OSAS origins and comparison

[Dave123]

Further, your claim that the Spirit didn't indwell Old Testament saints directly contradicts [1 Pet 1:11 KJV], which explicitly states the prophets had 'the Spirit of Christ which was in them.'

Even though you're probably not going to reply, I wanted to get back to this and have the time now.

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.

Peace

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm Predestinarian period--let me get that out of the way. But the issue goes deeper than Justified once and then "things work out over time." What I think is really going on is the question of whether people who become Christians commit fully to Christ or not. I do believe that people can become Christians, obtain a variety of spiritual gifts, evidence some Christian traits, without showing the true fruit of Christian Salvation.

The Scriptures, particularly Paul and Peter, call for Nominal Christians who have a variety of Christian gifts to "prove their Election." What this means to me is that the genuine fruit of Christian Salvation goes deeper than a display of Christian gifts.

The true fruit of Christian Salvation is a complete transformation of character, which we often call Regeneration or Rebirth. A full commitment will result not just in receiving the Spirit, but much more, an acceptance of the Spirit as a permanent indwelling gift, transforming our entire character from selfishness to God-dependence.

So, those who truly commit fully to Christ obtain the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and not only display Christian gifts, but also display the Christian fruit of complete transformation of character. For us, that may become apparent only over time.

But in my opinion it begins when one makes an initial commitment that results in true Christian fruit, resulting in a complete change in character. At that point I don't think there's any turning back. We've turned the steering wheel completely over to Christ, and he will not lead us astray. My view only....

Your reply covers more fully what the apostles wrote about.

A Christian believes in Jesus obviously and lives the Christian life in love towards others.

Colossians 1;4
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints;

Ephesians 6:23
Peace be to the brothers and sisters, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:14
And the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.

Philemon 1:5
Because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints.

There is no debate on this point.

 

[rogerg]

Even though you're probably not going to reply, I wanted to get back to this and have the time now.

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.

Peace

First, you claim that the word "in" in 1 Peter 1:11 should be translated as "among", however, the Greek word Peter uses there is "en," which is the primary word for "in" or "within" througout the entire New Testament. That is why almost every major translation in history, including the King James Version, translates 1 Pet 1:11 exactly as "in them." You are literally trying to rewrite the text of the Bible because the actual words contradict your premise. In checking the lexicon, the word "en" is used as "in" 1902 times, with the next ranked usage "by" at 162 times. So, the use of "in" is far more prevalent in Scripture than of any other possibility.

Second, your argument about the Spirit being 'upon' them vs 'in' them is incorrect. The Holy Spirit can live inside a person to give them spiritual life, and still come upon them with special power to do a specific task. We see this exact distinction in the New Testament. In John 20:22, the risen Christ breathed on the disciples and said 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' They were indwelt for life right then, yet weeks later in Acts 1:8, Jesus told these exact same men they still needed the Holy Ghost to 'come upon' them for power. If New Testament believers can be indwelt for life and still have the Spirit come upon them for power, your timeline for the Old Testament completely falls apart.

Third, you are falling right back into the same trap of saying only a few elite prophets had the Spirit, while regular Old Testament believers had no internal life. But as I already proved, Paul declared a universal rule in Romans 8:9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his". He says "any man," not "any New Testament man." While Paul was addressing believers in that letter, his purpose was to teach them doctrine, not to limit the scope of who the "any man" pertained to. This is known because there are only two alternatives and so man must exist within one or the other: either dead in Adam, or alive in Christ (1 Co 15:22) - there is no third option. If your belief says Old Testament believers lacked the Spirit inside them, then you are actually saying they were among the "none of his" and therefore, spiritually dead - not possible.

For the sake of anyone reading this thread: this is what happens when you try to force a man-made timeline onto the Bible. You end up having to invent new translations and add rules that aren't in the text just to protect a man-made system. God has only ever had one plan of salvation, one Holy Spirit, and one way to be made alive. Everyone who is saved must come to faith in Christ—whether in the Old or New Testament—as a direct consequence of that salvation.

 

[Dave123]

First, you claim that the word "in" in 1 Peter 1:11 should be translated as "among", however, the Greek word Peter uses there is "en," which is the primary word for "in" or "within" througout the entire New Testament. That is why almost every major translation in history, including the King James Version, translates 1 Pet 1:11 exactly as "in them." You are literally trying to rewrite the text of the Bible because the actual words contradict your premise. In checking the lexicon, the word "en" is used as "in" 1902 times, with the next ranked usage "by" at 162 times. So, the use of "in" is far more prevalent in Scripture than of any other possibility.

Hi Rog

The words as used in many of the translations contradict the rest of the Bible, as I have shown many, many times on this forum. Start here, and if you want more, I will gladly supply more. Ezekiel 36:26-27 was written after David lived in about 1000 B.C., and Abraham in 2000 B.C.. This promise of the indwelling holy Spirit was written in Ezekiel about 590 B.C., and repeated in John 7:38-39, and John 14:16-17, and many more places. It began to be realized at Pentecost. And was finished when all true OT believers heard and believed the Gospel, and received the indwelling. And also, some true OT believers of that time having already heard and believed the Gospel, did get that promised indwelling that was owed to them. This is how one overcomes bad, or poor translations in the Bible by people who didn't know any better. That's why we should hold to hermeneutics, the many interpret the few.

OT-John 14:16-20 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

Second, your argument about the Spirit being 'upon' them vs 'in' them is incorrect. The Holy Spirit can live inside a person to give them spiritual life, and still come upon them with special power to do a specific task. We see this exact distinction in the New Testament. In John 20:22, the risen Christ breathed on the disciples and said 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' They were indwelt for life right then, yet weeks later in Acts 1:8, Jesus told these exact same men they still needed the Holy Ghost to 'come upon' them for power. If New Testament believers can be indwelt for life and still have the Spirit come upon them for power, your timeline for the Old Testament completely falls apart.

Not until blood is shed. God would not join with someone spiritually who is still unclean. That's why nobody was indwelt until after the cross. God could be approached in the Temple, after the Priest was cleansed, once a year, so that He would pass over those sins previously committed (Romans 3:25-26). Why was that covering necessary if that Priest was already cleansed by Jesus's blood, and God was living in Him? Why did we still see all the Levitical stuff, and the sacrifices even in the Gospels?.......

Second, John 20:22 is still the OT (Hebrews 9:16-17). This is the Promise continued, which is the New Covenant. But not instituted without blood. Jesus was not yet glorified, lifted up, sitting at the right hand of the Father (John 3:14-15, 7:39, 16:7, Acts 2:33.) The beginning of this was all realized in Acts 1:8. That's why the same disciples of John 20:22 were told to wait Acts 1:4. What were they waiting for? "THE" Promise of the Father, "THE" Holy Spirit. Salvation, as Promised.

Third, "breathed on them" is not the indwelling. We can argue about what it is that happened, but cannot separate John 20:22 from the context of John 20:21-23. It's part of the great commission. If it were reality at that moment, they wouldn't have been told to wait (Acts1:4) It's clear, their being sent, is future (they were told to wait), as was the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).

More importantly. Acts 1:4 says that they will receive the Promise of the Father, which is the indwelling. And Hebrews 11:19-40 says the heroes of faith, including David and Abraham, died having not received the promise. In fact, it says that they were not made perfect apart from "us", the Writer of Hebrews and who he was writing to.

Third, you are falling right back into the same trap of saying only a few elite prophets had the Spirit, while regular Old Testament believers had no internal life. But as I already proved, Paul declared a universal rule in Romans 8:9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his". He says "any man," not "any New Testament man." While Paul was addressing believers in that letter, his purpose was to teach them doctrine, not to limit the scope of who the "any man" pertained to. This is known because there are only two alternatives and so man must exist within one or the other: either dead in Adam, or alive in Christ (1 Co 15:22) - there is no third option. If your belief says Old Testament believers lacked the Spirit inside them, then you are actually saying they were among the "none of his" and therefore, spiritually dead - not possible. [/B]

And this is exactly true....for the NT, in the time when Paul wrote that. All believers had the Holy spirit in them at that time. But not in the OT, as I have shown.

Now, understanding that principle, take another look at these few passages. (There's more). Does it sound like these are alive, or promised to be made alive? What makes them alive?

Ezekiel 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

OT- 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.

See John 14:25-26, John 16:12-16[/B]

For the sake of anyone reading this thread: this is what happens when you try to force a man-made timeline onto the Bible. You end up having to invent new translations and add rules that aren't in the text just to protect a man-made system. God has only ever had one plan of salvation, one Holy Spirit, and one way to be made alive. Everyone who is saved must come to faith in Christ—whether in the Old or New Testament—as a direct consequence of that salvation.[/B]

This is not a tit for tat, Rog. So far I've answered your Scripture, will you do the same? That's what separates those who are defending their own understanding of Scripture honestly with those who are just repeating someone else's thoughts from four hundred years ago because they have none of their own. Please show us this understanding that your boasting over with the Scripture that I posted. Give me your thoughts on what they mean in your understanding.

Dave

 

[rogerg]

Hi Rog

The words as used in many of the translations contradict the rest of the Bible, as I have shown many, many times on this forum. Start here, and if you want more, I will gladly supply more. Ezekiel 36:26-27 was written after David lived in about 1000 B.C., and Abraham in 2000 B.C.. This promise of the indwelling holy Spirit was written in Ezekiel about 590 B.C., and repeated in John 7:38-39, and John 14:16-17, and many more places. It began to be realized at Pentecost. And was finished when all true OT believers heard and believed the Gospel, and received the indwelling. And also, some true OT believers of that time having already heard and believed the Gospel, did get that promised indwelling that was owed to them. This is how one overcomes bad, or poor translations in the Bible by people who didn't know any better. That's why we should hold to hermeneutics, the many interpret the few.

OT-John 14:16-20 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.



Not until blood is shed. God would not join with someone spiritually who is still unclean. That's why nobody was indwelt until after the cross. God could be approached in the Temple, after the Priest was cleansed, once a year, so that He would pass over those sins previously committed (Romans 3:25-26). Why was that covering necessary if that Priest was already cleansed by Jesus's blood, and God was living in Him? Why did we still see all the Levitical stuff, and the sacrifices even in the Gospels?.......

Second, John 20:22 is still the OT (Hebrews 9:16-17). This is the Promise continued, which is the New Covenant. But not instituted without blood. Jesus was not yet glorified, lifted up, sitting at the right hand of the Father (John 3:14-15, 7:39, 16:7, Acts 2:33.) The beginning of this was all realized in Acts 1:8. That's why the same disciples of John 20:22 were told to wait Acts 1:4. What were they waiting for? "THE" Promise of the Father, "THE" Holy Spirit. Salvation, as Promised.

Third, "breathed on them" is not the indwelling. We can argue about what it is that happened, but cannot separate John 20:22 from the context of John 20:21-23. It's part of the great commission. If it were reality at that moment, they wouldn't have been told to wait (Acts1:4) It's clear, their being sent, is future (they were told to wait), as was the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).

More importantly. Acts 1:4 says that they will receive the Promise of the Father, which is the indwelling. And Hebrews 11:19-40 says the heroes of faith, including David and Abraham, died having not received the promise. In fact, it says that they were not made perfect apart from "us", the Writer of Hebrews and who he was writing to.




And this is exactly true....for the NT, in the time when Paul wrote that. All believers had the Holy spirit in them at that time. But not in the OT, as I have shown.

Now, understanding that principle, take another look at these few passages. (There's more). Does it sound like these are alive, or promised to be made alive? What makes them alive?

Ezekiel 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

OT- 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.

See John 14:25-26, John 16:12-16[/B]



This is not a tit for tat, Rog. So far I've answered your Scripture, will you do the same? That's what separates those who are defending their own understanding of Scripture honestly with those who are just repeating someone else's thoughts from four hundred years ago because they have none of their own. Please show us this understanding that your boasting over with the Scripture that I posted. Give me your thoughts on what they mean in your understanding.

Dave

Dave, I'm happy to look right at the verses you posted. This isn't about old traditions or boasting, it's just about reading and understanding the plain words on the page. Your timeline idea completely changes how a person becomes saved by grace.
First, you claim nobody had the Spirit inside them before the cross because God wouldn't join with someone who is "unclean." That is a huge mistake. Everyone God joins with unto salvation IS unclean to begin with - no one is not unclean. Genesis 15:6 says Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Romans 4 proves that when a man is saved, it is the faith of Christ that is counted for righteousness and that alone is what makes him righteous and therefore clean, not before then. If Abraham was made righteous by Christ's faith, he wasn't unclean. God didn't fake his salvation.
Second, you look at Ezekiel 36:26-27 and ask if they sound alive or promised to be made alive. Think about what you are actually saying. Ezekiel was written around 590 B.C. If nobody got a new heart until Pentecost, then for over 600 years, every single Old Testament believer had a heart of stone. The Bible says a heart of stone is spiritually dead and can't please God (Rom 8:7-8). You are literally saying Daniel and John the Baptist served God with dead hearts of stone. That makes no sense. There are only two possibilities for a soul: it is either dead in Adam, or alive in Christ (1 Cor 15:22). If they were saved, then they had a new heart given to them ahead of Pentecost by the power of the cross.
Third, you claim John 20:22 wasn't real. When Jesus breathed on them and said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," He wasn't performing an empty action on them. They got internal life from the risen Savior right there. Weeks later in Acts 1:8, they were told to wait for the Spirit to come "upon" them for power to preach. There is a huge difference between the Spirit inside you for life, and the Spirit coming upon you for power. John 7:39 is talking about the public day of Pentecost, not that the Spirit was completely missing before the cross. If the Spirit didn't live inside people for salvation back then, Luke 1:15 is wrong when it says John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb and the Holy Spirit never departed from him.
For anyone reading this thread: this is the danger of forcing a man-made timeline onto the Bible. It forces you into a complicated, Rube Goldberg contraption where you have to split the body of Christ in two and say the Old Testament saints didn't really belong to Him. It's exactly what Paul warned against in 2 Corinthians 11:3, when he said the devil tries to corrupt your mind away from the simplicity that is in Christ. Jesus Christ is the only Savior across the whole Bible. If the method of salvation changed between the Old and New Testaments, you would need a second savior upon which each respective system was built, not the a single Savior who is THE Savior across both Testaments. But God has only ever had one salvation plan, one Holy Spirit, and the one way to be made alive. Everyone who is saved, Old Testament or New, is given the faith of Christ (Gal 3:28-29).

---

 

[Dave123]

Dave, I'm happy to look right at the verses you posted. This isn't about old traditions or boasting, it's just about reading and understanding the plain words on the page. Your timeline idea completely changes how a person becomes saved by grace.
First, you claim nobody had the Spirit inside them before the cross because God wouldn't join with someone who is "unclean." That is a huge mistake. Everyone God joins with unto salvation IS unclean to begin with - no one is not unclean. Genesis 15:6 says Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Romans 4 proves that when a man is saved, it is the faith of Christ that is counted for righteousness and that alone is what makes him righteous and therefore clean, not before then. If Abraham was made righteous by Christ's faith, he wasn't unclean. God didn't fake his salvation.

I'm not changing how a person is saved. It's always been by Jesus. The problem is that many these days assume that credit, or promises have the same power as the actual. Understanding the dilemma created, they then go to great lengths to try to prove this is possible, even claiming that Jesus was literally slain from the foundations of the world. The realization of what saves was not always available. The NC is ushered in with the realization of that promise. Promises do not cleanse Temples, blood does.

Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness. What was credited? The imputation that justifies. He died having not received the promise (Hebrews 11:39-40). That promise is spoken of in John 3:14-15, which claims that the promise is realized when someone is first born again (John 3:5). He wasn't born again, that's why nobody yet ascended. Jesus had to be lifted up, glorified. They were promised to be born again, as I believe that I've shown you. Some already believed, and were owed that promise. BTW, Nicodemus was not born again. that's why he didn't understand.

Second, you look at Ezekiel 36:26-27 and ask if they sound alive or promised to be made alive. Think about what you are actually saying. Ezekiel was written around 590 B.C. If nobody got a new heart until Pentecost, then for over 600 years, every single Old Testament believer had a heart of stone.

Hence, there are none righteous, no not one. There are none who do good, no not one. There are none who seek after Me. There's your total depravity. The inability to justify ones self. It's true even today. We have the Spirit, and are able to do good, and thus be righteous, because all of that good and righteousness is from the Spirit, a gift of grace.

In the OT, as I have noted, the presence of God draws them. It's universal, but limited in the OT, not limited in the NT (John 12:32). The light allows them to believe. That's what Scripture says. That light comes from the presence of God, and His Word. It's generic to what we receive when we're born again, but it is a form of regeneration and enough to allow a person to believe. Once a person believes, after Pentecost, they receive that indwelling that places them into Christ, the baptism/placing into with/by the Holy Spirit [indwelling]. They are simultaneously placed into Jesus's death (Galatians 2:20), and then raised up with Him (Ephesians 2:6), born again (Romans 6:3-11) and have all that the Father has to offer (Colossians 2:9-14), being complete, and lacking nothing, but this happens only when we're in Christ.

Add it up. In Christ we're born again. Being born again requires that we're placed into Christ, only after the DRA. Being placed into Christ is done with the Holy Spirit indwelling, the baptism with/by the Holy Spirit. the indwelling. But the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. We enter into this grace by faith (Romans 5:1-2)

The Bible says a heart of stone is spiritually dead and can't please God (Rom 8:7-8). You are literally saying Daniel and John the Baptist served God with dead hearts of stone. That makes no sense.

They had the Spirit of God upon them, but not in them. Prophets, kings and a few other had the Spirit upon them to do certain tasks. I believe that is enough 'presence of God' to be a light and allow people to believe. Jonah had the Spirit of Christ with Him, and the Gentiles of Nineveh believed. Picturing Jesus, three days dead, raised, and the Gospel going to all the Gentile nations in Acts (John 12:32). The Prophets, and who ever had the Spirit upon them in the OT, this light allowed people to believe. It's the same with the Temple. That's why I said the light was limited in the OT. In the NT, believers take that light with them when they evangelize, as we're all Temples of the Holy Spirit and have that presence within us. this presence within us is the basis for God drawing all people to Himself after Jesus is lifted up. It's also the basis for our persecution. the light that is in us. Some people are drawn, others want to gnash their teeth and put that light out by any means.

There are only two possibilities for a soul: it is either dead in Adam, or alive in Christ (1 Cor 15:22). If they were saved, then they had a new heart given to them ahead of Pentecost by the power of the cross.

Correct. With the Spirit indwelling, life, without the Spirit indwelling, no life. We enter into that grace, that life, by faith (Romans 5:1-2). That's how we receive that indwelling Spirit, the life, by faith (Ephesians 1:13-14). The ongoing faith, the indwelling Holy Spirit, that's the life, that's' what's a gift from God. But OT believers were owed that promise, they had to wait. some of these, the disciples, actually believed the Gospel, and were not born again, because they did not have the Spirit of God in them (John 7:38-39). It's the same promise that was given in Ezekiel. They were saved by promise. They had the presence of God, which I believe is a kind of prevenient grace. Allowing them to believe, and then have the life in them, but only after blood was shed, and the Spirit was given.

Third, you claim John 20:22 wasn't real. When Jesus breathed on them and said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," He wasn't performing an empty action on them. They got internal life from the risen Savior right there. Weeks later in Acts 1:8, they were told to wait for the Spirit to come "upon" them for power to preach. There is a huge difference between the Spirit inside you for life, and the Spirit coming upon you for power.

Again, the wording is mixed, and I don't believe the translators paid as much attention to this as they should have. These are many "ex Catholics". That's what reformed is, Catholic light. They removed a lot of Catholic error, but there was still a lot in their thinking.

Many reformed, like R.C. Sproul, believe that the Apostles received the Spirit indwelling right there when Jesus breathed on them, it was after His death and resurrection, but before His ascension. Many of those same reformed believers also believe that no one was indwelt in the OT, like R.C. Sproul. But, I think they stopped short and should have continued that thought and questioned things more. Anyways, it's possible they received the Spirit there, since there was a death and resurrection, and the promise that the Holy Spirit would not be given until He was glorified, ascended, sitting at the right hand of the Father was not yet completed, but that could have been for the masses. Still, I believe that they received the Holy Spirit indwelling when everyone else did.

That incident at Pentecost to those same people (Thomas added) is defined as what John the Baptist prophesied about, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and that is defined as the indwelling. Acts 1:4-5 says wait for the gift my Father promised. Not a filling, or the Holy Spirit being upon, they had that already, this is the indwelling that places a believer in Christ.

continued...

 

[Dave123]

John 7:39 is talking about the public day of Pentecost, not that the Spirit was completely missing before the cross. If the Spirit didn't live inside people for salvation back then, Luke 1:15 is wrong when it says John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb and the Holy Spirit never departed from him.

In his mothers womb, John the Baptist was in a state of innocence, so I believe that it's possible for them to be indwelt, just like Adam and Eve were innocent due to ignorance. And, many people were filled with the Holy Spirit in the OT. Being filled just means that you're more under the control of the Holy Spirit, not receiving more of Him. It must be possible to be filled with the Holy Spirit upon a believer in the OT. they seems to have the same power. As you noted, you either have the indwelling and the life, or you don't. But the filling, being more under control with what you do have, the OT with the Holy Spirit "upon" them, preparing them for ministry, or tasks that God had for them.

For anyone reading this thread: this is the danger of forcing a man-made timeline onto the Bible. It forces you into a complicated, Rube Goldberg contraption where you have to split the body of Christ in two and say the Old Testament saints didn't really belong to Him.

They were given to Him, by the Father, and predestined to become Christlike. All that the Father gives me.....What do you think happened in Acts? That's a fulfillment of that promise. those were not atheists in Acts.

These are the sheep, the ones the Father gave to the Son, predestine to be NT believers, so they can receive the promise that was made to them. Salvation. Yes, on Pentecost, actual salvation began to be realized for those OT believers. Some who were Gentiles, just like the Jewish believers. Those OT believers, already declared righteous, didn't have actual salvation before then. Only in promise.

All throughout Acts, these are all OT believers, already declared righteous, just like Abraham, because of their faith, but not saved. That only happens in Christ, and only after the death, resurrection, and ascension. But that's what Jesus said over and over in the Gospels, that He must be lifted up, glorified, sitting at the right hand of the Father, before the Holy Spirit is given that places a believer in Jesus, in Him.

Like the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19. These were not atheists, these were OT believers baptized in John baptism, publicly identifying with his teaching of the coming Messiah. They loved God and were know by Him already. Predestined to hear the Gospel (His sheep), and believe, and receive the life, the indwelling Holy Spirit that places a believer in Christ, where all the ingredients that save are now available in Christ. Cornelius, a man who feared God, OT believer, predestined to be in Christ and have the life that conforms him to Christlikeness. Lydia too, it's right in the passage that you quoted, she worshipped God, God already knew her because she loved Him, but did not yet know Jesus and the Gospel. All only in promise until God opened her heart to believe, why? Because she was predestined as an OT believer who loved God, you know, the ones that the Father gave to the Son, the Sheep, who hear Jesus. (BTW, the OT Jews who Jesus said were of the devil and would not believe (you quoted it, remember?), they were not His sheep, meaning they were not genuine OT believers given to him by the Father. If they were, they would have heard and believed.) Just like the OT believers at Pentecost, the three thousand. All those countries listed, represented by OT believers, mostly proselyte Jews, believing the Gospel and taking that indwelling back to all those other nations, the presence of God, fulfill Jesus' prophesy that when He is lifted up glorified, He will draw all nation to Himself (John 12:32).

Just for fun...more context...who was predestined?

1 Corinthians 8:3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

Now watch this, almost the same thing is repeated and elaborated on in Romans 8:28-30. The book of Romans was written to a Christian church in Rome, consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers. Remember 1 Corinthians 8:3? Read it again, then read this...Watch....

Romans 8:18-30 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Did you catch that? "Whom He foreknew" is qualified by those who love Him. It's the same thing that was said in 1 Corinthians 8:3. It's those who love Him who are predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness. We know that one cannot be conformed to Christlike when he doesn't have the life, the indwelling Holy Spirit, but these already loved God. A mess for Calvinists, but we must consider that these are OT believers, hence, they loved God, and were foreknown by Him, yet they still did not hear and believe the Gospel, and receive the indwelling Holy Spirit so that they can have the life, and be born again, and begin being conformed to Christlikeness. Isn't that exactly what Jesus said over and over in John?

But all those OT believers, already declared righteous, were already born again and saved according to Calvinism, without the indwelling Spirit to place them in Christ, without the life, with out the death, resurrection and ascension, meaning without the actual righteousness established to be imputed, and without actual atonement, and without the blood of Jesus of the cross that cleanses us so that the Holy Spirit can be placed into us, making us placed into Christ.

It's exactly what Paul warned against in 2 Corinthians 11:3, when he said the devil tries to corrupt your mind away from the simplicity that is in Christ. Jesus Christ is the only Savior across the whole Bible. If the method of salvation changed between the Old and New Testaments, you would need a second savior upon which each respective system was built, not the a single Savior who is THE Savior across both Testaments. But God has only ever had one salvation plan, one Holy Spirit, and the one way to be made alive. Everyone who is saved, Old Testament or New, is given the faith of Christ (Gal 3:28-29).

---

You're laying it on kind of thick there Rog. lol I let that liberal argumentation pass the first time, but it's getting thick. Jesus always was and is the way the truth and the life. For OT believers, it was made in promise, that promise was realized at the cross.

 

[NightTwister]

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).

Almost every translation has "in them" or "within them", including all of the ones commonly used. I'll take experienced translation experts over "some guy on the internet."

 

[rogerg]

You're laying it on kind of thick there Rog. lol I let that liberal argumentation pass the first time, but it's getting thick. Jesus always was and is the way the truth and the life. For OT believers, it was made in promise, that promise was realized at the cross.

Dave, instead of copying your posts piecemeal, I'll just reply to both here.

Dave, I notice you are trying very hard to act like the judge asking all the questions, while completely dodging the scriptures I posted. You didn't answer how a person can believe the Gospel while dead in Adam (1 Cor 15:22), and you completely brushed off Jesus's plain words in John 20:22. If you want an honest discussion, you need to stop running from the text and answer for your own human timelines.
First, your new claim that John the Baptist was in a "state of innocence" in the womb because of ignorance completely denies original sin. The Bible says we are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5). It explicitly states that the wicked are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies (Psalm 58:3). John the Baptist didn't have the Spirit because he was innocent; he had the Spirit because of God's grace (Luke 1:15).
Second, you claim that nobody could have the Spirit inside them before the cross because God wouldn't join with someone who is "unclean." That completely destroys the Gospel. Genesis 15:6 says Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham was a sinner, as are all men, before that occurred. Romans 4:11 explicitly shows that this was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had." That righteousness didn't come from his own human belief because nothing of man can bring righteousness to himself because all of his works are sinful; instead, it was from the faith of Christ that was counted to his account. So, the "it" of Rom 4:3 was actually faith, but Christ's faith, because His faith alone was righteous and it gives righteousness, Abraham's belief didn't. God doesn't seal someone who is spiritually unclean. He was completely cleansed and clothed in Christ's righteousness first because to an eternal God, Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). If Abraham was unclean, then God's sealing of him was a fake.
Third, you claim that Old Testament believers loved God before they were born again or had the Spirit. That is a total contradiction. Paul says in Romans 8:7-8 that the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot please Him. A dead man with a heart of stone cannot love God. True love for God is a fruit of the Spirit, not something a spiritually dead man can't manufacture on his own.
Fourth, your idea that a person can be "declared righteous but not saved" makes zero sense. You can call my logic "liberal argumentation" all you want, but you still haven't addressed the problem. If God declares a man righteous, then that man is legally right with Him and saved from wrath (Rom 5:9). Should God call a man—including Abraham—righteous but leave him unsaved and unclean would not only be a contradiction but worse, a judgment not worthy of the true God. Hebrews 7:12 says if you change the priesthood, you have to change the law. Romans 8:2 calls the Holy Spirit's work "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." An eternal law of God does not change its rules based on a human calendar. If the Holy Spirit's work for salvation changed between the testaments, the Savior would have to change too because there is a hard tie-in, one with the other. The Spirit's work must perfectly reflect and fit the Savior. If the way of salvation changes, you would need a separate savior upon which each system is built, not a single Savior who is THE Savior across both Testaments, and with which you said you agree.
So, let's put the burden where it belongs. Since you want answers, please explain these three things to the people reading this thread: 1) If the Old Testament saints were "declared righteous but not saved," does that mean they died unsaved and went to hell? 2) If original sin is real, how can an unborn baby be in a "state of innocence" like Adam was before the fall? 3) If a carnal mind is enmity to God and cannot please Him (Rom 8:7-8), how did these unregenerate people come to love God before they were born again?
For anyone reading this thread: this is the danger of forcing a man-made timeline onto the Bible. It forces you into a complicated, Rube Goldberg contraption where you have to split the body of Christ in two and say the Old Testament saints didn't really belong to Him. It's exactly what Paul warned against in 2 Corinthians 11:3, when he said the devil tries to corrupt your mind away from the simplicity that is in Christ. God has only ever had one salvation plan, one Holy Spirit, and one way to be made alive. Everyone who is saved, Old Testament or New, is given the faith of Christ (Gal 3:28-29).

 

[Dave123]

Almost every translation has "in them" or "within them", including all of the ones commonly used. I'll take experienced translation experts over "some guy on the internet."

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me because I'm a guy on the internet. lol I'm not claiming to be an expert either.

Test what I'm saying to the rest of the Bible. Test all the Scripture that I gave. Test everything to the Word of God, and don't rely on a 'silver bullet' to rewrite the rest of the Bible. Even if the majority agrees that the verse in question is a correct translation. Remember, at one time, for a long time, the Scribes and Pharisees of the OT were the majority, the experts, and everyone agreed with them, and they got it all wrong.

To use the Greek properly, one must also be a proper theologian and consider the context of the Bible, interpreted accurately. Remember, these were ex Catholics who translated the KJV Bible (which influenced later translations). But even these ex Catholics were still poisoned without even knowing it. Thinking that they were standing against the error of Catholicism, but were only standing against some of it. The idea that these same ex Catholic translators retained implicit Catholic biases is not something new. This has been a matter of discussion for a long time now.

Who would have a need for people to believe that the OT is the same as the NT, and then therefore the Priesthood somehow remains? Who would have a need in people thinking that the NT begins at Matthew chapter 1, instead of the cross for the same reasons? Who would have a need of so little being taught about this transition and the significance of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the one true baptism that saves? ---Catholicism. You're holding onto Catholic light, is all that you're doing. The KJV is loaded with translation error. To turn a blind eye to this is what the KJV onlyist's do, believing that the translation/interpretation is without error. Who would have need to promote that fallacy? Guess who, the Catholic church again. Nothing but a false church that used Jesus to gain power and make make money. That's why the KJV onyists cling to that version, because they are clinging to the error of a bad translation.

That's why we trust in the whole of the Bible, the many, to interpret the few. To weed out these errors, or at least possible errors. When one sees that the 'silver bullet' in question goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches, it's only reasonable to ask why, and then search all possibilities, even looking to see if less popular interpretations of that verse fit the whole context of the Bible better and are actually the true interpretation, even though not the most popular.

The Greek is one tool of many, not a 'silver bullet' to bypass all Biblical context. Essentially, your saying the opposite, that the 'silver bullet' verse interprets the rest of the Bible. A proper interpretation relies on Exegesis, and not on Eisegesis, which is what the silver bullet method is.

People who use the 'majority rule' are usually running for the wide gates. 'Popular' does not always equate to truth. Don't be afraid to stand up to the majority and question things. We, as Christians, are armed with the Word of God, and are called to stand up for truth, not majority. Just saying'.

I believe when we look at a 1 Peter 1:11, and consider the whole bible as context, the less popular translation, though still a valid translation linguistically, is where the truth may lay. I believe that's the proper way to approach this thing.

 

[NightTwister]

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me because I'm a guy on the internet. lol I'm not claiming to be an expert either.

Test what I'm saying to the rest of the Bible. Test all the Scripture that I gave. Test everything to the Word of God, and don't rely on a 'silver bullet' to rewrite the rest of the Bible. Even if the majority agrees that the verse in question is a correct translation. Remember, at one time, for a long time, the Scribes and Pharisees of the OT were the majority, the experts, and everyone agreed with them, and they got it all wrong.

To use the Greek properly, one must also be a proper theologian and consider the context of the Bible, interpreted accurately. Remember, these were ex Catholics who translated the KJV Bible (which influenced later translations). But even these ex Catholics were still poisoned without even knowing it. Thinking that they were standing against the error of Catholicism, but were only standing against some of it. The idea that these same ex Catholic translators retained implicit Catholic biases is not something new. This has been a matter of discussion for a long time now.

Who would have a need for people to believe that the OT is the same as the NT, and then therefore the Priesthood somehow remains? Who would have a need in people thinking that the NT begins at Matthew chapter 1, instead of the cross for the same reasons? Who would have a need of so little being taught about this transition and the significance of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the one true baptism that saves? ---Catholicism. You're holding onto Catholic light, is all that you're doing. The KJV is loaded with translation error. To turn a blind eye to this is what the KJV onlyist's do, believing that the translation/interpretation is without error. Who would have need to promote that fallacy? Guess who, the Catholic church again. Nothing but a false church that used Jesus to gain power and make make money. That's why the KJV onyists cling to that version, because they are clinging to the error of a bad translation.

That's why we trust in the whole of the Bible, the many, to interpret the few. To weed out these errors, or at least possible errors. When one sees that the 'silver bullet' in question goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches, it's only reasonable to ask why, and then search all possibilities, even looking to see if less popular interpretations of that verse fit the whole context of the Bible better and are actually the true interpretation, even though not the most popular.

The Greek is one tool of many, not a 'silver bullet' to bypass all Biblical context. Essentially, your saying the opposite, that the 'silver bullet' verse interprets the rest of the Bible. A proper interpretation relies on Exegesis, and not on Eisegesis, which is what the silver bullet method is.

People who use the 'majority rule' are usually running for the wide gates. 'Popular' does not always equate to truth. Don't be afraid to stand up to the majority and question things. We, as Christians, are armed with the Word of God, and are called to stand up for truth, not majority. Just saying'.

I believe when we look at a 1 Peter 1:11, and consider the whole bible as context, the less popular translation, though still a valid translation linguistically, is where the truth may lay. I believe that's the proper way to approach this thing.

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.

 

[OMC]

First, you claim that the word "in" in 1 Peter 1:11 should be translated as "among", however, the Greek word Peter uses there is "en," which is the primary word for "in" or "within" througout the entire New Testament. That is why almost every major translation in history, including the King James Version, translates 1 Pet 1:11 exactly as "in them." You are literally trying to rewrite the text of the Bible because the actual words contradict your premise. In checking the lexicon, the word "en" is used as "in" 1902 times, with the next ranked usage "by" at 162 times. So, the use of "in" is far more prevalent in Scripture than of any other possibility.

Second, your argument about the Spirit being 'upon' them vs 'in' them is incorrect. The Holy Spirit can live inside a person to give them spiritual life, and still come upon them with special power to do a specific task. We see this exact distinction in the New Testament. In John 20:22, the risen Christ breathed on the disciples and said 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' They were indwelt for life right then, yet weeks later in Acts 1:8, Jesus told these exact same men they still needed the Holy Ghost to 'come upon' them for power. If New Testament believers can be indwelt for life and still have the Spirit come upon them for power, your timeline for the Old Testament completely falls apart.

Third, you are falling right back into the same trap of saying only a few elite prophets had the Spirit, while regular Old Testament believers had no internal life. But as I already proved, Paul declared a universal rule in Romans 8:9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his". He says "any man," not "any New Testament man." While Paul was addressing believers in that letter, his purpose was to teach them doctrine, not to limit the scope of who the "any man" pertained to. This is known because there are only two alternatives and so man must exist within one or the other: either dead in Adam, or alive in Christ (1 Co 15:22) - there is no third option. If your belief says Old Testament believers lacked the Spirit inside them, then you are actually saying they were among the "none of his" and therefore, spiritually dead - not possible.

For the sake of anyone reading this thread: this is what happens when you try to force a man-made timeline onto the Bible. You end up having to invent new translations and add rules that aren't in the text just to protect a man-made system. God has only ever had one plan of salvation, one Holy Spirit, and one way to be made alive. Everyone who is saved must come to faith in Christ—whether in the Old or New Testament—as a direct consequence of that salvation

“ἐν means ‘in’ Used 1902 times, therefore it must mean ‘in’ here, and you are rewriting the Bible by suggesting ‘among.’”

Statistical frequency does not determine meaning; context does.
ἐν can mean in, among, with, by, in reference to, or in the sphere of.
In 1 Peter 1:11, the context is prophetic inspiration, not indwelling regeneration, so “in them” refers to the Spirit’s testimony through the prophets, not the Spirit’s indwelling life inside them.Your argument commits the lexical fallacy (“most common meaning = meaning here”).

“NT believers were indwelt in John 20:22 and the Spirit came upon them in Acts 1:8, therefore OT believers were also indwelt and empowered the same way.” Sorry no, John 20:22 and Acts 1:8 occur after Christ’s death, resurrection, glorification, and the inauguration of the New Covenant — realities that did not exist in the Old Testament.
You are importing post‑Pentecost categories backward, which Scripture never does.
The Spirit’s “upon” ministry in the OT was empowerment, not indwelling life.
The NT distinction does not collapse the OT timeline; it highlights the difference between covenants.

“Romans 8:9 says ‘any man’ without the Spirit is none of His, therefore OT believers must have been indwelt.”
Correction: Romans 8:9 describes New Covenant believers, not Old Covenant saints.
Paul is contrasting believers vs. unbelievers, not discussing Abraham, David, or Moses.
“Any man” means “any man in this category,” not “any man in all eras of redemptive history.”
If your interpretation were correct, it would contradict:
John 7:39 (Spirit not yet given)
John 14:17 (Spirit will be in you, future)
Eph 2:5–6 (regeneration requires union with Christ’s resurrection)
Your argument collapses because it confuses prophetic inspiration with regeneration.

“God has one plan of salvation, one Spirit, one way of life — therefore OT believers were indwelt just like NT believers.”
Correction: Yes — salvation is always by grace through faith in Christ. But that does not mean:
the Spirit indwelt OT believers,
regeneration worked the same way before the cross,
union with Christ existed before Christ,
Pentecost was unnecessary.
You are confusing continuity of salvation with identity of covenant administration.
The plan is one; the covenantal mechanics are not.

 

[Dave123]

Dave, instead of copying your posts piecemeal, I'll just reply to both here.

Dave, I notice you are trying very hard to act like the judge asking all the questions, while completely dodging the scriptures I posted. You didn't answer how a person can believe the Gospel while dead in Adam (1 Cor 15:22), and you completely brushed off Jesus's plain words in John 20:22. If you want an honest discussion, you need to stop running from the text and answer for your own human timelines.
First, your new claim that John the Baptist was in a "state of innocence" in the womb because of ignorance completely denies original sin.

Now I'm the evil Judge for asking you to tell me what you actually think of the Scripture that I posted. I'll ask again, what's your understanding of it? What is really being said in Ezekiel 36:26-27, and John 7:39, and the many verses in John that say the same thing? You still have not answered, and still only offer a tit for tat argument. That leads me to believe that your using someone else's argument, and not your own. You cannot ignore those passages and hope that they go away, as they're starting to pile up. An "honest discussion" would not ignore the other persons argument with Scripture posted and give his explanation of what those passages 'really mean'.

Children are called innocent t by God. Innocent due to their ignorance. Just like Adam and Eve were. Remember, the knowledge of good and evil? Would you like to hear the whole argument? Your idea of total depravity goes beyond total inability, which is what it really is.

The Bible says we are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5). It explicitly states that the wicked are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies (Psalm 58:3). John the Baptist didn't have the Spirit because he was innocent; he had the Spirit because of God's grace (Luke 1:15).

Yep, agree. I didn't say that John the Baptist had the Spirit because He was innocent. I said the Spirit could enter Him because as a unborn child, John was in a state of innocence.

Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Also see Isaiah 7:15-16, John 9:41, John 15:22, James 4:17.

Second, you claim that nobody could have the Spirit inside them before the cross because God wouldn't join with someone who is "unclean." That completely destroys the Gospel. Genesis 15:6 says Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham was a sinner, as are all men, before that occurred. Romans 4:11 explicitly shows that this was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had." That righteousness didn't come from his own human belief because nothing of man can bring righteousness to himself because all of his works are sinful; instead, it was from the faith of Christ that was counted to his account. So, the "it" of Rom 4:3 was actually faith, but Christ's faith, because His faith alone was righteous and it gives righteousness, Abraham's belief didn't. God doesn't seal someone who is spiritually unclean. He was completely cleansed and clothed in Christ's righteousness first because to an eternal God, Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). If Abraham was unclean, then God's sealing of him was a fake.

Abraham was "credited" with righteousness. Not imputed, but "Credited". This is a very specific word. That credit was realized when the righteousness actually finished being established by Jesus, as fully God and fully man, living a perfectly sinless and righteous life (Romans 3:25-26). And Jesus was not slain from the foundations of the Word, it was decreed that he was slain from the foundations of the world. Why did God need to pass over the sins preciously committed if they were already atoned? Why were sins covered in the OT?

See post #198

If the Lamb is slain from the foundations of the world, then that means that Jesus was already born under the Law, and had already lived under the Law as a man in perfect obedience, you know, the Lamb without blemish? But if that's true, then the righteousness of God, which is Jesus living perfectly righteous life under the Law as a man is already established. No need for God incarnate, it happened before the foundations of the world.

No need for Adam, the second Adam cleared the way before the first ever came to be. In fact, why did the OT cover sin when it was already atoned? Why did the OT Priest cleanse himself to enter the holy of holies? Why did the OT believers need a Priest if their sin was already atoned? Why did God live in the Temple in the OT, He could have indwelt believers all along? Why did God pass over the sins already committed so that 'on this day' Jesus might be just and the justifier of those who believe? Why did the OT heroes of faith not get the Promise of the Father, what were they waiting for? None of this was needed. In fact, why believe? Those who were chosen from the foundations of the world already have faith, and are already with the Father.........

This, my dear readers, is what theological relativism is. It's insanity. Nothing in time matters which is essentially the whole Bible. Throw it away, it's all done, just hope that you've won the God's love lottery. This is how Calvinism solves these huge inconsistencies.

Third, you claim that Old Testament believers loved God before they were born again or had the Spirit. That is a total contradiction. Paul says in Romans 8:7-8 that the carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot please Him. A dead man with a heart of stone cannot love God. True love for God is a fruit of the Spirit, not something a spiritually dead man can't manufacture on his own.

How did these beiieve. This is the OT. Want more? I have plenty but start not answering that question 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.

Fourth, your idea that a person can be "declared righteous but not saved" makes zero sense. You can call my logic "liberal argumentation" all you want, but you still haven't addressed the problem. If God declares a man righteous, then that man is legally right with Him and saved from wrath (Rom 5:9). Should God call a man—including Abraham—righteous but leave him unsaved and unclean would not only be a contradiction but worse, a judgment not worthy of the true God. Hebrews 7:12 says if you change the priesthood, you have to change the law. Romans 8:2 calls the Holy Spirit's work "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." An eternal law of God does not change its rules based on a human calendar. If the Holy Spirit's work for salvation changed between the testaments, the Savior would have to change too because there is a hard tie-in, one with the other. The Spirit's work must perfectly reflect and fit the Savior. If the way of salvation changes, you would need a separate savior upon which each system is built, not a single Savior who is THE Savior across both Testaments, and with which you said you agree.

In the same way a person can be given the right to be Son of God, born again, but have that not yet a reality.

The NEV corrected the reverse order of the old English, Thankyou, yet another error of the KJV.

NEV--John 1:12-13 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Have you read the book of Hebrews?

D

Thread 'Hebrews Outline by Kenneth Wuest'

Jun 25, 2026

HEBREWS
Analysis by Kenneth S. Wuest
Wuest's Word Studies
From the Greek New Testament


I. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than... (1:1-8:6)


1. The prophets (1:1-3) since Messiah is...

....a. God the Son (vv. 1,2)

....b. Heir of all things (v.2)

....c. Creator of the universe (v.2)

....d. Outshining of God's glory (v.3)

....e. The expression of the nature or essence of Deity (v.3)

....f. The sustainer of the universe He created (v.3)

....g. The sacrifice that paid for sin (v.3)

2...

• Dave123
• Replies: 3
• Forum: Bible Discussion Forum

1) If the Old Testament saints were "declared righteous but not saved," does that mean they died unsaved and went to hell?

No, it means that they had to wait for the cross, as the Bible tells us, nobody ascended yet John 3:13-14, Hebrews 11:39-40). Even dead, they waited in Abrahams bosom.

2) If original sin is real, how can an unborn baby be in a "state of innocence" like Adam was before the fall?

Your understanding of original sin is not Biblical, that's how. In that state, we're separated from God, that's what we inherited from Adam, a separation from the source of good. Unplugged from God. We can do nothing good and thus cannot justify ourselves ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND IT's STANDARDS (Romans 3).

We do not need a perfectly righteous faith according to the Law to receive the indwelling life. We do not need to be good by God's standards of good to desire to be good. That's all that the initial faith is, a desire. the faith if a mustard seed.. I will debate you about this all day, but you will lose. Start another thread.

3) If a carnal mind is enmity to God and cannot please Him (Rom 8:7-8), how did these unregenerate people come to love God before they were born again?

Not pleasing God is justification statement. You're like the atheist that uses his own definition of love to interpret the Bible. Justification and love are not the thing, as I have explained. i've answered all these already.

 

[rogerg]

Now I'm the evil Judge for asking you to tell me what you actually think of the Scripture that I posted. I'll ask again, what's your understanding of it? What is really being said in Ezekiel 36:26-27, and John 7:39, and the many verses in John that say the same thing? You still have not answered, and still only offer a tit for tat argument. That leads me to believe that your using someone else's argument, and not your own. You cannot ignore those passages and hope that they go away, as they're starting to pile up. An "honest discussion" would not ignore the other persons argument with Scripture posted and give his explanation of what those passages 'really mean'.

Children are called innocent t by God. Innocent due to their ignorance. Just like Adam and Eve were. Remember, the knowledge of good and evil? Would you like to hear the whole argument? Your idea of total depravity goes beyond total inability, which is what it really is.

Dave, due to size posting restrictions, I just included your first part of your post above.

Dave, writing a massive eight-part wall of text, calling me an atheist, and telling me to start another thread doesn't hide the fact that you completely dodged all three of my questions. You didn't answer them because your human timeline cannot survive the plain text of the Bible. Now you are literally attacking the King James Bible as being in error just to try and rescue your timelines.
First, you claim that unborn babies are born in a sinless state of innocence like Adam before the fall, and that a person can just manufacture faith out of a human desire. That flat-out contradicts God's Word. Psalm 51:5 says we are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin. Psalm 58:3 says the wicked are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they are born - you cannot just ignore those verses. John the Baptist had the Spirit because of God's sovereign grace (Luke 1:15), not because he met some human purity test of innocence. A dead heart of stone cannot manufacture a desire for God.
Second, you keep quoting John 7:39 to claim nobody had the Spirit inside them in the Old Testament. Your word-hunt fails completely. 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. If your timeline says nobody had the Spirit inside them back then, you are calling Genesis, Numbers, and Isaiah lies. The words in and within mean exactly what they say—the Holy Spirit lived inside them. John 7:39 describes the big public outpouring at Pentecost, not a total absence of spiritual life before the cross.
Third, your claim that a person can be declared righteous but still left unsaved, unclean, and sitting in a waiting room makes zero sense. Romans 4:11 says Abraham's circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. You don't seal something that's empty. Further, in Rom 4:9 we are explicitly told that "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness", not his belief, but instead, Christ's faith". To better understand Rom 4:3, you need to first solve - to borrow an algebraic term - for the "IT" of the " IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS". It was the "IT " that was accounted to him. The "IT" was Christ's faith not Abraham's belief. Read Rom 4:9 closely as it's clearly telling us that right there at the end of the verse - that faith was accounted to Abraham. The only faith with righteousness is Christ's faith. God alone accounts righteousness to someone because He alone is the Savior, man is not. If it were by Abraham's belief, the verse would have been written as " righteousness was accounted to Abraham for his belief", but it wasn't written that way think about that distinction. Further, if righteousness were actually obtained from/by Abraham's belief, then it would have been Abraham saving himself because righteousness would have come/by from his self-produced belief. But again, Jesus alone is Savior, not Abraham, so righteousness can come only through Christ, and therefore, the verse cannot mean what you understand it to mean.

All through the whole Old Testament, God explicitly calls His people saints, like in Psalm 16:3 and Daniel 7:18. You cannot be a holy saint of God while remaining an unregenerate, unclean sinner dead in Adam. Now you claim they waited in Abraham's bosom. A holy God does not put spiritually dead, unclean people into a heavenly paradise. They were there because they were completely cleansed ahead of time, because to an eternal God, Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).
So, I will put the burden back on you, and I won't let you copy and paste commentaries or use name-calling to dodge this time. Please answer these direct questions. If your timeline says nobody had the Spirit inside them in the Old Testament, how was the Spirit in Joseph (Gen 41:38), in Joshua (Num 27:18), and within Moses (Isa 63:11)? If original sin is real, how can an unborn baby be in a state of innocence like Adam before the fall (Ps 51:5, Ps 58:3)? If Hebrews 7:12 says changing the priesthood requires changing the law, doesn't changing the Holy Spirit's way of salvation require a second savior from whom the Holy Spirit's way of salvation comes from? We are informed in Scripture that there is only one body, one Spirit, and one faith (Eph 4:4-5). By that, we can know beyond question that there can/must also be only one salvation - even across both testaments - to which they are tied.
I am content to let the plain, simple, words on the page of the King James Bible stand against your complicated salvation contraptions.

---

 

[Blade]

Remember being somewhere allot of people are and you say "I could not help but over hear you" .. tell I saw the text here from "way" over here where I am so I looked in to.. haha

So now I'm the evil judge.... I read what was quoted... I didn't see that. It seems to me it was is not evil, but rather a direct and sharp critique during a theological debate. Yeah.... not my words .. allot better haha.

Easy to read in to what is being said .. that was never said and we as believers should know better and then even when it is being said.. we always walk in love.... don't make it personal... its just text.

Some things said here are spot on.... praise GOD.. which post? haha

 

[Dave123]

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.

I'll stand on my last post, which answered this one already, again.

Dave

 

[OMC]

you claim that unborn babies are born in a sinless state of innocence like Adam before the fall, and that a person can just manufacture faith out of a human desire. That flat-out contradicts God's Word. Psalm 51:5 says we are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin. Psalm 58:3 says the wicked are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they are born - you cannot just ignore those verses. John the Baptist had the Spirit because of God's sovereign grace (Luke 1:15), not because he met some human purity test of innocence. A dead heart of stone cannot manufacture a desire for God.
Second, you keep quoting John 7:39 to claim nobody had the Spirit inside them in the Old Testament. Your word-hunt fails completely. 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. If your timeline says nobody had the Spirit inside them back then, you are calling Genesis, Numbers, and Isaiah lies. The words in and within mean exactly what they say—the Holy Spirit lived inside them. John 7:39 describes the big public outpouring at Pentecost, not a total absence of spiritual life before the cross.
Third, your claim that a person can be declared righteous but still left unsaved, unclean, and sitting in a waiting room makes zero sense. Romans 4:11 says Abraham's circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. You don't seal something that's empty. Further, in Rom 4:9 we are explicitly told that "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness", not his belief, but instead, Christ's faith". To better understand Rom 4:3, you need to first solve - to borrow an algebraic term - for the "IT" of the " IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS". It was the "IT " that was accounted to him. The "IT" was Christ's faith not Abraham's belief. Read Rom 4:9 closely as it's clearly telling us that right there at the end of the verse - that faith was accounted to Abraham. The only faith with righteousness is Christ's faith. God alone accounts righteousness to someone because He alone is the Savior, man is not. If it were by Abraham's belief, the verse would have been written as " righteousness was accounted to Abraham for his belief", but it wasn't written that way think about that distinction. Further, if righteousness were actually obtained from/by Abraham's belief, then it would have been Abraham saving himself because righteousness would have come/by from his self-produced belief. But again, Jesus alone is Savior, not Abraham, so righteousness can come only through Christ, and therefore, the verse cannot mean what you understand it to mean.

All through the whole Old Testament, God explicitly calls His people saints, like in Psalm 16:3 and Daniel 7:18. You cannot be a holy saint of God while remaining an unregenerate, unclean sinner dead in Adam. Now you claim they waited in Abraham's bosom. A holy God does not put spiritually dead, unclean people into a heavenly paradise. They were there because they were completely cleansed ahead of time, because to an eternal God, Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).
So, I will put the burden back on you, and I won't let you copy and paste commentaries or use name-calling to dodge this time. Please answer these direct questions. If your timeline says nobody had the Spirit inside them in the Old Testament, how was the Spirit in Joseph (Gen 41:38), in Joshua (Num 27:18), and within Moses (Isa 63:11)? If original sin is real, how can an unborn baby be in a state of innocence like Adam before the fall (Ps 51:5, Ps 58:3)? If Hebrews 7:12 says changing the priesthood requires changing the law, doesn't changing the Holy Spirit's way of salvation require a second savior from whom the Holy Spirit's way of salvation comes from? We are informed in Scripture that there is only one body, one Spirit, and one faith (Eph 4:4-5). By that, we can know beyond question that there can/must also be only one salvation - even across both testaments - to which they are tied.
I am content to let the plain, simple, words on the page of the King James Bible stand against your complicated salvation contraptions.

Brother, the plain words of Scripture don’t support the system you’re trying to build: infants are fallen in Adam but not conscious rebels (Ps 51:5 describes the race’s condition, while Deut 1:39 and Isa 7:15–16 show children lack moral knowledge), the Spirit was with and in select OT individuals for roles (Joseph, Joshua, Moses) but not yet given in the universal, permanent new‑covenant indwelling John 7:39 describes, and Romans 4 says Abraham’s own God‑enabled faith was counted to him for righteousness—not Christ’s personal faith being imputed—because God applies Christ’s righteousness through faith, not apart from it.
OT saints were truly God’s people, justified by the same Christ, but the full access and Pentecost indwelling awaited His finished work, so there is one salvation, one Spirit, one faith (Eph 4:4–5), unfolding across covenants without requiring a second savior or denying the distinctions Scripture itself makes.

 

[NightTwister]

I'll stand on my last post, which answered this one already, again.

Dave

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.

 

[rogerg]

Brother, the plain words of Scripture don’t support the system you’re trying to build: infants are fallen in Adam but not conscious rebels (Ps 51:5 describes the race’s condition, while Deut 1:39 and Isa 7:15–16 show children lack moral knowledge), the Spirit was with and in select OT individuals for roles (Joseph, Joshua, Moses) but not yet given in the universal, permanent new‑covenant indwelling John 7:39 describes, and Romans 4 says Abraham’s own God‑enabled faith was counted to him for righteousness—not Christ’s personal faith being imputed—because God applies Christ’s righteousness through faith, not apart from it.
OT saints were truly God’s people, justified by the same Christ, but the full access and Pentecost indwelling awaited His finished work, so there is one salvation, one Spirit, one faith (Eph 4:4–5), unfolding across covenants without requiring a second savior or denying the distinctions Scripture itself makes.

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).

 

[Dave123]

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.

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?