The real presence of Christ in the sacrament of communion.

[Albion]

Christ is already present without it, so long as two or more are gathered in his name.

That's true, but that presence is only a general one. The Lord's Supper was instituted by Our Lord to be a special kind of more intimate presence and one that specifically reminds us of Passover as well as Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. He also ordered his Apostles to continue to observe it, so the argument that it's not something important to us just doesn't work.

The value of the sacrament is in the meaning.

Yes, indeed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which brings us to the question. Is there a presence above and beyond the Spirit that has constituted regeneration? We know when the Sprit indwells someone; He doesn't "leave". Which upon the surface at least; that appears to be a difference between Old Testament and New Testament living saint.

Kind of like the analogy of whether or not an individual "lives in their car". We, like the empty automobile, do no spiritual work without the "Driver" in the car.

Off topic, to deal with this by itself, but I couldn't resist: Why do you say that (even though you did say "...on the surface at least") We know (intellectually at least) that the Holy Spirit does not leave the regenerate Elect because we know the purpose of regeneration. It was the same in the Old Testament. Accounts of the Spirit of God doing otherwise were not about regeneration. (When David says, "take not your Holy Spirit from me", he is talking about his feelings. I could argue that David, inspired of the Spirit of God, can write his feelings and fear of losing his very salvation, without it being doctrine. As probably all the Reformed know, when we commit sin and ignore conviction, we lose our sense of the presence of God and doubts concerning very mindset and beliefs we held as repentant believers begin to make their way into our focus.)

Aside from such accounts as David's sin of lust, murder and adultery in the Old Testament (and, I think, in the new and even nowadays) the Spirit of God goes where God wills and does as God pleases; I have no reason to believe that the Spirit of God can do something in the lost similar to "inhabiting" a person for a specific purpose for a time, and later to leave. This is not regeneration, though it may look a bit like it to the one "inhabited".

Perhaps I should put this as a separate thread, because believe it or not, I would like to be straightened up on it, because the thought of the Holy Spirit "indwelling" the lost who remain lost does not sit well with me. But I have not so far seen how it cannot be. (And, like I said, this is not regeneration. That is not done except to the elect, concerning whom God will never abandon what he has begun.)

 

[hedrick]

Paul’s treatment in 1 Cor is the most detailed I know in the NT. I think it’s reasonable to say that it goes beyond Jesus’ normal presence with his people. But I’m also not convinced that his presence is identified with the bread and wine. There are traditional interpretations that do that, but they seem unnatural readings, tuned to support early Christian tradition bordering on superstition.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Paul’s treatment in 1 Cor is the most detailed I know in the NT. I think it’s reasonable to say that it goes beyond Jesus’ normal presence with his people. But I’m also not convinced that his presence is identified with the bread and wine. There are traditional interpretations that do that, but they seem unnatural readings, tuned to support early Christian tradition bordering on superstition.

You may have a point, yet our ability to understand what Paulomycin is speculating on (I think Paulo would agree with me here) is something impossible to completely comprehend. In one sense, we know his presence is there, which is in the normal way he is in everything in all places at all times.

While Paulomycin is proposing a particular presence, not just the 'normal' presence, to me at least this is no more difficult to accept than the fact that in our prayers, our gathering, our very thoughts, Christ is particularly there in the midst of it. The elements perhaps only (on the surface) are conducive to thoughts and attitudes concerning Christ, he is therefore, because of them, there in particular. I don't know. What Paulo was promoting sounded like more than that, but maybe that is all it comes to in the end --either way, I'm not sure it makes any difference.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Off topic, to deal with this by itself, but I couldn't resist: Why do you say that (even though you did say "...on the surface at least") We know (intellectually at least) that the Holy Spirit does not leave the regenerate Elect because we know the purpose of regeneration. It was the same in the Old Testament. Accounts of the Spirit of God doing otherwise were not about regeneration. (When David says, "take not your Holy Spirit from me", he is talking about his feelings. I could argue that David, inspired of the Spirit of God, can write his feelings and fear of losing his very salvation, without it being doctrine. As probably all the Reformed know, when we commit sin and ignore conviction, we lose our sense of the presence of God and doubts concerning very mindset and beliefs we held as repentant believers begin to make their way into our focus.)

Aside from such accounts as David's sin of lust, murder and adultery in the Old Testament (and, I think, in the new and even nowadays) the Spirit of God goes where God wills and does as God pleases; I have no reason to believe that the Spirit of God can do something in the lost similar to "inhabiting" a person for a specific purpose for a time, and later to leave. This is not regeneration, though it may look a bit like it to the one "inhabited".

Perhaps I should put this as a separate thread, because believe it or not, I would like to be straightened up on it, because the thought of the Holy Spirit "indwelling" the lost who remain lost does not sit well with me. But I have not so far seen how it cannot be. (And, like I said, this is not regeneration. That is not done except to the elect, concerning whom God will never abandon what he has begun.)

Well, how do you reconcile then; where Jesus tells the disciples that He will send them the Spirit (comforter)? Or verses such as in Romans 8 where Paul says the Spirit dwells in you?

Also Paul talks about grieving the Spirit (because of sin) but nowhere in the NT does it say the Spirit "leaves". And I do agree with you about the Spirit of God influencing someone to accomplish something God intends and God does so, outside of the intent of ever redeeming them. We see this even today.

Were OT believers "indwelt"? Good question? Possibly; but it doesn't seem in the same sense they were, as NT believers are. (Despite the fact that we know it's the same redemption plan.)

Then we have 1 Corinthians 2:7-9 that talks about what has now been reveled that was hidden from the world (prior to the resurrection) "which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had they would not have crucified the Lord of glory". What about the revelation of the redemption plan that came to pass at Pentecost made this big of a difference?

We have the centurion at the crucifixion actually declaring "This is the Son of God." And "Father forgive them for they know not who it is they do this to." actually goes back to 1 Corinthians 2. That statement was not a general declaration of universal pardon. If you look at the Greek it was actually given in command form. And in one of the gospels it actually comes upon the heels of the governmental authority's command to carry out the execution. There's some really interesting language surrounding the Roman soldiers who carried out the crucifixion. The phrase "Let's divide his garments that Scripture may be fulfilled" is one continuous sentence and this sentence is actually uttered by these soldiers.

Which of course begs the question; what did these "heathen" members of the Roman army know? Obviously they were much more familiar with the Jewish Scripture than we generally assume. And given testimony we read later in Scripture and also what we can gather from history; there actually was a Christian awakening that took place in the Roman army. And it's seems likely when you put the pieces together; that some of these soldiers at the crucifixion actually did become believers.

And add on to this; Revelation that says Jesus is the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world". We know these people were atoned for in eternity. We see a similar scenario with Paul when Stephen is killed. Stephen makes a very similar statement. "Lay not this sin to their charge". And we see later that Paul becomes a believer.

And now toss this reality in there. Does God forgive the unrepentant? (No He doesn't.) Does He pay any heed to the unrepentant as it relates to prayer? (Apparently not - John 17:9)

Now if you could get in a time machine; go back to the first century and be in the Roman army; do you think you could carry out the crucifixion?

So obviously something changed post Pentecost that in the very least; impacted the world's understanding of redemption.

You also mentioned David: "don't take Your Holy Spirit from me". Which I think speaks more of Jesus's experience during the atonement; than it really has anything to do with David's feelings. Yeah, David might have felt forsaken and in the reality of justice for sin, in the integrity of God's righteousness; he should have been. But Jesus actually was forsaken. He is the only human being who to this point, has ever experienced the wrath of God.

So yeah, this raises a valid question of what was the relationship of the believer to the Spirit prior to Pentecost?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, how do you reconcile then; where Jesus tells the disciples that He will send them the Spirit (comforter)? Or verses such as in Romans 8 where Paul says the Spirit dwells in you?

Huh? You must've misunderstood me. I have no problem with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Christ going and sending the Comforter. What needs reconciling?

Also Paul talks about grieving the Spirit (because of sin) but nowhere in the NT does it say the Spirit "leaves". And I do agree with you about the Spirit of God influencing someone to accomplish something God intends and God does so, outside of the intent of ever redeeming them. We see this even today.

I thought I made that very point --that the Spirit does NOT leave the Elect, the regenerated believers. But apart from that, the Spirit does whatever it does, and nobody can predict it. (John 3).

Were OT believers "indwelt"? Good question? Possibly; but it doesn't seem in the same sense they were, as NT believers are. (Despite the fact that we know it's the same redemption plan.)

I believe they were. Even now, a believer does not know it is so, in order for it to be so.

Then we have 1 Corinthians 2:7-9 that talks about what has now been reveled that was hidden from the world (prior to the resurrection) "which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had they would not have crucified the Lord of glory". What about the revelation of the redemption plan that came to pass at Pentecost made this big of a difference?

I don't understand your last question, there. You are assuming something relevant concerning Pentecost, and I don't know what it is you are referring to.

We have the centurion at the crucifixion actually declaring "This is the Son of God." And "Father forgive them for they know not who it is they do this to." actually goes back to 1 Corinthians 2. That statement was not a general declaration of universal pardon. If you look at the Greek it was actually given in command form. And in one of the gospels it actually comes upon the heels of the governmental authority's command to carry out the execution. There's some really interesting language surrounding the Roman soldiers who carried out the crucifixion. The phrase "Let's divide his garments that Scripture may be fulfilled" is one continuous sentence and this sentence is actually uttered by these soldiers.

Not that I disagree, but I don't see why you are talking about all this. (lol, and no, I do not believe in Universal Pardon)

We have the centurion at the crucifixion actually declaring "This is the Son of God." And "Father forgive them for they know not who it is they do this to." actually goes back to 1 Corinthians 2. That statement was not a general declaration of universal pardon. If you look at the Greek it was actually given in command form. And in one of the gospels it actually comes upon the heels of the governmental authority's command to carry out the execution. There's some really interesting language surrounding the Roman soldiers who carried out the crucifixion. The phrase "Let's divide his garments that Scripture may be fulfilled" is one continuous sentence and this sentence is actually uttered by these soldiers.

Which of course begs the question; what did these "heathen" members of the Roman army know? Obviously they were much more familiar with the Jewish Scripture than we generally assume. And given testimony we read later in Scripture and also what we can gather from history; there actually was a Christian awakening that took place in the Roman army. And it's seems likely when you put the pieces together; that some of these soldiers at the crucifixion actually did become believers.

And add on to this; Revelation that says Jesus is the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world". We know these people were atoned for in eternity. We see a similar scenario with Paul when Stephen is killed. Stephen makes a very similar statement. "Lay not this sin to their charge". And we see later that Paul becomes a believer.

And now toss this reality in there. Does God forgive the unrepentant? (No He doesn't.) Does He pay any heed to the unrepentant as it relates to prayer? (Apparently not - John 17:9)

Now if you could get in a time machine; go back to the first century and be in the Roman army; do you think you could carry out the crucifixion?

So obviously something changed post Pentecost that in the very least; impacted the world's understanding of redemption.

The same question as before --why are you going through all this. I don't understand.

And I don't see how any of this proves anything about Pentecost. I'm honestly not trying to disagree with you. I just don't follow your reasoning here.

You also mentioned David: "don't take Your Holy Spirit from me". Which I think speaks more of Jesus's experience during the atonement; than it really has anything to do with David's feelings. Yeah, David might have felt forsaken and in the reality of justice for sin, in the integrity of God's righteousness; he should have been. But Jesus actually was forsaken. He is the only human being who to this point, has ever experienced the wrath of God.

So yeah, this raises a valid question of what was the relationship of the believer to the Spirit prior to Pentecost?

Apparently you have some assessment of what happened at Pentecost that I don't. They were already believers, they were already indwelt --BEFORE the tongues of fire. That was a special manifestation, not regeneration.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Huh? You must've misunderstood me

The question being addressed in this conversation is: What is the difference from OT to NT, in how the Holy Spirit relates to believers?

It seems to me that you believe there isn't a difference. Yet clearly there is. What is that difference? All the things I said were examples of that difference.

Now maybe the confusion here is in the sematics of one being atoned for as opposed to being indwelt by the Spirit of God? Those on the OT side of the cross were atoned for in the same manner as those on the NT side are. The atonement actually took place outside of time (as well as inside of time); and this is why Jesus is the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world". (Revelation)

Yet there are clearly differences between the OT people who were atoned for and the NT post Pentecost believer. The most notable difference is in what they understand about redemption itself. Note too; OT people have no assurance of that redemption. And thus most likely the reason David made the statement about "Please don't take Your Spirit from me."

Besides the acknowledgement that David understands that on account of his sin, he does deserve judgement. Yet clearly he has no assurance of what we understand as having been atoned for to begin with. Keep in mind that we have a lot more "knowledge" than they had. And that I believe springs out of our having a far different experience with the Holy Ghost than they had.

Jesus said: "I will send the Comforter."
(Well, don't they have the Comforter now?) In what ever capacity the Holy Ghost is operating prior to Pentecost; apparently it's not a "comforter" role. Jesus wouldn't have to tell them that if they already had the same comforting experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit that Jesus himself had.

Jesus was God incarnated in human flesh; but also lived his life as "part of" the rest of the Trinity. The Father and Spirit were "in his world"; all of which was materially, physically, spiritually, psychologically and emotionally.

Jesus's experience of God was different than the experience of any of the disciples. And one could argue that is because Jesus had no sin; yet their experience of God changed after Pentecost; (and they remained sinners). Post Pentecost, hey now understand the Holy Ghost as a "comforter". They are also told they are given power from on high (to preach the gospel). Paul also talks about power to live a Godly life comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

Ezekiel 36:26 talks about receiving a new heart and a new spirit (Spirit). 2 Corinthians 3:3, Paul picks up on this heart of flesh reference from Ezekiel. Jesus tells Nicodemus "You must be born again." Jesus makes another reference that one must be born of water and spirit (Spirit). Paul makes several references to being a "new creature" / a "new man" etc.

We associate this kind of language with what we call "regeneration".

You say that you believe OT believers were "regenerated". And if they were "regenerated" in some format; it clearly was not in the same manner as we see in the NT. Keep in mind though too, that being regenerated is not the same thing as being atoned for.

In Luke 22:32 Jesus makes an interesting statement to Peter. He says "I've prayed for you that your faith not fail". (Some acknowledgment here that Peter "believes" / "has faith" in.... something.) Then Jesus says: "And when you are converted; strengthen your brethren." But wait a minute? Peter already "believes" though. (Jesus has just stated that Peter has faith of some sort.)

Now other passages where this word "converted" is used are clearly talking about what we would call "regeneration". (Matthew 13:15, Matthew 18:3, Mark 4:2, John 12:40, Acts 3:19, Acts 28:27)

So yes, OT believers exhibited some form of "faith". But we know redeeming faith is a gift from God. (Ephesians 2:8) And maybe here is the difference where "human faith" fails because of sin.

Example related to Peter is that he got scared and ran away when confronted by this servant girl, as to whether or not he knew Jesus. Peter who told Jesus that he would be crucified with Jesus. Peter is later crucified. Jesus does actually tell Peter that will happen. Yet note that even just before Jesus dies; he tells Peter "when you're converted..."

We know the law of God is written on the conscience of men. This is what makes people accountable for their sin. They are without excuse for they see God in the creation.

Now obviously trying to understand God without the written revelation of Scripture is difficult. But the question for those people is "Do you obey the witness that you have?" Paul says that those who are without the law; yet obey the law are a law unto themselves. How many of those people (who never got the opportunity to hear the gospel in the first place) are actually atoned for? Bit of a different subject here; but it still does address the question of how the Holy Spirit relates to people pre and post Pentecost.

In Revelation we see a great multitude of people of "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation" appear in heaven out of what we commonly theologically call "the great tribulation". When did that actually happen becomes an "eschatological question" in our "last days".

The Scriptural evidence though points to, that this happened as part of the atonement. We see this because Jesus states that "no flesh would be saved" if the "great tribulation" wasn't "shortened". Well, if we believe that the atonement was completed at the cross and that there is no time now where salvation can be lost? That puts that event as part of the crucifixion.

Note the people who appear in heaven appear with the "lamb as was slain". This event actually took place upon the death of Christ. He ascended into heaven and took all those that he'd atoned for (out of hades) up with him at that point in history. So now when a believer dies; they ascend strait to heaven.

Why do I bring this up though?

Because in this passage we see (via "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation") people who lived on earth who were never anywhere near OT revelation. We have Chinese and Africans, Europeans and Native Americans and all these people are Old Testament side of the cross. All clearly atoned for; yet subject to the paganism of their individual cultures.

Which again: What sort of relationship to the Holy Spirit did they have, that they obeyed the revelation that they had? (Which was what they could glean out of observing the creation and obeying their conscience.)

Does what I'm saying make more sense to you now?

 

[Albion]

Because in this passage we see (via "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation") people who lived on earth who were never anywhere near OT revelation. We have Chinese and Africans, Europeans and Native Americans and all these people are Old Testament side of the cross. All clearly atoned for; yet subject to the paganism of their individual cultures.

Which again: What sort of relationship to the Holy Spirit did they have, that they obeyed the revelation that they had? (Which was what they could glean out of observing the creation and obeying their conscience.)

Still, Revelation is a vision experienced by John. It is not to be taken super-literally.

And if he says he saw "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation" I take it to be a generalization, not that he checked off each nationality (most of which he didn't have any knowledge of!) from some listing. On the other hand, the second coming will occur after the Gospel has been preached to the whole world, so in concept what John witnessed rings true.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Still, Revelation is a vision experienced by John. It is not to be taken super-literally.

And if he says he saw "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation" I take it to be a generalization, not that he checked off each nationality (most of which he didn't have any knowledge of!) from some listing. On the other hand, the second coming will occur after the Gospel has been preached to the whole world, so in concept what John witnessed rings true.

Well, I pose these two questions to you.
1. Did John write Revelation, or did the Holy Spirit write Revelation through John?
2. Consider what "vision" means Scripturally?

In Scripture we have prophetic events that tell the future of something.

We also have spiritual truths represented in "real world" metaphoric format. I.E. Song of Solomon is a spiritual truth represented in a real world metaphoric format. This (real world metaphor) is why the book of Daniel actually calls Pentecost "the consummation". It's why Paul describes marriage as a "mystery" between Christ and believer. Spiritual truth represented in real world metaphoric format.

But we also have allegoric depictions of what's going on in the "spiritual realm" that we don't see. We don't see angles and demons in our course of how we are related to the completion of the cannon of Scripture. Yet those entities are real.

The book of Revelation I believe is this form of allegory. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus; I believe was also this form of allegory. It's explaining something to us that we can't see materially speaking.

I also see places where Jesus makes statements that can have both real world material application, as well as describing something in the realm that we can't materially see. We see this in places like Matthew 24. His monologue there is actually a mixture of material world and non-material world events.

Now when we say we believe the Scripture is written by inspiration of God; we must ask the question of why God would "add details" that aren't actually true? That doesn't make sense in regards to integrity of the Scripture, because if God does not and can not lie; why would He write "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation" in the text of Revelation.

Yet if we follow your "in concept" idea. We are still stuck on the language of "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation", because the context of that statement isn't confined to the era you are speaking of / wishing to assign it too.

If these people really are those delivered from hell upon the death of Christ; they are clearly "Old Testament side of the cross". So if God was only talking about those who had exposure to written revelation of OT Scripture; don't you think He would have specified that?

Again, Paul explains this. Those who obey their conscience and the witness of the revelation around them; are a "law unto themselves". And as clearly demonstrated by this passage in Revelation; there are people in that group (no knowledge of written Scripture) who've been atoned for. They still have "the witness of Christ" just not in the totality that written format presents.

 

[Albion]

Well, I pose these two questions to you.
1. Did John write Revelation, or did the Holy Spirit write Revelation through John?

There is no reason to conclude that the Holy Spirit literally penned the book of Revelation. Indeed, right at the start, we have John saying that he saw what followed. The structure of the narrative shows it to be undeniably a personal recollection.

By the way, are we still discussing the Real Presence (in the sacrament of Holy Communion)?

 

[The Righterzpen]

There is no reason to conclude that the Holy Spirit literally penned the book of Revelation. Indeed, right at the start, we have John saying that he saw what followed. The structure of the narrative shows it to be undeniably a personal recollection.

1 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Albion]

1 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

John wasn't giving an interpretation of some Scripture when he recorded his vision.

 

[The Righterzpen]

By the way, are we still discussing the Real Presence (in the sacrament of Holy Communion)?

In so thus as it applies to the indwelling of the Spirit within believers; does it represent a "real presence" in communion.

 

[Albion]

In so thus as it applies to the indwelling of the Spirit within believers; does it represent a "real presence" in communion.

No. That's not the meaning of "Real Presence."

 

[The Righterzpen]

John wasn't giving an interpretation of some Scripture when he recorded his vision.

It doesn't matter if John was "interpreting Scripture". Is Revelation Scripture or is it not? Do you hold commentaries on the same level as Scripture? If you deem Revelation to be Scripture than by "default" any detail in that book has to be wholly true.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No. That's not the meaning of "Real Presence."

Meaning of "real presence" according to whom?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Christ is present to us all the time. What is lacking is our presence to God, our awareness of that presence. The Blessed Sacrament is a wake up call, a focus, as if Christ is saying, "Hey! I am really here with you. Pay attention!"

 

[Albion]

It doesn't matter if John was "interpreting Scripture".

I thought you were saying that the book was John's interpretation of something.

Is Revelation Scripture or is it not? Do you hold commentaries on the same level as Scripture? If you deem Revelation to be Scripture than by "default" any detail in that book has to be wholly true.

It's wholly true, and John wasn't interpreting some book of Scripture. He was as relaying what he saw in his vision. The book of Revelation didn't exist prior to his writing of it, so he couldn't have been interpreting an existing book of Scripture
That's exactly what he tells the reader of the Book of Revelation, that the contents are what he saw.

 

[Albion]

Christ is present to us all the time. What is lacking is our presence to God, our awareness of that presence. The Blessed Sacrament is a wake up call, a focus, as if Christ is saying, "Hey! I am really here with you. Pay attention!"

That is part of the meaning of the sacrament, but it doesn't deal with Real Presence, the belief that Christ's real body and blood are literally present in some manner in the communion, not just that he is 'with' the worshippers at that time or that his body and blood are merely symbolized or represented by the bread and wine.

Quite a few denominations believe in the doctrine of the Real Presence, including Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and--most authorities say also--the Reformed and Presbyterian churches.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The most notable difference is in what they understand about redemption itself. Note too; OT people have no assurance of that redemption. And thus most likely the reason David made the statement about "Please don't take Your Spirit from me."

There you nailed the difference --it is in what they understand, not in what God does. God had them focusing differently, in the OT, from things he has made much more plain in the NT. I think I told you I believe they were indeed indwelt, if Elect. To me that is a given, since Election necessarily implies regeneration by the the Holy Spirit.

My whole concern, saying what I said, (as I remember, haha, I am 65), is that it be understood that regeneration is ALWAYS by the Spirit indwelling, and he will leave nobody that is Elect. We understand this now, by doctrine -- they, apparently, mostly by experience and reasoning, if at all. The assurance to them, then, is not by doctrine but by the witness of the Spirit to their spirit.

Jesus said: "I will send the Comforter."
(Well, don't they have the Comforter now?) In what ever capacity the Holy Ghost is operating prior to Pentecost; apparently it's not a "comforter" role. Jesus wouldn't have to tell them that if they already had the same comforting experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit that Jesus himself had.

I'm thinking they knew who the "Comforter" is, and he didn't need to explain it. I think, like faith, which is completely God's work, (whether in small measure or large, it is the same faith, and altogether reliable, solid, factual, effective) the indwelling of the spirit is the same.

To my understanding, what happened at Pentecost is what some refer to as a 'filling' --not an indwelling-- but maybe I already said that. I can't say that what happened at Pentecost is the same thing Jesus was referring to as sending the comforter, except by my presupposition, so I am not adamant about that. It just doesn't seem to fit what happened that day. Nor does indwelling, for that matter.

You say that you believe OT believers were "regenerated". And if they were "regenerated" in some format; it clearly was not in the same manner as we see in the NT. Keep in mind though too, that being regenerated is not the same thing as being atoned for.

It sounds here like you are saying salvation in the OT was NOT by faith, (salvific faith being always the work of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer). It sounds like you are saying that the atonement was somehow applied to them some other way. I don't get that.

Note the people who appear in heaven appear with the "lamb as was slain". This event actually took place upon the death of Christ. He ascended into heaven and took all those that he'd atoned for (out of hades) up with him at that point in history. So now when a believer dies; they ascend strait to heaven.

I like to think this actually happened as you say, except that it is also WE elect now who are taken up to be with him at that time. We have no basis for saying otherwise except by assuming some constancy to time in ordering eternity. I don't believe time is capable of that. It is like I say, that God may well have made all this happen as a completed work by his mere say-so. We see a long process, and it is so, but God seeing it happen because he spoke it into fact.

(Some like to think of us in heaven looking back on the work of Christ and all our deeds (for which we will give account, and Christ glorified for his loving mercy in redemption), one-at-a-time, as a tape being played back. I see the same thing, only not as a recording, but as the real thing, finally viewed from God's POV. In another thread arguing the age of the universe, I say it makes no difference --in the end, this whole thing will have happened, completed, when God spoke it into fact.)

We know the law of God is written on the conscience of men. This is what makes people accountable for their sin. They are without excuse for they see God in the creation.

I like this VERY much. Most people take Romans 1:20 to be referring to nature alone, Ps 19 style. But I agree completely with you here. Their sin thus more directly remains completely their fault --they are without excuse. It is not just that they failed to consider God, because of nature, but they failed to obey the law of God. It is a rare thing to find a believer who links the law with the goodness (evidence) of God in this way.

Note the people who appear in heaven appear with the "lamb as was slain". This event actually took place upon the death of Christ. He ascended into heaven and took all those that he'd atoned for (out of hades) up with him at that point in history. So now when a believer dies; they ascend strait to heaven.

Why do I bring this up though?

Because in this passage we see (via "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation") people who lived on earth who were never anywhere near OT revelation. We have Chinese and Africans, Europeans and Native Americans and all these people are Old Testament side of the cross. All clearly atoned for; yet subject to the paganism of their individual cultures.

Is salvation through Christ alone, and that being by faith alone, and that being by the indwelling Spirit of God? I don't get what you are saying here.

Now when we say we believe the Scripture is written by inspiration of God; we must ask the question of why God would "add details" that aren't actually true? That doesn't make sense in regards to integrity of the Scripture, because if God does not and can not lie; why would He write "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation" in the text of Revelation.

I see you are assuming something here that is not (as far as I can tell) in evidence --that these from every people-group were pre-Calvary, even pre-Pentecost. I disagree. God, at his good pleasure, could have consigned the whole world to damnation if he chooses, saving only a handful of the Jews, and still keep his promise to save some of all peoples, post Calvary. WHEN it happened is irrelevant. But maybe I missed something you said.

But even as what you seem to be saying, that some were saved but not by the proclamation of the Gospel by humans, I see no reason to think that they were without the indwelling Spirit of God, if they indeed had faith, without which it is impossible to please God.

Faith, like obedience, is not the same thing without Christ as it is with Christ. Compliance to the law, or to the conscience, is not the same as submission to the law, which the flesh is unable to do.