OSAS origins and comparison

[OMC]

Right. The kingdom of God exists in believers...Luke 17:21. Abraham was a believer. The kingdom of God was in him. He could also see the kingdom of God even though his understanding was partial. John 3:3 says except one is born again, they cannot see the kingdom of God.

A mistake people make is that there are different salvations. There are not. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. God progressively made this known in the OT. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Abraham heard the word of God and believed. That's no different than Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:17. And while the baptism with the Spirit that is from Jesus spoken of in Matthew 3:11 didn't manifest until Pentecost, all believers are indwelt by the Spirit. Otherwise, they don't belong to Christ, and cannot see the kingdom of God.

I’m going to challenge you, because your conclusion sounds right, but it collapses two categories Scripture keeps distinct.

You’re making three claims:
The kingdom of God existed in Abraham because he was a believer.
Salvation has always been the same (grace through faith).
Therefore Abraham was indwelt by the Spirit, because Romans 8:9 says all who belong to Christ have the Spirit.

Your second claim is correct. Your first and third claims are not, because they ignore the explicit statements of Jesus and John about the timing of the Spirit.

 

[rogerg]

Jesus is saying that Abraham, through divine revelation, saw the future arrival of the Messiah — Christ’s day, not Christ’s earthly life.

Do you have scripture that backs that statement up?

OMC, you claim that 'Jesus is saying that Abraham... saw the future arrival of the Messiah—Christ’s day, not Christ’s earthly life.' You have to insert those words into the text because Scripture never says that. [John 8:56 KJV] simply says Abraham saw 'my day.'
Your argument fails on basic grammar: How could Abraham see the 'my' part of that day without seeing Christ Himself? Without seeing Christ, there is no 'my' to see.
The text of Genesis reveals that Abraham didn't just have a vague vision of a future timeline; he literally encountered the pre-incarnate Son of God face-to-face (Genesis 18). This is exactly why the Jews asked Jesus, 'hast thou seen Abraham?' ([John 8:57 KJV]). They knew Jesus was claiming a real, personal encounter. You are forcing a dispensational take onto John 8 to avoid the reality that the Savior has always been personally active, regenerating, and present with His covenant people.
Even if you argue that 'day' means an era rather than a 24-hour day, it is still a possessive pronoun. It is His era. You cannot see the 'my' without knowing the Person it belongs to

Maybe I'll address some of your other points later today if not, then tomorrow, as time and energy permits.

 

[Cameron143]

I’m going to challenge you, because your conclusion sounds right, but it collapses two categories Scripture keeps distinct.

You’re making three claims:
The kingdom of God existed in Abraham because he was a believer.
Salvation has always been the same (grace through faith).
Therefore Abraham was indwelt by the Spirit, because Romans 8:9 says all who belong to Christ have the Spirit.

Your second claim is correct. Your first and third claims are not, because they ignore the explicit statements of Jesus and John about the timing of the Spirit.

Actually the error is in your understanding of the different administrations of the Spirit.

There is a difference between the indwelling of the Spirit and the baptism with the Spirit.

The indwelling of the Spirit is what is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:13. This operation of the Spirit is nonexperiential, is performed by the Spirit, and places one into the body of Christ.

This is different from the baptism with the Spirit spoken of by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11. This is what Jesus refers to as the promise of the Father i and Acts 1:4 and what Jesus tells the disciples to wait for in Acts 1:8. Coincidentally, this is also the same promise given in Joel 2:28 that was fulfilled the day of Pentecost. It is an operation of the Spirit but it is performed by Jesus, is experiential, and is manifest to all present. It's purpose is not to secure one into the body of Christ. Instead, it endues one with power, authenticates the ministry, and seals believers. One finds this continually throughout the book of Acts.

 

[OMC]

Do you have scripture that backs that statement up?

OMC, you claim that 'Jesus is saying that Abraham... saw the future arrival of the Messiah—Christ’s day, not Christ’s earthly life.' You have to insert those words into the text because Scripture never says that. [John 8:56 KJV] simply says Abraham saw 'my day.'
Your argument fails on basic grammar: How could Abraham see the 'my' part of that day without seeing Christ Himself? Without seeing Christ, there is no 'my' to see.
The text of Genesis reveals that Abraham didn't just have a vague vision of a future timeline; he literally encountered the pre-incarnate Son of God face-to-face (Genesis 18). This is exactly why the Jews asked Jesus, 'hast thou seen Abraham?' ([John 8:57 KJV]). They knew Jesus was claiming a real, personal encounter. You are forcing a dispensational take onto John 8 to avoid the reality that the Savior has always been personally active, regenerating, and present with His covenant people.
Even if you argue that 'day' means an era rather than a 24-hour day, it is still a possessive pronoun. It is His era. You cannot see the 'my' without knowing the Person it belongs to

Maybe I'll address some of your other points later today if not, then tomorrow, as time and energy permits

John 8:56 does not say Abraham saw Christ’s earthly life — it says he saw “My day.”
You’re right that “my” is a possessive pronoun.
But a possessive pronoun does not grammatically require a physical sighting of the person.
Examples:
“David rejoiced to see the Lord’s salvation.” He didn’t see Jesus physically.
“Isaiah saw His glory.” (John 12:41) Isaiah didn’t see Jesus physically — he saw the vision in Isaiah 6.
“Moses saw His day from afar.” (Hebrews 11:26) Moses didn’t see Jesus physically.
In Greek, τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν (“my day”) is a possessive genitive, not a direct object.
A possessive genitive means: “A day belonging to Me.”
It does not mean: “A day in which you saw Me physically.”
You’re importing that meaning — the grammar doesn’t require it.
Scripture explicitly says Abraham saw Christ’s day “afar off,” not face‑to‑face.
Hebrews 11:13: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them.”
Abraham is the primary example in this chapter.
He saw:
the promise
the fulfillment
the future Redeemer
But he saw it afar off, not in person.
This is the inspired commentary on Abraham’s sight.
This alone refutes the idea that John 8:56 requires a physical encounter.
Genesis 18 is not a pre‑incarnate appearance of the Son — Scripture identifies the visitor as YHWH, not “the Son.”
You said: “Abraham literally encountered the pre‑incarnate Son of God face‑to‑face (Genesis 18).”
But the text says: “YHWH appeared unto him.” (Genesis 18:1)
Not:
“the Son appeared”
“the Word appeared”
“the Angel of the LORD appeared”
Genesis 18 is a YHWH‑appearance, not a Christophany.
Could the Son be involved? Possibly — but the text does not say that.
You cannot use Genesis 18 to prove Abraham saw Jesus physically unless the text says it — and it doesn’t.
Jesus Himself says Abraham did NOT see His earthly life.
This is the decisive text.

John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
Jesus does not say:
“Before Abraham was, I appeared to him.”
“Before Abraham was, I met him.”
“Before Abraham was, I showed Myself to him.”
He says: “I AM.”
He is claiming eternal existence, not a past appearance.

If Jesus meant: “Abraham saw Me physically,”
He would have said: “Before Abraham was, I was.”
But He didn’t. He used ἐγώ εἰμι — the divine name.
This is a claim of deity, not a claim of a past meeting.
The Jews misunderstood Jesus — and Jesus corrects their misunderstanding.
You said: “The Jews asked, ‘hast thou seen Abraham?’ They knew Jesus was claiming a real, personal encounter.”
No — they misunderstood Him.

They assumed He meant: “I met Abraham.”
Jesus corrects them by saying: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
He shifts the conversation from:
physical sightto
divine identity.
He does not affirm their assumption.
He contradicts it.
Scripture gives multiple examples of OT saints “seeing” Christ’s day without seeing Christ physically.
Abraham is not unique.
Isaiah “saw His glory” (John 12:41) — but only in a vision.
David foresaw the resurrection (Acts 2:30–31) — but did not see Jesus physically.
Moses saw Christ’s reproach (Hebrews 11:26) — but did not see Jesus physically.
Job saw his Redeemer (Job 19:25–27) — but not physically.
“Seeing” in prophetic revelation is normal.
It does not require physical sight.
Your argument creates a contradiction with Jesus’ own teaching about the Spirit.
You said: “All believers are indwelt by the Spirit. Otherwise they don’t belong to Christ.”
But Jesus says: “The Spirit was not yet given.” (John 7:39)
If Abraham was indwelt:
Jesus is wrong.
John 7:39 is false.
Pentecost is meaningless.
New birth existed before the Spirit.
The kingdom existed before the Spirit.
Romans 8:9 applies backward.
John 3:5 applies backward.
Your view forces Scripture to contradict itself.
The text does not support that.

Abraham saw:​

the promise
the future Redeemer
Christ’s day afar off
the covenant fulfillment

Abraham did NOT see:​

Christ’s earthly life
Christ incarnate
Christ face‑to‑face
the kingdom
the new birth
the Spirit
the New Covenant

Why?​

Because Jesus says: “The Spirit was not yet given.”
And Jesus says: “Unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom.”
And Hebrews says: “They saw the promises afar off.”
And Jesus says: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
None of these texts support Abraham seeing Christ physically.
All of them support Abraham seeing Christ’s future day.

 

[OMC]

Actually the error is in your understanding of the different administrations of the Spirit.

There is a difference between the indwelling of the Spirit and the baptism with the Spirit.

The indwelling of the Spirit is what is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:13. This operation of the Spirit is nonexperiential, is performed by the Spirit, and places one into the body of Christ.

This is different from the baptism with the Spirit spoken of by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11. This is what Jesus refers to as the promise of the Father i and Acts 1:4 and what Jesus tells the disciples to wait for in Acts 1:8. Coincidentally, this is also the same promise given in Joel 2:28 that was fulfilled the day of Pentecost. It is an operation of the Spirit but it is performed by Jesus, is experiential, and is manifest to all present. It's purpose is not to secure one into the body of Christ. Instead, it endues one with power, authenticates the ministry, and seals believers. One finds this continually throughout the book of Acts

You’re arguing:
Indwelling existed for all believers in all ages.
Spirit baptism (Pentecost) is different — experiential, empowering, public.
Therefore Abraham was indwelt, born again, and in the kingdom.
Your distinction between indwelling and baptism with the Spirit is correct.
But your conclusion that indwelling existed before Pentecost is not — because Scripture explicitly denies it.
You’re right:
Spirit baptism
performed by Christ
experiential
empowering
public
Acts 2, 8, 10, 19
Joel 2 fulfillment
“promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4)

Spirit indwelling​

performed by the Spirit
non‑experiential
places one into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13)
seals believers (Eph 1:13)
produces new birth (John 3:5–8)
You’re correct to separate these.

But now the key question: Did indwelling exist before Pentecost?
Scripture says no — and it says it explicitly.
John 7:39 is the immovable text that blocks your conclusion. “The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
This is not about baptism. This is not about Pentecost manifestations. This is not about tongues.
The Greek phrase is: οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα “For the Spirit was not yet.”
Not yet what?
Not yet given in the way Jesus describes in John 14–16:
indwelling
abiding
union
regeneration
sealing
adoption
sonship
new covenant life
Jesus is not talking about Acts 2 phenomena. He is talking about the new covenant gift of the Spirit.
And He says it did not exist yet.
This alone refutes the idea that Abraham was indwelt.
John 14:17 makes the timing explicit. “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.”
Two modes:
with (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν) — Old Covenant
in (ἐν ὑμῖν) — New Covenant
Jesus says the “in you” mode is future.
If Abraham had the Spirit in him, Jesus’ statement is false.
You cannot affirm both:
“Abraham was indwelt,” and “He shall be in you.”
One of those must give way.
And the one that gives way is your inference — not Jesus’ words.
John 3:5 ties kingdom entrance to the Spirit — and Abraham did not have the Spirit.
Jesus says: “Unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom.”
Combine with John 7:39: “The Spirit was not yet given.”
Therefore:
Abraham was not born of the Spirit.
Abraham did not enter the kingdom.
Abraham did not have the kingdom “within him.”
He had faith, grace, justification, promise — but not new birth.
New birth is a new covenant reality.
1 Corinthians 12:13 cannot be applied backward without breaking Scripture.
You said: “Indwelling is what places one into the body of Christ.”
Correct.
But Paul says: “By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”
This is Spirit baptism, not indwelling.
And Spirit baptism is explicitly tied to:
Christ’s ascension (Acts 2:33)
Christ’s exaltation (Acts 2:36)
Christ pouring out the Spirit (Acts 2:33)
the new covenant (Heb 8:6–13)

If Abraham was placed into the body of Christ:
before Christ existed in the flesh
before Christ died
before Christ rose
before Christ ascended
before Christ poured out the Spirit
before the body of Christ existed
Then Paul’s entire argument collapses.
You cannot be placed into a body that does not yet exist.
Romans 8:9 cannot be applied backward without contradicting Jesus
You said: “All believers are indwelt. Otherwise they don’t belong to Christ.”
But Paul says: “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”
Correct — in the new covenant.
But Jesus says: "The Spirit was not yet given.”
Therefore:
Abraham did not have the Spirit of Christ.
Abraham did not belong to Christ in the Romans 8:9 sense.
Abraham belonged to God under the Abrahamic covenant.
He did not belong to Christ under the new covenant.
This is not two salvations. It is two covenants.
Same grace. Same faith. Different administration.
You cited Joel 2:28.
But Joel 2 is about:
prophecy
visions
dreams
empowerment
public manifestation
It is not about:
regeneration
indwelling
sealing
adoption
union with Christ
new birth
Joel 2 is Pentecost empowerment, not new covenant indwelling.
You are mixing categories.
So to sum up,

A. Salvation has always been by grace through faith — correct.​

B. But indwelling did not exist before Christ’s glorification.​

John 7:39John 14:17

C. New birth did not exist before the Spirit was given.
John 3:5John 7:39

D. The kingdom did not exist before new birth.​

John 3:3–5

E. Union with Christ did not exist before Spirit baptism.​

1 Cor 12:13Acts 2:33

F. The body of Christ did not exist before Christ’s resurrection.​

Eph 1:20–23

G. Therefore Abraham was saved, but not indwelt, not regenerated, not in Christ, not in the kingdom.​

He saw Christ’s day. He did not experience Christ’s kingdom.

 

[Cameron143]

You’re arguing:
Indwelling existed for all believers in all ages.
Spirit baptism (Pentecost) is different — experiential, empowering, public.
Therefore Abraham was indwelt, born again, and in the kingdom.
Your distinction between indwelling and baptism with the Spirit is correct.
But your conclusion that indwelling existed before Pentecost is not — because Scripture explicitly denies it.
You’re right:
Spirit baptism
performed by Christ
experiential
empowering
public
Acts 2, 8, 10, 19
Joel 2 fulfillment
“promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4)

Spirit indwelling​

performed by the Spirit
non‑experiential
places one into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13)
seals believers (Eph 1:13)
produces new birth (John 3:5–8)
You’re correct to separate these.

But now the key question: Did indwelling exist before Pentecost?
Scripture says no — and it says it explicitly.
John 7:39 is the immovable text that blocks your conclusion. “The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
This is not about baptism. This is not about Pentecost manifestations. This is not about tongues.
The Greek phrase is: οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα “For the Spirit was not yet.”
Not yet what?
Not yet given in the way Jesus describes in John 14–16:
indwelling
abiding
union
regeneration
sealing
adoption
sonship
new covenant life
Jesus is not talking about Acts 2 phenomena. He is talking about the new covenant gift of the Spirit.
And He says it did not exist yet.
This alone refutes the idea that Abraham was indwelt.
John 14:17 makes the timing explicit. “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.”
Two modes:
with (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν) — Old Covenant
in (ἐν ὑμῖν) — New Covenant
Jesus says the “in you” mode is future.
If Abraham had the Spirit in him, Jesus’ statement is false.
You cannot affirm both:
“Abraham was indwelt,” and “He shall be in you.”
One of those must give way.
And the one that gives way is your inference — not Jesus’ words.
John 3:5 ties kingdom entrance to the Spirit — and Abraham did not have the Spirit.
Jesus says: “Unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom.”
Combine with John 7:39: “The Spirit was not yet given.”
Therefore:
Abraham was not born of the Spirit.
Abraham did not enter the kingdom.
Abraham did not have the kingdom “within him.”
He had faith, grace, justification, promise — but not new birth.
New birth is a new covenant reality.
1 Corinthians 12:13 cannot be applied backward without breaking Scripture.
You said: “Indwelling is what places one into the body of Christ.”
Correct.
But Paul says: “By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”
This is Spirit baptism, not indwelling.
And Spirit baptism is explicitly tied to:
Christ’s ascension (Acts 2:33)
Christ’s exaltation (Acts 2:36)
Christ pouring out the Spirit (Acts 2:33)
the new covenant (Heb 8:6–13)

If Abraham was placed into the body of Christ:
before Christ existed in the flesh
before Christ died
before Christ rose
before Christ ascended
before Christ poured out the Spirit
before the body of Christ existed
Then Paul’s entire argument collapses.
You cannot be placed into a body that does not yet exist.
Romans 8:9 cannot be applied backward without contradicting Jesus
You said: “All believers are indwelt. Otherwise they don’t belong to Christ.”
But Paul says: “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.”
Correct — in the new covenant.
But Jesus says: "The Spirit was not yet given.”
Therefore:
Abraham did not have the Spirit of Christ.
Abraham did not belong to Christ in the Romans 8:9 sense.
Abraham belonged to God under the Abrahamic covenant.
He did not belong to Christ under the new covenant.
This is not two salvations. It is two covenants.
Same grace. Same faith. Different administration.
You cited Joel 2:28.
But Joel 2 is about:
prophecy
visions
dreams
empowerment
public manifestation
It is not about:
regeneration
indwelling
sealing
adoption
union with Christ
new birth
Joel 2 is Pentecost empowerment, not new covenant indwelling.
You are mixing categories.
So to sum up,

A. Salvation has always been by grace through faith — correct.​

B. But indwelling did not exist before Christ’s glorification.​

John 7:39John 14:17

C. New birth did not exist before the Spirit was given.
John 3:5John 7:39

D. The kingdom did not exist before new birth.​

John 3:3–5

E. Union with Christ did not exist before Spirit baptism.​

1 Cor 12:13Acts 2:33

F. The body of Christ did not exist before Christ’s resurrection.​

Eph 1:20–23

G. Therefore Abraham was saved, but not indwelt, not regenerated, not in Christ, not in the kingdom.​

He saw Christ’s day. He did not experience Christ’s kingdom.

John 7:39 refers to the baptism with the Spirit; not the indwelling of the Spirit.

 

[OMC]

John 7:39 refers to the baptism with the Spirit; not the indwelling of the Spirit.

I’m going to show you exactly from Scripture why John 7:39 cannot be limited to Pentecost empowerment, and why it must include the new‑covenant indwelling.
No systems. No traditions. Just the text.

John 7:39 uses the verb δίδωμι (“to give”), not βαπτίζω (“to baptize”).
John 7:39: “The Spirit was not yet given (οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα), because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
This is the verb δίδωμι — “to give.”
But Spirit baptism uses βαπτίζω — “to immerse.”
These are not interchangeable terms.
If John meant “not yet baptized,” he would have used βαπτίζω.
He didn’t.
He used δίδωμι, the same verb Jesus uses for:
indwelling (John 14:16–17)
new birth (John 3:5–8)
the Spirit abiding in believers (John 14:17)
the Spirit as the seal (Eph 1:13)
the Spirit as the gift of the new covenant (Acts 2:38)
John 7:39 is about the giving of the Spirit in the new‑covenant sense — not the baptism of the Spirit in the Pentecost sense.
Jesus Himself interprets John 7:39 in John 14:17 — and He makes it about indwelling.
John 14:17 is the inspired commentary on John 7:39.
Jesus says: “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.”
Two modes:
with you = Old Covenant
in you = New Covenant
And Jesus says the “in you” mode is future.
This is indwelling, not Pentecost empowerment.
If John 7:39 referred only to Pentecost baptism, Jesus would not contrast with you vs in you.
He would say: “He is with you, and shall baptize you.”
But He doesn’t.
He says: “He shall be in you.”
That is indwelling.
John 7:39 is tied to Jesus’ glorification — and indwelling is tied to glorification.
John 7:39: “The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
John 14:16–17: “I will ask the Father… He will give you another Comforter… He shall be in you.”
John 16:7: “If I do not go away, the Comforter will not come.”
Acts 2:33: “Having been exalted… He has poured out this which you now see and hear.”
Indwelling and Spirit baptism both depend on Christ’s glorification.
But John 14:17 makes clear that the indwelling is the new thing that did not exist before glorification.
Therefore John 7:39 cannot be limited to Pentecost baptism.
It includes the new‑covenant giving of the Spirit.
The disciples were not indwelt before Pentecost — Jesus says so explicitly.
John 14:17: “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.”
If the disciples were already indwelt:
Jesus’ statement is false.
The future tense is meaningless.
The distinction between “with” and “in” collapses.
Pentecost becomes unnecessary for indwelling.
Your view requires Jesus to be wrong.
The text does not allow that.
If John 7:39 refers only to Spirit baptism, then new birth existed without the Spirit.
John 3:5: “Unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom.”
John 7:39: “The Spirit was not yet given.”
If Abraham was born again:
without the Spirit
without indwelling
without regeneration
without new covenant life
Then Jesus’ statement in John 3:5 is false.
Your view forces: new birth without the Spirit.
That is impossible.
If Abraham was indwelt, then Jesus’ “He shall be in you” is false.
Your claim: “All believers are indwelt by the Spirit.”
Jesus’ claim: “He shall be in you.”
These cannot both be true.
Either:
Abraham was indwelt, and Jesus was wrong, or Jesus was right, and Abraham was not indwelt.
Scripture sides with Jesus.

 

[Cameron143]

I’m going to show you exactly from Scripture why John 7:39 cannot be limited to Pentecost empowerment, and why it must include the new‑covenant indwelling.
No systems. No traditions. Just the text.

John 7:39 uses the verb δίδωμι (“to give”), not βαπτίζω (“to baptize”).
John 7:39: “The Spirit was not yet given (οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα), because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
This is the verb δίδωμι — “to give.”
But Spirit baptism uses βαπτίζω — “to immerse.”
These are not interchangeable terms.
If John meant “not yet baptized,” he would have used βαπτίζω.
He didn’t.
He used δίδωμι, the same verb Jesus uses for:
indwelling (John 14:16–17)
new birth (John 3:5–8)
the Spirit abiding in believers (John 14:17)
the Spirit as the seal (Eph 1:13)
the Spirit as the gift of the new covenant (Acts 2:38)
John 7:39 is about the giving of the Spirit in the new‑covenant sense — not the baptism of the Spirit in the Pentecost sense.
Jesus Himself interprets John 7:39 in John 14:17 — and He makes it about indwelling.
John 14:17 is the inspired commentary on John 7:39.
Jesus says: “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.”
Two modes:
with you = Old Covenant
in you = New Covenant
And Jesus says the “in you” mode is future.
This is indwelling, not Pentecost empowerment.
If John 7:39 referred only to Pentecost baptism, Jesus would not contrast with you vs in you.
He would say: “He is with you, and shall baptize you.”
But He doesn’t.
He says: “He shall be in you.”
That is indwelling.
John 7:39 is tied to Jesus’ glorification — and indwelling is tied to glorification.
John 7:39: “The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”
John 14:16–17: “I will ask the Father… He will give you another Comforter… He shall be in you.”
John 16:7: “If I do not go away, the Comforter will not come.”
Acts 2:33: “Having been exalted… He has poured out this which you now see and hear.”
Indwelling and Spirit baptism both depend on Christ’s glorification.
But John 14:17 makes clear that the indwelling is the new thing that did not exist before glorification.
Therefore John 7:39 cannot be limited to Pentecost baptism.
It includes the new‑covenant giving of the Spirit.
The disciples were not indwelt before Pentecost — Jesus says so explicitly.
John 14:17: “He dwells with you, and shall be in you.”
If the disciples were already indwelt:
Jesus’ statement is false.
The future tense is meaningless.
The distinction between “with” and “in” collapses.
Pentecost becomes unnecessary for indwelling.
Your view requires Jesus to be wrong.
The text does not allow that.
If John 7:39 refers only to Spirit baptism, then new birth existed without the Spirit.
John 3:5: “Unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom.”
John 7:39: “The Spirit was not yet given.”
If Abraham was born again:
without the Spirit
without indwelling
without regeneration
without new covenant life
Then Jesus’ statement in John 3:5 is false.
Your view forces: new birth without the Spirit.
That is impossible.
If Abraham was indwelt, then Jesus’ “He shall be in you” is false.
Your claim: “All believers are indwelt by the Spirit.”
Jesus’ claim: “He shall be in you.”
These cannot both be true.
Either:
Abraham was indwelt, and Jesus was wrong, or Jesus was right, and Abraham was not indwelt.
Scripture sides with Jesus.

I obviously disagree with your understanding.

Appreciate the discussion.

Grace and peace.

 

[OMC]

I obviously disagree with your understanding.

Appreciate the discussion.

Grace and peace.

?? May I ask Why?

 

[Cameron143]

?? May I ask Why?

I've already explained why...reference to the kingdom, distinction between indwelling and outward sealing, the progressive understanding and revelation throughout history, etc.

Simply because things are made clearer by NT revelation doesn't mean the things revealed were not always present. What was new in the NT is the outpouring of the Spirit as a seal, endowment of power, and authentication of the ministry on all instead of the relatively few in the OT.

 

[OMC]

Simply because things are made clearer by NT revelation doesn't mean the things revealed were not always present. What was new in the NT is the outpouring of the Spirit as a seal, endowment of power, and authentication of the ministry on all instead of the relatively few in the OT

the New Testament doesn’t create the realities of regeneration, faith, or the Spirit’s work—it reveals them with a clarity and fullness that the Old Testament only hinted at. The Spirit was always active: He regenerated, empowered, and indwelt God’s people in ways appropriate to the covenant they lived under. But what was new in the NT was the universal outpouring of the Spirit as a seal of adoption, the public endowment of power for witness, and the open authentication of Christ’s kingdom breaking into history. In the OT, the Spirit’s empowering presence rested on prophets, kings, and select individuals; in the NT, He is poured out on all flesh—men and women, young and old, Jew and Gentile. So the NT doesn’t introduce a new Spirit, but a new administration of the Spirit, fitting the new covenant Christ inaugurated.

 

[Cameron143]

the New Testament doesn’t create the realities of regeneration, faith, or the Spirit’s work—it reveals them with a clarity and fullness that the Old Testament only hinted at. The Spirit was always active: He regenerated, empowered, and indwelt God’s people in ways appropriate to the covenant they lived under. But what was new in the NT was the universal outpouring of the Spirit as a seal of adoption, the public endowment of power for witness, and the open authentication of Christ’s kingdom breaking into history. In the OT, the Spirit’s empowering presence rested on prophets, kings, and select individuals; in the NT, He is poured out on all flesh—men and women, young and old, Jew and Gentile. So the NT doesn’t introduce a new Spirit, but a new administration of the Spirit, fitting the new covenant Christ inaugurated.

What did the Abrahamic Covenant consist in...simply a land covenant or eternal life?

 

[OMC]

What did the Abrahamic Covenant consist in...simply a land covenant or eternal life?

The Abrahamic Covenant was never just a land contract; it was fundamentally a promise of eternal life rooted in God’s own commitment to be Abraham’s God forever. The land was a sign of something far greater—a down‑payment pointing to the ultimate inheritance of the renewed creation. Paul says the promise made to Abraham was that he would be “heir of the world” (Romans 4:13), not merely Canaan, and Hebrews shows Abraham looking beyond earthly geography to a heavenly country and a city whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10–16). The covenant’s heart is God saying, “I will be your God,” which Jesus identifies as the essence of eternal life—knowing Him forever. So while land was included, the Abrahamic Covenant’s true substance was eternal relationship, eternal blessing, and eternal inheritance through the promised Seed, Christ.

 

[Cameron143]

The Abrahamic Covenant was never just a land contract; it was fundamentally a promise of eternal life rooted in God’s own commitment to be Abraham’s God forever. The land was a sign of something far greater—a down‑payment pointing to the ultimate inheritance of the renewed creation. Paul says the promise made to Abraham was that he would be “heir of the world” (Romans 4:13), not merely Canaan, and Hebrews shows Abraham looking beyond earthly geography to a heavenly country and a city whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10–16). The covenant’s heart is God saying, “I will be your God,” which Jesus identifies as the essence of eternal life—knowing Him forever. So while land was included, the Abrahamic Covenant’s true substance was eternal relationship, eternal blessing, and eternal inheritance through the promised Seed, Christ.

And what is eternal life?

 

[rogerg]

You’re right that “my” is a possessive pronoun.
But a possessive pronoun does not grammatically require a physical sighting of the person.
Examples:
“David rejoiced to see the Lord’s salvation.” He didn’t see Jesus physically.
“Isaiah saw His glory.” (John 12:41) Isaiah didn’t see Jesus physically — he saw the vision in Isaiah 6.
“Moses saw His day from afar.” (Hebrews 11:26) Moses didn’t see Jesus physically.
In Greek, τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν (“my day”) is a possessive genitive, not a direct object.
A possessive genitive means: “A day belonging to Me.”
It does not mean: “A day in which you saw Me physically.”
You’re importing that meaning — the grammar doesn’t require it.
Scripture explicitly says Abraham saw Christ’s day “afar off,” not face‑to‑face.
Hebrews 11:13: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them.”
Abraham is the primary example in this chapter.
He saw:
the promise
the fulfillment
the future Redeemer
But he saw it afar off, not in person.
This is the inspired commentary on Abraham’s sight.
This alone refutes the idea that John 8:56 requires a physical encounter.
Genesis 18 is not a pre‑incarnate appearance of the Son — Scripture identifies the visitor as YHWH, not “the Son.”
You said: “Abraham literally encountered the pre‑incarnate Son of God face‑to‑face (Genesis 18).”
But the text says: “YHWH appeared unto him.” (Genesis 18:1)
Not:
“the Son appeared”
“the Word appeared”
“the Angel of the LORD appeared”
Genesis 18 is a YHWH‑appearance, not a Christophany.
Could the Son be involved? Possibly — but the text does not say that.
You cannot use Genesis 18 to prove Abraham saw Jesus physically unless the text says it — and it doesn’t.
Jesus Himself says Abraham did NOT see His earthly life.
This is the decisive text.

John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
Jesus does not say:
“Before Abraham was, I appeared to him.”
“Before Abraham was, I met him.”
“Before Abraham was, I showed Myself to him.”
He says: “I AM.”
He is claiming eternal existence, not a past appearance.

If Jesus meant: “Abraham saw Me physically,”
He would have said: “Before Abraham was, I was.”
But He didn’t. He used ἐγώ εἰμι — the divine name.
This is a claim of deity, not a claim of a past meeting.
The Jews misunderstood Jesus — and Jesus corrects their misunderstanding.
You said: “The Jews asked, ‘hast thou seen Abraham?’ They knew Jesus was claiming a real, personal encounter.”
No — they misunderstood Him.

They assumed He meant: “I met Abraham.”
Jesus corrects them by saying: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
He shifts the conversation from:
physical sightto
divine identity.
He does not affirm their assumption.
He contradicts it.
Scripture gives multiple examples of OT saints “seeing” Christ’s day without seeing Christ physically.
Abraham is not unique.
Isaiah “saw His glory” (John 12:41) — but only in a vision.
David foresaw the resurrection (Acts 2:30–31) — but did not see Jesus physically.
Moses saw Christ’s reproach (Hebrews 11:26) — but did not see Jesus physically.
Job saw his Redeemer (Job 19:25–27) — but not physically.
“Seeing” in prophetic revelation is normal.
It does not require physical sight.
Your argument creates a contradiction with Jesus’ own teaching about the Spirit.
You said: “All believers are indwelt by the Spirit. Otherwise they don’t belong to Christ.”
But Jesus says: “The Spirit was not yet given.” (John 7:39)
If Abraham was indwelt:
Jesus is wrong.
John 7:39 is false.
Pentecost is meaningless.
New birth existed before the Spirit.
The kingdom existed before the Spirit.
Romans 8:9 applies backward.
John 3:5 applies backward.
Your view forces Scripture to contradict itself.
The text does not support that.

Abraham saw:​

the promise
the future Redeemer
Christ’s day afar off
the covenant fulfillment

Abraham did NOT see:​

Christ’s earthly life
Christ incarnate
Christ face‑to‑face
the kingdom
the new birth
the Spirit
the New Covenant

Why?​

Because Jesus says: “The Spirit was not yet given.”
And Jesus says: “Unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom.”
And Hebrews says: “They saw the promises afar off.”
And Jesus says: “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
None of these texts support Abraham seeing Christ physically.
All of them support Abraham seeing Christ’s future day.

OMC, thank you for the detailed breakdown of the basis of your logic. However, your argument relies on a theological error: you claim Genesis 18 cannot be a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus because the text identifies the visitor as YHWH, not 'the Son.'
You are separating Jesus from the YHWH of the Old Testament. The New Testament explicitly identity-links them. When you claim Isaiah only saw a vague vision in Isaiah 6, you contradict John 12:41, which explicitly states that when Isaiah saw YHWH on His throne, he 'saw his (Jesus's) glory, and spake of him.' If seeing YHWH means seeing Jesus as Isiah 6 says, then Abraham literally meeting, feeding, and speaking with YHWH in Genesis 18 was absolutely a personal, physical encounter with the pre-incarnate Son of God (John 12:41).
Further, when Jesus declared, 'Before Abraham was, I AM' (John 8:58), He was not correcting a 'misunderstanding' about a past meeting; He was validating it by claiming the ultimate divine name of YHWH for Himself from the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). The Jews tried to stone Him because they understood perfectly: that the Jesus standing in front of them was claiming to be the very YHWH who had physically visited Abraham centuries prior [Exo 3:14, John 8:58].
You also misapply John 7:39 to claim the Holy Spirit was entirely absent from Old Testament believers. When John states the Spirit was 'not yet given,' he is referring to the official, public outpouring at Pentecost to inaugurate the Church age. If 'not yet given' meant no internal presence existed, then David could never have possessed the Spirit (Psalm 51:11), the prophets could never have had the Spirit of Christ in them (1 Peter 1:11), and John the Baptist could never have been filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).
My position remains that God has only ever provided one plan of salvation across human history, and that is through Jesus Christ alone. To separate faith from the new birth creates a fictional category of 'saved but spiritually dead' believers that Romans 8:8 completely disallows. However, I am thankful we can agree that Christ is the sole Savior of mankind.

---

 

[OMC]

And what is eternal life?

Eternal life, isn’t just “living forever” — Scripture defines it as knowing God Himself in a real, covenant relationship. Jesus says it plainly: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Eternal life is the life of God shared with us — a restored relationship, a new heart, the indwelling Spirit, and the promise of resurrection in the age to come. It begins now through faith and continues forever in the presence of Christ. So eternal life is not merely endless existence; it is the fullness of communion with God, the joy of His kingdom, and the inheritance of the new creation promised to all who belong to Christ.

 

[Cameron143]

Eternal life, isn’t just “living forever” — Scripture defines it as knowing God Himself in a real, covenant relationship. Jesus says it plainly: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Eternal life is the life of God shared with us — a restored relationship, a new heart, the indwelling Spirit, and the promise of resurrection in the age to come. It begins now through faith and continues forever in the presence of Christ. So eternal life is not merely endless existence; it is the fullness of communion with God, the joy of His kingdom, and the inheritance of the new creation promised to all who belong to Christ.

Did Abraham know God?

Did Enoch know God?

 

[OMC]

thank you for the detailed breakdown of the basis of your logic. However, your argument relies on a theological error: you claim Genesis 18 cannot be a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus because the text identifies the visitor as YHWH, not 'the Son.'
You are separating Jesus from the YHWH of the Old Testament. The New Testament explicitly identity-links them. When you claim Isaiah only saw a vague vision in Isaiah 6, you contradict John 12:41, which explicitly states that when Isaiah saw YHWH on His throne, he 'saw his (Jesus's) glory, and spake of him.' If seeing YHWH means seeing Jesus as Isiah 6 says, then Abraham literally meeting, feeding, and speaking with YHWH in Genesis 18 was absolutely a personal, physical encounter with the pre-incarnate Son of God (John 12:41).
Further, when Jesus declared, 'Before Abraham was, I AM' (John 8:58), He was not correcting a 'misunderstanding' about a past meeting; He was validating it by claiming the ultimate divine name of YHWH for Himself from the burning bush (Exodus 3:14). The Jews tried to stone Him because they understood perfectly: that the Jesus standing in front of them was claiming to be the very YHWH who had physically visited Abraham centuries prior [Exo 3:14, John 8:58].
You also misapply John 7:39 to claim the Holy Spirit was entirely absent from Old Testament believers. When John states the Spirit was 'not yet given,' he is referring to the official, public outpouring at Pentecost to inaugurate the Church age. If 'not yet given' meant no internal presence existed, then David could never have possessed the Spirit (Psalm 51:11), the prophets could never have had the Spirit of Christ in them (1 Peter 1:11), and John the Baptist could never have been filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).
My position remains that God has only ever provided one plan of salvation across human history, and that is through Jesus Christ alone. To separate faith from the new birth creates a fictional category of 'saved but spiritually dead' believers that Romans 8:8 completely disallows. However, I am thankful we can agree that Christ is the sole Savior of mankind.

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]

Did Abraham know God?

Did Enoch know God

Absolutely, not in a vague, distant way, but in the deep relational sense Scripture calls walking with God. Genesis says Abraham was God’s friend, someone who heard God’s voice, trusted His promises, and obeyed Him because he truly knew Him. And Enoch is described even more directly: he “walked with God,” a phrase that means intimate fellowship, shared life, and genuine communion. Their relationship with God wasn’t mechanical or merely covenantal; it was personal, real, and rooted in faith. The New Testament confirms this by showing that anyone who truly knows God does so through the Son, even before the incarnation, because Christ is the eternal Word through whom God has always revealed Himself. So when Scripture says Abraham and Enoch knew God, it means they knew the living God, the same God Christians know today—through faith, through grace, and ultimately through Christ Himself.

 

[Cameron143]

Absolutely, not in a vague, distant way, but in the deep relational sense Scripture calls walking with God. Genesis says Abraham was God’s friend, someone who heard God’s voice, trusted His promises, and obeyed Him because he truly knew Him. And Enoch is described even more directly: he “walked with God,” a phrase that means intimate fellowship, shared life, and genuine communion. Their relationship with God wasn’t mechanical or merely covenantal; it was personal, real, and rooted in faith. The New Testament confirms this by showing that anyone who truly knows God does so through the Son, even before the incarnation, because Christ is the eternal Word through whom God has always revealed Himself. So when Scripture says Abraham and Enoch knew God, it means they knew the living God, the same God Christians know today—through faith, through grace, and ultimately through Christ Himself.

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?