A question for the Calvinists

[webdog]

If the Holy Spirit did not indwell saints under the Old Covenant, then how does one go about interpreting these verses:

Gen. 41:38 (Re: Joseph) And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?

Num. 27:18 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;

Clearly the Spirit of God dwelt within these men. To view the New Covenant as strictly limited to regeneration is to miss it almost entirely. It has to do with much more than that.

God has always saved sinners through grace. (E.g. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, etc.).

No man can be saved apart from being regenerated - born again. (Even the great master / teacher of Isreal, Nicodemus ought to have known that!)

To have men 'saved' and going to heaven, and even being called "the church" in the Old Testament, yet not having been regenerated leaves us with a whole different methodolgy of salvation which is contrary to a purely spiritual work of grace.

I don't think anyone has argued the Holy Spirit did not empower or dwell within those whom He chose...but it was not the same indwelling that came at Pentecost where all believers were indwelt, not just certain individuals.

 

[Darrenss1]

I don't think anyone has argued the Holy Spirit did not empower or dwell within those whom He chose...but it was not the same indwelling that came at Pentecost where all believers were indwelt, not just certain individuals.

Thank you Webdog, that is exactly what I said. Just because the HS came upon individuals and yet could leave them doesn't indicate that was the same as God regenerating them. And what happens when the HS leaves them, are they then unregenerated once the HS leaves them??

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

As a Calvinist who denies that regeneration precedes faith, I can assure you that you are wrong.

Hmm, you must be a one off, thats not the usual Calvinist position is it?

Even Arminians agree with Calvinists about total depravity. They simply disagree on the solution to it. Someone who denies total depravity is not even an Arminian. He is a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian.

There is a difference in that Arminians believe man can respond to God. I do not call that response regeneration or quickening or being born again. The history of God's intervention to man has man making a positive response to God's grace and His laws/word, yet this doesn't qualify it to be regeneration, being born again or a spiritual awakening. The issue is man needs atonement before man can be reborn, thats the way I see it. This Jews in the OT were like yo yo's, I see no sign that they were spiritually reborn and obedient to God, the only ones that were, were usually the prophets and the Priests and some leaders whom were ordained and the HS worked with them for that ministry. The rest I cannot see a widespread regenerative work. Even the short OT revivals ended quickly when the leaders departed.

If you understand the NC, you understand that it is not simply about regeneration. Your position would mean that no one prior to the death of Christ had eternal life, because regeneration is what gives us eternal life.

No, eternal life was given solely on the basis of God's grace through those whom believed God. Having eternal life doesn't assume a spiritual awakening, yet through the NC the Blood of Jesus makes indwelling of the HS a real factor and therefore spiritual rebirth became possible. To those whom believed gave HE them the power to become children of God, because of the atonement of the Blood of Jesus.

Darren

 

[webdog]

Thank you Webdog, that is exactly what I said. Just because the HS came upon individuals and yet could leave them doesn't indicate that was the same as God regenerating them. And what happens when the HS leaves them, are they then unregenerated once the HS leaves them??

Darren

I haven't followed this entire thread, so forgive me if you have already answered this question. Are you saying OT saints are not born again (regenerated)? I don't see regeneration and the gift of the Comforter as being mutually inclusive. Clearly the thief on the cross passed from spiritual death to life (regeneration) and this before Pentecost. Thanks in advance...

 

[Allan]

Hmm, you must be a one off, thats not the usual Calvinist position is it?

It is not the 'mainline' view but is a prominant one. A current systematic theology text book taught colleges, from a 5 point Cal, is Millard Erickson who holds this view. There are others as well but I bieve his is the most current

 

[Pastor Larry]

Hmm, you must be a one off, thats not the usual Calvinist position is it?

It is not the usual position.

There is a difference in that Arminians believe man can respond to God. I do not call that response regeneration or quickening or being born again.

It is called prevenient grace, given to everyone.

This Jews in the OT were like yo yo's, I see no sign that they were spiritually reborn and obedient to God

So how did they please God? Remember, the natural man cannot please God. The Bible is explicitly clear about that. So how did OT people please God apart from regeneration and Spirit indwelling?

Even the short OT revivals ended quickly when the leaders departed.

That is still true today.

No, eternal life was given solely on the basis of God's grace through those whom believed God.

So it doesn't require the NC, only God's grace? (That's what I would say.)

Having eternal life doesn't assume a spiritual awakening

How not??

yet through the NC the Blood of Jesus makes indwelling of the HS a real factor and therefore spiritual rebirth became possible. To those whom believed gave HE them the power to become children of God, because of the atonement of the Blood of Jesus.

That was said before Jesus died, BTW. But the HS was a "real factor" prior to the death of Jesus. AGain, there is no other way to explain how people please God. If an OT person could have eternal life and please God without regeneration and the Holy Spirit, then man today would be able to, because man hasn't changed.

 

[Darrenss1]

So how did they please God?

Without FAITH its not possible to please God... :thumbsup:

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

Are you saying OT saints are not born again (regenerated)? I don't see regeneration and the gift of the Comforter as being mutually inclusive. Clearly the thief on the cross passed from spiritual death to life (regeneration) and this before Pentecost. Thanks in advance...

What I believe is that the indwelling HS was possible for the NC because the new believer has received the atoning Blood of Christ. The OC, God did not put His laws in the inner man, as quoted in Jer 31:31 and Heb 8. Man in the OC could be saved by faith (through God's grace) and that pleases God, however they needed to follow the law and do right under the grace of God and yet they could respond to God and follow the law to a certain extent. I don't see that regeneration and being spiritually alive are the same thing, my primary concern is regeneration preceding faith as the OP remarks on regeneration.

I had no idea that my objection to OC regeneration, being born again would open so many cans.... :laugh:

Darren

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I haven't followed this thread closely, but the issue of whether OT saints were regenerated may merit a new thread.

When I read Galatians and see that Christians relate to Abraham by having the same faith he did, then it is hard for me to think that there is a radically different account of the Spirit's presence in both parties. I suppose one related issue is the differences between the old and new covenant communities, which of course is a whole other discussion.

Brandon

 

[Rippon]

A current systematic theology text book taught colleges, from a 5 point Cal, is Millard Erickson who holds this view.

Erickson holds to four points; not five.

 

[Allan]

Erickson holds to four points; not five.

Good point, you're correct.

I also guess it would depend on how one views Calvinism according to 'lapsarianism', either supra or sub as both correlate to the systemaitic views Calvinism.

“In contrast with the foregoing position is the contention that God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons. Christ died for all persons, but his atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual. While this is the view of all Arminians, it is also the position of some Calvinists, who are sometimes referred to as sublapsarians.”
(Christian Theology, chapter 39, page 829)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Without FAITH its not possible to please God...

Exactly, and romans 8 says that the natural man, the fleshly man, cannot please God ... is not able to do so. that means that natural man cannot have faith, because if he did it would please God. So even in the OT, it was necessary to be regenerated to please God, to have the Spirit in order to follow God.

 

[Darrenss1]

When I read Galatians and see that Christians relate to Abraham by having the same faith he did, then it is hard for me to think that there is a radically different account of the Spirit's presence in both parties.

Again I would point out that is 2 issues. Regeneration period doesn't infer this regeneration precedes that faith (issue 1). So Abraham was justified by faith (we know), on the other side of that faith for the NC the new "believer" becomes regenerated, born again, spiritually alive (passing from death to life), indwell by the HS. None of these issues makes the automatic assumption that all these factors could have happened before they believed. As previously noted, the OT consisted of those "born into it" by birth BUT within that group were those actually faithful to God and were considered to be saved by faith through God's grace.

Now my question was did that JEW believe (Abraham's justified by faith believing - for salvation) for the reason he was regenerated first (issue 1) and further was that JEW considered "born again" according to the discussion Jesus had with Nicodemus? I just want to make sure we keep the issues in context to their specific category. And all these issues take into account Eze 11:19, 36:26, Jer 31:33-34 or Heb 8:7-10.

Darren

 

[Pastor Larry]

Regeneration period doesn't infer this regeneration precedes that faith (issue 1).

I agree, and tried to make that point earlier.

So Abraham was justified by faith (we know)

but not regenerated? You see, that's the problem I have. I am not talking here about logical order. I am simply questioning how anyone can have eternal life apart from regeneration.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Hi Darren,

I'll echo Pastor Larry here in that I was not speaking about the logical relationship of regeneration and faith, but on whether individual OT saints had the Spirit in the same way that NT believers do (a different issue than the constitution of the old and new covenant communities). Admittedly, I jumped in without reading the several pages in this thread, which usually ends up being a mistake. I'm sorry if this is in bad form.

Blessings,
Brandon

 

[Darrenss1]

but not regenerated? You see, that's the problem I have. I am not talking here about logical order. I am simply questioning how anyone can have eternal life apart from regeneration.

Back to the start as I said, not in the same way as the NC as far as I can see for the reasons I gave. Interesting topic nevertheless... :godisgood:

Darren

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I am not an Arminian, I do not believe a Christian can lose their salvation as they do. That is a false argument used by Calvinists. I am just a Bible believer.

No, I ask this because the Calvinists insist that the lost are in complete rebellion to God in every way. So I wanted to know if this was their experience.

And I was not regenerated first. I was saved by hearing the word of God, the gospel preached in church when I was a boy. I believed it and asked Jesus to come into my heart as my personal saviour and forgive all my sins. I remember it like it happened yesterday.

No, I was sincerely curious about how Calvinists got saved.

I haven't read through all the posts, but I wanted to offer some thing in relation to this:

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Chapter 9: Of Free will

3._____ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )

Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof

2._____ Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
( Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12, etc; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19 )

3._____ They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.
( Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 )

4._____ From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 )

Edited in:

What I think your OP touches on is the doctrine of Total Depravity. What is often confused because of the term used for it (total depravity) that it means that people are as bad as they can be. This is not the Calvinist teaching on that subject. Total depravity teaches that there isn't an area untouched by the corruption of sin. It does not teach that all men are as bad/evil as they can be.

 

[Winman]

What I think your OP touches on is the doctrine of Total Depravity. What is often confused because of the term used for it (total depravity) that it means that people are as bad as they can be. This is not the Calvinist teaching on that subject. Total depravity teaches that there isn't an area untouched by the corruption of sin. It does not teach that all men are as bad/evil as they can be

Thanks for that response. But to me (and others) this is one of the problems when discussing these issues with Calvinists. To me, the word "total" means 100%. But Calvinists say that they are not saying men are as bad as they could possibly be. Now why would they say this? I think it is because even Calvinists realize that unsaved men can do some good. Some unsaved people are far more moral than saved people. This is shown in everyday experience and cannot be disputed.

Jesus said evil men can give good gifts to their children. So obviously man is not 100% evil.

And we see unsaved men who seek God. The world is full of religions.

I don't know if I completely agree with that London Confession of Faith. I do think the unsaved man can respond to God. And I think that is clearly shown in scripture.

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Here is Adam and Eve. They have sinned. And I believe as God said, that they died. Not physically, but spiritually. The Bible says their eyes were opened and they saw they were naked. So their conscience was opened and they were ashamed for the first time. And as natural men do, they tried in vain to cover their own sin and shame by sewing fig leaves together.

But notice it says they heard the voice of the LORD God. And they were convicted by God's word and hid themselves from his presence.

But when God called to them, they heard and responded. They were unsaved when this happened.

After this God gave Adam and Eve the first promise of the saviour to come:

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

And they believed God's promise. When Eve became pregnant, she thought the child was given her by God himself.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Eve was mistaken, but she did have faith in God's promise and believed this child to be the promised saviour. And she understood that the father of the saviour would be God himself.

It was after this that God made Adam and Eve a proper cover of skins. An innocent animal had to be killed and it's blood shed which was a picture of Christ.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

I believe at this point Adam and Eve were saved.

But notice what God says next:

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So, God himself said man knows both good and evil. So despite what men say, I believe men know what good is, and are able to do some good. I do believe men are depraved, but I do not believe man is 100% evil.

And I do believe an unsaved, unregenerate man can hear the word of God and be convicted and drawn by it.

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

I believe Jesus is speaking of the unsaved, unregenerate man here. He is not speaking of the future resurrection because he says the hour "now is". And he says these men who are "dead" can hear his voice, and that those that hear will live. I believe when Jesus said "they that hear" he meant those that hear and BELIEVE.

So, I don't go by what men say, I go by what I think the scriptures clearly teach.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Winman,

I think its far more simple than what your making it be brother.

You wrote:

Thanks for that response. But to me (and others) this is one of the problems when discussing these issues with Calvinists. To me, the word "total" means 100%. But Calvinists say that they are not saying men are as bad as they could possibly be. Now why would they say this? I think it is because even Calvinists realize that unsaved men can do some good. Some unsaved people are far more moral than saved people. This is shown in everyday experience and cannot be disputed.

In this reply I observe:

1. Malcontent with your brethren who are Calvinist in their theology.
2. Calvinists are not able to be clear with their theology because they are trying to prove something that isn't true.

The term "Total Depravity" is an inconvient term. The misunderstandings surrounding the doctrine are not the result of calvinists, but of the person reading/trying to understand them.

One good habit to form I believe is to let someone define their own terms. If I want to understand what an Arminian/non-calvinist believes about free-will, I will read their doctrinal statement or ask them. And I will let them define what it means.

Every calvinist believes in free-will. We of the Baptist sort have a whole chapter dedicated to it in our statment of faith: "Chapter 9: Of Free Will" And the very first article states:

1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )

This is "calvinist" teaching.

If you want to understand what calvinist believe, read their statements of faith/creeds. Then work from there.

I would think you would have less questions.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So, I don't go by what men say, I go by what I think the scriptures clearly teach.

winman,

I wanted to comment also that I love seeing this commitment to the Holy Scriptures wherever I find it. I love the Scriptures as well. They are absoute, incorrupted, unadulterated truth.

Praise the Lord!