Many Old Testament Saints were filled with the Holy Ghost...that is the Ministry God performed in those Ages.
John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Ghost does not equate to John being born again and eternal indwelt any more than the Apostles being filled with the Holy Ghost means it is a reference to regeneration and eternal indwelling.
Your responses are never balanced! John was an infant in the womb when filled and there are not common examples of that in Scripture. You need to give this some more thought. This is an unborn babe not only being filled by the Spirit but reacting with "joy" to something being spoken outside the womb. So there is more divine intervention with John in the womb than mere filling and yet being "filled" means coming under the control of the Holy Spirit. That proves divine intervention with an infant in the womb is possible. That proves God did and therefore can intervene with infants in the womb and that is my point. The same could be true with Isaac. Your response to Gal. 4:29 does not satisfy Paul's words - "
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Your interpretation does not allow for any equal parallel "
then" with "
even so it is now." If your interpretation is applied then the present application "now" would be heritage based on purely physical birth as the only parallel.
Another point you gloss over that is a real serious problem for your position. Good works cannot originate from men without a good heart as Jesus says in Matthew 15:17-18 ("
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:"). What is true of "evil" works is true of "good" works. There must first be a good heart before their can be good works or as Jesus says again the tree must first be good before the fruit can be good. But no sinner has a "good" heart and therefore no sinner can do good works. Although I believe infants are born with a depraved nature, at least admit that adult Old Testament people have a depraved nature, admit there is "none good, no not one" among them, and therefore there is "none that doeth good, no not one" among them. Hence, it is not possible for Old Testament saints to do good works until first they receive a good heart and receiving a good heart is what the Bible calls the new birth. This wholly and totally destroys your whole theory. If you deny this you deny your own salvation as you could not produce good works without first being "
created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" (Eph. 2:10) and Paul is speaking about the quickening (regenerating) creative work of God in this context (Eph. 2:1,5, 8,10). I feel sorry for you because you think you understand basic salvation but it is clear you do not or you could never continue arguing such a position. You view has no practical salvation for them at all, especially concerning what is necessary to even walk by faith or live a godly life.
Then you will understand the magnitude of the Grace of God.
Sadly, it is you and your position that is not merely limiting the magnitude of God's grace but denying it altogether. Don't you understand that "grace" means undeserved favor which can only be bestowed due to Christ's substitutionary work? There is no such thing as "grace" in salvation apart from a substitutionary provision. Your position has no possible salvation or grace for pre-cross people because your position claims that God cannot apply redemption based upon His promise and purpose in the "blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT." Your position says where there is no actual historical provision first there can be no redemption and yet Job's very words, grammatically found in the PRESENT TENSE forever repudiates your theory "
I KNOW that my REDEEMER LIVETH". You must deny his words, you must deny his use of grammar and you must deny common sense to defend your unbiblical position. God applied full redemption (except for glorification -Heb. 11:39-40) based upon HIS OWN PROMISE and that is why Paul says the coming of Christ "justified" God in Romans 3:25-26. If redemption of Old Testament Saints could not occur until the provision, then God needed no justification! However, if God applied redemption just as Job claims, based upon God's PROMISE alone, then God needed to be justified by the coming and redeeming work of Christ.
I do not deny the Ministry of the Holy Ghost in the lives of men, for He was with them, as Christ makes clear.
Just think for a moment. The problem of sin and spiritual separation from God is not an EXTERNAL issue or problem but an INTERNAL issue and problem. Man is born with a depraved nature. At least admit that human beings that know right and wrong that "there is none good, no, not one.....there is none that doeth good....there is none righteous" and therefore in order for any fallen man to be good or do good the Holy Spirit must perform a supernatural change on their INSIDE or else it is impossible for them to either be or do good. Your interpretation of "with" denies this.
You don't realize it, but your position denies any kind of real salvation in any practical sense for anyone prior to the cross and Pentecost. Your words "saved by grace" "justified by faith" as being "the same" as us is simply a lie as you very well know that our salvation is nothing like that at all. Our salvation actually is saving us from the problem of sin and spiritual separation from God whereas your kind of salvation has no practical value to deal with the INTERNAL problem of sin and spiritual separation that wholly and totally prevents them from living a godly life or a life of faith! Such a life of faith or godliness is IMPOSSIBLE until God changes them INTERNALLY with regard to sin (law of indwelling sin) and there can be no possible relationship with God IN A SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED STATE from God and even common sense should make you realize that? Your position is even without common sense much less being completely unbiblical.
It is undeniable that your theory demands that fallen men, with the law of indwelling sin operating within them can do what post-Pentecost people of God cannot do and that is live a life of godliness apart from the indwelling Spirit of God. Romans 7:14-25 makes it clear that Paul could not do good, even though he delighted in the law that defines good, even though his will was inclined to do good (v. 18) but he had nothing in himself (including the new nature or new inward man) that had inherent power to overcome indwelling sin. His ability to overcome in dwelling sin was not in his own will or person but rested entirely in another indwelling power - the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-16).
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Jesus said the very same thing before Pentecost - "
without me ye can DO NOTHING." Your theory demands the Old Testament saint is superior than us because you have them doing what we cannot do - live a life for God apart from the indwelling power of God to overcome indwelling sin in us. Your theory is not only unbiblical but completely irrational. You are so busy focusing on winning an argument you can't see the practical implications of your theory. You have no salvation at all to offer pre-pentecost saints because you deny the very essentials to deal with their internal problem of sin. You have no salvation at all for them because your position demands they must remain in a state of spiritual separation from God, thus WITHOUT GOD. Your view is simply absurd.
However, the most damning argument against your whole position is that Paul explicitly and clearly states that God's covenant with Abraham was "IN CHRIST" - Gal. 3:17.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Paul is arguing that the Mosaic law cannot dissanul that covenant because it was made "IN CHRIST." Being "IN CHRIST" is what makes that covenant stand. This text forever repudiates your position and you have never been able to refute it. You have never been able to refute David's words that God has removed his sins from him as far as the East from the west. You have never been able to refute the PRESENT TENSE statement by David that his sins "ARE" forgiven.
You are not fighting me, you are fighting God and you need to think about that.
