to, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” (Rom. 8:9)
Romans 8:9 is a boundary marker for the new‑covenant era, not a retroactive denial of every believer before Pentecost.

You are treating every mention of the Spirit “in” someone as identical to post‑resurrection, new‑covenant indwelling.
I’m saying Scripture itself distinguishes pre‑Pentecost prophetic indwelling from post‑Pentecost regenerative indwelling.

OMC, you have used three separate posts to defend your "system" - I will address all three here. Most of the conclusions you’ve drawn in them are simply the result of your own conjecture but are not supported by Scripture, however, you've treated your conclusions as though they are Scripture. Your arguments completely fall apart when you look at the plain text of the Bible. For example, Romans 8:9 places no restriction on its application to pre-Christ saints, but it applies to "any man". By the "any man", it means, well, it means, any man without restriction. You also claim that Romans 8:9 is just a boundary marker that doesn't apply backward because the indwelling Spirit did not exist before Christ was glorified. That is incorrect. The Holy Spirit is eternal. Further, the Bible explicitly proves your timeline is wrong. In Luke 1:15, the angel says that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). That happened decades before Christ was glorified. By insisting that Abraham, David, and the Old Testament prophets lacked the indwelling Spirit of Christ, your POV forces you to say that they were "none of his" by Romans 8:9. You are removing the Old Testament saints from belonging to Christ just to save your timeline.

Second, you claim that Old Testament saints had "covenant life" but were not "made alive with Christ" because Christ had not yet risen. However, according to Ephesians 2:4-5, which is God's only way for making a dead person alive is to quicken them "together with Christ". There is no other category nor other way stated in Scripture for that to occur. If the Old Testament saints were alive to God, they had to be made alive together with Christ by God and the power of His cross and resurrection working backward. If they were not made alive with Christ, then they stayed dead in Adam, remaining under condemnation and that would therefore include (but not be limited to) Abraham and Moses. You are inventing a second way of salvation that leaves those who should be in Christ, outside of Christ.
Third, your claim that the Spirit "in" the prophets in 1 Peter 1:11 was just a temporary power for writing Scripture and not for their own salvation makes no sense. This, again, is one of your own assumptions and conclusions not supported by Scripture. God does not put His Holy Spirit inside spiritually dead people just to use them as tools to write the Bible. If the Spirit of Christ was inside them, they had internal spiritual life and were in Christ. Nowhere in Scripture are we told of people who were once made alive for a particular purpose but then that life was removed from them. If they didn't have the Holy Spirit, and life, then how were the books of the Old Testament even written without Holy Spirit?
For the sake of anyone reading this thread: this is the danger of letting man-made timelines override the Bible. It forces you to split the body of Christ into two, invent different kinds of spiritual life, and claim that the greatest saints of the Old Testament did not actually belong to Christ. God has only ever had one plan of salvation, one Holy Spirit, and one way to be made alive. Everyone who is saved must and will come to faith in Christ—whether in the Old or New Testament as a direct consequence of that salvation.
I think that at this point, we're just repeating ourselves.

 

[OMC]

OMC, you have used three separate posts to defend your "system" - I will address all three here. Most of the conclusions you’ve drawn in them are simply the result of your own conjecture but are not supported by Scripture, however, you've treated your conclusions as though they are Scripture. Your arguments completely fall apart when you look at the plain text of the Bible. For example, Romans 8:9 places no restriction on its application to pre-Christ saints, but it applies to "any man". By the "any man", it means, well, it means, any man without restriction. You also claim that Romans 8:9 is just a boundary marker that doesn't apply backward because the indwelling Spirit did not exist before Christ was glorified. That is incorrect. The Holy Spirit is eternal. Further, the Bible explicitly proves your timeline is wrong. In Luke 1:15, the angel says that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). That happened decades before Christ was glorified. By insisting that Abraham, David, and the Old Testament prophets lacked the indwelling Spirit of Christ, your POV forces you to say that they were "none of his" by Romans 8:9. You are removing the Old Testament saints from belonging to Christ just to save your timeline.

Second, you claim that Old Testament saints had "covenant life" but were not "made alive with Christ" because Christ had not yet risen. However, according to Ephesians 2:4-5, which is God's only way for making a dead person alive is to quicken them "together with Christ". There is no other category nor other way stated in Scripture for that to occur. If the Old Testament saints were alive to God, they had to be made alive together with Christ by God and the power of His cross and resurrection working backward. If they were not made alive with Christ, then they stayed dead in Adam, remaining under condemnation and that would therefore include (but not be limited to) Abraham and Moses. You are inventing a second way of salvation that leaves those who should be in Christ, outside of Christ.
Third, your claim that the Spirit "in" the prophets in 1 Peter 1:11 was just a temporary power for writing Scripture and not for their own salvation makes no sense. This, again, is one of your own assumptions and conclusions not supported by Scripture. God does not put His Holy Spirit inside spiritually dead people just to use them as tools to write the Bible. If the Spirit of Christ was inside them, they had internal spiritual life and were in Christ. Nowhere in Scripture are we told of people who were once made alive for a particular purpose but then that life was removed from them. If they didn't have the Holy Spirit, and life, then how were the books of the Old Testament even written without Holy Spirit?
For the sake of anyone reading this thread: this is the danger of letting man-made timelines override the Bible. It forces you to split the body of Christ into two, invent different kinds of spiritual life, and claim that the greatest saints of the Old Testament did not actually belong to Christ. God has only ever had one plan of salvation, one Holy Spirit, and one way to be made alive. Everyone who is saved must and will come to faith in Christ—whether in the Old or New Testament as a direct consequence of that salvation.
I think that at this point, we're just repeating ourselves

The heart of the disagreement is not hostility but hermeneutics: you are treating every verse as if it operates timelessly and identically across covenants, while Scripture itself repeatedly distinguishes what God did before Christ’s resurrection from what He does after. Romans 8:9 absolutely says “any man,” but Paul is speaking to people living after the Spirit was given, not rewriting the experience of Abraham retroactively; likewise, the Spirit filling John the Baptist in Luke 1:15 is not the same as the indwelling Spirit given at Pentecost, because Scripture itself distinguishes filled, upon, and in. And when Ephesians 2 says God “made us alive together with Christ,” Paul is describing the new‑covenant union accomplished by Christ’s resurrection, not claiming that Old Testament saints were already united to a risen Christ decades or centuries before He rose. None of this denies their salvation, their righteousness, or their belonging to God — it simply honors the biblical timeline God Himself reveals. You’re right that God has one plan of salvation, but Scripture also shows He administered that one plan through different covenantal stages, and honoring those distinctions is not dividing the body of Christ but submitting to the way God unfolded redemption in history. If you want, we can walk carefully through Romans 8 or Ephesians 2 to keep the conversation grounded in the text itself.

 

[rogerg]

The heart of the disagreement is not hostility but hermeneutics: you are treating every verse as if it operates timelessly and identically across covenants, while Scripture itself repeatedly distinguishes what God did before Christ’s resurrection from what He does after. Romans 8:9 absolutely says “any man,” but Paul is speaking to people living after the Spirit was given, not rewriting the experience of Abraham retroactively; likewise, the Spirit filling John the Baptist in Luke 1:15 is not the same as the indwelling Spirit given at Pentecost, because Scripture itself distinguishes filled, upon, and in. And when Ephesians 2 says God “made us alive together with Christ,” Paul is describing the new‑covenant union accomplished by Christ’s resurrection, not claiming that Old Testament saints were already united to a risen Christ decades or centuries before He rose. None of this denies their salvation, their righteousness, or their belonging to God — it simply honors the biblical timeline God Himself reveals. You’re right that God has one plan of salvation, but Scripture also shows He administered that one plan through different covenantal stages, and honoring those distinctions is not dividing the body of Christ but submitting to the way God unfolded redemption in history. If you want, we can walk carefully through Romans 8 or Ephesians 2 to keep the conversation grounded in the text itself.

OMC, thank you for the respectful reply. I appreciate that you are willing to affirm that the Old Testament saints possessed true salvation, true righteousness, and truly belonged to God.
Since we both agree that Jesus Christ is the sole Savior across all of history, I am more than content to leave our discussion right here on that shared ground. The scriptures we have both put forward are on the board, and I am completely satisfied to let them stand on their own for anyone reading this thread. Thank you again for the dialogue, and I sincerely wish you the very best!
At this point, I think we're done.

---

 

[OMC]

OMC, thank you for the respectful reply. I appreciate that you are willing to affirm that the Old Testament saints possessed true salvation, true righteousness, and truly belonged to God.
Since we both agree that Jesus Christ is the sole Savior across all of history, I am more than content to leave our discussion right here on that shared ground. The scriptures we have both put forward are on the board, and I am completely satisfied to let them stand on their own for anyone reading this thread. Thank you again for the dialogue, and I sincerely wish you the very best!
At this point, I think we're done

Brother, I would close this exactly where you’ve placed it — on shared reverence for Christ as the one Savior of every soul God has ever redeemed — and with the same gracious tone you offered, because “iron sharpens iron,” and when two believers contend for truth without bitterness, the Lord is honored. We may see certain covenant details differently, but Scripture is clear that all whom God saves are His, all righteousness comes through Christ, and all glory belongs to the One who purchased a people for Himself; so if we both stand there, then we stand together. Peace to you my friend.

 

[rogerg]

Brother, I would close this exactly where you’ve placed it — on shared reverence for Christ as the one Savior of every soul God has ever redeemed — and with the same gracious tone you offered, because “iron sharpens iron,” and when two believers contend for truth without bitterness, the Lord is honored. We may see certain covenant details differently, but Scripture is clear that all whom God saves are His, all righteousness comes through Christ, and all glory belongs to the One who purchased a people for Himself; so if we both stand there, then we stand together. Peace to you my friend.

And peace to you also, friend.

 

[Churchgoer]

Right. So if Abraham knew God, he possessed eternal life. If he possessed eternal life, he had the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

Holy spirit was mentioned many times in ot.
We believe in trinity God, from beginning to end.
Jesus is the one that revealed himself to us. The son, father, spirit 3 person in one unity.