# Old Testament regeneration



## terry43 (Apr 1, 2019)

We know that the OT saints were saved as we are, by faith. A recent conversation brought up repentance and regeneration in the OT . We can see God work and act in Noah, but what of the other saints..Moses, Joshua,etc... Do we have clear evidence of their regeneration? What would it have looked like without the indwelling Holy Spirit?
We see the Holy Spirit come on some for specific purposes.. was that a mark of their regeneration or was regeneration necessary for that ?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 1, 2019)

If they had faith they were regenerated.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 1, 2019)

If they were in Christ, i.e. regenerated and converted, they had to have the HS indwelling them, never mind the time period; there is only one gospel. 

Consider the level of perseverance without the HS indwelling a person. As soon as u were regenerated, u would fall away without the power of the spirit indwelling you.

You make mention of theocratic anointings. These were above and beyond they typical indwellings for special kingdom business.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## terry43 (Apr 1, 2019)

Actually The OT says the spirit came on them for specific tasks. Remember David asking God not to take His spirit from him??

The Holy Spirit is only recorded one time in the OT as indwelling and that was for the man that built the temple. The indwelling Holy Spirit was a gift to the NT believers.. What I am looking for is scripture that indicates God regenerating them ...We see the first time grace is given is to Noah ..that seems to indicate regeneration ...I am looking for specific scripture


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 1, 2019)

How does the NT describe the requirement for being regenerated (e.g. John 3)? Is this only applicable for NT believers or OT believers (i.e. can OT believers believe under their own power)? I think that is @Scott Bushey point that even having faith requires regeneration.

If you can establish something universal within the NT context, that should allow you to consider the OT. The NT provides the way to intrepret the OT. OT, taken by itself, will not be clear enough with the type and shadows.

You also have to consider the difference that once Christ is ascended, the Holy Spirit is sent. See attached for references.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 1, 2019)

Terry,
One place to begin, I think, is at Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus. We should judge from Jesus' address to Nicodemus, that the requirement of "new birth" was a reality that went back into OT times, which means all the way back to the beginning. And it is Jesus who says there, it is the work of the sovereign Spirit to save.

Nicodemus' incredulous question, "How can these things be?" is answered by Jesus' retort: "YOU are the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?"

Clearly, Jesus expected someone of Nicodemus' stature to know how men were born again.

Now, as to the OT saints, we owe most of the people we read about in the Scripture, unless we have reason to doubt it, that they had saving faith. If all we have is a name, perhaps we may just think "I have not enough information." But even so, since we know they were part of the OT church outwardly, then we owe them a "charitable judgment" barring our lack of any other information.

Furthermore, the case of Lot is one that should bring us up short of any hasty judgment. The NT writer Peter (2.2.7) identifies him as "righteous Lot." Really, he does. Hebrews 11 is full of indicators of various ancients saved by faith, even some names there that might surprise someone with a skeptical bent. That list, and other names we read of in the NT, tell us that the biblical authors most likely regarded the fathers (and mothers) in the OT as fathers and mothers in faith, and not merely as blood relations.

Saving faith is a gift of God, always; Eph.2:8-9. Without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb.11:6. Faith is brought to life by the power of the Spirit, and by nothing else, Jn.3:6.

Moses' faith is taught in Heb.11. But you could just as easily see his faith by his works (James 2:18) by looking at what he accomplished. Or that in Ex.33:11-12, God is said to speak with him as a friend, and that he has found "grace in the eyes of the Lord." Or by noting that he visited Jesus from the glory on the mount of transfiguration, Mt.17:3. Joshua was commended by God, along with Caleb (who gets first mention), as ones who *believed *God would give them the Promised Land in spite of the giants, Num.24:30, and see v24, "a different Spirit." (Yes, the S should be capitalized)

These are the sorts of examples that teach us that, even if a man like Moses had an exceptional gift of grace, still men were not saved any other way; and we do well to give the benefit of the doubt in most cases.

What about "indwelling?" I do believe that the Spirit's "outpouring" upon ALL flesh (old, young, male, female, etc.) was a blessing of the New Covenant. But he was still necessary for regeneration in the O.T. His endowment in _power_ was reserved in the O.T. for types of the Mediator to come--regular prophets, priests, and kings, anointed ones. I describe the N.T. difference as the difference between a flood and an eyedropper. For some in the O.T., they had a special endowment of the Spirit for their work of prefiguring the Christ. That is the main sense David pleads with God not to lose.

Moreover, David was aware that Saul had had a measure of that same Spirit, and had prophesied. He had been a Spirit-led king of Israel. In that, he was like Judas who also had the same endowment as the other Eleven disciples, doing miracles and teaching with power; but in the end lost that and everything else, being apostate. Such men as Saul and Judas had much of the gift of the Spirit, but lacked the change of heart at the very bottom.

Now, we're told that our ordinary Christian believer's endowment is something a man like Moses prayed for one day would be everyone's, Num.11:29. We're told that the least in the kingdom of heaven is "greater than" John the Baptist, who was not behind any O.T. prophet. How can this be, except that we have the Spirit poured out, and a clearer vision by him of the Christ who has done what the prophets anxiously looked for? It can't be a difference in regeneration; it must be a difference in the quality of our possession his gift.

I hope this is helpful.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 1, 2019)

terry43 said:


> Actually The OT says the spirit came on them for specific tasks.



The documented data u refer to was as I said earlier; a theocratic anointing for special kingdom business. This is distinct from the general indwelling all believers must have else they immediately apostatize from the faith.



> Remember David asking God not to take His spirit from him??



David already had the indwelling of the spirit upon his conversion; his remark is a bit odd in that God would never remove His spirit from believers based on what I have already stated, so it had to be in regards to this special blessing.



> The Holy Spirit is only recorded one time in the OT as indwelling and that was for the man that built the temple.



You are getting the cart in front of the horse; u need to first understand that there is only one gospel and only 1 way men have always been saved. You need to jettison from this soteriological fact before moving forward. No man can be ever saved apart from the indwelling, else we have a problem in that there are two ways men are saved.



> The indwelling Holy Spirit was a gift to the NT believers.. What I am looking for is scripture that indicates God regenerating them
> ...We see the first time grace is given is to Noah ..that seems to indicate regeneration ...I am looking for specific scripture



Theological proper tells us such without an actual statement; all theologians are going on a theological premise in regards to how salvation works. There are many things that are silent in scripture and are gotten to by good and necessary consequence. This is one of those cases. We don't see a scripture telling us that Abraham, Moses, Noah etc, were regenerated, converted and filled w/ the HS; we know it, based on a theological premise and how salvation works in all men.


Job 33:4

The spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life

Psalm 104:30

When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth


Job 32:8

But it is the Spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding .

Psalm 143:10

Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground.

Psalm 76:10

Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath Thou shalt restrain.

I have a paper on the subject if u would like some more detailed OT scriptures and how salvation works and the HS:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/theology/pneumatology/the-holy-spirit-in-the-covenant-of-grace-2/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 1, 2019)

Are you simply distinguishing as some do between the Spirit being "on" (OT) and "in" (NT)?


----------



## terry43 (Apr 1, 2019)

Yes.. The OT is very specific that the Holy Spirit came on people and was not indwelling ..the indwelling Holy Spirit was a gift promised to the apostles by Jesus and fulfilled on Pentecost. But maybe I was asking for something that does not exist.. that is scripture that clearly indicates regeneration on OT saints. That moment when there was a repentance and faith .. I do understand that salvation in the OT was also by the Spirit of God ... In Genesis we see God giving Noah grace and Jacob having an encounter with God.. This conversation I am having is on an apologetics forum...


----------



## timfost (Apr 1, 2019)

terry43 said:


> Yes.. The OT is very specific that the Holy Spirit came on people and was not indwelling ..the indwelling Holy Spirit was a gift promised to the apostles by Jesus and fulfilled on Pentecost. But maybe I was asking for something that does not exist.. that is scripture that clearly indicates regeneration on OT saints. That moment when there was a repentance and faith .. I do understand that salvation in the OT was also by the Spirit of God ... In Genesis we see God giving Noah grace and Jacob having an encounter with God.. This conversation I am having is on an apologetics forum...



I've heard this distinction argued from time to time, but honestly I think it's a distinction without a difference. 

You may want to look into OT and NT descriptions of bring "filled with the Spirit" (Ex. 31:3, 35:31, Luke 1:15, 41, 67, 4:1, Acts 2:4). Christ is also described as having the Spirit upon Him (Luke 4:18).

All in all, I don't think there is enough warrant to make an OT/NT distinction on this matter since there seems to be overlap in terminology. Without a difference, there is no need to distinguish between OT and NT regeneration since it was the same by the same Spirit in/on a person.

I hope this helps!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 1, 2019)

In each case that it mentions that the HS came upon someone it was for a special task. It was administrative, it was not in reference to regeneration. In order to be saved the HS has to indwell in the believer.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 1, 2019)

Terry, I think here and there we witness points in a Bible character's life where they may be expressing saving faith for the first time. Perhaps we get that with Jacob (though there's more than one incident up for consideration), or maybe we see it in Rahab, or Nebuchadnezzar at the end of Daniel 4 (if indeed he had saving faith at all), or Ruth on the road out of Moab.

But we also must realize that conversion is an inward reality, meaning we can only see the expression of faith that results, not the actual conversion. And the Bible only gives us brief snapshots of anyone's life. These factors combine to mean that in every case the regeneration leading to conversion that we think we witnessed might have actually come at some other time.

Even in the New Testament, where we have a few more clear conversion stories than we're given in the Old Testament, we still can't be sure exactly what we're witnessing. Did Zacchaeus come to faith at home with Jesus or sometime before he climbed the tree? Was Saul regenerated the moment he saw Jesus on the road or sometime later in Damascus? Perhaps only with Lydia are we told what was happening at the heart level, where the Spirit works, so that we might tentatively say we know the moment of a named individual's regeneration.

All this is to say that the lack of regeneration moments you think you are missing in the Old Testament may be due not to the period in history, but rather to the fact that such moments are hard to detect, period. The Bible seldom gives us a peek into this secret work of God in any era of redemptive history.

Also, you should listen to the others on this board who have questioned the distinction you make about the Spirit's work in the different eras, because they are right. Bruce, in particular, laid things out very clearly, and knows what he's talking about.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 1, 2019)

Echoing Bruce's words, the Puritan Anthony Burgess said of this question: "as one star differs from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jews, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the foundation. . ." (p254).

Francis Roberts explains it this way: “Under the _Old Covenant _the Spirit of God was given but so sparingly, so restrictively, to an handful of people the Jews, and in such small measure, and producing so few and small effects; that it is said, not to be given; _for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. _But under the _New Covenant _the Spirit was shed forth abundantly, in great variety of graces and gifts, both upon Jews and Gentiles, beginning at _Pentecost _to be poured forth upon the Apostles, and afterwards falling upon private believers.” (p1256). Again: “The _Efficacy _of former administrations, was very weak and small, in comparison of this New Covenant administration which is great and powerful. Under those the Holy Spirit was but as it were sparingly sprinkled upon them; their knowledge and love of God was dark, feeble childlike; their hearts were very stony hard and inflexible, as God intimated to them in writing his Laws upon stones, etc. But under this, the Holy Spirit is plentifully poured forth as in streams and rivers upon them; and into them; their knowledge and love of God is clear, strong, ripe, man-like: their hearts very fleshy and flexible to God and his will, etc. . .Hence, the Spirit is said _not to be given, till Christ was glorified: _ not as if it had not been given at all; but because it was bestowed so sparingly and slenderly, in comparison to what is now, that it might seem not to be given at all."

He then goes on to say: "[Also,] the _Extent _of former Covenant administrations, was but to particular families, as of Adam, Noah, Abraham, David; or to some particular tribes, as to the captives of Judah and Benjamin, or to a select nation, as to the Jews at Mount Sinai: Alas, how few, what a small handful were all these to the rest of the world! And yet of this small number, how few were there that had any saving inscription of Gods Laws upon their hearts at all? And we say,_ minimum in magne nihil, _a small thing in that which is great is as nothing; a drop is as nothing in the sea, a grain of sand is as nothing in the earth: so the writing of God's Laws in the hearts of so few, is as nothing in the world. But the extent of this New Covenant administration is universal, _to all nations in the whole world; _and consequently Gods writing of his Laws in mens hearts is proportionably extended to all Gods people in all those nations: to many thousands and ten thousands more then under all former Covenant expressures.” (pp1383-86).

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

One could start with the fact that these gifts that were active during the days of the early church and pentecost. Are they still active today? Most fail to see the distinction between the Pneuma Hagion and the Paraklete. The Pneuma Hagion is *in* all true believers. The Paraklete, much like those that received a special anointing in the OT, is an amplification of the Pnema Hagion (as was distributed at Pentecost). I believe it was Sproul who said that the Pneuma Hagion is akin to a dripping faucet-always dripping into the lives of believers; Pentecost (or the OT anointings) was akin to a firehose delivering gallons of water per second. Big difference.


Consider that those special gifts that were delivered at Pentecost are not any longer in force. The Paraklete was given for the same reason those that received special anointings in the OT, for NT business, i.e. the propelling of the church forward.

John Owen helps here:

“Sixthly, Wherefore, God’s sealing of believers with the Holy Spirit is his gracious communication of the Holy Ghost unto them, so to act his divine power in them as to enable them unto all the duties of their holy calling; evidencing them to be accepted with him both unto themselves and others, and asserting their preservation unto eternal salvation. The effects of this sealing are gracious operations of the Holy Spirit in and upon believers; but the sealing itself is the communication of the Spirit unto them. They are sealed with the Spirit. And farther to evidence the nature of it, with the truth of our declaration of this privilege, we may observe, — 1. That when any persons are so effectually called as to become true believers, they are brought into many new relations, — as, to God himself, as his children; unto Jesus Christ, as his members; unto all saints and angels in the families of God above and below, as brethren; and are called to many new works, duties, and uses, which before they knew nothing of.

They are brought into a new world, erected by the new creation; and which way soever they look or turn themselves, they say, “Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” So it is with every one that is made a new creature in Christ Jesus, 2 Corinthians 5:17. In this state and condition, wherein a man hath new principles put within him, new relations contracted about him, new duties presented unto him, and a new deportment in all things required of him, how shall he be able to behave himself aright, and answer the condition and holy station wherein he is placed? This no man can do of himself, for “who is sufficient for these things?” Wherefore, — 2. In this stateGod owns them, and communicates unto them his Holy Spirit, to fit them for their relations, to enable them unto their duties, to act their new principles, and every way to discharge the work they are called unto, even as their head, the Lord Christ, was unto hia God doth not now give unto them “the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind,” 2 Timothy 1:7. And hereby cloth God seal them; for, — (1.) Hereby he gives his testimony unto them that they are his, owned by him, accepted with him, his sons or children, — which is his seal; for if they were not so, he would never have given his Holy Spirit unto them.”

You must think about total depravity; if the Holy Spirit doesn’t indwell a man, they cannot be NOT totally depraved. If one is totally depraved, they WILL apostatize immediately.

If you believe Old Testament saints believed by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit but kept believing without the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit then saints in the OT were not as depraved as we are, as they did not need the ongoing indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. This discussion really then is a debate about the nature of total human depravity in the Old Testament. Nothing less than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit keeps a true believer believing, repenting, and obeying. To deny that the Old Testament saint had the benefit of the indwelling Spirit of God redefines total depravity, is sick with Arminianism, dispensationalism and rejects a biblical perseverance of the saint.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 2, 2019)

terry43 said:


> We know that the OT saints were saved as we are, by faith. A recent conversation brought up repentance and regeneration in the OT . We can see God work and act in Noah, but what of the other saints..Moses, Joshua,etc... Do we have clear evidence of their regeneration? What would it have looked like without the indwelling Holy Spirit?
> We see the Holy Spirit come on some for specific purposes.. was that a mark of their regeneration or was regeneration necessary for that ?


Could they have been regenerated by God, but not having the indwelling/infilling of the Holy Spirit as we do now under the new Covenant?


----------



## hammondjones (Apr 2, 2019)

terry43 said:


> scripture that clearly indicates regeneration on OT saints



I found Galatians 4 helpful for a similar question, which is really not different that what Rev. Buchanan said above*:*

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted *him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.*

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## terry43 (Apr 2, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> Echoing Bruce's words, the Puritan Anthony Burgess said of this question: "as one star differs from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jews, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the foundation. . ." (p254).
> 
> Francis Roberts explains it this way: “Under the _Old Covenant _the Spirit of God was given but so sparingly, so restrictively, to an handful of people the Jews, and in such small measure, and producing so few and small effects; that it is said, not to be given; _for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. _But under the _New Covenant _the Spirit was shed forth abundantly, in great variety of graces and gifts, both upon Jews and Gentiles, beginning at _Pentecost _to be poured forth upon the Apostles, and afterwards falling upon private believers.” (p1256). Again: “The _Efficacy _of former administrations, was very weak and small, in comparison of this New Covenant administration which is great and powerful. Under those the Holy Spirit was but as it were sparingly sprinkled upon them; their knowledge and love of God was dark, feeble childlike; their hearts were very stony hard and inflexible, as God intimated to them in writing his Laws upon stones, etc. But under this, the Holy Spirit is plentifully poured forth as in streams and rivers upon them; and into them; their knowledge and love of God is clear, strong, ripe, man-like: their hearts very fleshy and flexible to God and his will, etc. . .Hence, the Spirit is said _not to be given, till Christ was glorified: _ not as if it had not been given at all; but because it was bestowed so sparingly and slenderly, in comparison to what is now, that it might seem not to be given at all."
> 
> He then goes on to say: "[Also,] the _Extent _of former Covenant administrations, was but to particular families, as of Adam, Noah, Abraham, David; or to some particular tribes, as to the captives of Judah and Benjamin, or to a select nation, as to the Jews at Mount Sinai: Alas, how few, what a small handful were all these to the rest of the world! And yet of this small number, how few were there that had any saving inscription of Gods Laws upon their hearts at all? And we say,_ minimum in magne nihil, _a small thing in that which is great is as nothing; a drop is as nothing in the sea, a grain of sand is as nothing in the earth: so the writing of God's Laws in the hearts of so few, is as nothing in the world. But the extent of this New Covenant administration is universal, _to all nations in the whole world; _and consequently Gods writing of his Laws in mens hearts is proportionably extended to all Gods people in all those nations: to many thousands and ten thousands more then under all former Covenant expressures.” (pp1383-86).



I think that Roberts makes the most sense... Jesus said after He left He would send a "Helper" , this indeed indicates that none of the OT saints in the gospel (with the exception perhaps of Mary and perhaps JTB ) had the indwelling Holy Spirit ... I appreciate all the opinions here.. I am not seminary trained (obviously but I am a persistent student of the word ..that is what led me to reformed theology ... 
I do trust the word to present accurate history .. and note that Christ sent the indwelling HS as a special gift to the church after His ascension..
do see the HS come as one mentioned for administrative purposes.. 


It just dawned on me that I am wandering into dispensation theology ... Dont want to go there (grin)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

Terry,
If the old testament saints did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit how were they sanctified?

Also, you’re redefining total depravity; saying that the old testament saints were not as depraved as the new testament saints are.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

@terry43 ....Regeneration comes before (presupposes) faith, so when you say:



terry43 said:


> Do we have clear evidence of their regeneration?



The answer is YES we do. If they had true faith, then we can assume they had been regenerated. Dead men (spiritually) cannot have faith without first being made ALIVE. Read Hebrews 11. When the faith of certain OT figures is described, that presupposes regeneration, which is the specific work of the person the Holy Spirit. Unless our hearts are regenerated, we will not have faith.

See the Westminster Confession section below and look at the related scripture proofs, which I think are helpful to your questions:



> *Chapter IX - Of Free Will*
> *III.* Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]
> 
> *IV.* When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]
> ...




I hope this helps. Spend time on those chapters of the confession and the supporting scripture references (found online if you don't have a hard copy). That's my advise.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 2, 2019)

terry43 said:


> It just dawned on me that I am wandering into dispensation theology ... Dont want to go there (grin)


Yeah, you went too far there! Keep in mind Roberts’ words “Hence, the Spirit is said _not to be given, till Christ was glorified: _not as if it had not been given at all; but because it was bestowed so sparingly and slenderly, in comparison to what is now, that it might seem not to be given at all." The OT church had the indwelling Holy Spirit. She didn’t yet have him indwelling as she later had him at and following Pentecost.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 2, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> One could start with the fact that these gifts that were active during the days of the early church and pentecost. Are they still active today? Most fail to see the distinction between the Pneuma Hagion and the Paraklete. The Pneuma Hagion is *in* all true believers. The Paraklete, much like those that received a special anointing in the OT, is an amplification of the Pnema Hagion (as was distributed at Pentecost). I believe it was Sproul who said that the Pneuma Hagion is akin to a dripping faucet-always dripping into the lives of believers; Pentecost (or the OT anointings) was akin to a firehose delivering gallons of water per second. Big difference.
> 
> 
> Consider that those special gifts that were delivered at Pentecost are not any longer in force. The Paraklete was given for the same reason those that received special anointings in the OT, for NT business, i.e. the propelling of the church forward.


Hi Scott,
I'm not convinced this distinction is well-founded. We usually translate the word "paraclete" as "comforter" or "advocate" - both senses in which the OT believers undoubtedly had the Holy Spirit. If they didn't have him as an advocate, they would have been unable to pray - but they apparently prayed quite often and the Psalms are rich with the fruit of an interceding Holy Spirit. If we would say they were without comfort/a comforter, well that's absurd - we might as well say they were without the gospel, because faith in the gospel and spiritual comfort are inseparable (though they are distinguishable). I would imagine this idea that they didn't have him as a paraclete is in some way draw from the words of Christ in John 14 "I will send you another paraclete", but it would be unsound to reason from that statement that the Holy Spirit did not previously ordinarily act in such a way - Christ's tense use of the future tense in that discourse seems to be indicative of the benefits that would flow from his yet-future death and complete atonement, but of course the OT believers did partake of the substance of the atonement and all of the benefits of Christ just as we do - they had the same Christ, after all. Christ also uses the future tense for his preparation of a heavenly inheritance in v. 2, but surely we wouldn't imagine that the OT saints fell short of heaven upon their deaths because it wasn't ready yet.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

Charles Johnson said:


> I'm not convinced this distinction is well-founded. We usually translate the word "paraclete" as "comforter" or "advocate" - both senses in which the OT believers undoubtedly had the Holy Spirit. If they didn't have him as an advocate, they would have been unable to pray - but they apparently prayed quite often and the Psalms are rich with the fruit of an interceding Holy Spirit. If we would say they were without comfort/a comforter, well that's absurd - we might as well say they were without the gospel, because faith in the gospel and spiritual comfort are inseparable (though they are distinguishable).



Charles,
I make the distinction for the sake of this conversation; they are the same; but for the sake of describing what actually occurred during Pentecost, I believe it is warranted. Sure, the Pneuma Hagion is a helper as well, but in the amplified expression, He is the Paraklete (and there is a difference in character).



Charles Johnson said:


> but it would be unsound to reason from that statement that the Holy Spirit did not previously ordinarily act in such a way



As I say above. 

Clark Kent-Pneuma Hagion
Superman-Paraklete

The same, but different.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## terry43 (Apr 2, 2019)

Now to throw in another question ... The gospels basically reflect Christs life and ministry under the Old Covenant .. Does the fact that he promises the HS to the apostles when He "goes away " assume that apostles were not regenerate until Pentecost?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

terry43 said:


> Now to throw in another question ... The gospels basically reflect Christs life and ministry under the Old Covenant .. Does the fact that he promises the HS to the apostles when He "goes away " assume that apostles were not regenerate until Pentecost?



Thats the wrinkle in your theory, Terry (hey that rhymes!). 

You're cornering the objective! You have it in the corner-use the right hook.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

I know people will mock me for this, but hey, here goes:

In regards to the ordo, most believe that the order is instantaneous. Like a synapse or nanosecond. I agree (but not absolutely). I believe the order can be chronological as well; that being, a man can be regenerated, given eyes to see (John 3:3) and the HS builds upon the foundation until that man comes to have an assent to biblical facts. Most everyone would agree that one cannot be converted without biblical truth. Hence, my view.

There is a second possibility; some or all of the apostles might have been regenerated and not converted. When Christ breathed on them and said, 'receive the HS', this was the Pneuma hagion, not the paraklete. It may have been at this moment that they were converted. 

If you recall, consider why Christ spoke in parables. 'Hidden alongside'. 

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and _their_ ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with _their_ eyes, and hear with _their_ ears, and should understand with _their_ heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Mt 13:13–15.


12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard _this_ saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those _things_ which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Mt 15:12–18.


10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all _these things_ are done in parables: 12 that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and _their_ sins should be forgiven them. 13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how _then_ will you know all parables?

_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Mk 4:10–13.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> There is a second possibility; some or all of the apostles might have been *regenerated* and not *converted*.




Scott, 

Are you proposing there are 2 classes of Christians walking around? Sounds a tad bit like a version of Pentecostalism I have heard.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Are you proposing there are 2 classes of Christians walking around? Sounds a tad bit like a version of Pentecostalism I have heard.



Technically, there are two types of Christians walking around. Those in the internal side of the covenant and those in the external side. The local church is made up of these.

Let me put it another way. What did Jesus mean when he said 'a man must be born again before HE CAN SEE the kingdom of God' (or things of the kingdom).
If I took a man from a deserted island, one who had never heard of Christ, brought him to church and God chose to regenerate him (keeping in mind that regeneration is the first act of the ordo) prior to his attending. The man hears the gospel and ponders it. He does the math. Goes home and thinks on these things; gets out a bible and begins to read. The equation starts to make sense. he agrees and assents to biblical fact. When was he converted? Can he be converted without any mental assent to biblical truth? Can he assent to any biblical truth without first being regenerated?

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> Technically, there are two types of Christians walking around. Those in the internal side of the covenant and those in the external side. The local church is made up of these.



I do believe what you said here to an extent, but technically those on the external are not true Christians and are neither converted or regenerated (as you separate those).

Who converts?

Who regenerates?

Is a converted person saved (elect)?

Is a regenerated person saved (elect)?


I am trying to understand what difference you see in those 2 words is all. Maybe you could define your terms here and that would give me more understanding to your point.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

Only God knows who are true believers; we go on confession alone. Hence, we move forward. 

Who converts? God

Who regenerates? God

Is a converted person saved (elect)? Yes

Is a regenerated person saved (elect)? Yes

U do understand that the ordo is a process, right?

The gist of your question seems to be based on the ordo salutis, correct? 

You have a hard time believing one can be regenerated, yet not converted, right?

How would u answer my questions I posed?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> U do understand that the ordo is a process, right?


Yes sir.



Scott Bushey said:


> The gist of your question seems to be based on the ordo salutis, correct?


Yes sir, but I prefer English for those not well versed in Latin that may try to follow (including myself).



Scott Bushey said:


> You have a hard time believing one can be regenerated, yet not converted, right?


Yes, at least in the way you are describing it.



Scott Bushey said:


> How would u answer my questions I posed?


Which ones?

P.S. This may be a better side bar discussion considering what @terry43 is asking.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

In my last post in the thread....

Post 18


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> When was he converted?


 Only our Lord would truly knows this and I see no benefit from trying to determine the exact moment. I am a Presbyterian for pete's sake



Scott Bushey said:


> Can he be converted without any mental assent to biblical truth?


 If a converted person is saved, as you answered above, then I would say No, but this is still a mysterious at times. Particularly regarding elect infants. Our confession does address elect infants afterall.



Scott Bushey said:


> Can he assent to any biblical truth without first being regenerated?


 I would say no.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Only our Lord would truly knows this and I see no benefit from trying to determine the exact moment. I am a Presbyterian from pete's sake



It's not a matter of trying to know when I was saved; we are trying to ascertain if a man can be regenerated and then converted at a later time. Regeneration and conversion happen in time; sometimes it is simultaneous, others not. Why can I say that? An infant regenerated in the womb. Is that infant converted as well?

Does not the WCF ch 28 tell us that at baptism, if God wills, he can regenerate the infant?


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> If the old testament saints did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit how were they sanctified?



Scott, I believe the OT saints had the Holy Spirit. I have supported that view in all of my post on this thread.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> If a converted person is saved, as you answered above, then I would say no, but this is still a mystery. Our confession does address elect infants.



A man cannot be converted without a mental assent to biblical facts.
he can be regenerate, but not converted (as I expressed in my island example).

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> A man cannot be converted without a mental assent to biblical facts.
> he can be regenerate, but not converted (as I expressed in my island example).
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/2015/03/4398/


Scott look back at my answer, I made a typo. Please update my portion that you quoted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Scott, I believe the OT saints had the Holy Spirit.



Amen. As I said, if you don't have the spirit, u are none of Christ's.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

Scott,

I think if you will define what you mean by the two terms (regenerate & conversion) that may help clear up some things.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2019)

This may help; wisdom from a great man:

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 2, 2019)

Trying to drive a long, temporal wedge between regeneration and conversion is largely fruitless. There is no observable way to determine if such a thing is _existent, _assuming that it is _theoretically stable. _At best, it might provide some ex post facto explanation for why someone seemed to linger for a time between saved and lost, a long-time-coming to faith. Meanwhile, as far as anyone can tell, he could simply be resisting the Spirit, and if a reprobate will "win" that battle.

There are other ways to handle whatever "gap" there might appear to be, looking back to seek for some possible early-spark of the Spirit's gracious intervention upon the saved. We often call such effects, "common operations of the Spirit," which for the elect issue in a different result than for the reprobate. That, in my judgment, is a wiser course than adopting the notion of possibly many (elect) people walking about--sometimes for years--in a regenerated but unconverted state.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 2, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Trying to drive a long, temporal wedge between regeneration and conversion is largely fruitless. There is no observable way to determine if such a thing is _existent, _assuming that it is _theoretically stable. _At best, it might provide some ex post facto explanation for why someone seemed to linger for a time between saved and lost, a long-time-coming to faith. Meanwhile, as far as anyone can tell, he could simply be resisting the Spirit, and if a reprobate will "win" that battle.
> 
> There are other ways to handle whatever "gap" there might appear to be, looking back to seek for some possible early-spark of the Spirit's gracious intervention upon the saved. We often call such effects, "common operations of the Spirit," which for the elect issue in a different result than for the reprobate. That, in my judgment, is a wiser course than adopting the notion of possibly many (elect) people walking about--sometimes for years--in a regenerated but unconverted state.


Bruce,

Thanks for typing that all out. I whole heartedly agree.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 3, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Trying to drive a long, temporal wedge between regeneration and conversion is largely fruitless. There is no observable way to determine if such a thing is _existent, _assuming that it is _theoretically stable._



Bruce,
No one is trying to 'drive a long, temporal wedge between regeneration and conversion'. Terry asked a question about the apostles and I provided a possible theory. You do the same thing in your post and even go to the extent of providing two possible solutions.



Contra_Mundum said:


> At best, it might provide some ex post facto explanation for why someone seemed to linger for a time between saved and lost a long-time-coming to faith.



and



Contra_Mundum said:


> as far as anyone can tell, he could simply be resisting the Spirit



Over the years, we discussed this on PB many times; If you recall, I have always held to the idea that the ordo is chronological. The majority of people here, have comfortably hung their hat on the premise that the ordo is 'logical' and not chronological. I disagree, as do many greater minds than mine, i.e. Kuyper, Van Mastricht, Voetius, Witsius (to name a few). It is a relevant, theological topic to discuss. God provided us with information and as responsible disciples, we should process it. It is there for our benefit. _Is it_ 'theoretically stable'? I believe so; this 'gap' doesn't do any injury to the salvation process nor anyones actual walk. For example, I know when I came to faith. At that given moment in time, was it when I was regenerated or converted? I have no real idea. I had a confession and thats all that is important; to me and to my elders.

The WCF tells us in Ch 28 that regeneration is not 'tied to the moment ' of baptism. It also tells us that if God so wills, He can regenerate the child at the time of baptism; this is a curious statement by Westminster and should cause all of us to pause because this tells us that the infant can, and many times, is regenerated prior to any actual, tangible knowledge of God and theology. This shows a gap. It does no damage and so, we should think on these things.

Phil 4:8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

In my opinion, this subject is praiseworthy and hence, I think about it, as we all should. Dismissing it as frivolous, would be sinful.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 3, 2019)

Love you, Scott.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 3, 2019)

Likewise, pal.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## terry43 (Apr 3, 2019)

Thanks for the thoughts... still wondering about the apostles  I must say this gap idea helps me.. I was an RC agnostic on an RC retreat, I suddenly believed that God was and that He loved me.. But I would not say I was saved for about 2 weeks ..when in prayer I became acutely aware of the Holiness of God and my sinfulness and literally fell to my knees before God and repented and praised Him for His mercy in Christ ... I suspect this also might be true of children raised in the church ..they may not be able to "give the date" as so often it the "test" but they have come to believe and repent as they grew up


----------

