Clear examples of false belief in John & Epistles...?

[francisdesales]

The events that transpired in the Gospels were during a temporal (thus limited in context) transitional period when our Lord walked this earth and it does indeed have much resemblance to our experience, though different in key ways (and some even say Acts was transitional). I'm not saying it is symbol, an alegory or any other such rediculous notion but rather that the way the writers of the Gospel employed their factual presentation of the Gospel and Jesus' saving power may have been typical (having the attribute of a "type") of how God works in our life now though he is not present.

Well, first of all, Jesus Christ IS present to us today. He has taken on the form of glorified flesh, which He is able to hide from our view. However, He has ALSO called bread His Body and wine His blood. Christians have, for 2000 years, believed - with the disciples at Emmaus, that we DO recognize Jesus Christ in the breaking of the bread, the Eucharist. As a result, His visible presence remains through the sacrament.

Regarding the overall gist of your thought, though, I would generally agree. The Gospels were written for following generations to experience Christ, to experience God in the flesh. To give hope to those who believed. And to recognize that Love is the fulfillment of God's Divine Law. We can look to the Gospels and recognize our own personal struggles and God speaking to us through the Scriptures. They still do speak to us. I can understand how you could say that what Jesus did "symbolizes" what God does today to us. Certainly, that is part of the reason why He came and the Gospels were written. God's salvation is still reaching out to people, not just those of the first century.

The reason why the Gospels bear so much fruit for the Church today is because the Church recognizes within them our continued struggle to become like Christ - and God's love and mercy reaching out to those of us who follow with faith. The parables of Jesus clearly are also for us as well as those who first heard them. The hopes and joys of humanity have not changed much from 2000 years ago. The message of Christ still continues to touch our hearts.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Well, first of all, Jesus Christ IS present to us today. He has taken on the form of glorified flesh, which He is able to hide from our view. However, He has ALSO called bread His Body and wine His blood. Christians have, for 2000 years, believed - with the disciples at Emmaus, that we DO recognize Jesus Christ in the breaking of the bread, the Eucharist. As a result, His visible presence remains through the sacrament.

Regarding the overall gist of your thought, though, I would generally agree. The Gospels were written for following generations to experience Christ, to experience God in the flesh. To give hope to those who believed. And to recognize that Love is the fulfillment of God's Divine Law. We can look to the Gospels and recognize our own personal struggles and God speaking to us through the Scriptures. They still do speak to us. I can understand how you could say that what Jesus did "symbolizes" what God does today to us. Certainly, that is part of the reason why He came and the Gospels were written. God's salvation is still reaching out to people, not just those of the first century.

The reason why the Gospels bear so much fruit for the Church today is because the Church recognizes within them our continued struggle to become like Christ - and God's love and mercy reaching out to those of us who follow with faith. The parables of Jesus clearly are also for us as well as those who first heard them. The hopes and joys of humanity have not changed much from 2000 years ago. The message of Christ still continues to touch our hearts.

Regards

Thank you for the warm and sincere review Francis. And yes I know that Jesus is with us today, I merely meant not with us physically in the flesh. Remember Jesus said that he had to go away so that he could send the Helper. But now I must put the general premise of that idea I proposed to the test. Please evaluate the following:

Now when it comes to what I said in my post at the bottom of the first page: "The disciples didn't have the Spirit in the Gospels, but they had Jesus. Their walk with Jesus in the confines of the Gospel applies to us post-calvary in the Church Age as a whole, they are parallel but not completely equivalent (because we have the Spirit but not Jesus physically among us).

Can we really carry the "type" idea that far? If you haven't read my OP in my other thread thus far, please stop and do so now. The jist of the question is: why did Jesus wait to give them the promises? If this "type" interpretaion does not adequately answer the question then we must reject it as being a comprehensive reconcilliation.

Here is the test I propose: Using the "type" interpretation can we say that the disciples presevering(#1) with Jesus(#2) to the point of being rewarded (graciously given rather) the promise of the Spirit(#3), is a "type" of us being saved in the "past" sense, persevering(#1) with the Holy Spirit(#2), and for faithful perseverance we are rewarded (graciously given) the promise of salvation(#3)? If so that would parallel the Disciple's receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit, to us receiving the promise of salvation in the end.

If this is not the proper interpretation/reconcilliation then what other method of comparing the disciples to us would you suggest to explain why Jesus waited to commit the promises to the disciples? Certainly the Gospel didn't include that detail in there for nothing.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[TanNinety]

Yeah, I remeber now, we talked in my original, larger thread - would you like to continue there?

I hope you can keep track of your mother and sister threads that you have running on the relatively related topics. I will respond here and we can continue in whichever direction you want to move on. But yes, you are onto something and we need to face it and find a reconciliation. Don’t back off because others don’t seem to have found interest in the gold that you have found.

Well what I was really wondering was if the presence of the Holy Spirit post-calvary changed anything.

Here is how I see it. There was always a presence of the Holy Spirit. God is always searching, going to and fro on the earth looking for anyone who seeks Him. Pre-calvary the Spirit was not that freely seen except through some historical figures and prophets because, I believe that not many of us knew how to seek God. To resolve this God gave us His commandments for us to know how to seek Him and seek eternal life through His commandments so we are not groping in the dark trying to figure out what we need to do.
Ezekiel 18:9; Isaiah 55:3; Ezekiel 20:11 And I gave them My statutes, and shewed them My judgments, which [if] a man do, he shall even live in them.

The regeneration through the Holy Spirit wasn’t a mystery. It was readily available in the good ole old testament times through the Word of God, His commandments.
Isaiah 1:15-19 So when you spread out your hands {in prayer,} I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool . If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;
That is the Gospel, that is the Salvation already available in OT. People were still unregenerate, men twisted the commands of God to fit into their religion. The religious and the ‘wise’ made up their own false doctrines in the name of God.
Jeremiah 8:7 "Even the stork in the sky Knows her seasons; And the turtledove and the swift and the thrush Observe the time of their migration; But My people do not know the ordinance of the LORD. How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Being ‘born again’ isn’t a NT mystery, Christ expected Nicodemus to already know about it. Where? The above, keeping the commands of God. Though our sins are red as scarlet, be born again into where we are white as snow (Isaiah).

Now lets go to the parable of the tenants, where the king sent his servants one after the other to collect the fruit of the crop, who were beaten and sent back. What did the king do? Yup, sent his SON. So since men were blind to God’s Word, God sent His Word as a Son. So the Word had to become flesh, so we could see the Word for what it is. There is no confusion about the Word of God anymore. It was among us, shown without a shadow of doubt what it is to live and love God and how we should seek God and find eternal life. To say that Christ is The Word of God and yet deny that the commands of God are for old testament people and not for the new testament age is denying the Word of God, Christ Himself. There is no way to accept Christ without the Word of God, they are one and the same. But somehow we Christians have managed to deny the Word in Christ saying, “gee that’s too much workâ€Â. To think that Christ’s teachings were temporal because He was under the law is baseless especially when Christ Himself doesn’t qualify His teachings as such and even let’s us know that “until heaven and earth pass way†shall by NO MEANS one jot or tittle of the Word of God pass away or change until the Word has fulfilled its purpose. He could have easily said “until the Son of man is crucified, one jot or tittle of the Word of God shall not pass awayâ€Â, but He didn’t. He established that time as “when heaven and earth pass awayâ€Â, not “post-calvaryâ€Â.

Now, during calvary, the fullness of Holy Spirit was completely upon Yashuah. Now when Christ was crucified and went to the Father, then could He send the Holy Spirit back to us, to minister to us, to bring to our remembrance of His teachings. That is why He said it was expedient that He go away so He could send the Holy Spirit to us, not that this holy spirit wasn’t never available to us but at that time the fullness of the holy spirit was upon Him and He had to send it to us once He ascended to heaven.

I mean we really equate salvation with the regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit so I was wondering how we can bridge the lines between them (when they didn't have the Spirit) and us.

Now you should understand that I believe the regeneration of the Holy Spirit was always present, saving us through the Word of God (commandments) in the OT and saving us through the Word of God (Christ) in the NT.

Because I think the Holy Spirit gives us more power to overcome things than the disciples often had avaiable to them (Peter falling away for example - would that have happened if Peter had the Spirit in him?). Do you agree? Do you see my point?

The answer is simple.
Mark 4:25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.

Peter falling away is not because the holy spirit wasn’t with him before and was after. It depends on how much Peter yielded to the holy spirit. Remember when the disciples couldn’t heal in Matthew 7:15-20? Was it because they had any less power than before? No, it is because how much they yielded in faith to the power of the holy spirit. Certainly, Peter falling away is similar.

So the point of my post? There isn’t a change in the Word of God pre/during/post-calvary. The gospel today was the same gospel yesterday that Christ preached.
Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Now tell me, what is the ‘this gospel’ in Matthew 24:14 that Christ wanted preached unto the ends of the world? You don't have to look no further than Matthew 24:13. The endurance is required of the disciples pre-calvary and the endurance is required of us post-calvary.

 

[TanNinety]

PS: The reason why I have substituted 'law' with the 'Word of God' in my previous post is because I wanted to differentiate between the true commandments of God from the religious garbage that the religious leaders added to it. The only other advice that I would like to give is for you to evaluate the epistles based on what has been revealed in the OT and the gospels and not the other way around.

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you for the warm and sincere review Francis. And yes I know that Jesus is with us today, I merely meant not with us physically in the flesh.

Again, I remind you that He IS physically in the flesh - since the bread becomes His Flesh that we partake in. Just as the mother can say of her infant who feeds from her breast - "take and eat, this is my body - I give it to you", so Jesus does in a much more remarkable fashion - since He is God. However, I do not want to highjack your thread, so I'll just point this out and stop.

Now when it comes to what I said in my post at the bottom of the first page: "The disciples didn't have the Spirit in the Gospels, but they had Jesus. Their walk with Jesus in the confines of the Gospel applies to us post-calvary in the Church Age as a whole, they are parallel but not completely equivalent (because we have the Spirit but not Jesus physically among us).

Can we really carry the "type" idea that far? If you haven't read my OP in my other thread thus far, please stop and do so now. The jist of the question is: why did Jesus wait to give them the promises? If this "type" interpretaion does not adequately answer the question then we must reject it as being a comprehensive reconcilliation.

Interesting. Yes, I think that the Gospels are certainly examples for us TODAY. I was discussing this with a friend of mine just today. The reasons why the Gospels still possess a particular power today is that we can identify with many of the charecters within. We can picture ourselves "walking" with Jesus, "hearing" what He has to say to others, "receiving healing" from Him in our times of need. We TOO can picture the charecter of the Samaritan woman or Peter, and point to someone in our own lives who is taking a similar path.

Now, why did God wait to give the fullness of revelation? I would say because man would not handle it any quicker! I see the Scripture as a gradual revelation of who God is and our relationship with Him. It, like any other relationship, is not something that happens overnight. I think God has His own valid reasons for gradual revelation. All we can do is trust that He is correct to bring it on gradually.

With that said, though, God DOES come to men throughout the ages and has revealed Himself to them. Even pagans. If you look at comparitive religions, you will note that man does share one thing in common in this regard - a search for a relationship with that Transcendant Unknown Being. God places that desire within us - and with it, His Law (as Paul tells us in Romans 2). Thus, while God has given the Jews the written Law, He has given other men His Natural Law in their hearts - AND with it, at times, His Holy Spirit to obey God. God has touched the hearts of particular men throughout the ages - and it is the Holy Spirit who moves these men to obey that desire within them and to give God the justice that man feels he can provide to his Creator. In the end, Jesus Christ manifests this Law by His command to Love.

Yes, Christianity is the end of revelation that God has given to mankind, but man has been in contact with God from the very beginning. It is only His own good purpose that has brought the most wonderful miracle to us - God Himself incarnate.

"Oh Happy Fault that has given us such a Savior..."

As to the test you propose, I would say that salvation is not one moment in time, but rather, a new way of life. We are freed from sin - but do not take this in a legal aspect, or worse, credits vs. debits. Being freed from sin means that we are no longer enslaved to the mindset in where we desire to serve ourselves - but rather - to serve others. This is love. Thus, we, as the disciples, were being saved daily as they were being transformed into alter Christus. There is that one moment, the call, where we make a decision. However, to continue your analogy, many disciples also make that decision only to refuse to fulfill it in the end. For example, John 6. Or Judas.

Why did Jesus wait? To give us an opportunity to "see" God, since Jesus is the image of God. Through His humility and obedience, we are also urged to follow this path - and it is NOT the easy way. Nevertheless, that is how Jesus became glorified - and so must we. (cf Rom 8:17)

The Gospels are a fine "school" for us - they teach us how to become more like God. This means loving others. Being humble. Being obedient. These are not things that happen overnight. Being that God desires that man comes to Him of his own free will, and knowing that I am merely at a point in my journey to God, Christ sets the realistic stage for His disciples to follow. We go to God along the narrow path.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Thank you for the long thoughtful post TanNinty.

To think that Christ’s teachings were temporal because He was under the law is baseless especially when Christ Himself doesn’t qualify His teachings as such and even let’s us know that “until heaven and earth pass way†shall by NO MEANS one jot or tittle of the Word of God pass away or change until the Word has fulfilled its purpose. He could have easily said “until the Son of man is crucified, one jot or tittle of the Word of God shall not pass awayâ€Â, but He didn’t. He established that time as “when heaven and earth pass awayâ€Â, not “post-calvaryâ€Â.

Makes sense. I have to agree.

Now you should understand that I believe the regeneration of the Holy Spirit was always present, saving us through the Word of God (commandments) in the OT and saving us through the Word of God (Christ) in the NT.

I agree to an extent, however the Holy Spirits operations must have changed in the slightest way atleast, because we do not see the Spirit of the Lord staying with someone indefiniately in the OT except maybe with the anointed Kings, and there was no promise for a "seal" of the Holy Spirit. If endurance is still key with the Holy Spirit, then if you fail to do so how could the seal be broken? I see no where in Scripture where it suggests the seal could be broken (salvation lost). And unlike the OT personalities I don't believe that the NT believer has to plead like David, "Do not let your Holy Spirit depart from me." There is some difference and I think we may need to elaborate on this point some more.

Peter falling away is not because the holy spirit wasn’t with him before and was after. It depends on how much Peter yielded to the holy spirit. Remember when the disciples couldn’t heal in Matthew 7:15-20? Was it because they had any less power than before? No, it is because how much they yielded in faith to the power of the holy spirit. Certainly, Peter falling away is similar.

But what Peter did cannot be reproduced by us unless apostacy is commited. And we actually never are told that the Holy Spirit was with them disciples in the Gospels. Jesus conveyed to the "authority" to do miracles, however the ministry of the Spirit was not yet in effect. Jesus had to go away for that, as you said. Could you elaborate on your point here a little more?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

As to the test you propose, I would say that salvation is not one moment in time, but rather, a new way of life. We are freed from sin - but do not take this in a legal aspect, or worse, credits vs. debits. Being freed from sin means that we are no longer enslaved to the mindset in where we desire to serve ourselves - but rather - to serve others. This is love. Thus, we, as the disciples, were being saved daily as they were being transformed into alter Christus. There is that one moment, the call, where we make a decision. However, to continue your analogy, many disciples also make that decision only to refuse to fulfill it in the end. For example, John 6. Or Judas.

Well the thing is, none the the disciples who departed displayed attributes of Jesus or desire to obey him. And if salvation is a constant daily thing then what good is a constant seal of the Holy Spirit if it can be broken? I will admit that a Christian can loose his salvation if you can prove to me one thing: How a new creation, regenerated and sustained by the Holy Spirit, which is as a seal, can have the Spirit ripped away and survive? We would cease to be a new creature and our justification would be severed from us. How can the Holy Spirit depart from a believer? I see no provisions for that in Scripture.

If you have an adequate answer please give it.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Tan,

If I can ask you a few more questions about what you think about some of the differences between the disciples pre-calvary and us I would be delighted.

How can we parallel these things? :

1. The disciples tended to disbelieve Jesus often and not understand what he was saying and who he was. Only in the instance where God the Father revealed Jesus' identity to Peter and he confessed it do we see a real understanding and confession (which did not last throughout Jesus' entire ministry though). Only because God revealed it to Peter did he believe. Yet we always have the Spirit in us testifying of that. There is a difference there. The Spirit was not yet abiding.

2. The disciples weren't given the same "hope" message/doctrine we are given. The Spirit effects the source of our hope of redemption and ressurection, yet the disciples were given no such assurances. Only after they had long walked with Jesus did Jesus commit any promises to them. This is why I emphasise the difference that they had to endure first to recieve the promises of things to come (Jesus promised them the Spirit and that they would Judge the 12 tribes of Israel), while we start out with the promises. I argue the reason for the difference is that we have the Spirit and they didn't.


This is what I am trying to reconcile. Because I want to ask "Why was their experience different than ours?" And "How was their experience different than ours?" Then I must find a doctrinal reason if available.

Please evalute this if you can. Thanks.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Well the thing is, none the the disciples who departed displayed attributes of Jesus or desire to obey him. And if salvation is a constant daily thing then what good is a constant seal of the Holy Spirit if it can be broken? I will admit that a Christian can loose his salvation if you can prove to me one thing: How a new creation, regenerated and sustained by the Holy Spirit, which is as a seal, can have the Spirit ripped away and survive? We would cease to be a new creature and our justification would be severed from us. How can the Holy Spirit depart from a believer? I see no provisions for that in Scripture.

If you have an adequate answer please give it.

Check Saul, the first king of Israel, brother. The Spirit is not absolutely bound to anyone. He blows where He wills. Saying you love Jesus today doesn't mean you will tomorrow. Paul does not say that the seal is constant.

Regards

 

[mutzrein]

Jesus said that when he returned to the Father, he would ask Him to send the Spirit. Up till that time, the Spirit was WITH them but not IN them.

 

[francisdesales]

How can the Holy Spirit depart from a believer? I see no provisions for that in Scripture.

If you have an adequate answer please give it.

Josh,

Here are the pertinent Scripture verses...

And the spirit of the Lord came upon Saul, when he had heard these words, and his anger was exceedingly kindled. 1 Sam 11:6

But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him 1 Sam 16:14

There are numerous examples in the New Testament, as well, of CHRISTIANS who have fallen away, for example, I will cite just a few from ONE LETTER...

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils 1 Tim 4:1

the younger widows avoid. For when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will marry: Having damnation, because they have made void their first faith. And withal being idle they learn to go about from house to house: and are not only idle, but tattlers also, and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. 1 Tim 5:11-13

Also, Paul describes the Exodus and resultant death of the "People of God" in the desert twice to warn Christians that the SAME FATE awaits those who do not persevere - in 1 Cor 10 and Hebrews 3.

The seal of the Spirit means that GOD will not pull the rug out from under US, not that we cannot walk away from HIM!

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Check Saul, the first king of Israel, brother. The Spirit is not absolutely bound to anyone.

I'm sorry to say but that is an inadequate and wrong interpretation. That is OT. There is a big difference in what the Holy Spirit does under the New Covenant. Mutz points out the big difference:

"Jesus said that when he returned to the Father, he would ask Him to send the Spirit. Up till that time, the Spirit was WITH them but not IN them."

The closest anyone could be with the Spirit is either a temporary dwelling or manifestation. There was no "new creation" (which only comes by Christ) and the "new creation" is affected and sustained by the indwelling Holy Spirit (given to us as a seal - and who conveys eternal life to us presently). This is why I said our new man would cease to exist if the Holy Spirit departed from us, and the Bible NEVER mentions anything remotely like that as being possible.

As for your example of Saul note what I said to TanNinety on the last page:

"I agree to an extent, however the Holy Spirits operations must have changed in the slightest way atleast, because we do not see the Spirit of the Lord staying with someone indefiniately in the OT except maybe with the anointed Kings, and there was no promise for a "seal" of the Holy Spirit. If endurance is still key with the Holy Spirit, then if you fail to do so how could the seal be broken? I see no where in Scripture where it suggests the seal could be broken (salvation lost). And unlike the OT personalities I don't believe that the NT believer has to plead like David, "Do not let your Holy Spirit depart from me." There is some difference and I think we may need to elaborate on this point some more. "

This is my stance on that issue.

I look forward to your feedback.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

I'm sorry to say but that is an inadequate and wrong interpretation. That is OT. There is a big difference in what the Holy Spirit does under the New Covenant. Mutz points out the big difference:

"Jesus said that when he returned to the Father, he would ask Him to send the Spirit. Up till that time, the Spirit was WITH them but not IN them."

Sorry, brother, you are incorrect. Your theology is contradictory and I will now explain...

I am certainly not saying that the Holy Spirit works the exact same way as He did in the Old Testament. But it is clear that He WAS INDEED present to the people of Israel. Have you forgotten that man can do NOTHING without His Spirit? Are you saying that NO ONE obeyed the law of love, NO ONE was righteous in the OT? The prophets of the OT, the righteous people of the OT ALL had the Spirit ACTIVE within them. HE guided their works, just as He continues to guide our works today. Your theology IGNORES the obedient men of the OT! By saying the Spirit was not active, you are saying that MEN was the reason why they obeyed the Law! The Scriptures themselves do not make that claim - all credit is given to God - specifically, we know that it is the Spirit of God within those who have faith.

The difference between the OT and the NT regarding the Spirit is that He is made more manifest to the believer. Peter himself has said this when first receiving the Spirit in a particular manifestation called "Pentacost"...

For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day: But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Acts 2:15-21

You see, the difference is that God's Spirit will come upon ALL men, not just the Jews. He will come in power and we will RECOGNIZE His actions because we have KNOWLEDGE. And of course, this is all done in the context of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ by whom we are saved. The Spirit certainly WAS working in the Old Testament.

If you deny that, you have a lot of explaining to do on HOW men were able to obey the commandments in the OT...

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils 1 Tim 4:1

the younger widows avoid. For when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will marry: Having damnation, because they have made void their first faith. And withal being idle they learn to go about from house to house: and are not only idle, but tattlers also, and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. 1 Tim 5:11-13

This was off my original inquiry (I wasn't specifically looking for departure from faith - but rather departure of the Holy Spirit from us), however I will look over this. Thank you for providing the references.

Sorry, brother, you are incorrect. Your theology is contradictory and I will now explain...

I am certainly not saying that the Holy Spirit works the exact same way as He did in the Old Testament. But it is clear that He WAS INDEED present to the people of Israel. Have you forgotten that man can do NOTHING without His Spirit? Are you saying that NO ONE obeyed the law of love, NO ONE was righteous in the OT? The prophets of the OT, the righteous people of the OT ALL had the Spirit ACTIVE within them. HE guided their works, just as He continues to guide our works today. Your theology IGNORES the obedient men of the OT! By saying the Spirit was not active, you are saying that MEN was the reason why they obeyed the Law! The Scriptures themselves do not make that claim - all credit is given to God - specifically, we know that it is the Spirit of God within those who have faith.

The difference between the OT and the NT regarding the Spirit is that He is made more manifest to the believer. Peter himself has said this when first receiving the Spirit in a particular manifestation called "Pentacost"...

For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day: But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Acts 2:15-21

You see, the difference is that God's Spirit will come upon ALL men, not just the Jews. He will come in power and we will RECOGNIZE His actions because we have KNOWLEDGE. And of course, this is all done in the context of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ by whom we are saved. The Spirit certainly WAS working in the Old Testament.

If you deny that, you have a lot of explaining to do on HOW men were able to obey the commandments in the OT...

I didn't say that the Spirit didn't decend on people in the OT. The OT makes clear references to when that phenomenon happens - with Samson for example. And in my quote of what I said to TanNinty I acknowledged that the Spirit remained on the righteous anointed Kings during their reign. You make a strawman arguement (no offense - I'm just saying that you have made a rebuttal to an arguement that I didn't make in the first place).

I'm sorry to say but you missed the more important points in my post. The creation of a "new man" in us (a new essential nature) is different from the OT and it is sustained by the presence of the indwelling Spirit, if the Spirit departed the new creature in us would cease to exist (which doesn't seem possible), and the seal would be broken. I said very clearly that I saw no provision for that in Scripture. Please use NT examples that suggest a departure of the Holy Spirt (not a verse that you think mentions lost salvation) but a loss of the Holy Spirit (or its related topic - as presently conveyed to us daily: eternal life). If you can provide me with a proof of that then I will consider the possibility of the Holy Spirit departing from a sealed "new creation" - and consider it possible for the new man in us to die. Please do not use the OT examples as they are not what I am looking at at the moment. I would agree with everything you do about the opertations of the Spirit in the OT. What we would disagree on is the operations of the Spirit in the NT.

Please concentrate on this area of my post: "There was no "new creation" [in the OT] (which only comes by Christ) and the "new creation" is affected and sustained by the indwelling Holy Spirit (given to us as a seal - and who conveys eternal life to us presently). This is why I said our new man would cease to exist if the Holy Spirit departed from us."

This is where I would like to focus. Thanks for understanding.


God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

I didn't say that the Spirit didn't decend on people in the OT. The OT makes clear references to when that phenomenon happens - with Samson for example. And in my quote of what I said to TanNinty I acknowledged that the Spirit remained on the righteous anointed Kings during their reign. You make a strawman arguement (no offense - I'm just saying that you have made a rebuttal to an arguement that I didn't make in the first place)

I'm sorry to say but you missed the more important points in my post. The creation of a "new man" in us (a new essential nature) is different from the OT and it is sustained by the presence of the indwelling Spirit, if the Spirit departed the new creature in us would cease to exist (which doesn't seem possible), and the seal would be broken. I said very clearly that I saw no provision for that in Scripture. Please use NT examples that suggest a departure of the Holy Spirt

Are you now suggesting that WE bring faith within ourselves???

While you dismiss my quotes from 1 Timothy and call it a strawman argument, clearly, then, you must believe that faith comes from within and from the person alone. I as a Catholic have been taught, in compliance with the Scriptures, that faith comes from the Spirit. Thus, IF faith is no longer within a person, it is presumed that the Spirit no longer is within that person. Again, these are verses from the NT and in reference to "the new creation" as if that makes a difference. What is clear is that people who were "saved" had lost the faith - have lost the Holy Spirit within them.

Again, unless you believe that man provides faith without the Spirit...

People fall away from the faith. Whether they were a "new creation" or not. It is clear that man has free will and that God does not ram faith down our throats. We should be aware that faith comes from above, but faith, being a gift, is something that can leave us as well BECAUSE of our refusal to accept the gift. Human experience and the Scriptures show this to be true. Your arguments, again, do not take this into account, leading to a contradictory theology.

As to "salvation not being discussed", that is not true, as salvation is not something that occurs once in our lives and never happens again. Scriptures clearly talk about salvation being an ongoing process - of being saved, will be saved, and have been saved. Thus, any talk about losing faith is talk about losing salvation - since NO ONE will be saved without faith!!!

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

Well said francisdesales, well said.

May Christ continue to be a light in your life.

S.B.

 

[TanNinety]

cybershark - Just dropped in to say that I haven't abandoned this thread. I have your pertinent questions copied and am just giving it some critical thought. I haven't made up my mind regarding these issues, so like you I will have to take it one step at a time.

 

[cyberjosh]

While you dismiss my quotes from 1 Timothy and call it a strawman argument, clearly, then, you must believe that faith comes from within and from the person alone. I as a Catholic have been taught, in compliance with the Scriptures, that faith comes from the Spirit. Thus, IF faith is no longer within a person, it is presumed that the Spirit no longer is within that person. Again, these are verses from the NT and in reference to "the new creation" as if that makes a difference. What is clear is that people who were "saved" had lost the faith - have lost the Holy Spirit within them.

Again, unless you believe that man provides faith without the Spirit...

People fall away from the faith. Whether they were a "new creation" or not. It is clear that man has free will and that God does not ram faith down our throats. We should be aware that faith comes from above, but faith, being a gift, is something that can leave us as well BECAUSE of our refusal to accept the gift. Human experience and the Scriptures show this to be true. Your arguments, again, do not take this into account, leading to a contradictory theology.

As to "salvation not being discussed", that is not true, as salvation is not something that occurs once in our lives and never happens again. Scriptures clearly talk about salvation being an ongoing process - of being saved, will be saved, and have been saved. Thus, any talk about losing faith is talk about losing salvation - since NO ONE will be saved without faith!!!

I just knew I should have put those two quotes in different posts in order to avoid confusion. Too late I guess. You mixed up what I said. I did not dismiss your arguement, I clearly said "I will look over this' and said 'Thank you'. This is far from a dismissal. Secondly, I did not call your 1 Timothy verses a strawman arguement. Go back and look I mentioned Timothy and the 'strawman arguement' under two different quotes.

As for 1st Timothy I said I would look over it, but in the mean time wanted to see if you could provide any references specifically to losing the Spirit or eternal life.

THEN I answered the second quote and said that you saying that I disregarded the movement of the Spirit in the OT was the 'strawman arguement' (because you were mistaken - I did not disregard the Spirit in the OT - and I tried being polite when pointing that out to you). And I didn't even mention Timothy in connection with the 'strawman arguement'. So please don't jump to conclusions. And you still have not answered my specific request to show me how the new creation in us could have the Holy Spirit divorced from us. The Bible doesn't mention that the new creation in us can die once it has been created. There is no explicit reference of that being possible. I'm not forcing you to try to accept any one view right now. I'm simply stating that I don't see anything to support that happening as EXPLICITY stated in the text. If there are no verses that are close to saying anything about loosing eternal life or the Spirit you can just simply and politely say "No Josh, I do not see any verses that say that explicitly, however I believe that this concept can still be espoused because of such & such...' (and then give your arguement). That might be a simpler approach.

Please go back and adequately answer my points/questions under the second quote please. And obviously faith is not possible without the Spirit - thus once again you have (accidentally I presume) misunderstood my arguement and made yet another unnecessary arguement by not evaluating my posts very closely. I'm saying this not to be smart but so that no more of these misunderstandings happen. Please, if you can, address my very specific requests for proof. If you can find none then I would appreciate it if you could address it in a way similar to the polite formula I gave above in bold.

Thanks.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

To make my immediate concerns very clear right now I want to see as much as possible on what the Bible says about the effects of a person's deeds internally (involving the Holy Spirit, eternal life) before we look at the external signs and make a judgement on the interal that caused the external signs. We'll work our way down there. But I don't want to mistakenly judge an external sign presumptuously and pretend that I know what happened to them on the inside with out knowing what is possible on the inside. In other words we are defining our terms before we use them in our English paper (so-to-speak), so that we can use them correctly and within the proper bounds.

 

[francisdesales]

I just knew I should have put those two quotes in different posts in order to avoid confusion. Too late I guess. You mixed up what I said. I did not dismiss your arguement, I clearly said "I will look over this' and said 'Thank you'. This is far from a dismissal. Secondly, I did not call your 1 Timothy verses a strawman arguement. Go back and look I mentioned Timothy and the 'strawman arguement' under two different quotes.

Let's try again. Perhaps you may then understand what I am trying to stay...

First of all, I would like you to answer me HOW did the people of the Old Testament act in faith towards God? HOW were these people able to have faith in God? And isn't it clear that these people sometimes LOSE their faith in God? Isn't it clear that if they turn to evil, then God will judge them accordingly? You are not making the very real connection between the Spirit's movement in the OT, made more manifest in the NT.

My argument is that the "new creation" was being built even within the confines of the OT. There can be no other explanation than the Holy Spirit who, with Wisdom personified, acted even before He became flesh.

First, NO ONE can come to God without faith. How do we come to have faith? Through the Word and the Spirit. Was this a phenomemum only of the NT? NO! And within the Sacred Scriptures, we find a number of texts that show that men LOSE this faith in God. The result of lose of this faith leads to their inevitable doom - unless they repent. This is VERY clear in the writings of the OT. God worked in a hidden manner in the OT, but He certainly WAS working. His Spirit came upon men and women. His Word came to abide in men and women. If He didn't, then HOW were there any righteous in the OT?

That is my question to you. It is not a straw man arguement. It is very much on topic, as it discusses the idea of "new creation" - a conversion that occured within men and women even within the OT! This conversion can ONLY be a result of God. If you can explain this away, I would like to hear HOW ANYONE can do anything good without our Lord and Savior abiding within them.

True, we have the Word become flesh. We have the teachings of Christ, the fulfillment of the Law. We have the hope of the Resurrection. We place our faith in the PERSON of Jesus Christ, whom we believe is God. However, do NOT forget that the WORD of God was ACTIVE in the people of the OT. They wrote about Him, God's Word and Wisdom personified. They wrote about God's Spirit coming to REST upon people. And they also realized that God's Spirit could LEAVE a man who refused the gifts of faith. God's teachings were present to the Jews.

Consider the conversation of Jesus to Nicodemus. Jesus EXPECTS Nicodemus to ALREADY KNOW about being born from above! The Jews should already KNOW about the workings of God - in incomplete form, perhaps, but they are AWARE that God's Spirit provides Faith. This idea that the Spirit was sleeping until Pentacost is not shown by the writings of the Scriptures. Your attempts to make the "new creation" a New Testament phenomenum ONLY is false. And that is my point - it is NOT a straw man argument.

Regards