What happens spiritually that makes us born again?

timothyu · Thursday at 12:51 PM

Many people just want to be left alone, hence the desire to leave this world, either from stress or old age. But humanity has a way of infringing itself on others for self-satisfaction, even if they are arrogant enough to call it in the best interests of others. We are never free of the self-interest of others, nor are they free of ours.

Dave... · Thursday at 12:59 PM

under grace1 said:
For me, the practical side of being saved if you like was, when I got saved, the most notable difference in me was, I became aware of my imperfections/shortcomings before God, my sin. I became thus aware in my most inward parts. It was profound, never again would I be able to do many things I could do before I got saved without heartfelt consciousness of sin before God. I couldn't hide from those things, for I knew in my mind they were wrong and my heart confirmed what I knew.
Now I look back at that time, it was confirmation I had been born again of the Spirit:

under grace1 said:
I will write my laws in their minds

And place them on their hearts
And:
Through the law we become conscious of sin Rom3:20

Hey under grace

That's actually very profound at the moment, as I'm writing and at the same time contemplating many things. The Gentiles, who did not have the Law were convicted and by nature do the things of the Law. The Law actually provokes us to sin by telling us not to do it.

Anyways, I believe that the beginning of that life, like in Galatians 3:2-3, well, as MacArthur once said of this, Quoting John Owen, "sin for a believers becomes a burden which afflicts him, rather than a pleasure that delights him. "

Dave

Dave... · Thursday at 1:49 PM

Mark Quayle said:
True re "positively allowed" not being "bare permission". I do something somewhat similar, which I admit may even be equivocation, but...I say that he ordained all things, which to me, by what we attribute to him his Aseity, Simplicity and both Transcendence and Immanence, he is intimately and meticulously causing and upholding all fact; BUT that does not imply that he causes sin. I say that he causes that there be sin. In part I say then, that sin is not a thing in the same sense that a rock or a person is a thing, or even that gravity or logic or distance or a thought is a thing. Many Reformers are careful to say that Sin is the Privation of Good, which I do not consider equivocation, but a necessary way to understand the determination that sin be (somewhat of the same way that we must be very careful in describing the Holy Trinity, to not say things that sound right in the moment, but later can be seen to claim something false)---some things don't fit our thinking well.

You'll probably hear me say often, that I believe something because it is the only thing that makes sense to me, even though it contradicts many of the things that are natural to my thinking. Below I say, "...I would naturally say [xyz],.....but,..." Note, too, that my theology is not just what makes logical sense to me, but that also is posited by Scripture (again, granting that I am unable as a human to approach Scripture without bias.) But my bias, I can honestly say, comes from what I have reasoned from positive statements from Scripture, demonstrating not only that God is First Cause and Omnipotent and the Creator and Sovereign and so on and on, but that as Omnipotent and First Cause that the other thing follows, that what he ordains and determines are EVERYTHING. (John 1 is big, here: [He] made everything that was made. Sin, however, may not be a 'made thing', though it carries a handle for referencing it.
To me, to put it that he created people knowing they would sin, is to imply a logical and non-biblical contradiction, that God is not the only first cause, or conversely, another logical and non-biblical contradiction, that something can happen by mere chance or by accident. but the third rendering, to me, works, that "he determined that there be sin."

I think that any limitation given to us in our creation was not a predestined choice, rather, it was positively ordained, or better, the best case scenario, when those options for us were limited by God attributes. He cannot be a house divided and predestine sin or evil, but can ordain it and positively allow it. He also cannot deny Himself, creating us inherently good, but the next best thing is to make us rely on Him for that good.

Mark Quayle said:
No. There is no such thing as "enough" faith. There is more and less faith, but any of it, if it is genuine, is produced by God and therefore, whole, and valid. We can "grow" it, and seek to increase it, and stymy it, but not kill it or stop it. It is inside of us, and made part of us. Notice throughout the Bible there are odd mentions of amounts of the Spirit of God in a person. To my natural thinking, I would naturally say, the Spirit either is, or is not, in the person, (in whatever way it is so), but the Spirit of God is not like us, though truly, 'person'. It is not a 'unit' in the same sense that a planet or a human is.

Yes, there is a genuine faith, and a not genuine faith. One faith that Jesus will place His Spirit in us in response to, and another that He will not. That's what I mean by enough faith.

Your boxing Scripture into two options. You have Born again, or flesh as your two options. The problem with that is that a person must be indwelt with the Holy Spirit to be born again. That's a big problem for you Mark, because nobody was indwelt until Pentecost. Nobody was born again. Nobody was baptized into Christ with the Holy Spirit. That's where a person is born again, in Christ.

What your doing is reverse engineering. That's limiting Scripture and the context that shows that there are other options for God to move through and with a person, while not indwelling them, like the presence of God, or His Word, or The Spirit being upon someone. You're two option system is from TULIP, not from the Bible.

This simultaneous claim that you use is not in Scripture. There is an order, believe, and be saved. You use that order too, just in reverse. You claim that there is not order, yet you also claim that a person must be indwelt to have faith. That's an order, Mark, and that's an order that is opposite of Scripture. There is context to be considered. You have a person already saved and not needing faith if they are indwelt and born again to believe.

For the record, John 3:16, that promise was fulfilled at Pentecost. Those who believe will have eternal life, points to Pentecost. At that time no one could have eternal life in reality, only in promise up unit Pentecost. Even if we look at yet another one of the three common proof texts used by Calvinism's defense of regeneration before faith, John 1:12-13, it's only the right to become children of God and born again. It's a present reality in verse twelve, believing, pointing to a future promise, verse thirteen. That future promise is realized at Pentecost. When the context is considered, we don't need the Greek. Scripture interprets Scripture. The other two 'go too' passages being John 3, and 1 John 5:1. 1 John 5:1 is one place that should not use order, but traditionally Calvinism does. It's a simple statement, if you currently believe, then you are born again. Why? because the first thing that happens when you believe is the indwelling, placed into Christ, and born again. For that reason, if you have one, you have the other. Evidence.

Mark Quayle said:
I mean it as a descriptor of what happens in being born again. I should have been more clear. I did indeed mean, as apparently you understood me to say, that God does 'awaken' the human. And yes, that is the life in him. Being raised from death to life. Not simply a result of the Spirit taking up residence, but the very thing by definition. We may not consciously experience it in that sequence, which is why I say the human's response to what has happened is a result, and not a cause, and is fellowship, not rebirth. It is a result of rebirth: Joy, relief, rest, desire, etc.

When we are baptized into Christ, placed into Him, the baptism which saves (1Peter 3:21), we are place into His death Galatians 2:20), and placed into His death, dying with Him, and raised up with Him, born again. (Ephesians 2:6).

Romans 6:3-11 explains it very nicely.

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Parallel verses Collisions 2:9-11, and Galatians 3.

Mark Quayle said:
I am assuming you are introducing this notion of two distinct faiths, or kinds of faith, or functions of faith, by logical need for the distinction, to explain your view of the modus operandi of Salvation. Can you show it directly from Scripture, or is it just the logically necessary use of your rendering of Scripture?

the ongoing faith is called Life because it's actual life that we receive when we come to faith and receive the indwelling. Nobody in the OT had that life. It was still a future promise, along with the indwelling that makes us live in Christ

Ezekiel 36:26-27, John 7:38-39. But listen to this, and remember, the life is the result of the indwelling.' Please, really consider what is being said here in this OT passage. NT begins at the death of the Testator, per Hebrews.

John 14:16-20 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. *At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.*

John 14:25-26"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Mark Quayle said:
In the same way that I consider all fact as endemic to the Gospel, I consider all faith as being 'made by' (and I mean that in every particular) by God. "Generated by" the Spirit gives the sense in which it is done. "Apart from me you can do nothing" is not hyperbole.

Nothing good is implied. Romans 3 says the same thing. That's what I believe. Yet we are still disagreeing with the rest. Nothing good by righteous standards. It's still true today, that only the Spirit can produce and "good" by righteous standards.

John 7:38-39 They believed, but were not born again.

Mark Quayle said:
Understand that this (in Galatians) is an English rendering of the Greek. My father was a Greek master. You should hear his tongue-in-cheek skepticism of the renditions people make of the Greek. There is no word for word use of prepositions, here. But even in English, the word, "by" can mean many different things. The force of Paul's argument is not that the Spirit is a result of hearing (though that can be argued as a separate issue) but that one cannot of the flesh do anything worthy or valid. Indeed we have begun in the Spirit, but that does not imply the rendering that one's initial faith (from hearing) induced the Spirit's occupying one and producing the second faith.

Mark, the Greek is not the silver bullet that many think it is. I used to think the same thing, but gave up on it fairly quickly. I own the Kenneth Wuest Greek four volume set, with translation. I know, woohoo! right? lol Many who have mastered the Greek will tell you that it's abused more than the English. And also that the context is even more necessary with the Greek than in English. Sometimes, I think that the Greek is used as a short cut in place of context. Any translation will have a few questionable verses, but to rewrite the Gospel message of believe and be saved, I disagree with that. I know you that you don't believe that's what you're doing, but the simultaneous thing is kind of masking it a little. I think it's being smashed into the test that way to hold the system up. Reverse engineering. This is typical from many reformed believers. A person already indwelt and born again does not need to have faith. You can say simultaneous, but you are using an order all the same. It's the wrong one.

I know that my writing is not eloquent. thanks for taking the time to consider my points. I know my posts can be hard to read sometimes. i always thought that the best theologians are the ones who can explain in laymen's terms. It's something to strive for. I still believe that Scripture interprets Scripture is the best method,. Simple hermeneutics.

Mark Quayle said:
While I will say that faith comes by hearing the word of God, I cannot see how that means that OUR efforts are part of any formula to induce the Spirit of God to do what it does in 'indwelling' us. That has to be the work of God alone, as ordained "from the foundation of the world". We do decide, but that was his decision. We do so, because HE established it ---I say, "We do so, because it IS so." This is part of being "in him".

Ordained is not predestined. See my thread on Romans 8:28-29. The meaning of foreknew. I go over a lot of that. I don't remember if you posted in there or not.

I'll need to get the rest later.

Peace

under grace1 · Thursday at 3:30 PM

Dave... said:
Hey under grace

That's actually very profound at the moment, as I'm writing and at the same time contemplating many things. The Gentiles, who did not have the Law were convicted and by nature do the things of the Law. The Law actually provokes us to sin by telling us not to do it.

Anyways, I believe that the beginning of that life, like in Galatians 3:2-3, well, as MacArthur once said of this, Quoting John Owen, "sin for a believers becomes a burden which afflicts him, rather than a pleasure that delights him. "

Dave

Absolutely law provokes sin.
And:
"sin for a believers becomes a burden which afflicts him, rather than a pleasure that delights him. "
Very true

Mark Quayle · Friday at 12:53 PM

Dave... said:
I think that any limitation given to us in our creation was not a predestined choice, rather, it was positively ordained, or better, the best case scenario, when those options for us were limited by God attributes. He cannot be a house divided and predestine sin or evil, but can ordain it and positively allow it. He also cannot deny Himself, creating us inherently good, but the next best thing is to make us rely on Him for that good.

Not sure just what you are saying there. ....that God did not choose to predestine that we have limitations? Or are you saying the limitation given us was not to make predestined choices? Whose choice are you referring to?

Regardless, I hope you can see the contradiction against the principle of cause-and-effect, here. Most Arminians don't fight it, they just go on to insist on free will. They will even say that God (First Cause) created them with limited 'first causal ability'. But 'created' necessarily means 'caused'. He caused them to be able to do something uncaused? Self-contradictory, I hope you can see.

Dave... said:
Yes, there is a genuine faith, and a not genuine faith. One faith that Jesus will place His Spirit in us in response to, and another that He will not. That's what I mean by enough faith.

Back to the old 2 phases of faith, eh? 'Reverse engineering', sounds like to me.

Dave... said:
Your boxing Scripture into two options. You have Born again, or flesh as your two options. The problem with that is that a person must be indwelt with the Holy Spirit to be born again. That's a big problem for you Mark, because nobody was indwelt until Pentecost. Nobody was born again. Nobody was baptized into Christ with the Holy Spirit. That's where a person is born again, in Christ.

Back to the same argument. You can't prove this thesis without first convincing me that nobody was born again or indwelt until Pentecost. You have tried and every argument to that effect did not work for me. Meanwhile, Romans, Ephesians, not to mention the rest of the (particularly) Pauline epistles, and, as far as I can tell, the words of Christ himself, not to mention the rest of the NT, and all sorts of indications from the OT, all deal with the two kinds of people.

I will mention this: One of the reasons it is hard for some to see it in OT is the same reason Arminians (and the more Pelagian sort of believers) can't understand the focus on Who and What God is, and the subsuming of all fact under him, IN PARTICULAR, the people of God and their responsibility to love him.

Dave... said:
This simultaneous claim that you use is not in Scripture. There is an order, believe, and be saved. You use that order too, just in reverse. You claim that there is not order, yet you also claim that a person must be indwelt to have faith. That's an order, Mark, and that's an order that is opposite of Scripture. There is context to be considered. You have a person already saved and not needing faith if they are indwelt and born again to believe.

That's a bit of generalizing where I was particular. My referring to simultaneity has to do with the temporal "when", or our experience of it, which is a poor source of doctrine. The order has to do with causal sequence. If you can convince me that Romans 8's characterization of the difference between the two kinds of minds does not universally apply, have at it. But so far you are repeating yourself. It is not possible for a person to submit to or to please God, whom God has not regenerated. And faith is a gift of God by grace, generated within by the Spirit of God, as is repentance and love etc.

Let me see if I can restate your notion here, that my causal sequence implies a person saved and not needing faith. That is not what I said at all, nor is it implied. (But if it applies to my claim, it does to yours too, later on. In your arrangement, the person, once saved, would no longer need faith either. Nevertheless, it does not apply to my claim). The same faith that saves continues through the believer's whole life; it is true that once he is saved he need not be saved again, since faith is by the Spirit's permanent indwelling.

Dave... said:
For the record, John 3:16, that promise was fulfilled at Pentecost. Those who believe will have eternal life, points to Pentecost. At that time no one could have eternal life in reality, only in promise up unit Pentecost. Even if we look at yet another one of the three common proof texts used by Calvinism's defense of regeneration before faith, John 1:12-13, it's only the right to become children of God and born again. It's a present reality in verse twelve, believing, pointing to a future promise, verse thirteen. That future promise is realized at Pentecost. When the context is considered, we don't need the Greek. Scripture interprets Scripture. The other two 'go too' passages being John 3, and 1 John 5:1. 1 John 5:1 is one place that should not use order, but traditionally Calvinism does. It's a simple statement, if you currently believe, then you are born again. Why? because the first thing that happens when you believe is the indwelling, placed into Christ, and born again. For that reason, if you have one, you have the other. Evidence.

That is a take on John 3:16. It doesn't say anything about Pentecost. You are making that link.

In John1, the Greek references authority--not the right to become, but the authority to be children of God. "Become" is only one permissable rendering. The passage does not make any predictions nor mention of an OT to NT difference, nor does it mention a willed decision by the subject. It doesn't say that their believing is by deciding to believe.

But in any way you lay out the sequence, whether believing comes first or not, you must show how the dead can make an alive decision, and how the person at enmity with God can please God. You can't do it.

Dave... said:
When we are baptized into Christ, placed into Him, the baptism which saves (1Peter 3:21), we are place into His death Galatians 2:20), and placed into His death, dying with Him, and raised up with Him, born again. (Ephesians 2:6).

Romans 6:3-11 explains it very nicely.

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Parallel verses Collisions 2:9-11, and Galatians 3.

And to you that demonstrates causal sequence (as well as temporal). We were dead, and God has raised us to newness of life. I have not said different. In fact, I insisted on it. But the focus on the passage has to do with Sanctification--the process of growing in Christ. I don't see how the other two references help your case, either.

Dave... said:
the ongoing faith is called Life because it's actual life that we receive when we come to faith and receive the indwelling. Nobody in the OT had that life. It was still a future promise, along with the indwelling that makes us live in Christ

A future promise and a present fact. I agree about the indwelling being the source of faith.

This has gone on long enough for one post. I will try later to finish.

Dave... · Friday at 1:49 PM

Mark Quayle said:
Not sure just what you are saying there. ....that God did not choose to predestine that we have limitations? Or are you saying the limitation given us was not to make predestined choices? Whose choice are you referring to?

In a nut shell, God is constrained by His attributes. I believe that applies in creation also. A lot of people don't like to hear that, but you can see it in creation, or in the way He saved us, it's everywhere. There are things, even things listed in Scripture that God cannot do. He cannot lie, for one. All things are possible through and by Him, but I believe that statement has only result in mind.

Mark Quayle said:
Regardless, I hope you can see the contradiction against the principle of cause-and-effect, here. Most Arminians don't fight it, they just go on to insist on free will. They will even say that God (First Cause) created them with limited 'first causal ability'. But 'created' necessarily means 'caused'. He caused them to be able to do something uncaused? Self-contradictory, I hope you can see.

I don't think there are angels running around heaven yelling, plan "B", plan "B". God is not reacting in time. That's what libertarian free will thinks. But I do think that man makes responsible choices. Some people, like Sproul, says that both are true. That's classic compatibilism. So, it's not bare permission. But positively allowed (under ordained) is not the same as positively caused, or predestined (also under ordained). I would not say that being positively allowed is still indirectly caused by God. He puts His stamp of approval on it and does decree it from the foundations of the world, but that does not make Him the cause, even indirectly. Nor is He responsible.

You can find the word predestine in Scripture with regards to OT believers being predestined to take the next step into a NT faith. God actually caused that. You can see it with those OT believers still living in the book of Acts. Such as Lydia, an OT believer who had her heart opened by God to understand, and believe. And Peter was directed to go to Cornelius, who was also an OT believer, and share the Gospel with Him. Even Paul in Acts 19, runs into OT believers who had never heard the Gospel, and missed the whole thing. Jesus, the death, resurrection and ascension. They didn't know about any of it. Their knowledge ended with John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness. Paul knew exactly where they were at, and shared the Gospel with them, and they believed. God orchestrated all of that. Bringing those that He gave to the Son, who He would not lose one of them, to faith in Jesus per Romans 8:28-29. That's predestined. That God causing, positively. Or it would not be true of all. The sheep, He would not lose one of them. All decreed from the foundations of the world, but the predestine only applies from the OT faith to the NT faith, for OT believers. That's one mistake that I believe all reformed theology makes. They apply predestine to God causing from the foundations of the world, and thus making Him the one who chooses. Rather, He did decree it, and did foreknow, as He foreknows everything, but He ordained it from His eternal decree, making it their choice, and then He also ordained from the foundations of the world that they would be predestined from an OT faith to a saving NT faith. Finishing what He started.

You'll never find the term predestined used for someone going to Hell in the Bible. I think the boundaries that I laid out earlier are true to Scripture. Ordain, can be positively caused (predestined), or it can be positively allowed. I think you'll find that most of the old theologians worth their salt will hold to these boundaries. I only know of Calvin saying that people were predestined to hell, though that's not what he really meant. It's like what Spurgeon once said, that these discussions become more about the terminology and their meaning that any thing else. He also said...

"“I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible”"

I'll need to get the rest later.

See ya Mark

Dave

Dave... · Saturday at 3:41 PM

Mark Quayle said:
Back to the same argument. You can't prove this thesis without first convincing me that nobody was born again or indwelt until Pentecost. You have tried and every argument to that effect did not work for me. Meanwhile, Romans, Ephesians, not to mention the rest of the (particularly) Pauline epistles, and, as far as I can tell, the words of Christ himself, not to mention the rest of the NT, and all sorts of indications from the OT, all deal with the two kinds of people.

But Mark, I have. What is missing is that while I have asked many times, you have yet to explain. Ezekiel 36:26-27, John 7:38-39. Can you explain why these are a future promise, when according to you, they were also a present reality at that time when those passages were written?

It was not just power that they received through the baptism with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and afterwards. Remember what Peter said just after Pentecost? "Salvation has come to the Gentiles". That's what they received, Mark, salvation, just like the Jews did at Pentecost per Peter.

Mark, can you provide one verse that says a man must be born again before He believes? I haven't seen one yet, but many have tried. Most try to do it with the backwards English of the very poor translation of the KJV.

Mark Quayle said:
And faith is a gift of God by grace, generated within by the Spirit of God, as is repentance and love etc.

Your quoting Ephesians 2, but it is the grace that was a gift. We enter into that grace by faith. Romans 5:1-2

Mark Quayle said:
Let me see if I can restate your notion here, that my causal sequence implies a person saved and not needing faith. That is not what I said at all, nor is it implied. (But if it applies to my claim, it does to yours too, later on. In your arrangement, the person, once saved, would no longer need faith either. Nevertheless, it does not apply to my claim). The same faith that saves continues through the believer's whole life; it is true that once he is saved he need not be saved again, since faith is by the Spirit's permanent indwelling.

A person once saved, would no longer need justification. But He would need to become what he is already reckoned to be in Jesus Christ. It's an inevitable evidence of one who is genuinely saved. That's an evidence of one who began being perfected as a result of receiving that life (ongoing faith), which is the result of our initial faith.

Mark Quayle said:
That is a take on John 3:16. It doesn't say anything about Pentecost. You are making that link.

But it does

3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

3:13-15 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

3:16-17 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Jesus was sent into the world so that they might be saved? Waite, what? But they were already saved, right Mark? Nope, but after Pentecost they were. "Salvation has come to the Gentiles".

Mark Quayle said:
In John1, the Greek references authority--not the right to become, but the authority to be children of God. "Become" is only one permissable rendering. The passage does not make any predictions nor mention of an OT to NT difference, nor does it mention a willed decision by the subject. It doesn't say that their believing is by deciding to believe.

Authority, right, same thing. They believed, then they were given the right to become Sons of God, born again. Do you see the order?

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

The English standard version is more proper in it's order. Fixing the old English that reversed the order.

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Mark Quayle said:
But in any way you lay out the sequence, whether believing comes first or not, you must show how the dead can make an alive decision, and how the person at enmity with God can please God. You can't do it.

Mark, first, you must not assume that a person without spiritual life, doesn't have options. Forcing the two option Calvinist theory is contradicting clear Scripture.

You must also prove that a person cannot believe from the flesh to receive that life. They don't need to be born again to believe because being born again is the result of believing and being placed into Christ. Being born again before faith is not an option that Scripture provides.

Every Scripture that you give to prove death, I can show you a people who can still believe. I can show you people who at one time could believe, but sin took them to a place that they were judicially hardened, and even then, they could still believe. your definition of spiritual death is not Biblical.

Dead men cannot do good by the righteousness standards of the Law, but they do come to faith before they are born again, as I have shown many times over with clear Scripture. I'm really growing tired of repeating myself, I'll bet that I actually hate it more than you do, Mark.

Mark Quayle said:
And to you that demonstrates causal sequence (as well as temporal). We were dead, and God has raised us to newness of life. I have not said different. In fact, I insisted on it. But the focus on the passage has to do with Sanctification--the process of growing in Christ. I don't see how the other two references help your case, either.

I know that you cannot miss the obvious description as one being born again in that passage. so where does that leave us?

Mark Quayle said:
I agree about the indwelling being the source of faith.

Old Testament, believe before indwelling.

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

New Testament.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Dave

AceWestfall08 · Saturday at 3:44 PM

Here is a quote from my Testimony in the Testimonies section. I describe how i was "born again' via my baptism and my fear of the lord expierence where i was given wings.

So the first experience/vision.....I visited my father one weekend from college. While staying at his house overnight, I get up to use the bathroom. When i finish and pass my dad in the living room. (He slept on the couch), he was awake and told me to sit next to him. He then explained to me he wasn't my father, but he was really Gabriel. He placed his hand on my forehead. Immediately air rushed into my lungs and i sneezed with my mouth. At the same time, I felt the sensation of warm water being poured over me. I was then pulled out of my body into a separate "realm" that was above. This realm was pure black. Out of the blackness a Silvery/Blue face appears, and says "Thomas, I swear by my great name you are mine". He then asks me several times what I want, and I keep changing my answer. First it was to "live lives", then it was "for my mothers healing", then it was "just to be happy", then it was "to get out of the military", then finally I answered "I wanted to marry Rachel". I was sent off to bed, and as I laid in bed I heard a voice say to me, "My dad was going to die".....so I pleaded with the voice and said "Give my dad, mercy" (meaning his soul). [side note, 14 years later. he is still alive (but his life collapsed around him and changed majorly and he is doing really good now)] I fell asleep and forgot about this vision until my 2nd experience happened. I place this vision happening just before the Holiday Season 2011. I interpret this as a baptism of water and spirit.

you can find the rest of my testimony at the link in my signature,

Mark Quayle · Sunday at 11:29 PM

Mark Quayle said:
Back to the same argument. You can't prove this thesis without first convincing me that nobody was born again or indwelt until Pentecost. You have tried and every argument to that effect did not work for me. Meanwhile, Romans, Ephesians, not to mention the rest of the (particularly) Pauline epistles, and, as far as I can tell, the words of Christ himself, not to mention the rest of the NT, and all sorts of indications from the OT, all deal with the two kinds of people.

Dave... said:
But Mark, I have. What is missing is that while I have asked many times, you have yet to explain. Ezekiel 36:26-27, John 7:38-39. Can you explain why these are a future promise, when according to you, they were also a present reality at that time when those passages were written?

Well, no, you haven't. Your line of logic is based on the assumption that the Spirit was not here until Pentecost. You have gone to some length to show why you think so, but you haven't convinced me that nobody was born again or indwelt until Pentecost. The Passages that you refer to in your attempt to do so ALL are seen in light of the idea that in fact it didn't happen until Pentecost. It is a circular argument.

While I readily admit that I could be wrong, I cannot see how, in light of the simple logic of causation, and in light of the many Scripture passages that speak of the wills of both the fallen and the born again and of God's decree, and of the command to choose, etc. To me, monergism is the only logical "way of Salvation", and the only way that fits ALL of Scripture. You want me to explain Ezekiel 36:26-27, John 7:38-39. I did so vaguely, I admit, by saying that the Spirit was around the whole time of the OT. There are many examples of the Spirit of God, by name, doing what the Spirit does, in the OT. I don't think I need to find those for you. And I happily admit that most of those don't prove indwelling, but they do prove his presence before Pentecost.

I brought up Ezekiel 36: "26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." If I understand you right, you are saying that is a prophecy that only refers to Pentecost. I disagreed, by pointing to the general principle that many, maybe most, OT prophecies are double in their fulfillment, and mentioning the fact of the OT's various mentions of the presence of the Spirit of God. The context of those two verses bears this out rather obviously, that this was something God would do in that time, for the sake of his own name. I will quote some of that, including those two verses.

22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. 23 I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.

24 “‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. 30 I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. 32 I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign Lord. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, people of Israel!

This promise was to take place during the OT, according to the context. That it may also refer to Pentecost does nothing to show that it did not take place before Pentecost. Also note, the monergism in this Old Testament passage.

So, on to John 7:38, 39
John 7: "38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified."
I note that the tenses of the verbs, "believes" and "believed" show neither temporal nor causal sequence. Literally, in vs 38 the meaning is, "the one believing", and in 39, "those having believed", which is an aorist participle, designating no particular placement but contingency. (That is, that if they had not believed in that moment of receiving, they would not receive. It doesn't say PRIOR to receiving.)

Now as to verse 39's statement: "Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified", and other passages demonstrating a displacement (which I happily admit to) where if Christ does not go up the Spirit won't come down, it still demonstrates only "measure", and not total displacement. One obvious place in the Gospels where the Spirit of God is indeed on this planet when Christ is also is at the Baptism of Jesus.

My conclusion: Pentecost was a particular demonstration of the Power and Wisdom of God. This has been shown in various places in the Old Testament, too, where the Spirit of God did things for a particular purpose.

You speak of the Baptism of/by/in the Spirit of God as the very Indwelling. It does not say that in Acts, nor, for that matter, does it separate the one thing from the other, (the indwelling from the demonstration by) except by degree and purpose. In the OT the Holy Spirit comes upon Saul for a particular time, even when Saul had no salvific faith ("Is Saul also among the prophets?") for God's own purposes. There are other times when the Spirit uses prophets do his bidding, some that may, and some that may not have had salvific faith. Yet the principle is shown over and over the inability of people to please God, apart from salvific faith (such as the above Ezekiel passage), which in Romans 8 is said to be impossible to do apart from having the mind of the Spirit.

Dave... said:
It was not just power that they received through the baptism with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and afterwards. Remember what Peter said just after Pentecost? "Salvation has come to the Gentiles". That's what they received, Mark, salvation, just like the Jews did at Pentecost per Peter.

Let's go with that. If that is when they received Salvation and were born again, how is that not monergistic? THAT, in that case, is when they believed. Brother, if anyone does anything spiritually valid and good, it is by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not by some "spark" of good intrinsic to fallen man.

But there are other occasions, even in the OT, where the Spirit came powerfully upon people for a special purpose. See where the leaders of Israel were enabled by the Spirit to help Moses deal with the people of Israel. (Numbers 11:16-17+ —remarkable story, by the way). I personally don't see Pentecost as much different, except in that it marks a difference in how people conceive of/ understand the Gospel, and the beginning of what we call missionary work. I don't, for example, think it marks the beginning of the true church. I believe that happened with Adam and Eve.

Dave... said:
Mark, can you provide one verse that says a man must be born again before He believes? I haven't seen one yet, but many have tried. Most try to do it with the backwards English of the very poor translation of the KJV.

I haven't any idea what you are talking about there concerning the monergists' use of the KJV. I grew up on the KJV in a very synergistic community. (I'm a missionary kid, and lived on a missionary compound (of a South American Bible Institute for pastors' training and an MK school—I was around Bible the whole time). The KJV is the language that comes to me in the many verses I memorized back then. And it is still used, but more by the synergists than by the monergists. As I recall, the Reformed and the Calvinists in the USA, at least, prefer the accuracy of the ESV and the more literal translations. I myself also like the NIV (1977) because they seemed to delight in alternate renderings that I like to study.

Anyway, I did not say, unless by accident, that a man must be born again BEFORE he believes. Only that a man must be born again IN ORDER TO believe. Some verses are by logical demonstration, (for eg, Romans 8:8 where the mind of flesh (or "those in the realm of the flesh") cannot please God, considering that believing rather obviously pleases God.) Others are more direct, such as John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

Others for study:
John 1:13 "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God"
Acts 16:14 "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message."
Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God."
Romans 9:16 "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."
2 Timothy 1:9 "He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace."
Philippians 1:6 "He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."
1 Corinthians 12:3 "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."

—and one of my favorites, (besides, obviously, Ephesians 2:8,9)
John 15:16 "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit."
(One of the objections to Calvinists' use of this example was that this is speaking about the Apostles, and not about anyone else. Well, if so, how is it so for the Apostles? The principle remains.)

Mark Quayle said:
And faith is a gift of God by grace, generated within by the Spirit of God, as is repentance and love etc.

Dave... said:
Your quoting Ephesians 2, but it is the grace that was a gift. We enter into that grace by faith. Romans 5:1-2

I guess we've been here before, or maybe this is my second time answering the same post,

. Yes, the grace is the gift, and so logically by the grammar, the grace being through faith, the faith, too, is gift, and not of works.

You reference Romans 5:1-2 as though the two statements in it demonstrate that faith is not a gift of God: "justification by faith" and "...access into the grace by faith by which we stand...". Do you, too, like others I have debated, claim that your faith produces this grace (that is, in their minds, Salvation), and that, apart from faith?

Once again, I, too, believe that salvation is by grace through faith. That faith is indeed means of grace. I have not said otherwise, though you seem to take me to say otherwise. That faith is means of grace, itself also being by gracious gift of God, made real within us by the Indwelling of the Spirit of God.

Dave... · Monday at 12:35 PM

@Mark Quayle

I'll need to get back tomorrow. Note, I changed John 3:14-15 in my last post (#107) to include verse 13. It really doesn't make the point I was trying to make without verse 13. Sorry.

Dave

Mark Quayle · Monday at 5:35 PM

Dave... said:
In a nut shell, God is constrained by His attributes. I believe that applies in creation also. A lot of people don't like to hear that, but you can see it in creation, or in the way He saved us, it's everywhere. There are things, even things listed in Scripture that God cannot do. He cannot lie, for one. All things are possible through and by Him, but I believe that statement has only result in mind.

I hope you can see how that statement is made from a human point-of-view. WE are the ones saying he is constrained by his attributes, because, as self-centered people we can't see the implications of the fact that he is the very 'fount' of his attributes. They don't constrain him. They only constrain the reasonable-ness of our characterizations. Not all things WE might construct, for example, logically self-contradictory notions, are 'things' in that sense; it is not a question of whether he can or cannot do them—it is a question of whether there even is a 'them' there, for him to do. "He cannot lie" BECAUSE it is logically self-contradictory for him, who is THE TRUTH, to lie. He doesn't decide to tell the truth instead of lie, nor is he tempted to lie, nor does he in any other way sin; sin is against God, and it is logically self-contradictory to consider whether he can (or cannot) do something against himself.

Maybe some other day we can get into the Theological/Philosophical Attributes of God, but suffice for now to say, they all in the end, and particular Aseity, demand that all things come from him and do not happen TO him. One good way to look at it is to say that for him to think is to do, to plan is to decree. He needn't consider options, and "chance" (as Sproul said) is only a shortcut for "I don't know".

Dave... said:
I don't think there are angels running around heaven yelling, plan "B", plan "B". God is not reacting in time. That's what libertarian free will thinks. But I do think that man makes responsible choices. Some people, like Sproul, says that both are true. That's classic compatibilism. So, it's not bare permission. But positively allowed (under ordained) is not the same as positively caused, or predestined (also under ordained). I would not say that being positively allowed is still indirectly caused by God. He puts His stamp of approval on it and does decree it from the foundations of the world, but that does not make Him the cause, even indirectly. Nor is He responsible.

My compatibilism doesn't demand carefully negotiating different expressions of causation. If God came first, all that came after was caused by him. And (this I don't need to understand by this route, but the syllogism is clear, that since he is omniscient, yet created anyway, he INTENDED all that happened. Pretty simple. And since we do (obviously) make choices, and willfully so, we are responsible for those choices. All this is logical, and scriptural. What one may consider necessarily implied may not be scriptural, but nothing I have said there is unscriptural.

Dave... said:
You can find the word predestine in Scripture with regards to OT believers being predestined to take the next step into a NT faith. God actually caused that. You can see it with those OT believers still living in the book of Acts. Such as Lydia, an OT believer who had her heart opened by God to understand, and believe. And Peter was directed to go to Cornelius, who was also an OT believer, and share the Gospel with Him. Even Paul in Acts 19, runs into OT believers who had never heard the Gospel, and missed the whole thing. Jesus, the death, resurrection and ascension. They didn't know about any of it. Their knowledge ended with John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness. Paul knew exactly where they were at, and shared the Gospel with them, and they believed. God orchestrated all of that. Bringing those that He gave to the Son, who He would not lose one of them, to faith in Jesus per Romans 8:28-29. That's predestined. That God causing, positively. Or it would not be true of all. The sheep, He would not lose one of them. All decreed from the foundations of the world, but the predestine only applies from the OT faith to the NT faith, for OT believers. That's one mistake that I believe all reformed theology makes. They apply predestine to God causing from the foundations of the world, and thus making Him the one who chooses. Rather, He did decree it, and did foreknow, as He foreknows everything, but He ordained it from His eternal decree, making it their choice, and then He also ordained from the foundations of the world that they would be predestined from an OT faith to a saving NT faith. Finishing what He started.

As you are aware, I disagree with your assessments re. the difference between the OT and the NT. For the most part, what you posit above is ignoring the fact that even if your characterizations are true, fallen man is still unable to come to Christ, but for the work of God in them, transforming them from death to life. I think you are confusing subsequent willed acts of the converted believer as the cause of their regeneration, rather than the result of that regeneration—that being raised from [spiritual] death to life, born from above.

Dave... said:
You'll never find the term predestined used for someone going to Hell in the Bible. I think the boundaries that I laid out earlier are true to Scripture. Ordain, can be positively caused (predestined), or it can be positively allowed. I think you'll find that most of the old theologians worth their salt will hold to these boundaries. I only know of Calvin saying that people were predestined to hell, though that's not what he really meant. It's like what Spurgeon once said, that these discussions become more about the terminology and their meaning that any thing else. He also said...

"“I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible”"

Not that you aren't in good company, even among the Reformed and Calvinists, but that is careful terminology, and to me, equivocation. What I hold to does not deny responsible choice, nor real choice, but that those choices are, in fact, according to God's causation. The way I put it is, he is that much above us. The WCF (3.1) uses the term, "established", to describe God's role in man's choosing. As I said, the logic is clear and simple. There is no use trying to get around it. But the implications are not necessarily what we humans may come up with.

We've gone over several more-or-less related things, and I have enjoyed this immensely. We could go from here into Religious Philosophy (rational thinking) concerning the attributes of God and their implications, or we could discuss the logistics of Monergism vs Synergism, or the language of causation, (such as the meaning of "foreknew", etc). My favorite would be the depth of God's being. Or we could continue with the OT vs NT question, though I think we would be mostly repeating ourselves at this point.

Dave... · Monday at 7:43 PM

Mark Quayle said:
Mark Quayle said:
Back to the same argument. You can't prove this thesis without first convincing me that nobody was born again or indwelt until Pentecost. You have tried and every argument to that effect did not work for me. Meanwhile, Romans, Ephesians, not to mention the rest of the (particularly) Pauline epistles, and, as far as I can tell, the words of Christ himself, not to mention the rest of the NT, and all sorts of indications from the OT, all deal with the two kinds of people.

Well, no, you haven't. Your line of logic is based on the assumption that the Spirit was not here until Pentecost. You have gone to some length to show why you think so, but you haven't convinced me that nobody was born again or indwelt until Pentecost. The Passages that you refer to in your attempt to do so ALL are seen in light of the idea that in fact it didn't happen until Pentecost. It is a circular argument.

I didn't say it, Jesus did. Not a portion, not a helping, but THE Holy Spirit, "I will send Him", "the Father will send Him."

I'll add a few more passages, just in case you think that idea is limited to the ones already posted. But first, did you ever consider that the Holy Spirit had to go with Jesus when He ascended, because Jesus became the NT living Temple of God. Remember, in the material Temple, the curtain tore, symbolizing that God no longer takes up residence in Temples made with hands. He couldn't be in believers yet. Jesus was not yet glorified.

John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

14:25-26 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

12:35-36 Then Jesus said to them, "A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.

15: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

You can't follow that lead, until you recognize these simple facts of Scripture. And the baptism with the Holy Spirit is that which places us in the NT living Temple, Jesus.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

This baptism is what makes us born again. Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:9-14, Galatians 3, 1 Peter 3:21.

Was still future per John the Baptist, and that future arrived at Pentecost, even quoting John the Baptist.

And Ezekiel, in many ways, parallels Joels prophecy. From different angles, but the same thing. Why was Joel mentioned in Acts? It was fulfilled, just like the promise in Ezekiel was.

Mark Quayle said:
While I readily admit that I could be wrong, I cannot see how, in light of the simple logic of causation, and in light of the many Scripture passages that speak of the wills of both the fallen and the born again and of God's decree, and of the command to choose, etc. To me, monergism is the only logical "way of Salvation", and the only way that fits ALL of Scripture. You want me to explain Ezekiel 36:26-27, John 7:38-39. I did so vaguely, I admit, by saying that the Spirit was around the whole time of the OT. There are many examples of the Spirit of God, by name, doing what the Spirit does, in the OT. I don't think I need to find those for you. And I happily admit that most of those don't prove indwelling, but they do prove his presence before Pentecost.

The two option theory is the wrong premise. All that means is that with the Holy Spirit indwelling, you have Christ, and without the Holy Spirit indwelling, you don't. That doesn't mean that God did not use other ways with the Spirit to work through people. The OT is proof of that. "upon" in the OT, the presence of God. The Word of God. There are ways that a lifeless person can come to faith with the Spirits, and not be indwelt and born again. Again, please consider that John 7:38-39 they believed, but did not have the Holy Spirit. Not a portion, but THE Holy Spirit. They did hoiwever, have Jesus with them. They had the Word of God. They had the presence of God.

Mark Quayle said:
This promise was to take place during the OT, according to the context. That it may also refer to Pentecost does nothing to show that it did not take place before Pentecost. Also note, the monergism in this Old Testament passage.

So, on to John 7:38, 39
John 7: "38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified."
I note that the tenses of the verbs, "believes" and "believed" show neither temporal nor causal sequence. Literally, in vs 38 the meaning is, "the one believing", and in 39, "those having believed", which is an aorist participle, designating no particular placement but contingency. (That is, that if they had not believed in that moment of receiving, they would not receive. It doesn't say PRIOR to receiving.)

Now as to verse 39's statement: "Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified", and other passages demonstrating a displacement (which I happily admit to) where if Christ does not go up the Spirit won't come down, it still demonstrates only "measure", and not total displacement. One obvious place in the Gospels where the Spirit of God is indeed on this planet when Christ is also is at the Baptism of Jesus.

You left out the first part of verse 39. That defines that passage.

John 7: "38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified."

They believed, but did not yet receive the Holy Spirit. 38 is born again, obviously, and verse 39A says they believed, as you already noted, but also tells us they did not yet have THE Holy Spirit. Because Jesus was not yet ascended. It's all in order, just like the other passages say.

Mark Quayle said:
My conclusion: Pentecost was a particular demonstration of the Power and Wisdom of God. This has been shown in various places in the Old Testament, too, where the Spirit of God did things for a particular purpose.

I don't deny that they received power on that day, the Bible says so. But it also says that they received the baptism into Christ with the Holy Spirit indwelling, just as John the Baptist prophesied. If are willing to take the word power literally, then why not not take THE Holy Spirit literally also? Because it is the Holy Spirit indwelling that gives those rivers of life, and justifies, and give that power. Both are true, and literal.

Mark Quayle said:
Let's go with that. If that is when they received Salvation and were born again, how is that not monergistic? THAT, in that case, is when they believed. Brother, if anyone does anything spiritually valid and good, it is by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not by some "spark" of good intrinsic to fallen man.

Your missing ingredient is the OT believers who were already saved by promise. When that promise was realized, is when they were literally saved, Like Lydia, Cornelio us, etc.

Calvinism think that every OT believer disappears on the first day of Jesus' ministry. These were not atheist's. According to Calvinism, they were already indwelt, born again and saved, but Salvation came to the Gentiles in Pentecost, not when they first believed in the OT.

Dave

Mark Quayle · Monday at 9:41 PM

Dave... said:
I didn't say it, Jesus did. Not a portion, not a helping, but THE Holy Spirit, "I will send Him", "the Father will send Him."

That by no means rules out the fact that, by name, the Spirit of God was here before that. WHILE JESUS WAS HERE, as himself being God, the displacement principle was in effect, but even that, as the Comforter/Helper. Not as the all-the-sudden indweller.

Dave... said:
I'll add a few more passages, just in case you think that idea is limited to the ones already posted. But first, did you ever consider that the Holy Spirit had to go with Jesus when He ascended, because Jesus became the NT living Temple of God. Remember, in the material Temple, the curtain tore, symbolizing that God no longer takes up residence in Temples made with hands. He couldn't be in believers yet. Jesus was not yet glorified.

"...had to go with Jesus"? Does that not imply that he was here all along, then?

Dave... said:
John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

Notice it says He dwells (present tense) with you. This was said before Pentecost.

14:23 "My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." —wait, what? I thought Jesus was gone so that the Spirit could come!

Dave... said:
John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

14:25-26 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

12:35-36 Then Jesus said to them, "A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.

15: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

You can't follow that lead, until you recognize these simple facts of Scripture. And the baptism with the Holy Spirit is that which places us in the NT living Temple, Jesus.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

This baptism is what makes us born again. Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:9-14, Galatians 3, 1 Peter 3:21.

Was still future per John the Baptist, and that future arrived at Pentecost, even quoting John the Baptist.

And Ezekiel, in many ways, parallels Joels prophecy. From different angles, but the same thing. Why was Joel mentioned in Acts? It was fulfilled, just like the promise in Ezekiel was.

Still sticking to the notion of it NOT applying also to Old Testament salvation.

Dave... said:
The two option theory is the wrong premise. All that means is that with the Holy Spirit indwelling, you have Christ, and without the Holy Spirit indwelling, you don't. That doesn't mean that God did not use other ways with the Spirit to work through people. The OT is proof of that. "upon" in the OT, the presence of God. The Word of God. There are ways that a lifeless person can come to faith with the Spirits, and not be indwelt and born again. Again, please consider that John 7:38-39 they believed, but did not have the Holy Spirit. Not a portion, but THE Holy Spirit. They did hoiwever, have Jesus with them. They had the Word of God. They had the presence of God.

Well, at least now you are admitting the Holy Spirit was around in the OT. Well done. You were saying it didn't show up till Pentecost.

Dave... said:
You left out the first part of verse 39. That defines that passage.

John 7: "38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified."

They believed, but did not yet receive the Holy Spirit. 38 is born again, obviously, and verse 39A says they believed, as you already noted, but also tells us they did not yet have THE Holy Spirit. Because Jesus was not yet ascended. It's all in order, just like the other passages say.

I did not ignore that. I agree they were later to receive. I also note that until one is changed from death to life, their belief is not salvific faith. Many believe, and even have a great 'salvation experience' and fall away. Seed on shallow ground. Not saved.

Dave... said:
I don't deny that they received power on that day, the Bible says so. But it also says that they received the baptism into Christ with the Holy Spirit indwelling, just as John the Baptist prophesied. If are willing to take the word power literally, then why not not take THE Holy Spirit literally also? Because it is the Holy Spirit indwelling that gives those rivers of life, and justifies, and give that power. Both are true, and literal.

I do take all that literally. How not? While I don't hold to the baptism being what some say —merely the filling, for some immediate purpose— it can be that, too. And at Pentecost it was, in spades. Nevertheless, as always since Adam sinned, fallen man is unable to please God until he is regenerated. Romans 8:8 says so.

Dave... said:
Your missing ingredient is the OT believers who were already saved by promise. When that promise was realized, is when they were literally saved, Like Lydia, Cornelio us, etc.

Calvinism think that every OT believer disappears on the first day of Jesus' ministry. These were not atheist's. According to Calvinism, they were already indwelt, born again and saved, but Salvation came to the Gentiles in Pentecost, not when they first believed in the OT.

The promise of itself doesn't save anyone. From Adam until the resurrection of us all, we are saved by grace through faith, and not of anything we can do.

Calvinism doesn't say anything about every OT believer disappearing. What are you talking about? That sounds like what you are saying, that the Gospel changed with Jesus. As I said before, not all Calvinists/Reformed agree that the OT believers were indwelt. Many agree with you here. I don't, because that implies that the lost can indeed have valid faith apart from the change in them by the indwelling spirit of God. That is a contradiction against the principle of the whole person being corrupt.

Dave... · 2026-02-03T13:04:34-0600

Mark Quayle said:
That by no means rules out the fact that, by name, the Spirit of God was here before that. WHILE JESUS WAS HERE, as himself being God, the displacement principle was in effect, but even that, as the Comforter/Helper. Not as the all-the-sudden indweller.
"...had to go with Jesus"? Does that not imply that he was here all along, then?

Hey Mark, I hope things are going well with you.

The Holy Spirit was here, but not indwelling believers.

Mark Quayle said:
Notice it says He dwells (present tense) with you. This was said before Pentecost.

'With you, and will be in you'. That verse is actually speaking of Jesus being with them. But can also apply to the Holy Spirit.

Mark Quayle said:
14:23 "My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." —wait, what? I thought Jesus was gone so that the Spirit could come!

Still sticking to the notion of it NOT applying also to Old Testament salvation.

Indwelling equals salvation. The baptism that places us in Christ. We already agreed on that.

Mark Quayle said:
Well, at least now you are admitting the Holy Spirit was around in the OT. Well done. You were saying it didn't show up till Pentecost.

You keep implying that I said it. What I did say is that the Holy Spirit never indwelt a person in the OT. What good would it do? Their sin can't be atoned, there was no atonement yet made. They can't have the righteousness of God imputed, because it wasn't established until the cross "it is finished". There was no death and resurrection to be born again by. There was no Agent to place us in Christ, making us one with Him and giving us access to those saving ingredients. We are saved by through the resurrection, both judicially and practically. No resurrection, not saved.

Mark Quayle said:
I did not ignore that. I agree they were later to receive. I also note that until one is changed from death to life, their belief is not salvific faith. Many believe, and even have a great 'salvation experience' and fall away. Seed on shallow ground. Not saved.

Mark, what do you think rivers of living water will flow from within them means? That's born again. That's still a future promise that they did not yet receive, but they believed already. When Moses struck the rock and water came out, that was an OT type, a picture prophecy of the same thing that John 7:38-39 points to.

Mark Quayle said:
I do take all that literally. How not? While I don't hold to the baptism being what some say —merely the filling, for some immediate purpose— it can be that, too. And at Pentecost it was, in spades. Nevertheless, as always since Adam sinned, fallen man is unable to please God until he is regenerated. Romans 8:8 says so.

That idea is a doctrine built on Calvinism, not the Bible. As I have shown, many times, the two option theory, teaches us that without the indwelling Holy Spirit man is not saved because He is not in Christ, but with the Holy Spirit indwelling we are saved because we are in Christ, justified and born again. The Bible only teaches that two option theory with the life, not the initial faith, as seen in the OT. No believer in the OT was in Christ and born again, as a result, they didn't have the life, only a promise of that life and justification. That OT faith could have been from the Holy Spirit being with them (not indwelling), or the Word, the Presence of God, Jesus incarnate, but could never be the result of being born again until after Christ was lifted up and Glorified. Because it would be Biblically impossible to be born again without the death, resurrection, and ascension, and also, very important, the Agent that places us in Christ, the Holy Spirit of promise, the Promise of the Father, was given at Pentecost and after.

Mark Quayle said:
The promise of itself doesn't save anyone. From Adam until the resurrection of us all, we are saved by grace through faith, and not of anything we can do.

The promise never saved. It's only a promise. Promises don't cleanse Temples, blood does. The indwelling goes both ways, we in Him, the living Temple of God, Jesus, and He in us. Look at the imagery in the OT. They couldn't enter the Temple until it was cleansed with blood. I tell you the truth, Adam and Eve, Even Abraham, and Moses, all died having not received the promise. It wasn't until Pentecost that they were actually saved. That's why nobody yet ascended, per John 3:13-15. Because they were not allowed in the presence of the Father until they were made clean by the atonement, and the righteousness of God was established, and the Holy Spirit indwelling placed them into Christ to receive these things. That's where they were born again.

Mark Quayle said:
Calvinism doesn't say anything about every OT believer disappearing. What are you talking about? That sounds like what you are saying, that the Gospel changed with Jesus. As I said before, not all Calvinists/Reformed agree that the OT believers were indwelt. Many agree with you here. I don't, because that implies that the lost can indeed have valid faith apart from the change in them by the indwelling spirit of God. That is a contradiction against the principle of the whole person being corrupt.

All those verses that you quoted assume that these were all atheist. Otherwise you would have to recognize that these were OT believers, according to Calvinism, were already born again and saved and not needing to come to faith in the Gospel. The Gentiles, Lydia, Cornelius, were all OT believers. But salvation came to the Gentiles, Mark, after Pentecost. Before Pentecost, you believe that these OT believers were born again, indwelt already placed in Christ and saved, but "Salvation came to these Gentiles" after Pentecost, just like the Jews at Pentecost.

Reformed theology has those same people that they claim as proof texts in Acts that God moves first before a person believes and is saved, and also claim that those same people, as OT believers, were born again and saved in the OT. But Scripture is clear, they are not atheist, but true OT believers. My contention is that before Pentecost, they were only saved by promise. But after Pentecost, that promise became a reality. Reformed theology claims that they were already indwelt, born again, and justified before Pentecost, and after Pentecost, those same saved OT believers had to have their hearts opened up again, as non believing atheists, who don't yet have the Holy Spirit indwelling, for these passages to also be the proof texts that they claim as God moving on a non believer and making them believe.

Here's some the verse that you quoted. I meant to answer these but ran out of time.

John 1:13 "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God"

Yes, they believed (present), and they were given the right (present) (future reality---->) to be Sons of God, born again, not of the will of man, but of God.

Acts 16:14 "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message."

Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, ***who worshiped God***. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

She was an OT believer. You can't have it both ways. Was she saved already, needing to be saved again? When was she saved? Romans 8:28-29 applies here. She already had the promise by faith, that promise was realized in the passage that you quoted. Predestined from OT faith to NT faith, I believe.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, through faith "

It is faith that enters us into that grace. Distinguishing the initial faith with that grace that is a gift from God. Romans 5:1-2.

Romans 9:16 "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."

There's context to these verses. That context is speaking about the promises made to Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles. God hardened the hearts of Israel (judicially, earned), to bring salvation to the Gentiles. Those Jews, while judicially hardened, could always repent and believe, as Paul explains later in Romans. In short, those passages are speaking of national things, not personal salvation.

2 Timothy 1:9 "He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace."

Not by our works, but according to God's plan in Christ from the foundations of the world. Jesus is elect, we become elect with Him "in Him" when we believe per Ephesians 1.

Philippians 1:6 "He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:2-3 says the same thing. It's speaking of the life we receive as a result of the initial faith, not the initial faith that gives us that life. Hebrews calls it 'Jesus being the Author and Finisher of our faith' I believe that faith in that Hebrews verse is a metaphor for life (See Acts 3:15 Prince/Author of life). In other words, the life begins with the indwelling. Many in reformed theology stretch the context of that life to include the initial faith. They recognize that without the Spirit indwelling, that there cannot be life. To make it work, they then apply the indwelling, and thus the life, to before that initial faith. They call the initial faith the life also. Scripture clearly does not support that idea. The life is the result of the initial faith.

1 Corinthians 12:3 "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."

In Matthew 7:22-24, Jesus says this "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

It's best to understand 1 Corinthians 12:1 in light of 1 John 4:2-3 " By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."

Evidence, not cause of faith. Out of time. peace

Dave

Mark Quayle · 2026-02-03T22:14:52-0600

Dave... said:
Mark, what do you think rivers of living water will flow from within them means? That's born again. That's still a future promise that they did not yet receive, but they believed already. When Moses struck the rock and water came out, that was an OT type, a picture prophecy of the same thing that John 7:38-39 points to.

Well, actually, that's also after being born again, but ...to the point. I'm not saying it isn't a future promise and that maybe even MOST of those attending (whether they believed or not) at Pentecost were born again. THAT BELIEF, if they weren't born again, was not salvific faith!

Dave... said:
That idea is a doctrine built on Calvinism, not the Bible. As I have shown, many times, the two option theory, teaches us that without the indwelling Holy Spirit man is not saved because He is not in Christ, but with the Holy Spirit indwelling we are saved because we are in Christ, justified and born again. The Bible only teaches that two option theory with the life, not the initial faith, as seen in the OT. No believer in the OT was in Christ and born again, as a result, they didn't have the life, only a promise of that life and justification. That OT faith could have been from the Holy Spirit being with them (not indwelling), or the Word, the Presence of God, Jesus incarnate, but could never be the result of being born again until after Christ was lifted up and Glorified. Because it would be Biblically impossible to be born again without the death, resurrection, and ascension, and also, very important, the Agent that places us in Christ, the Holy Spirit of promise, the Promise of the Father, was given at Pentecost and after.

I don't build my doctrine on Calvinism. (Not that Calvin represents Calvinism anymore, but, I've heard more Calvin from those who hate him than I have read of him myself.) I didn't even know that what I had finally realized after maybe 45 years of synergistic wandering, was so close to Calvinism, or better, to Reformed Theology. It was maybe 5 years after I had already reasoned monergism, before I heard that it was called that. It was at least two years before anyone told me I was a Calvinist. (I still don't say that I am, except only by reputation.) When I was a teen, I knew that what I was brought up in (synergism, semi-Wesleyanism, semi-Arminianism, experientialism in the guise of faith, dispensationalism disguised as a proper hermeneutic, fundamentalism and here-and-there proof-texting in the guise of Sola Scriptura just wasn't making sense to me, but I thought I was "just not getting it." Slowly over the years, I watched other MK's and PK's 'abandoning the faith' because it just didn't add up—mainly, because of the weak God who needed us to be obedient so that he could get enough people into his fold to complete his plan.

Are you saying that your two-stage theory—i.e. initial faith by man's doing, then real faith later by the Spirit's doing, as though both are valid and salvific—is superior to the single-stage, so-called two-option theory? —(I'm still not sure what you are saying those two options are —born again vs still lost?— but anyway.) Obviously you think it more Biblical, but I see that once again you reason it so by presuming your thesis that no man was born again until Pentecost (which, as I have said, makes no sense to me) as the hermeneutic by which to reason on all other Scripture. Meanwhile, I would rather enjoy getting into what I do assume, which is to me completely Biblical, though I admit I could be wrong, and the only thing that is completely logical. It is the only thing that answers to ALL the Bible, as far as I know. I have not heard you explain Romans 8:8, for instance.

Dave... said:
The promise never saved. It's only a promise. Promises don't cleanse Temples, blood does.

That's what I said. You sound like you are trying to convince me otherwise.

Dave... said:
The indwelling goes both ways, we in Him, the living Temple of God, Jesus, and He in us. Look at the imagery in the OT. They couldn't enter the Temple until it was cleansed with blood. I tell you the truth, Adam and Eve, Even Abraham, and Moses, all died having not received the promise. It wasn't until Pentecost that they were actually saved.

You are mixing two promises.

Dave... said:
That's why nobody yet ascended, per John 3:13-15. Because they were not allowed in the presence of the Father until they were made clean by the atonement, and the righteousness of God was established, and the Holy Spirit indwelling placed them into Christ to receive these things. That's where they were born again.

I'll try to remember to get to this, below, because you do this same temporally dependent reasoning below, more explicitly. By the way, Scripture doesn't say that is why nobody had yet ascended.

Dave... said:
All those verses that you quoted assume that these were all atheist. Otherwise you would have to recognize that these were OT believers, according to Calvinism, were already born again and saved and not needing to come to faith in the Gospel. The Gentiles, Lydia, Cornelius, were all OT believers. But salvation came to the Gentiles, Mark, after Pentecost. Before Pentecost, you believe that these OT believers were born again, indwelt already placed in Christ and saved, but "Salvation came to these Gentiles" after Pentecost, just like the Jews at Pentecost

You're beginning to talk past me here, I'm afraid. I don't know any verses I quoted assuming anybody was atheist. (Even Satan is no atheist.) I did quote verses concerning OT believers, who, if they were truly believers, they were believers in the gospel, whether they understood the terms of the Gospel or not. But here, your claim concerning "Salvation came to these Gentiles", is off by a good many degrees. Even Abraham was a Gentile, not to mention the many before him. That quote was an amazed realization that Gentiles also were among the Children of God. You are once again presuming that the Spirit had regenerated nobody before Pentecost, in order to make these claims. Yet, circularly, you are making these claims to prove that the Spirit had regenerated nobody before Pentecost.

Dave... said:
Reformed theology has those same people that they claim as proof texts in Acts that God moves first before a person believes and is saved, and also claim that those same people, as OT believers, were born again and saved in the OT. But Scripture is clear, they are not atheist, but true OT believers. My contention is that before Pentecost, they were only saved by promise. But after Pentecost, that promise became a reality. Reformed theology claims that they were already indwelt, born again, and justified before Pentecost, and after Pentecost, those same saved OT believers had to have their hearts opened up again, as non believing atheists, who don't yet have the Holy Spirit indwelling, for these passages to also be the proof texts that they claim as God moving on a non believer and making them believe.

I left this portion above as is, for reader's coherence of your reasoning, but will quote parts here:
—You say, "But Scripture is clear, they are not atheist,". Where did I say they are atheist?
—You say, "My contention is that before Pentecost, they were only saved by promise". But here in your same post, you just finished saying, "The promise never saved. It's only a promise. Promises don't cleanse Temples, blood does".
—You say, "Reformed theology claims that they were already indwelt, born again, and justified before Pentecost, and after Pentecost, those same saved OT believers had to have their hearts opened up again, as non believing atheists, who don't yet have the Holy Spirit indwelling, for these passages to also be the proof texts that they claim as God moving on a non believer and making them believe." Reformed theology does not claim that those same OT believers had to have their hearts opened up again as non believing atheist, who don't yet have the Holy Spirit indwelling, for the passages to also be the proof texts that they, (I suppose you mean, the Reformed), claim as God moving on a non-believer and making them believe. I told you already that you are in good company with many of the Reformed and Calvinists who claim the same as you do, that the OT Saints were not regenerated. I disagree rather vehemently with them about that.

Dave... said:
Dave... said:

Here's some the verse that you quoted. I meant to answer these but ran out of time.

John 1:13 "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God"

Yes, they believed (present), and they were given the right (present) (future reality---->) to be Sons of God, born again, not of the will of man, but of God.

Click to expand...

You already answered this one, I think. And I answered you. Your construction, "...believed (present), and they were given the right (present) (future reality---->) to be Sons of God..." is assertion, unproven. Temporally dependent, on top of that, not to mention the objections I gave against your refutation.

Dave... said:
Dave... said:

Acts 16:14 "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message."

Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, ***who worshiped God***. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

She was an OT believer. You can't have it both ways. Was she saved already, needing to be saved again? When was she saved? Romans 8:28-29 applies here. She already had the promise by faith, that promise was realized in the passage that you quoted. Predestined from OT faith to NT faith, I believe.

Click to expand...

Same as above. Either she was a true worshiper of God, or she was not. She can have her heart opened either way. I have my heart opened pretty much daily. It can mean that though she worshiped God as did the earlier Hebrews, who were lost, yet worshiped, and then her heart was opened by the Spirit's indwelling (i.e. regeneration), OR, as I believe to be the case, she already was indwelt by the Spirit of God and regenerated, before she came to understand more through the things spoken by Paul. I could be wrong by which one I believe, but either way need not be seen according to your objection. Neither is self-contradictory.

Dave... said:
Dave... said:

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, through faith "

It is faith that enters us into that grace. Distinguishing the initial faith with that grace that is a gift from God. Romans 5:1-2.

Click to expand...

We've dealt with this one, too. Logically, via the grammar, if the salvation is through faith, and the salvation is a gift, then the faith too is gift.

Dave... said:
Dave... said:

Romans 9:16 "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."

There's context to these verses. That context is speaking about the promises made to Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles. God hardened the hearts of Israel (judicially, earned), to bring salvation to the Gentiles. Those Jews, while judicially hardened, could always repent and believe, as Paul explains later in Romans. In short, those passages are speaking of national things, not personal salvation.

Click to expand...

There is indeed context to these verses. Ironic you should mention it immediately following Romans 9:16! The Context is vehement declaration of the fact that GOD IS THE WILL behind all fact, and in particular, behind election and his purposes for everything that happens. Yes, indeed, THAT is given as reasoning behind why Gentiles are also among the elect. It does NOT, however, here, nor later in anything Paul says, imply that just anyone can repent and believe, apart from being regenerated. Read Romans 8:8 again, and then show me how it is possible for those at enmity with God can please God.

Dave... said:
Dave... said:

2 Timothy 1:9 "He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace."

Not by our works, but according to God's plan in Christ from the foundations of the world. Jesus is elect, we become elect with Him "in Him" when we believe per Ephesians 1.

Click to expand...

Ok, and how do we believe per Ephesians 1? The only way we can truly believe—by salvific faith, which can only come from God himself.

Dave... said:
Dave... said:

Philippians 1:6 "He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:2-3 says the same thing. It's speaking of the life we receive as a result of the initial faith, not the initial faith that gives us that life.

Click to expand...

Assertion. Not to mention, a construction beyond what it actually says.

Dave... said:
Dave... said:

Hebrews calls it 'Jesus being the Author and Finisher of our faith' I believe that faith in that Hebrews verse is a metaphor for life (See Acts 3:15 Prince/Author of life). In other words, the life begins with the indwelling. Many in reformed theology stretch the context of that life to include the initial faith. They recognize that without the Spirit indwelling, that there cannot be life. To make it work, they then apply the indwelling, and thus the life, to before that initial faith. They call the initial faith the life also. Scripture clearly does not support that idea. The life is the result of the initial faith.

1 Corinthians 12:3 "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."

In Matthew 7:22-24, Jesus says this "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

It's best to understand 1 Corinthians 12:1 in light of 1 John 4:2-3 " By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."

Click to expand...

Evidence, not cause of faith. Out of time. peace

Evidence, not cause of faith. True that! And in fact, faith is evidence of the indwelling Spirit of God.

Mark Quayle · 2026-02-03T22:20:14-0600

Dave... said:
That's why nobody yet ascended, per John 3:13-15. Because they were not allowed in the presence of the Father until they were made clean by the atonement, and the righteousness of God was established, and the Holy Spirit indwelling placed them into Christ to receive these things. That's where they were born again.

I originally intended to answer this according to what I had read you to say later, but I forgot.

Anyhow, you argued somewhere that because Christ had not yet died and been raised from the dead, that is was impossible for the Holy Spirit to indwell anyone before then. —(Or words to that effect, anyway)—

That is a temporal-only view, dependent on temporal placement, as though the Spirit depended on time in the same way we do. It is illogical to confine the metaphysical to temporal norms. That Christ died for us and is raised is the point —not when he died and was raised.

Dave... · 2026-02-04T13:29:33-0600

Mark Quayle said:
Well, actually, that's also after being born again, but ...to the point. I'm not saying it isn't a future promise and that maybe even MOST of those attending (whether they believed or not) at Pentecost were born again. THAT BELIEF, if they weren't born again, was not salvific faith!

It was silvic faith in promise. It's simple math. Indwelling, in Christ, born again, justified. Not indwelt, not in Christ, not born again. They were given a promise of that salvation. They believed, but could not be born again, not in Christ. I keep posting Scripture, and you simply keep denying it.

Mark Quayle said:
Are you saying that your two-stage theory—i.e. initial faith by man's doing, then real faith later by the Spirit's doing, as though both are valid and salvific—is superior to the single-stage, so-called two-option theory? —(I'm still not sure what you are saying those two options are —born again vs still lost?— but anyway.) Obviously you think it more Biblical, but I see that once again you reason it so by presuming your thesis that no man was born again until Pentecost (which, as I have said, makes no sense to me) as the hermeneutic by which to reason on all other Scripture. Meanwhile, I would rather enjoy getting into what I do assume, which is to me completely Biblical, though I admit I could be wrong, and the only thing that is completely logical. It is the only thing that answers to ALL the Bible, as far as I know. I have not heard you explain Romans 8:8, for instance.

Mark, you're missing the point. It's true, that a man indwelt with the Holy Spirit, is 'in Christ' and born again. It's also true that a man who is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit, is not in Christ, and is not born again. That's a simple formula that we all agree on. What I'm saying is that the initial faith is not from being born again. It comes from somewhere else. It may still be of God, in some generic way, but it's not from being born again. You're putting the cart before the horse to save an unbiblical system that is not taught in Scripture. OT promise, NT fulfillment of that Promise. Nobody was in Christ before Pentecost. That's where people are justified and born again, in Christ.

Mark Quayle said:
That's what I said. You sound like you are trying to convince me otherwise.

All they had in the OT was the promise.

Mark Quayle said:
You are mixing two promises.

Two things simultaneously true, one promise. The Promise of the Father. Places us in Christ, and places Christ in us. John 14:9-20...all of it, very important. Especially the last verse. Being baptized into Christ with the Holy Spirit indwelling... vs 20 "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you."

Acts 1:4-5 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Do you think that it's a coincidence that all those Gentile countries that the Jews were dispersed to over the years were all represented at Pentecost? Look at Acts 2:9-11. Then Peter tells of the prophecy from Joel. Some were Jews by birth, and some were proselytes. But this is God fulfilling the context that you provided for Ezekiel 36:26-27. The Gospel message, and the testimony of what happened goes back with them to those Gentile nations, even reaching the non believing Jews. Apply the context in Ezekiel Scripture that you quoted to that.

Mark Quayle said:
I'll try to remember to get to this, below, because you do this same temporally dependent reasoning below, more explicitly. By the way, Scripture doesn't say that is why nobody had yet ascended.

John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Mark Quayle said:
You're beginning to talk past me here, I'm afraid. I don't know any verses I quoted assuming anybody was atheist. (Even Satan is no atheist.) I did quote verses concerning OT believers, who, if they were truly believers, they were believers in the gospel, whether they understood the terms of the Gospel or not. But here, your claim concerning "Salvation came to these Gentiles", is off by a good many degrees. Even Abraham was a Gentile, not to mention the many before him. That quote was an amazed realization that Gentiles also were among the Children of God. You are once again presuming that the Spirit had regenerated nobody before Pentecost, in order to make these claims. Yet, circularly, you are making these claims to prove that the Spirit had regenerated nobody before Pentecost.

Hebrews 11:13, 39-40 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth....And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

Mark, your understanding is extremely inconsistent according to Scripture. Indwelling equals regeneration, remember? Baptism places us in Christ, and there we are placed into His death (Galatians 2:20), and raised up with Him (Ephesians 2:6). No indwelling, no placed into Christ, no born again. The indwelling is the result of initial faith.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Mark Quayle said:
I left this portion above as is, for reader's coherence of your reasoning, but will quote parts here:
—You say, "But Scripture is clear, they are not atheist,". Where did I say they are atheist?
—You say, "My contention is that before Pentecost, they were only saved by promise". But here in your same post, you just finished saying, "The promise never saved. It's only a promise. Promises don't cleanse Temples, blood does".
—You say, "Reformed theology claims that they were already indwelt, born again, and justified before Pentecost, and after Pentecost, those same saved OT believers had to have their hearts opened up again, as non believing atheists, who don't yet have the Holy Spirit indwelling, for these passages to also be the proof texts that they claim as God moving on a non believer and making them believe."

The way that you used some verses in Acts as proof texts that God must make a person born again for a person to believe. But as Scripture plainly shows, Lydia was a woman who feared God. She was a OT believer. According to Calvinism, that means that when she came to that OT faith, she was already born again and justified. You can't have it both ways, Mark. How did she come to an OT faith by your reasoning? To be consistent, you would need to answer that she was born again to believe in the OT. Then, how is her heart being opened in the NT to believe the Gospel relevant? According to Calvinism, she was already justified and saved. Same with Cornelius, and the Gentiles. All OT believers. And salvation came to them, when they received the placing into Christ with the Holy Spirit.

Mark Quayle said:
Reformed theology does not claim that those same OT believers had to have their hearts opened up again as non believing atheist, who don't yet have the Holy Spirit indwelling, for the passages to also be the proof texts that they, (I suppose you mean, the Reformed), claim as God moving on a non-believer and making them believe. I told you already that you are in good company with many of the Reformed and Calvinists who claim the same as you do, that the OT Saints were not regenerated. I disagree rather vehemently with them about that.

Yes, it's an inconsistency that even you used when you quoted Lydia's heart being opened. She was already an OT believer. According to Calvinism, already indwelt, placed into Christ and born again, justified. I'll make its simple. When was Lydia saved? My answer, by promise when she came to faith in the OT, by reality, when she trusted in the Gospel as recorded in Acts and was placed into Christ by way of the Holy Spirit indwelling, the Promise of the Father.

When was she justified? Romans 3:25. She needed to be in Christ believing the Gospel to be saved. Since she was an OT true believer, she was predestined from an OT faith to a NT faith. (Romans 8:28-29). We are only elect 'in Christ'. Yet again, Calvinism puts the cart before the horse to save the system. They claim that every saved person was already in Christ from the foundations of the world. It's insane.

Mark Quayle said:
You already answered this one, I think. And I answered you. Your construction, "...believed (present), and they were given the right (present) (future reality---->) to be Sons of God..." is assertion, unproven. Temporally dependent, on top of that, not to mention the objections I gave against your refutation.

Same as above. Either she was a true worshiper of God, or she was not. She can have her heart opened either way. I have my heart opened pretty much daily. It can mean that though she worshiped God as did the earlier Hebrews, who were lost, yet worshiped, and then her heart was opened by the Spirit's indwelling (i.e. regeneration), OR, as I believe to be the case, she already was indwelt by the Spirit of God and regenerated, before she came to understand more through the things spoken by Paul. I could be wrong by which one I believe, but either way need not be seen according to your objection. Neither is self-contradictory.

How can a person be saved, born again, and not in Christ? With the Spirit you are in Christ and saved, without the Spirit you not in Christ and are not saved.

Mark Quayle said:
There is indeed context to these verses. Ironic you should mention it immediately following Romans 9:16! The Context is vehement declaration of the fact that GOD IS THE WILL behind all fact, and in particular, behind election and his purposes for everything that happens. Yes, indeed, THAT is given as reasoning behind why Gentiles are also among the elect. It does NOT, however, here, nor later in anything Paul says, imply that just anyone can repent and believe, apart from being regenerated. Read Romans 8:8 again, and then show me how it is possible for those at enmity with God can please God.

It's the life that is a gift. What life do you have apart from Christ? You're assuming the system into it, that the life begins before a person initially believes, but that idea is hostile to Scripture.

The life is the result of the indwelling. The indwelling is always the result of believing.

Mark Quayle said:
Ok, and how do we believe per Ephesians 1? The only way we can truly believe—by salvific faith, which can only come from God himself.

Because you see salvation beginning before a person comes to faith. That's your system that says that, not Scripture. The life is always the result of the indwelling. We are born again as a result of the indwelling. To fix that huge inconsistency, Calvinism places the indwelling before the initial faith. It's simply not Biblical. I've shown this.

Mark Quayle said:
Assertion. Not to mention, a construction beyond what it actually says.

Evidence, not cause of faith. True that! And in fact, faith is evidence of the indwelling Spirit of God.

The life is not the initial faith. I've proven this already. The life is the ongoing faith that results from the indwelling, which places us in Christ.

Dave

Dave... · 2026-02-04T13:41:01-0600

Mark Quayle said:
I originally intended to answer this according to what I had read you to say later, but I forgot.

Anyhow, you argued somewhere that because Christ had not yet died and been raised from the dead, that is was impossible for the Holy Spirit to indwell anyone before then. —(Or words to that effect, anyway)—

That is a temporal-only view, dependent on temporal placement, as though the Spirit depended on time in the same way we do. It is illogical to confine the metaphysical to temporal norms. That Christ died for us and is raised is the point —not when he died and was raised.

With all due respect Mark, this is intellectual gibberish. I've dealt with this kind of stuff before. It usually sends most people running for cover because they are intimidated by it. I'm not. This temporal vs time thing, the Greeks would have loved it. It's nonsense. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's relativism. God gave us context to understand, and part of that context is time. Relativism, in opinion, makes everything mean nothing. I feel very comfortable in saying I went down that road once with someone on another forum, but never again. It's not from God. Does that means that God is bound by time? no. But it does mean that His is that His attributes do not overturn clear Scripture and the time frame that they are laid out in for us to understand them in.

Dave

timothyu · 2026-02-04T13:56:36-0600

HS in the OT

The Torah refers to the HS as "Spirit of God" (ruach Elohim) or "Spirit of the Lord" (ruach YHWH).

The term Holy Spirit (ruach ha-kodesh) was a later term created by rabbis.

Numbers 11:17, God spreading out the Spirit
Exodus 31:3, God fills Bezalel with the Spirit
1 Samuel 16:13, the Spirit comes upon David

Mark Quayle · 2026-02-04T14:21:06-0600

Mark Quayle said:
I originally intended to answer this according to what I had read you to say later, but I forgot.

Anyhow, you argued somewhere that because Christ had not yet died and been raised from the dead, that is was impossible for the Holy Spirit to indwell anyone before then. —(Or words to that effect, anyway)—

That is a temporal-only view, dependent on temporal placement, as though the Spirit depended on time in the same way we do. It is illogical to confine the metaphysical to temporal norms. That Christ died for us and is raised is the point —not when he died and was raised.

Dave... said:
With all due respect Mark, this is intellectual gibberish. I've dealt with this kind of stuff before. It usually sends most people running for cover because they are intimidated by it. I'm not. This temporal vs time thing, the Greeks would have loved it. It's nonsense. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's relativism. God gave us context to understand, and part of that context is time. Relativism, in opinion, makes everything mean nothing. I feel very comfortable in saying I went down that road once with someone on another forum, but never again. It's not from God. Does that means that God is bound by time? no. But it does mean that His is that His attributes do not overturn clear Scripture and the time frame that they are laid out in for us to understand them in.

Dave

In another forum, there's a guy (Calvinistic) who keeps going on and on with a claim that we were justified at the cross—therefore, justified before we were born. Do you get my point? We were justified at the Cross; we were justified by what Christ did; but we were nevertheless "justified by faith"— not justified [temporally] before faith. I'm not going to keep harping on it—his argument is ridiculous. Yours sounded very similar to me.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

What happens spiritually that makes us born again?

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Active Member

Active Member

Lonely Sparrow

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Active Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Active Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Active Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Similar threads