Reconcile this

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Well, I wouldn't use terms like "upgraded" or "2.0". That sounds almost like a caricaturizing of a holy thing. My explanation of that is:

There is absolutely a distinction in magnitude of works, and purpose, of the Spirit in the new covenant.

Keep in mind that the Spirit coming has two purposes: to help saints to keep God's commandments (same experience in the OT and in the NT), and to fulfill God's will with manifestation of power (different in the OT and NT). The manifestations of power in the NT is to witness of the resurrection of Jesus, and ultimately that Jesus is Lord and Christ. The manifestation are also unique in comparison with the OT.

Even in the OT, people could have one anointing for something, and then another anointing for something else later. David was supernaturally empowered to defeat the lion and the bear, but was then anointed by Samuel to be king.

Thank you for explaining.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I believe is reasonable to believe they had the Spirit in their life, because we see OT saints praying to God for the assistance of the Spirit, as if it were something available to them they believed they could have through prayer. And we also see words from Jesus like this:

Luke 11:13 (NKJV)
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

The alternative is to think that people don’t really need the Spirit within them to be led by the Spirit, so having the Spirit within is only for empowerment to serve the Lord. If you see it like that, then they had the lead of the Spirit to live victorious lives against sin without the Spirit within them, but just with them, and only a few were filled inside to do the supernatural. If that’s the case, having the Spirit within the believer in the NT is only for ministerial empowerment because having it within is not really a requirement to be victorious in your walk with God.

I believe the former, that they all had it within, from what I can understand from Luke’s terminology.

Just to clarify, I used the word “victorious” to mean being able to keep God’s commandments. Not in the legal sense of being set free from sin charges because of the blood of the lamb.

So what is the evidence (from scripture) that the old testament saints all had the Spirit of God within? If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that. Numbers 11 seems to indicate that was not the case, though. The passage you quoted from Luke seems to simply mean that people, capable of moral evil, nevertheless know how to do good and occasionally actually do good, so therefore it is much more likely for the Father to give the Spirit to those who ask Him, since He is infinitely good. I/ do not see how Luke's terminology indicates that all old Testament saints had the Spirit of God dwelling in them.

As for leading vs being filled, Paul says this:

Romans 8:14 KJV
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

And in another place he says this:

Galatians 4:6 KJV
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Which seems to imply that being led by the Spirit is a pre-requisite to being filled with the Spirit (or receiving the Spirit). Which in turn implies that one could be led by the Spirit but not filled with the Spirit, which seems to me to have been the case with the majority of Old Testament saints. Consider this:

John 11:21-24 KJV
Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. [22] But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. [23] Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. [24] Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Was her expectation simply that Lazarus would rise to face judgment like everyone else? Or that he would rise to the resurrection unto life? What was the basis for her expectation, if it was the latter? There is no indication that Lazarus had the Holy Spirit, as the others in Scripture where it is said they received the Spirit, the Spirit came upon them, they were filled with the Spirit, etc.

[Evang.Benincasa]

My understanding is that only certain individuals had the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament. Anointed to do certain jobs. This was understood and therefore Joel’s prophecy would indicate a time when it would be different. The Holy Ghost at a future time would be imparted upon all who would believe in Christ.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

My understanding is that only certain individuals had the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament. Anointed to do certain jobs. This was understood and therefore Joel’s prophecy would indicate a time when it would be different. The Holy Ghost at a future time would be imparted upon all who would believe in Christ.

That's my understanding as well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That's my understanding as well.

I had no doubt

[Tithesmeister]

This is a really good discussion. I’d like to chip in a little something for us to consider. We know that the Old Testament sacrifices did not remit sin but only rolled them ahead for one year (I am of course speaking only of the sins committed under the Mosaic law).

Hebrews 10

[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Therefore, if you examine the following passage, it seems to say that only by the shed blood of Jesus were these past sins remitted and that shed blood made them eligible for eternal life.

Hebrews 9

[13] For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
[15] And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Does this shed any light on the discussion?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

This is a really good discussion. I’d like to chip in a little something for us to consider. We know that the Old Testament sacrifices did not remit sin but only rolled them ahead for one year (I am of course speaking only of the sins committed under the Mosaic law).

Hebrews 10

[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Therefore, if you examine the following passage, it seems to say that only by the shed blood of Jesus were these past sins remitted and that shed blood made them eligible for eternal life.

Hebrews 9

[13] For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
[15] And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Does this shed any light on the discussion?

Not really. I think we have already come to the conclusion that the OT saints needed the assistance of the Spirit to overcome sin, that is, not to remove it legally to become heirs of everlasting life, but to be able to follow God's commandments.

The two things are are sure from the Scriptures is)

1. The OT saints must have been led by the Spirit to be able to keep God's commandments. This is seen it the Psalms, in the testimony the Bible gives itself of them, in the fact that the NT states that you can't walk with God if you don't have the Spirit assisting you.
2. Some OT saints are said to have been filled with the Spirit, and the evidence points to the Spirit actually staying with them.

Now, the NT says categorically that if you don't have the Spirit you are not of God. That could be a statement affecting also the OT saints, or it may be something new of the NT.

Esaias believes the OT saints were led by the Spirit, but not all had the Spirit within them making them prophets.
I say the OT saints had all the Spirit within them, and some had the ministry of prophets, some don't but still could prophesy as we see in the first chapters of Luke.

Then you have passages stating that the Spirit was going to come and cause the people of the covenant to walk in his commandments. I explain that by saying the OT covenant didn't provide for the Spirit, but the NT does, so the people of the covenant went from not having the Spirit as a group to having it as a group. Esaias explains it the same way.

I think both approaches have their merits.

The problem I see with the "they were all led but some were filled" is that: why the Spirit had to fill in the first place in the NT if all it needed to do was to lead in the NT to cause the people of the covenant to talk in God's ways? It is like in order to cause the people to walk in God's covenant needed a filling, not just an external leading. A possible explanation is that the "causing to walk in his ways" is not just from the individual perspective, but from group perspective. Basically, the fact that everyone in the NT is filled the the Spirit, enables all as a group to help one another to walk in His ways, so basically, it is the result of the internal leading + the manifestation of the Spirit in others helping the person. I still have some questions about that understanding but it has its merits. I still think, as Jesus said, the experience of the Spirit was already given by the Father to whoever asked, as it was with the righteous and godly people Luke described.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Not really. I think we have already come to the conclusion that the OT saints needed the assistance of the Spirit to overcome sin, that is, not to remove it legally to become heirs of everlasting life, but to be able to follow God's commandments.

The two things are are sure from the Scriptures is)

1. The OT saints must have been led by the Spirit to be able to keep God's commandments. This is seen it the Psalms, in the testimony the Bible gives itself of them, in the fact that the NT states that you can't walk with God if you don't have the Spirit assisting you.
2. Some OT saints are said to have been filled with the Spirit, and the evidence points to the Spirit actually staying with them.

Now, the NT says categorically that if you don't have the Spirit you are not of God. That could be a statement affecting also the OT saints, or it may be something new of the NT.

Esaias believes the OT saints were led by the Spirit, but not all had the Spirit within them making them prophets.
I say the OT saints had all the Spirit within them, and some had the ministry of prophets, some don't but still could prophesy as we see in the first chapters of Luke.

Then you have passages stating that the Spirit was going to come and cause the people of the covenant to walk in his commandments. I explain that by saying the OT covenant didn't provide for the Spirit, but the NT does, so the people of the covenant went from not having the Spirit as a group to having it as a group. Esaias explains it the same way.

I think both approaches have their merits.

The problem I see with the "they were all led but some were filled" is that: why the Spirit had to fill in the first place in the NT if all it needed to do was to lead in the NT to cause the people of the covenant to talk in God's ways? It is like in order to cause the people to walk in God's covenant needed a filling, not just an external leading. A possible explanation is that the "causing to walk in his ways" is not just from the individual perspective, but from group perspective. Basically, the fact that everyone in the NT is filled the the Spirit, enables all as a group to help one another to walk in His ways, so basically, it is the result of the internal leading + the manifestation of the Spirit in others helping the person. I still have some questions about that understanding but it has its merits. I still think, as Jesus said, the experience of the Spirit was already given by the Father to whoever asked, as it was with the righteous and godly people Luke described.

How does this fit into the discussion?

Matthew 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

John declared that Jesus was going to baptise with the Holy Spirit. When Jesus showed up to be baptised by John, John said this:

Matthew 3:14 KJV
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Meanwhile, John was filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb:

Luke 1:13-15 KJV
But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. [14] And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. [15] For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

So John was filled with the Holy Ghost, but confessed he needed to be baptised by Jesus, whom He said would baptise with the Spirit. Doesn't John already have the Spirit? Why then does he need to be baptised with the Holy Spirit if he was already filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Not really. I think we have already come to the conclusion that the OT saints needed the assistance of the Spirit to overcome sin, that is, not to remove it legally to become heirs of everlasting life, but to be able to follow God's commandments.

The two things are are sure from the Scriptures is)

1. The OT saints must have been led by the Spirit to be able to keep God's commandments. This is seen it the Psalms, in the testimony the Bible gives itself of them, in the fact that the NT states that you can't walk with God if you don't have the Spirit assisting you.

I think "we" have NOT come to THAT conclusion. I do not believe in "gracious ability", as taught by Arminians and (some) Calvinists, which is the idea that all people have a natural inability to obey God's moral law, and that only through a supernatural or "gracious" impartation of Divine power is a person actually able to fulfill their moral obligations.

1. If a person has a natural inability to obey God, then they are not a subject of moral law, and are not a moral agent, and are not capable of having moral character. Moral law is law that commands what a person OUGHT to do, which necessarily implies that the person COULD do what is commanded. You cannot possibly "ought" to do that which you strictly and naturally "cannot" do.

2. Following from 1, if people are thereby not moral subjects, then there is no moral basis for Judgment. But the Bible everywhere speaks of the Judgment as distinctly moral, it is a matter of "right and wrong". People are judged for not doing what they ought to have done, and for doing what they ought not to have done. They are not judged for what they could not possibly have done.

3. If the only way a person COULD obey God is through a divine impartation of grace, a "gracious ability", a "moving of the Spirit", then all who die sinners do so specifically because God chose not to empower them to be obedient. They would have the ultimate excuse upon Judgment day, and the result is the same as predestination to damnation: God is the cause and enabler of their sin, He ensures they continue in sin, He ensures they do NOT obey, He makes certain they DO sin, precisely because He FAILS to "empower" them to obey.

4. The idea of a gracious ability, or that "people cannot obey God unless the Spirit of God empowers them", confuses natural law and moral law, natural ability and moral ability, and natural inability and moral inability. Moral law concerns voluntary action (choices), and therefore by definition those choices must include a natural ABILITY to make those choices. People do not disobey God because they CANNOT obey, but because they WILL not obey. The moral work of the Spirit is not to impart a natural ability that did not previously exist, but rather to LEAD (motivate) to faithful obedience.

When the Scripture speaks of the work of Spirit in circumcising the heart and causing Israel to walk in God's commandments and statutes and ways, it is not speaking of a supernatural impartation of NATURAL ability, but rather it is speaking of the MORAL work of the Spirit in softening the hearts of His people, leading them into a voluntary faithful obedience to His will.

Sin, and obedience, are voluntary:

Romans 6:16-19 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. [18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

So whatever we are to make of the distinctions between the old testament saints and the new testament saints, one thing is clear - the difference and distinction is not and cannot possibly be one of natural ability to obey God.

[Amanah]

Maybe it's an external leading and empowerment in the old covenant vs an internal union and transformation in the new covenant.

Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”