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

[cyberjosh]

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.

Thank you for putting your arguement much clearer this time. Now I understand what you are getting at. First off you are right alot in what you say, and I agree with much of it. And I did not ever intend to imply that the Holy Spirit was dormant before Pentecost, because that is clearly not the case.

Let me However point out a few things which I would greatly appreciate you explaining if possible about the difference in what you would call a "new creation" in the OT and how it is presented in the NT. I suppose you could say that God started making a "new creation" in the people of the OT if you can compare it to God's OT promises of giving a "new heart". Let me though try to work out some differences & similariities I see in parallel and see what you think about it.

OT || NT
1. Spirit affects the creation of a new heart || Spirit affects the new creation

2. If the Spirit left, the state of the new heart degenerated || No known explicit parallel in NT

3. 'New heart' was dependant on the HS it yet had no promise for long-term effects (permanance) or definate standing before God || Our new creation has a long-standing positional sanctification before God

4. OT saw no promise of a "seal" || NT has promise of the Spirit as a seal (thus we get to remain in our "new creation" since the HS does not depart - unlike OT examples)

Note also that Jesus is called the "firstborn among many" and the following "firstfruits" did not happen until Jesus' sacrifice, ressurection, and ascention. You cannot be "firstfruits" if those before in the OT expereienced the same "new creation". Also at Hebrews 9:15 we read: "So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for their release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance." There was no such promise under the old covenant given immediately to individuals (even though OT prophecies predicted its future dispensation).

Here is the only problem I have in my "sanctified imagination" though (something I have a hard time visualizing): a "heart" is something we've always had, whether good or bad. However the NT is explicit that we have a "new creation" (not out of our old nature - for the remnanats of the old nature still exist) but it seems to have been created ex nihilo. So I don't see the "new creation" as a "state" of our spirit that can change from good to bad and back again like our "heart" can. What am I missing here, if anything? What is your view? (Take note also that I see soul and spirit as two different things).

 

[TanNinety]

EDIT: I just saw your reply to Joe after I did a post, so ignore the points I have raised if you already addressed them in your reply.

Quick reply - Before we all go in circles I think the issue here is that Josh is banking on the fact that the holy spirit was with the saints in OT and the holy spirit is within the saints in NT. The difference being the spirit being upon then and in them.

Similar to what I have tried to demonstrate in my post, I see that francisdesales is going along the same reasoning. Being born from above is not an NT mystery. Nicodemus should have already known about it from the OT in the OT times. Now the question is, if this "seal of the holy spirit" indwelling is a NT revelation then why was Christ critical of Nicodemus' ignorance regarding this issue?

Josh, you are isolating the "new creation" in Christ to the NT and this is what francis is taking an issue with. The same process of "new creation" was available in the OT in the Word of God before it became flesh. The work of the holy spirit has always been the same - regeneration through the indwelling of. The means by which it is accomplished has changed from the OT to NT. The Word of God - Commandments in the OT and The Word of God - Christ in the NT.

You are hinging your questions on the assumption that the seal of the holy spirit indwelling in the believer is NT phenomenon only and there wasn't a believer in the OT with whom the holy spirit indwelt. You should reconcile this with Christ telling Nicodemus that he should have already known about being born from above (new creation). Then we can move on to your other questions. Until then it will seem as if we are all burning strawmen.

 

[Guest]

I would suggest that the ministry of the Holy Spirit during the Old Testament times was not available to all, as it has been revealed in the NT.

After Christ's ascenssion is when the Holy Spirit came to rest on ALL believers as promised by Christ that the comforter would come.

I do not believe that the Old Testament teaches being "born again". Rather the OT points to the Cross of Christ.

 

[TanNinety]

If endurance is still key with the Holy Spirit, then if you fail to do so how could the seal be broken?

Let me quote Matthew again,
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.

What is the time frame till when the gospel of endurance is preached? “And then shall the end comeâ€Â, meaning until the end of times (not until Calvary or not until Pentecost but till the end). Now we are assuming that the ‘seal of the holy spirit’ somehow guarantees that it is the holy spirit’s responsibility to make sure that we do endure. But reading Matthew 24:13 it is evident that “he that shall endure†meaning there is no such guarantee is being given that the holy spirit will enforce the endurance but it is up to the believer to continue in endurance. Else shouldn’t it make sense for the eternal gospel that is being preached unto ALL nations without reservations till the end read, “He that shall have the indwelling of holy spirit is saved and shall endure till the endâ€Â? Isn’t that the conclusion we are ‘desiring’ to reconcile and come to contrary to what Christ taught the gospel is?

In light of the above scriptures how can we shift the responsibility of the endurance onto the seal of the holy spirit and say it cannot be broken? And yup, I am scratching my head with you. Hopefully we will find a reconciliation.

 

[cyberjosh]

What is the time frame till when the gospel of endurance is preached? “And then shall the end comeâ€Â, meaning until the end of times (not until Calvary or not until Pentecost but till the end). Now we are assuming that the ‘seal of the holy spirit’ somehow guarantees that it is the holy spirit’s responsibility to make sure that we do endure. But reading Matthew 24:13 it is evident that “he that shall endure†meaning there is no such guarantee is being given that the holy spirit will enforce the endurance but it is up to the believer to continue in endurance. Else shouldn’t it make sense for the eternal gospel that is being preached unto ALL nations without reservations till the end read, “He that shall have the indwelling of holy spirit is saved and shall endure till the endâ€Â? Isn’t that the conclusion we are ‘desiring’ to reconcile and come to contrary to what Christ taught the gospel is?

I agree with what you are saying, but that is no longer the argument I am pursuing. It is evident that the "endure to the end" command is still in effect. Now I have moved past that and am now examining the internal effects of the Holy Spirit (and then will apply it eventually to the broader perspective).

Now, I saw your last post (and your Edit) and I would enjoy seeing you also reply to my last post on the points I presented to francis. If you can clear up the differences for me then we can start agreeing on alot more and refine the arguement.

P.S. Please also notice my "firstfruits" point in my last post above.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Let me However point out a few things which I would greatly appreciate you explaining if possible about the difference in what you would call a "new creation" in the OT and how it is presented in the NT. I suppose you could say that God started making a "new creation" in the people of the OT if you can compare it to God's OT promises of giving a "new heart". Let me though try to work out some differences & similariities I see in parallel and see what you think about it.

OT || NT
1. Spirit affects the creation of a new heart || Spirit affects the new creation

I am not certain on the distinction you make here. The creation of a new heart, to me, means the same thing as a new creation in Paul's mind, in my opinion. As Jesus said, it is from our heart that good or evil comes. The Spirit renews this "heart" when He comes in and makes His dwelling among us. As I said before, the Spirit certainly did this before the NT times. However, He did so in a very intermittent manner. I will dwell on this shortly.

2. If the Spirit left, the state of the new heart degenerated || No known explicit parallel in NT

I disagree. The NT has a number of parallels that compare the wicked and the just. Certainly, you don't think that the Spirit will remain active in a person who has rejected God, do you?

Here are some of the many verses that are in continuity with the OT verse that I will list below...

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Ez 18:23-24

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Heb 10:26-27

For if after they [Christians who follow heretics] have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 2 Peter 2:20

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Rev 3:5

[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]: If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us: Titus 2:11-12

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9-10

That should be enough. The Bible is full of exhortations to Christians to persevere until the end. Your theology is based on the interpretation of ONE VERSE - that the Holy Spirit CANNOT leave us based upon the "seal" left on us. That is false, because the People of God, Israel, were ALSO "sealed" - they were God's chosen people - and yet...

I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 1 Cor 10:1-6

Clearly, the Spirit can leave us just as He left Saul of the Old Testament - and for the exact same reasons...

3. 'New heart' was dependant on the HS it yet had no promise for long-term effects (permanance) or definate standing before God || Our new creation has a long-standing positional sanctification before God

Again, I disagree. Would you argue that the prophets had a "permanent effect" upon them? Did they fall away? The Holy Spirit came upon them and remained. Who is our father in faith? Abraham. Did his faith falter? Why not? Because of his OWN works? Or his works in the Word and Spirit, sent by the Father?

4. OT saw no promise of a "seal" || NT has promise of the Spirit as a seal (thus we get to remain in our "new creation" since the HS does not depart - unlike OT examples)

I have addressed that fallacy already. The "seal" does not indicate that the child will be saved. Yes, the child will ALWAYS remain a child. Once circumcised, the man was sealed - part of the Covenant with God. It was a physical sign, a seal ordered by God onto all Jews. But did this "seal" prevent many children of God from falling in the desert, falling into worship of idols?

No, we are indeed and will always be "children of God" because of the seal of the Holy Spirit given to us at Baptism. However, this does not mean that that seal keeps us from sin or that this seal will save us for the Kingdom of heaven no matter what we do in the future. Paul is adamant about that, as is the rest of Scriptures. The theme of perseverance is written in practically every book of the NT!

Note also that Jesus is called the "firstborn among many" and the following "firstfruits" did not happen until Jesus' sacrifice, ressurection, and ascention. You cannot be "firstfruits" if those before in the OT expereienced the same "new creation". Also at Hebrews 9:15 we read: "So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for their release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant, the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance." There was no such promise under the old covenant given immediately to individuals (even though OT prophecies predicted its future dispensation).

We believe that God did come to the Jews. We believe that God alone instills faith. And if we say (with the Letter to the Hebrews) that Abraham is our father in faith, then we must also say that the Holy Spirit was active in Abraham. Thus, we know that Jesus was not the "firstfruits" in THAT aspect. However, we also believe that Abraham did NOT enter into heaven upon his death. Thus, the Creed details "and He (Jesus) descended into Hell (Hades)". The purpose of this was to free the OT righteous and bring them into heaven. Thus, Jesus WAS the first fruits in this aspect - the first man to enter into heaven. We could say a lot more about this "first fruits" aspect, but suffice to say that it cannot mean that Jesus was the first man to receive the Spirit.

Another point to make - on the difference between the Old and New Testament action of the Spirit is that the OT sacraments - opitimized by circumcision, were merely signs that pointed to the reality.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col 2:11-12

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Cor 7:19

And thus, we can say with Paul that men who have the Holy Spirit are

... a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God. Rom 2:29

Thus, circumcision is MERELY an external sign of the Old Covenant. But as you are no doubt aware, this sign did not enable the bearer to actually obey the Commandments. It is the Spirit received during Baptism that allows us to obey the commands - even Jesus' Law of Love given in Matthew 5-7.

Here is the only problem I have in my "sanctified imagination" though (something I have a hard time visualizing): a "heart" is something we've always had, whether good or bad. However the NT is explicit that we have a "new creation" (not out of our old nature - for the remnanats of the old nature still exist) but it seems to have been created ex nihilo. So I don't see the "new creation" as a "state" of our spirit that can change from good to bad and back again like our "heart" can. What am I missing here, if anything? What is your view? (Take note also that I see soul and spirit as two different things).

I believe you might be trying to take the analogy a bit too far. The Spirit places within us the desire to do good and to please God. The desire to obey the Law in love. The desire to do ANYTHING good. This desire stems from our hearts that have been changed. We have been transformed. We have put on the minds of Christ. Our value systems have now changed. So yes, our hearts have changed - if we define hearts in the biblical sense as the will in today's definition.

Again, the OT people received the Law - a divine pedagogue to lead the people towards God. But the Law was powerless to save man deprived of the divine "likeness", along with the growing awareness of sin that it gives to us (Rom 3:20). This brings about a desire for God's Spirit, as even the Lamentation Psalms clearly show.

This Spirit is given more completely and manifestly to the entire people of God with the New Covenant. Now, the sign of entering into the Covenant, Baptism, comes with the reception of the Holy Spirit, unlike those receiving circumcision. Thus, the Spirit in the NT is more manifest, more active, and less intermittent with God's People. However, His presence was hidden in the Promise and the Law.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Now that's the kinda post I'm looking for! Thanks for the sheer meat of that text - allow me some time to chew on it before I reply. You finally gave me a type of parallel I was looking for (to work with): the "seal" with circumcision. I had never thought to parallel those two things, I will indeed look over this.

This whole time I haven't been trying to espouse a particular view rather than argueing from that view to force an adequate response from the opposite position (in other words playing the views off of one another to reach a conclusion). It looks like we are finally getting some progress on that front. Give me some time to mull over this and I will get back to you. This is the type of in-depth & thoughtful response I've been looking for since post #1. Thanks again.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[TanNinety]

OT || NT
1. Spirit affects the creation of a new heart || Spirit affects the new creation

Matthew 15:17-20 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.
Since there is no evidence of a ‘physical’ new creation (demonstrably true) we can take this new creation in the sense of a cleansing of inside of a man. Now, you have differentiated that in the OT there only a new heart and in the NT there is an entire new creation. What I get from the above Matthew passage is that it is the new heart that matters in the new creation. It is the heart that defiles so it is the heart of a man that needs regeneration. So OT’s new heart and NT’s new creation are one and the same to me just being described with two different words.


2. If the Spirit left, the state of the new heart degenerated || No known explicit parallel in NT

I am going to use Paul here because you are trying to reconcile these epistles in the broader picture.
Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore to repentance those who were once enlightened-those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come- and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people to repentance again because they are nailing the Son of God to the cross again by rejecting him, holding him up to public shame.

Those who have shared in the holy spirit i.e., that have received the indwelling holy spirit like you call it are the ones “who then turn away from Godâ€Â. If it wasn’t possible for a believer to break the seal of the holy spirit how then can they turn away from God and it be impossible for them to restore to repentance if the holy spirit hasn’t departed from them?

1 Corinthians 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Now, did Paul receive the indwelling of the holy spirit at this point? Then how can he be castaway if this seal is unconditional and cannot be broken?

More examples would be 2 Peter 2:20-22; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.


3. 'New heart' was dependant on the HS it yet had no promise for long-term effects (permanance) or definate standing before God || Our new creation has a long-standing positional sanctification before God.

4. OT saw no promise of a "seal" || NT has promise of the Spirit as a seal (thus we get to remain in our "new creation" since the HS does not depart - unlike OT examples)

Again points 3 and 4 assume the seal cannot be broken. Refer to my examples to your point 2 and see if they apply. They are talking about people who have part taken in the NT holy spirit.

Note also that Jesus is called the "firstborn among many" and the following "firstfruits" did not happen until Jesus' sacrifice, ressurection, and ascention.

There are couple of points we need to consider here.
Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The lamb being slain from the foundation of the world enables the saints in the OT to be a new creation by the Word of God just as we are enabled through Christ to be a new creation. You cannot separate Christ the resurrection from the OT people in light of Revelation 13:8.

Also, 1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Christ was the first fruits of them that slept, meaning He is the first fruits of resurrection not necessarily ‘new creation’ which was already available for OT believers. The work of the ‘new creation’ is perfected in resurrection. Until then we are all called to endure.

I’ll end it here so you can peruse the material and I can rework things if I have anything wrong or insufficient.

 

[TanNinety]

I just read francis' reply and I must say it is as though I was reading my own except he did a fantastic job on paralleling the seal of the spirit with circumcision. This at least confirms personally to me that I am on the right track.

 

[francisdesales]

Now that's the kinda post I'm looking for! Thanks for the sheer meat of that text - allow me some time to chew on it before I reply. You finally gave me a type of parallel I was looking for (to work with): the "seal" with circumcision. I had never thought to parallel those two things, I will indeed look over this.

This whole time I haven't been trying to espouse a particular view rather than argueing from that view to force an adequate response from the opposite position (in other words playing the views off of one another to reach a conclusion). It looks like we are finally getting some progress on that front. Give me some time to mull over this and I will get back to you. This is the type of in-depth & thoughtful response I've been looking for since post #1. Thanks again.

God Bless,

Josh,

I am glad you are happy with the response. Please do not expect such "meat" from all my posts, as I often am busy. However, I was on a roll!

St Augustine taught that the "sacraments" of the OT were signs but not effective in the manner that the New Covenant sacraments are - since the Holy Spirit is actually effective in Baptism or the Eucharist. This was not the case in the Old Covenant - Paul says circumcision did not enable man to obey the commandments - only Love does that (Love = God in 1 John)

Regards,

Joe

 

[francisdesales]

I just read francis' reply and I must say it is as though I was reading my own except he did a fantastic job on paralleling the seal of the spirit with circumcision. This at least confirms personally to me that I am on the right track.

LOL!

Or that we at least think alike!

After reading your post, I can see we see things the same way regarding this "new creation/new heart" made by the Spirit. I think when we step back and view the Bible as the entire revelation of God - that the OT and the NT CANNOT contradict, then we must conclude what the two of us have written. God was working even in the OT - perhaps in a hidden and incomplete manner - but just the same, God's graces (the Spirit) came upon His people to enable them to have faith and love. We must believe that God did not demand salvation one way in the first Covenant, and then totally change it in the New Covenant. The New Covenant FULFILLED the Old - not totally changed it and its meaning.

Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

You guys have to remember that there is no forgivness without the blood, and this also applies in the Old Covenant. They sacrificed animals then. Then in the new, Jesus is called the perfect sacrifice. I believe in you check out the Torah, you will find out how the Jews were saved then. God talked to Moses directly. The only time the Holy Spirit would come upon an old testament saint, is for prophesy. It was temporary.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

You guys have to remember that there is no forgivness without the blood, and this also applies in the Old Covenant. They sacrificed animals then. Then in the new, Jesus is called the perfect sacrifice. I believe in you check out the Torah, you will find out how the Jews were saved then. God talked to Moses directly. The only time the Holy Spirit would come upon an old testament saint, is for prophesy. It was temporary.



May God bless, Golfjack

Golfjack,

Knowing that you came late to this conversation, I will ask you a question... HOW was Abraham our father in faith? By his own abilities? Or is faith something given from above? Do you believe that you or anyone else believes in God on their own?

The Holy Spirit was active in the OT in a hidden way. Now with the New Covenant, the Spirit has been given in a more manifest and universal manner among the Church.

Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

Circumsion in the Bible means the Old Law. Uncircumision means the Law of Love.

That brings us to the question who is Jew and what is a true Israelite? We must start with Abraham. Paul's prime exammple of a true Israelite was Abraham. Abraham was not saved by circumsion, because he was declared to be righteous before God in Gen. 15:6, which was years before his circumcision. Abraham was not saved by keeping the Law, because the Law was not given until the time of Moses, which was four hundred years after Abraham's time.

How did Abraham become a true Israelite? It was by faith, not works, as indicated in Gen. 15:6: And he ( Abraham) believed in the Lord ( faith), and He ( the Lord) counted it to him ( Abraham) for righteousness ( right standing with God).



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[cyberjosh]

Francis I am still looking into what you said about the seal & circumcision, and I hope to address that soon but for now I will operate in light of what you said and ask some more specific questions. I would like to use some things TanNinety said to bring up my points/questions.

Matthew 15:17-20 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.
Since there is no evidence of a ‘physical’ new creation (demonstrably true) we can take this new creation in the sense of a cleansing of inside of a man. Now, you have differentiated that in the OT there only a new heart and in the NT there is an entire new creation. What I get from the above Matthew passage is that it is the new heart that matters in the new creation. It is the heart that defiles so it is the heart of a man that needs regeneration. So OT’s new heart and NT’s new creation are one and the same to me just being described with two different words.

Alot of what you said is true but we must clarify a difference between the OT and NT view of defilement and righteousness. There are no ritual defilements in the NT so-to-speak. We are defiled when we sin but in the OT the entire person was considered defiled until it was cleansed. But us with the Holy Spirit in us are not defiled in our inner man when we sin, but rather as Paul says "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells". If we (the NT people) sin we have an advocate and Jesus will cleanse us from all unrighteousness (cleanse our soul from defilement - however I believe our "new man" remains untouched & undefiled since it is the nature from God constantly upheld by the Holy Spirit) while in the OT there was no such division (sin could not be accounted to the "flesh's" account) and the entire person was defiled (even David defiled himself with blood - thus not able to build the Temple). So how do we tie this OT way of accounting defilement with the clearly different way of accounting it in the NT. Paul said "It is no longer I who do it" (not absolving himself from responsibility - but rather pointing out the origin of the defilement).

The lamb being slain from the foundation of the world enables the saints in the OT to be a new creation by the Word of God just as we are enabled through Christ to be a new creation. You cannot separate Christ the resurrection from the OT people in light of Revelation 13:8.

The work of the ‘new creation’ is perfected in resurrection.

Well we cannot say the OT people had access to the full consequences of the sacrifice from the beginning of the world or Jesus would not have had to come in flesh at all. They were under a different "Dispensational Period" than us in the NT era. The redemption effects were not "complete" in the the OT, while in the NT we have "completeness" in Christ (Colossians 2:9). So it would be a fallacy to say that they had all the same operations of justification, imputation, and redemption that we have. They were in a preparatory period and God promised wholesale, nationwide aquittal and redemption, while the focus in the NT is largely a fulfillment of God's future promise to "dwell in them, and walk among them, and He will be their God, and they shall be His people". I don't think anybody in the OT had the promise of being saved "to the uttermost". Not until Jesus went to Paradise during his 3 days in the grave and revealed himself to them and took them with him in the ascension did he relay the full realization and fulfillment of the promises to them, while we currently live in light of the full and complete work of Jesus, once and forever commited to the saints (Jude 3).

Please try to elaborate on these very important points so that we can continue to have fruitful discussion. Thanks.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

Circumsion in the Bible means the Old Law. Uncircumision means the Law of Love.

That brings us to the question who is Jew and what is a true Israelite? We must start with Abraham. Paul's prime exammple of a true Israelite was Abraham. Abraham was not saved by circumsion, because he was declared to be righteous before God in Gen. 15:6, which was years before his circumcision. Abraham was not saved by keeping the Law, because the Law was not given until the time of Moses, which was four hundred years after Abraham's time.

How did Abraham become a true Israelite? It was by faith, not works, as indicated in Gen. 15:6: And he ( Abraham) believed in the Lord ( faith), and He ( the Lord) counted it to him ( Abraham) for righteousness ( right standing with God).



May God bless, Golfjack

Golfjack,

You missed my question.

How did Abraham become justified? By his OWN faith, or by the faith instilled in him? Do we become justified by ANYTHING that we do without God?

I will presume that you will answer "No".

Thus, we can say that Abraham's faith was a result of him IN the Spirit. He cannot have obeyed God unless the Spirit dwelled in Him - Jesus Himself said that we can do no good unless He abides in us.

Regards

 

[stranger]

. . . God was working even in the OT - perhaps in a hidden and incomplete manner - but just the same, God's graces (the Spirit) came upon His people to enable them to have faith and love. We must believe that God did not demand salvation one way in the first Covenant, and then totally change it in the New Covenant. The New Covenant FULFILLED the Old - not totally changed it and its meaning.

Regards

Hi Francis,

My thought here about God working even in the OT perhaps in a hidden and incomplete manner is this: perhaps in the OT the working of God was the same as in the NT but revealed in an incomplete manner.

 

[SpiritualSon]

Re: reply

Golfjack,

You missed my question.

How did Abraham become justified? By his OWN faith, or by the faith instilled in him? Do we become justified by ANYTHING that we do without God?

I will presume that you will answer "No".

Thus, we can say that Abraham's faith was a result of him IN the Spirit. He cannot have obeyed God unless the Spirit dwelled in Him - Jesus Himself said that we can do no good unless He abides in us.

Regards

True faith is from the Lord, not from ourselves or from others and the church, unless it is from God. Man can receive nothing except it be given from heaven (John 3:27).

Harry :fadein:

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

True faith is from the Lord, not from ourselves or from others and the church, unless it is from God. Man can receive nothing except it be given from heaven (John 3:27).

Harry :fadein:

That goes without saying. What you have forgotten is that God has ALWAYS given knowledge of Himself through OTHER men... The vast majority of us receive our faith in God through other events or things or people or books.

To say that God comes to us without the Church and without others is to totally ignore God's salvation plan described throughout the pages of the Scriptures.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Hi Francis,

My thought here about God working even in the OT perhaps in a hidden and incomplete manner is this: perhaps in the OT the working of God was the same as in the NT but revealed in an incomplete manner.

Stranger,


That is my opinion from reading the Scriptures and meditating on the big picture. God was ALWAYS a Trinity. God was ALWAYS three Persons. God ALWAYS worked through His Wisdom and His Spirit to effect His will upon creation. However, as Paul says, only in "these" recent times has God revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. We see a gradual revelation of God's ways on many subjects - such as on the question of evil or on the idea that individuals are responsible for their own sins, and so forth.

Regards