God's Conditional Grace

[ivdavid]

You can quote Romans 8 til the cows arrive ivdavid.. it says absolutely NOTHING AT ALL concerning WHEN the Lord gave us the SPIRIT of God in this earthen vessel.... WHEN regeneration takes place in the believer ACCORDING to the scriptures..

Straw man fallacy? Have you missed this part of my previous post?

ivdavid - Do you think I'm trying to position my "regeneration - man in the flesh being birthed in the spirit" at the cost of denying your "regeneration - sealing of the Spirit"? I consider the two to be separate events - neither in contradiction with the other. Why do you then pit them against each other? (And let us both refrain from using the term 'regeneration' in this discussion since we don't refer to the same thing by it - let's discuss it as the "final sealing of the Spirit" and "man in the flesh being born in the spirit", even if you might not distinguish between the two.)

So obviously Rom 8:7-9 does not say anything about when we are sealed with the Spirit - that's not why I cited it - it's meant to show when we are no longer in the flesh but in the spirit. Do you hold the two to be the same? If so, you'll have to deal with engaging my argument on this to distinguish between the two.

I went to at least a dozen reformed sites to see if they actually say when regeneration takes place.. and I couldn't find a single reference to that.. amazing isn't it..

Cherry picking fallacy? Why do you take the pains to bolster such numbers on your side as evidence when they suit you and when they don't, declare that "It doesn't matter WHO says it... it's just another man's commentary on the matter." ? I don't engage on such tactics, but to merely show the inconclusiveness of such an approach, here's one site that I pulled off the top of my google search.

All I'd say is that you spare all this effort and instead engage the Scriptural argument here in Rom 8:7-9 - when, according to you, is man no longer in the flesh but in the spirit - after having faith or before? And if after, engage my previously stated argument to proceed in this discussion.

 

[ivdavid]

SO perhaps you can tell me how Abraham (or any OT saint justified by faith) was regenerated, if the SPIRIT had not yet been given ?

Skipping over the 'regeneration' term here, I'd like to deal with this new belief that the Holy Spirit had not been given to the OT saints. Is Psalms 51:11 to be understood in a different way?

How about amillennialism.. it appears that ~90% of Calvinists also embrace that eschatology..

I'm not keen on discussing eschatology. But simply from your statement - is amillennialism a Calvinist doctrine? Then the ~10% who don't hold it should be deemed non-calvinists, right? On the other hand, if amillennialism isn't a calvinist doctrine, what are we discussing here?

You seem to be labeling people and then analyzing what they believe rather than categorizing them according to their beliefs.

Once again, every OT saint was justified by FAITH in the promises of God given at the time.. and that happened to be the LAW.. one did not need to meet the perfect requirements of the Law to be justified, they simply needed to BELIEVE that God would justify them for doing what He commanded.

They needed to believe God would justify them for doing what He commanded? Isn't that the Lev 18:5 law of works? I thought they had to believe God would justify them inspite of their not doing what He commanded ie inspite of their having been ungodly(Rom 4:5). Or are we both saying the same thing here, with emphasis on either extremes?

 

[Eventide]

All I'd say is that you spare all this effort and instead engage the Scriptural argument here in Rom 8:7-9 - when, according to you, is man no longer in the flesh but in the spirit - after having faith or before? And if after, engage my previously stated argument to proceed in this discussion.

Why would you ask again ? We have already been over this and I told you.. Were you not listening ?

The Holy Spirit convinces the WORLD of sin, righteousness, and judgment. This is a simple biblical fact. Conviction is built upon evidence, and when a person trusts in the evidence, after hearing the word of truth, and after they believe, God seals them with the Holy Spirit of promise... And that's regeneration.

You disagree..

Abraham believed God and was counted righteous, and then God gave him the sign of circumcision which is the seal of the righteousness of the faith. Why did God give Abraham the sign of circumcision rather than sealing him with the Holy Spirit..? Because there was no such thing as regeneration or being born again in the OT.

Why go on and on ivdavid.. ?

Why not simply show all of us here WHEN regeneration takes place in a person and prove your point ?

One simple reason, because you can't. Your argument is built upon silence... The very thing which you accused me of has come back to haunt you..

 

[Eventide]

Skipping over the 'regeneration' term here, I'd like to deal with this new belief that the Holy Spirit had not been given to the OT saints. Is Psalms 51:11 to be understood in a different way?

No doubt in my mind... Why would a person ask that the Holy Spirit not be taken from him if he was SEALED with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption..?

Why would Abraham be given the sign of circumcision, rather than being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise... ? Because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given according to John 7.

I'm not keen on discussing eschatology. But simply from your statement - is amillennialism a Calvinist doctrine? Then the ~10% who don't hold it should be deemed non-calvinists, right? On the other hand, if amillennialism isn't a calvinist doctrine, what are we discussing here?

You seem to be labeling people and then analyzing what they believe rather than categorizing them according to their beliefs.

In case you missed the point... It's that Calvinists can't think for themselves.. They must believe what their so called brilliant scholars teach them, with very few exceptions.

Isn't that what started this whole discussion.. Rather than simply believe the truth of the scriptures, you must claim that regeneration comes before faith... Because that's what you've been taught by Calvinism.. Regardless of the fact that it's built on an argument from silence in the scriptures.

They needed to believe God would justify them for doing what He commanded? Isn't that the Lev 18:5 law of works? I thought they had to believe God would justify them inspite of their not doing what He commanded ie inspite of their having been ungodly(Rom 4:5). Or are we both saying the same thing here, with emphasis on either extremes?

The just shall live by faith, not by perfect obedience to the Law, and we a bazillion examples of that in the OT.

 

[Eventide]

A argument from silence...

So... Should Christians simply believe your premise that regeneration comes before faith, regardless of the fact that there is no biblical evidence for that belief ?

It's a no brainer IMO... Let God be true but every man a liar.

I absolutely will reconsider my basis for regeneration if you would simply cut to the chase and show me (and everyone reading this thread), biblical evidence for that claim. I'll be the first to admit that there is infinitely more to the scriptures than what I have gleaned from them thus far in my Christian life.

Simple as that...

But instead you seem to want to go on and on without that claim being answered and supported by biblical truth.

 

[ivdavid]

when, according to you, is man no longer in the flesh but in the spirit - after having faith or before?

after they believe, God seals them with the Holy Spirit of promise... And that's regeneration.
Why would you ask again ? We have already been over this and I told you.. Were you not listening ?

Ironical. Anyway, I've tried to grab your attention with different color codes. The purple one is not what I'm enquiring about, - it's the brown one I'd like you to engage.

To clarify again, I do not hold our sealing in the body of Christ by the power of the Spirit(which happens after justification by faith) as our regeneration - I hold man's rebirth in the spirit from being in the flesh(which precedes conviction,repentance and faith) as regeneration - where man's spirit is differentiated from the Spirit of Christ [Rom 8:16].

You have provided multiple references of the final sealing of the Spirit. Where have you provided references that this sealing is where man in the flesh is born into the spirit - where have you provided references that this is where the hardened heart of stone is removed and a new heart is created?

Do you think I'm trying to position my "regeneration - man in the flesh being birthed in the spirit" at the cost of denying your "regeneration - sealing of the Spirit"? I consider the two to be separate events - neither in contradiction with the other. Why do you then pit them against each other? (And let us both refrain from using the term 'regeneration' in this discussion since we don't refer to the same thing by it - let's discuss it as the "final sealing of the Spirit" and "man in the flesh being born in the spirit", even if you might not distinguish between the two.)

So obviously Rom 8:7-9 does not say anything about when we are sealed with the Spirit - that's not why I cited it - it's meant to show when we are no longer in the flesh but in the spirit. Do you hold the two to be the same? If so, you'll have to deal with engaging my argument on this to distinguish between the two.

I understand perfectly well what you're saying..

Do you? Let's get to the point -
1. Do you hold "being sealed with the Spirit" to be exactly the same event when "man is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit" (man's spirit is distinguished from God's Holy Spirit[Rom 8:16]) ?

2. If yes, provide the Scriptural references for the same. And engage the argument presented concerning Rom 8:7-9.

Why not simply show all of us here WHEN regeneration takes place in a person and prove your point ?

I shall repeat them here again -
A Christian is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit [Rom 8:9]. The question is - when does man get birthed into the spirit such that he no longer is in the flesh but in the spirit? Is it before having faith or after? If it is after, then such a man has believed in the flesh and has obeyed God's Gospel call and is found pleasing to Him in the flesh. This is directly contradicted by Rom 8:8. Hence, the conclusion that man in the flesh is birthed into the spirit before having faith.

I see you're expecting me to prove how the "sealing of the Spirit" occurs before faith - and then vindicate yourself over how I've not been able to do so inspite of the already stated fact that I'm in complete agreement with you on the sealing following after faith. But when does man get birthed in the spirit from being in the flesh - this being entirely different from the sealing of the Spirit - that's what I'd like to discuss here.

Why go on and on ivdavid.. ?

Because that's what one who wants the other to come into the same liberating truth would do.

The very thing which you accused me of has come back to haunt you..

I didn't know you'd taken this so personally - it's a common phrase used in any debate forum. Besides, asking you a question doesn't amount to accusing you. And why this defensive condescending decrying approach - that too before the topic's been discussed fully?

 

[ivdavid]

there was no such thing as regeneration or being born again in the OT.

how do you explain John 3:3,5 - if the OT saints were not regenerated, how can they enter the Kingdom of God?

Once again, every OT saint was justified by FAITH in the promises of God given at the time.. and that happened to be the LAW.. one did not need to meet the perfect requirements of the Law to be justified, they simply needed to BELIEVE that God would justify them for doing what He commanded.

Does your response address the issue raised? How do you reconcile Jesus saying - "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " ?
If the OT saints are not born again of the Spirit and still enter the Kingdom of God, isn't Jesus' statement here negated?

I'd like to deal with this new belief that the Holy Spirit had not been given to the OT saints. Is Psalms 51:11 to be understood in a different way?

No doubt in my mind... Why would a person ask that the Holy Spirit not be taken from him if he was SEALED with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption..?

Given John 7:39 and Psalms 51:11, you say you don't have a doubt in your mind that John must be literalistically taken while Psalms must be understood differently - what is your basis for not thinking the other way round?

And what is the "different understanding" to be employed here? Also, address why a person who has not been given the Holy Spirit would ask that the Holy Spirit not be taken from him?

And do you acknowledge brokenness of heart and expression of sorrow - David's acknowledgement that he doesn't deserve God's life-giving Spirit and yet needs Him, holds up God's unconditional grace even more when He has chosen to seal this fallen David unto the day of redemption. But given your argument, we must be asking why Paul, who desires to be found in Christ must wish Rom 9:3.

And what of 1 Pet 1:11 - how do you explain away the Spirit of Christ in the OT saints?

Why would Abraham be given the sign of circumcision, rather than being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise... ?

Why don't you see the sign of circumcision as evidence of the Holy Spirit already indwelling him just as water baptism is a sign that is evident of an inner work that's already occurred?

 

[Eventide]

An argument from silence...

ivdavid, as soon as you provide me with scriptural evidence that regeneration comes before faith, I will gladly answer any other questions you might have. I'm in no hurry here, take your time.

You made the claim, now if you can't support it then I'd expect that you reconsider your position and then actually base it upon scriptural evidence.. not simply because you or somebody else says that it's true.

 

[heymikey80]

Re: An argument from silence...

ivdavid, as soon as you provide me with scriptural evidence that regeneration comes before faith, I will gladly answer any other questions you might have. I'm in no hurry here, take your time.

Well, I think I've quoted:

Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 John 5:1a

The Greek here is clear -- that believing is present tense, while "born of God" is perfect tense (past completed action).

There're I think four other verses characterizing people being born of God in 1 John, all of which can only be reasonably understood as being born of God preceding them.

You made the claim, now if you can't support it then I'd expect that you reconsider your position and then actually base it upon scriptural evidence.. not simply because you or somebody else says that it's true.

Is faith a spiritual or a carnal thing?

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:6

Does the Spirit of God change hearts?

But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter Rom 2:29

... and where does faith come from -- the flesh or a spiritually changed heart?

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Rom 10:10

 

[Eventide]

Re: An argument from silence...

Well, I think I've quoted:

Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 John 5:1a

The Greek here is clear -- that believing is present tense, while "born of God" is perfect tense (past completed action).

There're I think four other verses characterizing people being born of God in 1 John, all of which can only be reasonably understood as being born of God preceding them.

Ok, I can understand that.. now how come there isn't a single 'real' example of that taking place..?

Why didn't the Holy Spirit just come out and say it.. after all, it's really really simple imo as to what you're saying... that people are born of God, and then they believe... and it only applies to certain individuals who are given to believe... correct ?

Why didn't the Holy Spirit just say.. Abraham was born of God and was counted righteous, and he believed.. and then he was given a sign to show that he was born of God, and then believed..?

Why in the world would the simplicity of the gospel basically say the exact opposite..?

Why would John also write that those who received Him, to them He gave power to become the sons of God..? Why not just write that those He gave power to, were born of God.. and they received Him..?

IT's either take your word for it, or believe what is written in its simplicity and truth..

The Holy Spirit convinces the WORLD of sin.. and that would obviously be pointless if He's actually only calling a few certain individuals rather than all in Adam.. I've heard all about the effectual call to these individuals and how that others only get the general call.. so they say..

I don't believe that for a second.. because there is no partiality.. all in Christ are called to lay down their life and follow Him.. and imo men do it perfectly willingly, while they're still in their helpless and hopeless Adamic state.. because they hear it as the voice of God.. after all, those sent to apprehend Him were certainly not born again and their comment was simply.. "Never a man spake like this Man"..

That's CONVICTION... and it leads to FAITH.. and most in Adam are perfectly capable of hearing His voice.. even though it's a small voice.

The Lord Jesus Christ WINS mens hearts.. through the infinite power of the love and grace exemplified in Himself..

To suggest for a minute that it all comes down to God giving birth to the so called ELECT unconditionally, and that it's all automatic from there on out.. is perhaps the most shallow perspective that I can imagine which would be attributed to our Lord Jesus Christ.

I've asked for one biblical example of a person being regenerated and then believing God.. and imo I haven't seen anything even remotely close to that simple request.. although if the verse you speak of in 1 John does it for you.. then I sincerely hope that it's perfectly settled in your mind, as the mind of Christ.

Is faith a spiritual or a carnal thing?

Scripture says that it is a GIFT of GOD.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:6

Does the Spirit of God change hearts?

Absolutely.. that's WHY the Holy Spirit CONVICTS all of us..

But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter Rom 2:29

... and where does faith come from -- the flesh or a spiritually changed heart?

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Rom 10:10

And when did Abraham receive the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of FAITH.. ?

After he believed God and was counted righteous.

 

[ivdavid]

ivdavid, as soon as you provide me with scriptural evidence that regeneration comes before faith, I will gladly answer any other questions you might have.

The "other" questions I've asked are towards helping you understand how Rom 8:7-9 is the scriptural evidence you claim to be seeking for - so please do answer these "other" questions to move forward - unless of course you believe that simply reiterating your position repeatedly could get it declared as true.

Just to check if you've been following my posts, when you ask me to prove that regeneration precedes faith - by regeneration, do you mean the final sealing of the Spirit? A simple yes/no would do here.

And how have you defined the term "regeneration" as the final sealing of the Spirit - is there any verse pointing to this?

 

[Eventide]

The "other" questions I've asked are towards helping you understand how Rom 8:7-9 is the scriptural evidence you claim to be seeking for - so please do answer these "other" questions to move forward - unless of course you believe that simply reiterating your position repeatedly could get it declared as true.

I'm absolutely convinced that this is what you actually are holding to here.. That simply because you're saying it, that it's true, and that it couldn't possibly be wrong..

And believe me ivdavid.. I understand exactly what you're saying.. as I've said in previous post.. there's nothing complex about this.. it's perhaps the most shallow perspective ever given to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you don't think that I understand this and that going forward with all this talking will better my understanding.. then I'm sorry, and I wouldn't even have believed in God if I thought for a second that Calvinism were true.. that certain individuals were born of God unconditionally and then they believed.

You're asking me to believe something that I wouldn't, even if it were true.

Just to check if you've been following my posts, when you ask me to prove that regeneration precedes faith - by regeneration, do you mean the final sealing of the Spirit? A simple yes/no would do here.

YES.. and I've made that clear haven't I ?

You say it's BEFORE that final sealing.. so when is it.. please show me so that I can better understand !

And how have you defined the term "regeneration" as the final sealing of the Spirit - is there any verse pointing to this?

I actually believe there is.. from Matthew 19... the Lord speaks of the regeneration, when He shall sit upon the throne of His glory.. and His Apostles shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel...

WHEN HE COMES in HIS GLORY..

Israel as a nation is going to be born again.. for that DAY shall come as a thief in the night, and as travail upon a woman with child.. and that woman is the nation of Israel..

Mary is an excellent illustration of this imo... she believed the message from above and then had Christ in her..

That's what regeneration is... the washing of the Holy Spirit as Paul says.. and that's simply being born again from above.. and having the miracle of Christ in you.. within this lump of clay..

 

[ivdavid]

You're asking me to believe something that I wouldn't, even if it were true.

Want to reconsider this statement perhaps spoken in haste?

Just to check if you've been following my posts, when you ask me to prove that regeneration precedes faith - by regeneration, do you mean the final sealing of the Spirit? A simple yes/no would do here.

YES.. and I've made that clear haven't I ?

Sadly yes. For this shows you've not been reading my posts as I've written them.
ivdavid - 'I see you're expecting me to prove how the "sealing of the Spirit" occurs before faith - and then vindicate yourself over how I've not been able to do so inspite of the already stated fact that I'm in complete agreement with you on the sealing following after faith. But when does man get birthed in the spirit from being in the flesh - this being entirely different from the sealing of the Spirit - that's what I'd like to discuss here.'

That's what regeneration is... the washing of the Holy Spirit as Paul says.. and that's simply being born again from above..

The washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit seem to be distinct events in Tit 3:5. While regeneration itself is by the Spirit, does this verse undeniably show that the washing of regeneration IS the renewing of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Eventide]

Want to reconsider this statement perhaps spoken in haste?

Not at all, I'm completely convicted that CALVINism is nothing more than one in a million false doctrines of men.

We're perfectly united and ONE in CHRIST..

We're perfectly divided in CALVIN.

Sadly yes. For this shows you've not been reading my posts as I've written them.
ivdavid - 'I see you're expecting me to prove how the "sealing of the Spirit" occurs before faith - and then vindicate yourself over how I've not been able to do so inspite of the already stated fact that I'm in complete agreement with you on the sealing following after faith. But when does man get birthed in the spirit from being in the flesh - this being entirely different from the sealing of the Spirit - that's what I'd like to discuss here.'

Once again, I understand.. and ALL I'M ASKING is that you show us WHEN do men become REBORN.. you're clearly saying it's BEFORE.. so WHEN is it, and what in the scriptures shows you that it is BEFORE the sealing of the SPIRIT.

The washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit seem to be distinct events in Tit 3:5. While regeneration itself is by the Spirit, does this verse undeniably show that the washing of regeneration IS the renewing of the Holy Spirit?

I would have to agree that it doesn't... and that's what I've stated from the beginning.. that this is my opinion on the matter and there could be infinitely more as far as I'm concerned.. just SHOW US and we should ALL be able to SEE IT..

Seriously.. there's no doubt in my mind that you know what I'm asking.. and at the same time you think that I don't understand what you're saying..

REALLY ?

 

[ivdavid]

ALL I'M ASKING is that you show us WHEN do men become REBORN.. you're clearly saying it's BEFORE.. so WHEN is it, and what in the scriptures shows you that it is BEFORE the sealing of the SPIRIT.

Wait a minute - which is it according to you?
1. Regeneration = Sealing of the Spirit
OR
2. Regeneration = being born again in the spirit from the flesh ?

All this while you've equated regeneration with the sealing of the Spirit and now you distinguish it from the sealing as being reborn - when did you change your position?

But to answer your question -
Fact: A Christian is born again in the spirit from the flesh.[Rom 8:9]
Possibility 1: This rebirth occurs before having faith.
Possibility 2: This rebirth occurs after having faith.

Consider Possibility 2 -
Inference 2a : Since Man had faith before this rebirth in the spirit from the flesh, such faith was in the flesh
Fact: Faith in God is pleasing to God.[Heb 11:6]
Conclusion 2a: Man in the flesh is pleasing to God
Contradicting Fact: Man in the flesh cannot be pleasing to God. [Rom 8:8]

Final Conclusion : Therefore Possibility 2 cannot be true and hence Possibility 1 must be Fact.

And since the Sealing occurs after faith, this rebirth in the spirit from the flesh being concluded as occurring before faith - is definitely before the final sealing.

Good enough for your analysis - all presupposed facts being derived from Scripture alone?

You're asking me to believe something that I wouldn't, even if it were true.

Want to reconsider this statement perhaps spoken in haste?

Not at all, I'm completely convicted that CALVINism is nothing more than one in a million false doctrines of men.

Of course you are convinced it's false - but that's not what you stated initially. You stated that "even if it were true", you wouldn't believe it - isn't that holding truth hostage to what you will to believe and not? That's what I requested you reconsider.

 

[ivdavid]

this is my opinion on the matter and there could be infinitely more as far as I'm concerned.. just SHOW US and we should ALL be able to SEE IT..

Fair enough. But that's what I've been doing and you've been missing.

When I stated as my basis that God's ways of regeneration, justification and salvation have not changed - and when I asked you how you reconcile the OT saints' regeneration if you held both a)that regeneration=final sealing of the Spirit and b)the Spirit was not given to the OT saints, you replied that there was no regeneration in the OT. And that's why John 3:3,5 ; 1 Pet 1:11 ; Psalms 51:11 were posed to you in this post. Do these help you see that you need to reconsider your premises a) and b)?

 

[Eventide]

An argument from silence...

Fair enough. But that's what I've been doing and you've been missing.

You're certainly right about that.. I haven't seen anything remotely close to you supporting your claim that being born again preceeds the sealing of the Spirit... And at the same time affirming what I already know, that you can't.

When I stated as my basis that God's ways of regeneration, justification and salvation have not changed - and when I asked you how you reconcile the OT saints' regeneration if you held both a)that regeneration=final sealing of the Spirit and b)the Spirit was not given to the OT saints, you replied that there was no regeneration in the OT. And that's why John 3:3,5 ; 1 Pet 1:11 ; Psalms 51:11 were posed to you in this post. Do these help you see that you need to reconsider your premises a) and b)?

It's almost too funny... And makes me wonder if any Calvinist can actually see the kingdom of God, knowing that amillennialism rules the day.. A belief that there is no future kingdom of God on earth and that this present evil world is IT.. If that's not missing the forest for the trees then I don't know what is.

1 Peter 1:11 is within the context of the PROPHETS in case you didn't notice, as the word of God was spoken through the prophets in the OT.. Nothing changed there right ?

The Holy Spirit also filled the physical temple in the OT and was taken away... Nothing new here either right?

I'd ask you to reconsider your views although I'm certain that there's no possible way that you could even begin to fathom that you would even need to reconsider them..

 

[ivdavid]

I haven't seen anything remotely close to you supporting your claim that being born again preceeds the sealing of the Spirit

Why don't you first point out what point of the argument you consider false in post#315 before asserting this?

It's almost too funny... And makes me wonder if any Calvinist can actually see the kingdom of God, knowing that amillennialism rules the day.. A belief that there is no future kingdom of God on earth and that this present evil world is IT.. If that's not missing the forest for the trees then I don't know what is.

What does amillennialism have to do with whether the OT saints were born again or not? Am I missing something here?

And you've asserted that the Spirit was in the OT Prophets, though He didn't cause them to be born again - any explicit text on that? Is John 7:39 your sole basis - even so, why aren't you consistent with its interpretation? If it literalistically means that the Spirit was not given at all, then exceptions shouldn't be made to prophets alone - but if you do have to, then why this particular literal interpretation - It could mean the Spirit was not given in His full ministry as in the NT, couldn't it? When the OT verses can be construed to mean the OT saints were not born again, what prevents one from construing John 7:39 this way to reconcile that they were born again. Where is the consistency?

And the pivotal Scripture seems to be John 3:3,5 - reconcile that too as presented in this earlier post.

Edit : Is it your belief that when all Israel will be saved before the end of this world, that is when the OT saints too would be born again?

 

[Eventide]

The last shall be first, and the first shall be last...

Why don't you first point out what point of the argument you consider false in post#315 before asserting this?

Why don't you you show us how rebirth comes before regeneration..? Oh right, you did and I missed it.

What does amillennialism have to do with whether the OT saints were born again or not? Am I missing something here?

It has to do with being able to see the kingdom per your John 3 scriptures.. And amillennialism teaches that this present evil world IS the kingdom of God.. It's a perfect example IMO that many can claim to see the kingdom and have no clue that it's a future and literal kingdom right here on earth, in that DAY.. The day of the Lord. The day of Jesus Christ.

And you've asserted that the Spirit was in the OT Prophets, though He didn't cause them to be born again - any explicit text on that? Is John 7:39 your sole basis - even so, why aren't you consistent with its interpretation? If it literalistically means that the Spirit was not given at all, then exceptions shouldn't be made to prophets alone - but if you do have to, then why this particular literal interpretation - It could mean the Spirit was not given in His full ministry as in the NT, couldn't it? When the OT verses can be construed to mean the OT saints were not born again, what prevents one from construing John 7:39 this way to reconcile that they were born again. Where is the consistency?

Can you show me a person in the OT who was born again and sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption..?

Believe you me.. I won't be waiting for you to answer anything.

And the pivotal Scripture seems to be John 3:3,5 - reconcile that too as presented in this earlier post.

If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall he believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Edit : Is it your belief that when all Israel will be saved before the end of this world, that is when the OT saints too would be born again?

Yes, in the regeneration.. When the Lord Jesus Christ shall sit upon the throne of His glory along with the resurrected apostles sitting upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

We'll actually see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in that Day.. The day of the Lord. The day of Jesus Christ.

 

[Eventide]

A argument from silence..

And just to be a good sport.. I'll answer your question directly.. Pay attention now so you won't ask me again in a few posts..

Regeneration is being born again, it is being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.. They're the exact same thing IMO.

Now, how about showing us when rebirth happens and how it happens before being sealed with the Holy Spirit.. One simple example would be nice.. That's all I'm asking although i know that you won't even bother.