God created man in His Image so man has free will. No way around that.
Romans 6:16 - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
OSAS origins and comparison
- Thread starter randyk
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
God created man in His Image so man has free will. No way around that.
Romans 6:16 - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Your entire construction collapses because you’re trying to turn “the sheep” into a pre‑existing class of OT believers already regenerate, already loving God, already known by Him, who are merely waiting to hear the Gospel — but none of the passages you cite actually say that.
In John 10, Jesus does not define His sheep as “those who already love God”; He defines them as those who hear His voice — a present, Gospel‑conditioned response — and He explicitly contrasts them with Jews who also claimed to love God yet rejected Him. Your appeal to 1 Cor 8:3 is misapplied: Paul is describing the relational reality of believers in Christ, not a timeless category of pre‑Christian saints.
Likewise, your reading of Acts turns “God‑fearers” into regenerate OT saints, but Luke never says Cornelius, Lydia, or John’s disciples were already justified or already indwelt; he says they were responsive seekers, and God opened their hearts, granted repentance, and gave the Spirit only through the Gospel.
Your system requires that they were already “owed salvation,” but Romans 8:28–30 applies the golden chain to all believers, Jew and Gentile, not a fixed historical remnant awaiting activation.
And your claim that Jesus’ sheep include OT Gentiles who were already regenerate contradicts His own statement that He “must bring” the other sheep — future action, not past possession — and that they “will hear” His voice, not that they already had.
You’re trying to preserve a pre‑Pentecost regenerate class, but the NT presents one reality: the sheep are those who respond to the Son, not those who possessed prior covenant life.
Dave, your entire reply still depends on a distinction the text never makes: you’re trying to split “initial believing” from “life/faith” so you can treat 2 Peter 1:1 as referring to a post‑conversion “life called faith,” but Peter explicitly says the thing obtained is πίστιν — faith — and then commands believers to add to your faith virtue, knowledge, self‑control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love, which only makes sense if faith is the instrument of salvation, not the life itself.
Your Galatians 2:20 citation doesn’t help you, because Paul is describing the ongoing life of the believer, not redefining faith as spiritual life; and your use of John 20:31 actually proves my point, because John says “believing you may have life,” not “life produces believing.”
You keep insisting Scripture “often calls life faith,” but you haven’t produced a single passage where the NT collapses those categories; instead, you’re importing a system that requires the distinction so you can preserve your claim that salvation precedes faith.
The grammar of 2 Peter 1:1 is fatal to your reading: Peter says faith was obtained, not life was obtained, and your argument only works if you rewrite the text to say the opposite.
The issue is exegesis.
Peter distinguishes life and godliness (v.3) from faith (v.1), and your system only survives by erasing that distinction and replacing it with your own.
Totally agree, and that is the issue Calvinists have with me, though I consider myself to partly be Calvinist. The Calvinists do not deny free will--they just direct it through the predestined will of God, which explained little for me.
So, I say I believe in predestination, and also in freewill. This takes a little from Calvinism and a little from Methodism/Arminianism. And this I can explain for the very reason you say. If we are truly made in God's image, then our will can be dutifully exercised.
But I emphasize "dutifully" exercised, because our will was intended to receive guidance from God's word so that we can truly represent God's image and likeness, and not just a generic free will expression. It matters little for us in the long run if we exercise free will and do not conform to God's moral law.
The Bible says we are not just slaves, but sons. This means we may be slaves with respect to our need to obey God's Moral Law. But we are sons in that we can make free decisions that accomodate and acknowledge the love that should operate in us when we make those free decisions. We're not always told *what* to do, but always told *how* we must do what we choose to do.
Which is doctrines of demons and not even close to being biblical.
Yes, God predestined every human being to be in the image of Jesus Christ but because man has free will the devil is able to deceive the gullible with lies to lead them away from the Lord which is why so many are blinded by the god of this world and don't take advantage of the salvation the Lord has purchased for all men.
Matthew 16:24 - Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
John 7:37 - If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Here's another one calvinists cannot over come that they have to make stuff up to try and explain away which they cannot
Romans 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Yes notice that righteousness came upon all men just like condemnation came upon all men. Man must choose.
Titus 2:11,12
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world
The problem with calvinist people is they refuse to allow what God says in His Word to get in the way of what they believe which exposes them as tares and false brethren. No way around that.
That's very divisive rhetoric, and I completely reject it. I was recently booted off of a "Christian" forum for speaking too favorably of Calvinism, of OSAS. I have zero respect for such heartless dogmatism, when seen in the light of Christian history.
I understand what you're saying, and that you believe Calvinism is dogmatically opposed to Free Will. As I said, they are not. They just don't explain how their sense of Free Will applies in the context of Election, or Predestination.
I agree with you on Free Will. However, those who will not use that terminology I will not condemn because they are not quite saying what you attribute to them, that they oppose Free Will. In reality, whatever we freely choose to do it must be done in conformity to the Word of God. I'm sure you agree with that?
Calvinists sound like Determinists or Fatalists, and I agree it sounds like that and seems to lead, logically, to that. That's why I agree with you on this and not with them.
But keep in mind that the Calvinist and the Reform burden is different from yours. The Arminian and Methodist concern is more about how Christ died for all such that we reach out to all to get them Saved. By contrast, the Reform and Calvinist concern is to avoid the heresy of Pelagianism, which gives too much power to the human will to self-atone or to do good works without the help of God's word.
Without Christ we can do nothing of lasting value. Without him nobody can do any good at all.
My whole argument is based on the idea that a believer only becomes regenerate when he is placed in Christ, which began at Pentecost with the indwelling Holy Spirit, which "placed us into" Jesus, and saves us legally, and begins the process (born again) of saving us practically.
So, I'm not sure who you are arguing against. Perhaps you're reading your system into my understanding of Scripture.
With all due respect, this is why nobody can reason with Calvinist's. They go off the rails and appeal to there system to define Scripture. Jesus does define those who love God and are loved by Him as those who hear His voice. You're reasoning is simply denying what Scripture says.
"But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him." Please explain how OT believers are excluded from this statement? It's a timeless spiritual principal of how God relates to anyone who loves Him.
Here's another. How can there be an "after" if this love is from the foundations of the world, as Calvinism claims? Where is the Scripture to defend this idea?
Galatians 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?
We know Him, and are known by Him, according to Paul, when we come to faith and love Him.
Again, my claim is that OT believers have the presence of God, the Light, but regeneration only happens in Christ, after the death, resurrection and ascension. These OT beliers were predestined to this regeneration. That regeneration only happens when they become NT believers. They must hear the Gospel and believe, and receive the indwelling Holy Spirit for that regeneration and justification to be realized. These are the sheep, who were promised all that we receive in Christ, but it would only be realized after the DRA. For those OT believers who already died, that's who Jesus, who had the Keys to Hades and death, went to for three days and preached to them, the prisoners. Then, in His ascension, He takes captivity captive. Up until that point, no OT believers were able to be with the Father (Hebrews 11:39-40, John 3:13-14)
It is a fixed people, both Jew and Gentile, who He Foreknew. Qualified with "all things work for the good of those who love Him".
Again, not regenerate, it was owed to them. Regeneration only happens only when they are placed into Christ, the indwelling, the baptism with the Holy Spirit. These are the sheep that were not of this fold spoken of in John 20. Jesus' prayer that they would all be one in Him, was answered and began to be realized with the baptism/placing into with/by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It was actual salvation that came to the Gentiles, just like the Jews.
'Must bring into this fold' They were not in Christ, they did not yet hear the Gospel and receive the indwelling to place them into this fold. That was my point. They are not yet of this fold, but they are His sheep. They know Him, He knows them, they don't yet believe the Gospel, but are predestined to believe it.
Your missing the big picture here, they were not called "sheep" before they heard the Gospel because God randomly selected a few who won His elect lottery from the foundations of the world, that's Catholic light speaking. They were "sheep" because they were known by Him, and knew Him already through their OT faith. Trace "'they will hear my voice' backwards and you'll see. Bring into the fold, that's bringing them in Christ, from hearing the Gospel, just like Acts recorded. Do you know why they will hear His voice, because they are predestined to believe the Gospel as OT believers who already love God and are loved by Him.
"They" highlighted below, is speaking of the earlier part of that passage that I highlighted.
John 10: 14-16 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold ; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock, and one shepherd.
Who will hear His voice? The sheep. Who are the sheep? Those who are loved and love God. Who are the other sheep who love and are loved by God? The Gentiles. These all believed, as recorded in Acts.
To be blunt, concerning the rest of your post, I put a lot of time and thought into my posts, and am disappointed when the replies are simply a denial of clear Scripture with an attempt to hide that fact in a flippant reply. It's like untangling webs of deceit, over and over. We then must ask, 'where is the slight of hand this time?' with every post. That grind, it's exhausting. At some point I need to trust that the readers can see that for themselves and there is no value in continuing. I hope that's not what this discussion has come to, since it started out so well. I'll chalk up your last post as a bad day, as I have had a few recently myself.
Dave
Your argument hinges on a single hinge‑point: regeneration = union with Christ, and union with Christ = Spirit‑indwelling, and Spirit‑indwelling = Pentecost, therefore no one was regenerate before Pentecost — and I’m not arguing against that structure; I’m arguing that Scripture itself doesn’t let you collapse those categories as tightly as you’re doing
You’re not actually defending Scripture here — you’re defending a reading that smuggles your regeneration‑timeline into John 10 and then accuses anyone who doesn’t adopt that timeline of “Calvinism.” Jesus does not say, “My sheep are those who already love God.” He says, “My sheep hear My voice.” That’s the defining mark He gives in the passage itself.
First I am not bringing any attitude to this conversation. If it feels that way I apologize. I am simply sharing the scripture ive studied for over 40 years. Does that make me right? NO, that said i look forward to these conversations because they force me to dig deep into scripture and test my own feeling and thoughts. I am a academic that speaks as to not be misunderstood and to point of fact. Its not emotion, its training. My wife complains about it too and i mean nothing negative by it i promise you. I address each post as if I were responding to a students paper and I must assess its content. This is my approach and I again, apologize if it feels offensive. Thats not my intention. If we are good then I would like to continue.
Your entire construction depends on treating “sheep” in John 10 as already‑saved OT believers who “know God and are known by God” prior to hearing the Gospel, and then treating Pentecost as the moment their owed regeneration is finally delivered — but that reading requires you to reverse Jesus’ own logic in the passage.
Jesus does not say, “They are My sheep because they already know Me through OT faith”;
He says, “My sheep hear My voice… and I know them.” The knowing is defined by the hearing, not the hearing by a prior knowing. When He says, “Other sheep I have… them also I must bring… and they will hear My voice,”
He is not describing a group who already know Him and love God; He is describing a group who will be revealed as His sheep precisely by their future response to His voice.
You’re trying to make “sheep” a pre‑Pentecost category of covenant lovers; Jesus makes it a Gospel‑conditioned identity.
And your appeal to Gal 4:9 and 1 Cor 8:3 doesn’t establish a timeless principle — both passages explicitly tie “known by God” to conversion, not to OT faith.
Paul says “after you have known God, or rather are known by God,” which means the “knowing” he’s talking about is post‑Gospel relational recognition, not pre‑Cross covenant affection.
You’re not wrong that OT saints were promised perfection (Heb 11:39–40), but the text never calls them “sheep” awaiting activation; it calls them faithful witnesses awaiting Christ’s work.
The “big picture” you’re defending is coherent, but it’s not what John 10 actually says — Jesus identifies His sheep by their response to Him, not by a pre‑existing love for God that predestines them to believe later.
You said "The Calvinists do not deny free will--they just direct it through the predestined will of God"
And I pointed out that they are teaching false doctrine.
The Word of the Lord does not teach that God decides in advance that a small portion of people are to be saved and then decide to refuse to allow all others to be saved which is what calvinist dogma teaches. They are wrong and in error when their false doctrine is compared with the Word of the Lord.
Yes, I follow the Word of the Lord and they follow the lies of the devil.
Yes and calvinist dogma says God actually wants most people to go to hell and they claim when Jesus went to the Cross it was only for a few which is in direct opposition to the Word of the Lord.
You might want to rethink who you are defending as to not be on the wrong side of eternity.
Really? So you believe that God promised that *all* would be Saved, that *all* would become the Elect of God? Or, that God didn't know if anybody would be Saved at all, or perhaps a random number, depending on how well evangelists in the Church did in preaching the Gospel?
If you believe this, you stand against centuries of belief in the Church which was decidedly predestinarian. This would include Arminius, as well.
The argument, negatively, against the ability of people to be Saved is a matter of phrasing or language. Some would argue a near Fatalism, that they were simply Elected to *not* be Saved. But many Predestinarians, Catholics and Reform both, do not agree with this.
Calvinism does teach this, but not necessarily as something God willed, but perhaps as an inevitable result of human choice to *not* go God's way. Lost children are, I think, the consequence of human rebellion against God, and not a matter of God's original choice.
Again, it is not something we should divide over. No matter how we believe or state it, what's real is that some choose to be Saved, and some do not.
I would argue that your rhetoric is not very Christian. The Wars of Religion took place due to such pride and acrimony.
That is, I think, a slanderous accusation. There is a big difference between determining in advance that people will not be Saved, due to their own Sin, and saying God *wanted* people to be lost. You choose to characterize the discussion in the nastiest sense possible.
You might want to rethink how you wish to witness to those who disagree with you?
OK, you piqued my interest with that statement. Can you elaborate?
The sheep are defined as those who will hear His voice and believe. The Father gave them to the Son.
John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
In John 10:26, It's 'they don't believe because they are not His sheep', not 'they are not His sheep because they don't believe'. Belief, and hearing to believe is the evidence of a sheep (John 6:37). The Father gives them to the Son, then they come to Him, hearing, and believing. They receive eternal life for this. The Father already gave these sheep to the Son, and they will hear and believe the Gospel message.
Traditionally the reformed camp (Not you) says that the Father knew the sheepo from the foundations of the world through the election love lottery. I believe they were known by Him because they had an OT belief/faith, which did not yet make them born again, or justified, but by that OT faith they were promised those things, through Jesus, the promised Messiah, the way the truth and the life.
Even true OT believers who never heard the Gospel needed to be placed into Christ for those promises to be realized. They needed to hear the Gospel and believe, which all true OT believers would, and be placed in Christ after the DRA, to be born again and justified. Even the Apostles were given to the Son by the Father before they believed (John 17:6). These Apostles were OT believers already credited as justified by faith, just like Abraham. It's the same Jesus, and His righteousness, that justifies both. Only Abraham died, and the Apostles were still living when Jesus came on the scene. OT belief was never good enough to save. Everyone needs to be in Christ to realize that promise. OT believers still living needed to believe the Gospel and be placed into Christ. I believe that these were predestined to this NT faith, so they could recieve the promises owed to them, salvation.
Jesus even preached to the dead OT believers when He descended. They were in Abrahams bosom, in prison, Hades, which Jesus had the keys to, death and Hades, and led captivity captive. Those physically dead OT believers then get to go to be with the Father, the promise realized, when Jesus ascends. I believe they heard and believed the Gospel when Jesus preached to them, but it doesn't say specifically. Everyone must be in "The Way, the Truth, then Life" so be saved. Even OT believers.
John 10:14-16 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
John 10:26-29 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.
The dispensation is still OT. If it were NT, they would already be one one flock with one Shepard, in Christ Jesus, in the same fold. The "other sheep" is defined here...
John 11:51-52 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together [n]in one[/n] the children of God who were scattered abroad. (Also see 1 John 2:2)
After they are made one with Him, after the DRA, then they can go to the Father when they die, because they are truly born again and justified in Christ where they were made one with Him.
John 13:36 Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord, where are You going?" Jesus answered him, "Where I am going you cannot follow Me now, but you shall follow Me afterward." (see-John 14:1-6).
Ok good. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My thoughts in this matter are unique, so it takes people out of their traditional framework of these discussions. That makes people angry sometimes.
The sheep are new to the Gospel, but not new to God. They knew God already, in faith, by what was revealed to them as true OT believers. But they did not hear the Gospel, yet. These are sheep, who love God and were loved by Him, known by him, and they knowing Him, like Abraham, and the Apostles before they came to faith in the Gospel message. All who were not yet placed into Christ because they had not yet believed and trusted in Jesus and the Gospel message. All they trusted in was a promised Messiah. Not saved eccept in promise.
When they trust in Jesus before the cross, then they are owned that promise, but still not yet placed into Christ to receive it. After the DRA, they receive the Holy Spirit which was owed to them, which places them into Christ. The Holy Spirit being the means of that spiritual baptism, the Holy Spirit indwelling. Which births the church, Jesus, the Body that we're placed into. After the cross, and only after the cross, in Christ the ingredients that save are all there, the atonement, the righteousness of God, the death and resurrection by which we are born again through when we're placed into Christ. No one was saved until they are placed into Christ, after the death, resurrection, and ascension. Jesus is only the Way, Truth and the Life.
continued...
Exactly! But missing from your equation is OT faith. You have NT faith, and atheism. What about those who God knew, and knew God in the OT? Did they disappear when Jesus came in His incarnation? You will not find one Calvinist (not you) on the planet who will answer that question. What happened to true OT believers when Jesus came on the scene? The Apostles were true OT believers. Acts records many of these OT believers, John's disciples, Cornelius and household, Lydia, the three thousand, etc.. Jesus descended and preached to the OT believers already physically dead. Was OT faith still valid to save? Did they need to upgrade? Were they saved and not in Christ? Reformed people (not you) will not touch that with a ten foot pole. These OT believers were known by God too, and not yet in Christ for salvation. The only way is in Christ. God had promised it to them. There is a path that had to be taken to receive that promise. Frist, even as true OT believers, they had to hear the Gospel. Then they must believe. Then they are placed into Christ and saved. But all of that was delayed until the Holy Spirit was Given, and the DRA happened. It was promised. The sheep are the ones that promise was owed to. Those ones who were still living were the sheep who will hear and believe. God gave all those OT believers to Jesus, their promised Messiah, revealed, to be saved, that's the only way that promise is realized. As true OT believers, God loved them, He knew them, He promised to finish what He started, He promised them eternal life, they loved Him, they Knew Him, and trusted in those promises. Those promises were realized in Christ, being placed in Christ, only. All OT believers, physically dead, or still alive at that time, their promises given to them by the Father were only realized in Christ, after the death, resurrection, and ascension. God made all that happen for them. Each one was placed into Christ after they believed the Gospel, even if they were waiting in Hades for Jesus to preach the Gospel to them.
11 foot poles for sale, if it helps.
The reason I said you’re collapsing categories Scripture itself keeps distinct is this: the Bible treats regeneration, union_with_Christ, Spirit_indwelling, and Pentecost as related but not identical realities, and your model fuses them into one chronological event.
Regeneration in John 3 is presented as a timeless necessity (“You must be born again”), not a Pentecost‑dependent gift; Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not already knowing this from the Old Testament, which only makes sense if the new birth was already operative under the old covenant.
Likewise, Abraham’s faith is explicitly described as living, God‑wrought, and spiritually enabled in Romans 4 — the very thing Paul contrasts with the deadness of the natural man — meaning Paul sees Abraham as spiritually alive, not merely legally positioned for future life.
Hebrews 11 reinforces this by describing OT saints as already experiencing realities that require spiritual vitality: seeing the invisible God, choosing suffering over sin, receiving strength, enduring by faith.
Meanwhile, union with Christ is indeed a New‑Covenant reality tied to Christ’s resurrection and ascension, but Scripture never says regeneration waits for union, only that union is the ground of salvation, not the timing of the Spirit’s life‑giving work.
And Spirit‑indwelling at Pentecost is a covenantal upgrade — the Spirit’s new mode of presence — not the beginning of His life‑giving activity, which is why Jesus can say the Spirit “was with you and will be in you.”
In other words: Pentecost changes the form of the Spirit’s ministry, not the existence of regeneration, and the text itself forces you to keep those categories from collapsing into one event.
Your entire construction depends on treating OT_belief as a kind of proto‑regeneration that makes someone “known by God,” and then reading John 10 through that lens — but the text itself won’t let you do that, because Jesus does not define His sheep by prior covenant loyalty but by their response to His voice, which is precisely why He tells men who claim Abrahamic faith that they are not His sheep. You’re trying to make “the Father gave them to the Son” mean “they were already true OT believers,” but John 6:37 doesn’t say when the giving happens, only that the giving guarantees the coming; you’re inserting your timeline into the grammar.
Likewise, your appeal to the apostles being “given before they believed” doesn’t prove OT‑regenerate status — it proves divine initiative, which is exactly the point Jesus makes in John 17.
And your entire OT‑believer model collapses under Jesus’ own contrast: “You do not believe because you are not My sheep.”
That is not a chronological statement (“you weren’t sheep yet”), it’s an ontological one (“your unbelief reveals you never were”).
The sheep are not defined as those who already loved God; they are defined as those who will hear and follow the Shepherd, and Jesus uses that criterion to divide Israel itself.
Your broader system — OT faith gives promise, NT faith gives realization, OT saints in Hades hear the Gospel, OT believers are predestined to future union — is a theological superstructure you’re laying on top of the text, not something the text actually asserts.
Your model keeps saying “the sheep are new to the Gospel but not new to God,” but John 10 never defines sheep by prior covenant faith; it defines them by their response to the Shepherd’s voice, and Jesus uses that criterion to divide Israel itself — meaning OT belief is not the identity marker you’re trying to make it.
I never said God promised that all would be saved.
I said, based in scripture, that God has paid for all to be saved making a way for all to be saved and it's His will that all be saved.
This is taught in scripture, but the calvinites don't recognize everything the Lord says in His Word so they are clueless, irnorant, and tares
I don't associates with calvinites because they are tares
People that don't know God's Word very well would claim that since the time has come when they shall not endure sound doctrine.
Yes the calvinites and the catholics murdered a lot of people for not accepting their false doctrine.
No, I've spent a lot of time studying what the calvinites believe coming from some of their most celebrated so called "scholars" who also teach scripture twisting and lying to support their fake gospel just like their moslems buddies do
Opposing the devil's lies calls for straight talk.
The calvinites are already reprobate so no need to witness to them
The “bespoke, hybrid regeneration‑timeline system” you’ve articulated has no historical pedigree in any major Christian tradition; it’s a modern synthetic construction that emerges when someone tries to preserve both dispensational covenant discontinuity and a strong continuity of OT faith, while also insisting that regeneration, justification, union with Christ, and Spirit‑indwelling all begin only after the DRA/Pentecost.Exactly! But missing from your equation is OT faith. You have NT faith, and atheism. What about those who God knew, and knew God in the OT? Did they disappear when Jesus came in His incarnation? You will not find one Calvinist (not you) on the planet who will answer that question. What happened to true OT believers when Jesus came on the scene? The Apostles were true OT believers. Acts records many of these OT believers, John's disciples, Cornelius and household, Lydia, the three thousand, etc.. Jesus descended and preached to the OT believers already physically dead. Was OT faith still valid to save? Did they need to upgrade? Were they saved and not in Christ? Reformed people (not you) will not touch that with a ten foot pole. These OT believers were known by God too, and not yet in Christ for salvation. The only way is in Christ. God had promised it to them. There is a path that had to be taken to receive that promise. Frist, even as true OT believers, they had to hear the Gospel. Then they must believe. Then they are placed into Christ and saved. But all of that was delayed until the Holy Spirit was Given, and the DRA happened. It was promised. The sheep are the ones that promise was owed to. Those ones who were still living were the sheep who will hear and believe. God gave all those OT believers to Jesus, their promised Messiah, revealed, to be saved, that's the only way that promise is realized. As true OT believers, God loved them, He knew them, He promised to finish what He started, He promised them eternal life, they loved Him, they Knew Him, and trusted in those promises. Those promises were realized in Christ, being placed in Christ, only. All OT believers, physically dead, or still alive at that time, their promises given to them by the Father were only realized in Christ, after the death, resurrection, and ascension. God made all that happen for them. Each one was placed into Christ after they believed the Gospel, even if they were waiting in Hades for Jesus to preach the Gospel to them.
11 foot poles for sale, if it helps.
Historically, the closest relatives are
(1) older dispensationalism, which separated Israel and the Church sharply but never said OT saints were unsaved until Pentecost;
(2) certain forms of 19th–20th century revivalist theology, which emphasized “new birth” as a post‑Cross reality but still affirmed OT regeneration; and
(3) some fringe post‑mortem evangelism theories, which argued Christ preached the Gospel in Hades — but none of these systems combine into your model.
What you’ve built is essentially a unique, modern synthesis: Wow, OT saints have real faith, real relationship with God, real promises, but no salvation until they hear the Gospel (even post‑mortem), believe it, and are placed into Christ by the Spirit after Pentecost.
No church father taught this, no Reformer taught this, no dispensational theologian taught this, no covenant theologian taught this; it’s a contemporary attempt to solve the OT/NT continuity problem by inventing a third category of faith that Scripture itself never defines. Wow. So that means since you don't agree with what scripture says there is no intelligible conversation to be had here.
I know what you said. What I'm saying is that logically, if all can be Saved purely by their own choice, apart from God's help, then in theory all can be Saved. But Scriptures never indicate that.
That's a pretty unChristian response. Calvinists recognize that God is helping some to be Saved, while letting others choose to go their own way. In this scenario, it is predetermined that not all will get Saved, and that many will not get Saved.
To think that people can choose to get Saved, without God's help, is not Scriptural. And this is what's wrong with Free Will beliefs.
The truth is, if God must help some to get Saved, people who are not getting Saved are not getting help from God. No matter how ou phrase it, the Calvinists are right that God elects some, while not electing others.
I have my own way of saying it, different from how Calvinists say it. But I do understand that they are steering faith away from Pelagianism. And you do not address that in the least.
That makes you sound like a Calvinist.
You're tone does not sound much different.
That's misrepresentative and slanderous.
We should avoid carnal talk.
Good Christians show love even to their enemies.
Hi Randy. I pray all is well.
But if God has decreed everything that comes to pass, then I'm not sure how you can say that He didn't want the majority of people to be lost if He determined that all of time would unfold that way.
God's help is certainly needed to bring a lost sinner to spiritual life, and since 1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that God desires all men to be saved , I think one can reasonably conclude He does provide at least some measure of help to everybody.
But if God has decreed everything that comes to pass, then I'm not sure how you can say that He didn't want the majority of people to be lost if He determined that all of time would unfold that way.
God's help is certainly needed to bring a lost sinner to spiritual life, and since 1 Timothy 2:4 tells us that God desires all men to be saved , I think one can reasonably conclude He does provide at least some measure of help to everybody.
OMC
This “bespoke, hybrid regeneration‑timeline system”, as you call it, is the Abrahamic Covenant in promise (OT), and that promise is realized in the NC through the promised "Seed", who is Jesus, as recorded in the NT, especially Galatians 3. These two Covenants are also distinguished by time and recognized in time by the Old and New Testaments, which are by definition each a dispensation.
You are trying to add theological term baggage into the discussion that was never part of the discussion. Trying to pull me into the four hundred year old theological framework of dead Catholics full flavor vs. dead ex Catholics light, because it's familiar to you.
That was exactly what the Scribes and Pharisees told Jesus. The OT Prophets did teach of what Jesus spoke of, mostly of Himself, it's just that the Scribes and Pharisees could not see it. They appealed to Moses, to Abraham, and to all the heroes of faith, the Prophets. This was their Holy Spirit inspired church fathers, but the Scribes and Pharisees got it all wrong. Even though the church fathers you are speaking of are not Moses, or Abraham, or any of the heroes of faith written about in Hebrews, and their writing are fallible, your argument is very much like the Scribes and Pharisees was. So anyways, Scribes and Pharisees, likewise.....
Also, your use of the terms "church father" is very revealing.
I've given you many opportunities to articulate your understanding of the same Scripture that I posted in defense of my position, since you disagree with mine. You never did. All you do is deny what I write, and the Scripture that I quote, and give a song and dance with that denial. You pulled me back into the discussion, expecting good things, only to drop the same denial song and dance posts again. Perhaps this is where the Schizophrenia accusation came from. We still don't know what you believe.
Anyways, I don't believe that anything positive will come out of this discussion. You have really not offered anything but denial. So I bow out. You are correct "there is no intelligible conversation to be had here".
You’re not correcting my analysis; you’re renaming it.
Calling your model “the Abrahamic Covenant in promise” doesn’t fix the structural problem I identified — it simply reframes the same timeline:
OT saints have real faith, real relationship, real promises, but no salvation until post‑Cross union with Christ, which requires post‑mortem Gospel hearing for the dead and Pentecost‑enabled Spirit placement for the living.
That is a bespoke regeneration‑timeline system, whether you attach Galatians 3 language to it or not, because Galatians 3 never says Abraham was not yet saved, never says OT saints were not yet justified, never says union with Christ is chronologically delayed, and never says the Spirit’s life‑giving work begins at Pentecost.
You accuse me of “dead Catholic frameworks,” but I’m not appealing to church fathers as authorities — I’m pointing out that no one in 2,000 years of Christian exegesis ever read Galatians 3 the way you’re reading it, because your reading requires a third category of faith Scripture never defines: real but not saving, alive but not regenerated, known by God but not yet united to Christ.
And invoking the Pharisees doesn’t help your case; Jesus rebuked them for adding categories the text didn’t give, which is exactly the issue here.
You say I “never articulate Scripture,” but I’ve repeatedly offered to walk through John 3, Romans 4, and Hebrews 11 — the very passages your system cannot accommodate without redefining regeneration, justification, and union. If you want to bow out, that’s fine, but don’t pretend the problem is my “denial”; the problem is that your model collapses the biblical categories in ways the text itself won’t allow. If you want to test that claim directly, pick one passage — Galatians 3, Romans 4, or John 3 — and we can run it without any theological baggage at all.
That's a good question that keeps topics like this going for centuries.
The best I can say, personally, is that God had an original number in mind--call it X number of Elect. But then Man decided to go his own way and began to abuse all of the gifts God gave him, including the ability to reproduce and influence others. As a result people arose who were beyond those God originally deemed would become His Elect.
They were not originally predestined to become -X, but God certainly allowed for it in His master plan, giving people the freedom to do their own thing. Either way, God anticipated either outcome and can never be surprised by anything.
I just think God's predestined mind is compatible with unpredictable human choice. To God, either choice Man makes, A or B, remains predictable and part of His master plan, which must of necessity include any resolution to any problem or human defection.
Yes, though I consider myself at least partly a Calvinist I reject Limited Atonement. I think Christ provided equal benefits for all, meaning that all were given access to God's Grace and Salvation.
To be fair, I think Calvinists apply Limited Atonement only in the pragmatic sense. Certainly only those who will be Saved will have benefited from the Atonement of Christ.
