The Holy Spirit

S

SicEtNon

Puritan Board Freshman
Something I’ve always been rather kinda confused on is in the NT about the Holy Spirit being given to us. I don’t quite understand the difference between saints in the OT and NT receiving the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit was given to us once Christ came then how were people saved in the OT? How could they choose to fear God. If there’s any error in what I’m asking please point it out to me.
 
This page, 3 quarters down the page, sermons on that topic, may be of help.

Abundant Life in the Power of the Holy Spirit
Part 1: Abundant Life, John 10:10, (July 7, 2019)
Part 2: The Holy Spirit’s Person and Work, John 14:16-26 (July 14, 2019) PDF Study Guide for Overview of the Holy Spirit
Part 3: Baptized in the Spirit, Acts 11:9-13 (July 21, 2019)
Part 4: Indwelt by the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 3:16 (July 28, 2019)
Part 5: The Anointing and Unction of the Holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 1:20-23 (August 4, 2019)
Part 6: The Divine and Supernatural Illumination of the Holy Spirit in a Believer, John 16:13-14 (August 11, 2019)
Part 7: Filled with the Spirit, Eph. 5:18 (August 18, 2019)
Part 8: The Power of the Holy Spirit, Romans 15:13 (August 25, 2019)
Part 9: Led by the Spirit of God as Sons and Daughters, Romans 8:13-14 (September 1, 2019)
Part 10: Praying in the Holy Ghost, Jude 1:20 (September 8, 2019)
Part 11: The Fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22-23 (September 15, 2019)
Part 12: The Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Believer, 1 Cor. 12:1-11 (September 22, 2019)
Part 13: Walking in the Spirit, Gal. 5:25 (September 29, 2019)
Part 14: Abundant Grace, 1 Tim. 1:14, (October 6, 2019)
 
It's a matter of degree. No one can believe, become sanctified, or grow in spiritual knowledge without the Holy Spirit, and so the Holy Spirit was working in the Old Covenant times. Otherwise, there would be no Old Testament saints. One positive proof of the indwelling of the Spirit in OT times is that David prayed in Psalm 51:11 that the Lord would not take the Holy Spirit from him.

The pouring out of the Spirit in New Covenant times means greater revelation and spiritual experience, which is fitting because Christ has gone up to heaven to rule over the nations and the church. The outpouring of the Spirit is the expression of this dominion.
 
Some bullets:
--The regenerating work of the Spirit was not different prior to the Incarnation and Ascension of Christ.
--The general diffusion of the Spirit amid the church population, and his degree (measure) upon/within each believer was significantly less in OT ages.
--The special, powerful indwelling/anointing of the Spirit on individuals was in OT ages reserved for Christ's types: prophets, priests, kings and analogues (like judges); the general population was obliged to attend the services of the multiplied OT types to take advantage of their spiritual strength for an individual and corporate benefit; the strengthening they found was no different from the strengthening believers have now but more directly (but NT believers still make use of the NT means of grace).
--The coming of Christ fulfilled the types in the ideal antitype, who possessed the Spirit without degree/measure.
--The promise of Christ's victory included a general outpouring of his Spirit upon all his people, increasing the filling measure for every believer. This definitively took place at Pentecost.
--The outpouring of the Spirit in general, plus the finished work of Christ, explains why the least in the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist, an OT figure (in the NT) who was the final prophet and forerunner of Christ, who stood in the first rank of spiritual OT men (none greater than John).
 
The holy spirit is omnipresent

All believers have to have the HS indwelling them, else they apostatize the faith, immediately. Sanctification would be literally impossible without the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer, ‘to do and to will’.

To believe that the HS did not indwell a believer in the OT is to subscribe to Arminianism and dispensationalism.

Theocratic anointing are nothing more than amplification of said spirit for particular kingdom business. Consider the pneuma hagion vs the Paraclete.

Pentecost was the abundance of outpouring on ‘all types’ of peoples by the Paraclete.

It is important to note, and it can be confusing, how and when disciples/ apostles were regenerated and converted.

Regeneration, conversion and discipleship are not one and the same. The HS can work supernatural things, in different fashions, with all the mentioned.

The pneuma hagion and Paraclete are the same, but different. The Paraclete is akin to the HS on steroids; or better put, louder or amplified.

In the NC, this HS, is in a higher quantity, than in previous epochs, due to the fact that the hearers have increased, i.e. the Gentiles are now included. This is why , in one instance, the NC is ‘better’.

The Westminster confession of faith, pretty much supports the idea that all believers in all epochs had to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them. Off the top of my head, I forget what actual chapters, but if you want the direct citations, let me know.
 
Last edited:
The work of the Spirit in individual OT saints (ordo salutis) was no different in terms of what God was working in them, just as they were saved by Christ in the same way we are (through faith in his name). But it was different in their experience because in the historia salutis, the Spirit hadn’t been given yet. They had glimpses, hopes, types and shadows. They had the substance, but only saw it dimly. We have the same substance but in full revelation, and we experience him in light of that.
 
Eyedoc84 said:
The work of the Spirit in individual OT saints (ordo salutis) was no different in terms of what God was working in them, just as they were saved by Christ in the same way we are (through faith in his name). But it was different in their experience because in the historia salutis, the Spirit hadn’t been given yet. They had glimpses, hopes, types and shadows. They had the substance, but only saw it dimly. We have the same substance but in full revelation, and we experience him in light of that.
Click to expand...

‘the Spirit hadn’t been given yet.’

Can u explain this in practical terms?
 
Scott Bushey said:
‘the Spirit hadn’t been given yet.’

Can u explain this in practical terms?
Click to expand...
The Spirit had not been given because Christ was not yet glorified. Pentecost was the historia salutis reality behind the ordo salutis of every believer Old and New. Pentecost was integral to the work of Christ on our behalf.
 
Eyedoc84 said:
The Spirit had not been given because Christ was not yet glorified. Pentecost was the historia salutis reality behind the ordo salutis of every believer Old and New. Pentecost was integral to the work of Christ on our behalf.
Click to expand...

To begin with, this goes against the Bible, the Reformed tradition as well as the Westminster confession of faith.

As well, as mentioned above in my previous post, this is covertly Arminian and dispensational. Arminian because if the Holy Spirit does not indwell, a believer, how is sanctification achieved? What keeps the Christian in this age from automatically and immediately apostatizing the faith? The Holy Spirit is the one responsible to work and us to doing to will. If one doesn’t have the Holy Spirit, sanctification is Works based.

Dispensational, because, you see the consummation point, Christ, dying on the cross, not until that moment in history, when the Holy Spirit will be/is actually given.

The book of Ephesians in chapter 1 says that believers are ‘sealed’, like a postage envelope, in the HS. The gospel that was preached to Abraham is that same gospel we have today. To say that the Old Testament saints, did not have this an indwelling, it creates a problem of sorts in that men in the old testament verses in the New Testament are saved in a different fashion.

Might want to re-read the posts above.

Lastly, most people, have a difficult time in seeing the distinctions between the regular Holy Spirit(pneuma hagion) and the Paraclete. The timing is very convoluted, and one hast to really have his head on a swivel to sort of follow the narration of the Bible in this regard. As well, as I mentioned above, regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration; as well, the Holy Spirit has used the reprobate at times. I make mention of the last portion here because most people, by default, think the apostles and the main characters of scripture, to be already regenerated, and converted as they read; in my studies, I’ve come to different conclusions, of course.
 
Scott Bushey said:
To begin with, this goes against the Bible, the Reformed tradition as well as the Westminster confession of faith.

As well, as mentioned above in my previous post, this is covertly Arminian and dispensational. Arminian because if the Holy Spirit does not indwell, a believer, how is sanctification achieved? What keeps the Christian in this age from automatically and immediately apostatizing the faith? The Holy Spirit is the one responsible to work and us to doing to will. If one doesn’t have the Holy Spirit, sanctification is Works based.

Dispensational, because, you see the consummation point, Christ, dying on the cross, not until that moment in history, when the Holy Spirit will be/is actually given.

The book of Ephesians in chapter 1 says that believers are ‘sealed’, like a postage envelope, in the HS. The gospel that was preached to Abraham is that same gospel we have today. To say that the Old Testament saints, did not have this an indwelling, it creates a problem of sorts in that men in the old testament verses in the New Testament are saved in a different fashion.

Might want to re-read the posts above.

Lastly, most people, have a difficult time in seeing the distinctions between the regular Holy Spirit(pneuma hagion) and the Paraclete. The timing is very convoluted, and one hast to really have his head on a swivel to sort of follow the narration of the Bible in this regard. As well, as I mentioned above, regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration; as well, the Holy Spirit has used the reprobate at times. I make mention of the last portion here because most people, by default, think the apostles and the main characters of scripture, to be already regenerated, and converted as they read; in my studies, I’ve come to different conclusions, of course.
Click to expand...
I think you need to go back and reread what I wrote. Specifically, the first sentence of my first post.
 
Scott Bushey said:
To begin with, this goes against the Bible, the Reformed tradition as well as the Westminster confession of faith.

As well, as mentioned above in my previous post, this is covertly Arminian and dispensational. Arminian because if the Holy Spirit does not indwell, a believer, how is sanctification achieved? What keeps the Christian in this age from automatically and immediately apostatizing the faith? The Holy Spirit is the one responsible to work and us to doing to will. If one doesn’t have the Holy Spirit, sanctification is Works based.

Dispensational, because, you see the consummation point, Christ, dying on the cross, not until that moment in history, when the Holy Spirit will be/is actually given.

The book of Ephesians in chapter 1 says that believers are ‘sealed’, like a postage envelope, in the HS. The gospel that was preached to Abraham is that same gospel we have today. To say that the Old Testament saints, did not have this an indwelling, it creates a problem of sorts in that men in the old testament verses in the New Testament are saved in a different fashion.

Might want to re-read the posts above.

Lastly, most people, have a difficult time in seeing the distinctions between the regular Holy Spirit(pneuma hagion) and the Paraclete. The timing is very convoluted, and one hast to really have his head on a swivel to sort of follow the narration of the Bible in this regard. As well, as I mentioned above, regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration; as well, the Holy Spirit has used the reprobate at times. I make mention of the last portion here because most people, by default, think the apostles and the main characters of scripture, to be already regenerated, and converted as they read; in my studies, I’ve come to different conclusions, of course.
Click to expand...
Surely, there's some "talking past" each other here, yes?

Eyedoc84 starts off his comment by quoting the NT, Jn.7:39 "But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

So, that's the starting point for discussing what variously might be meant by those words. But it is non-starter to begin a dissent with the words: "...this goes against the Bible." He quoted the Bible.

I don't read anyone here questioning if the H.S. regenerated people in the OT. Nor do I read people opposed to the idea that the H.S. remained with those OT saints who were regenerated for the work of sanctification and their spiritual growth. What has been proposed as an element of the meaning of John's statement (and other texts) is that we should understand the H.S.'s OT-level work even amidst the church, and particularly the saints in the church, was not so thoroughgoing as it was promised he would be. And not just in terms of containment within the holy nation.

I suggest it is not useful to think of believers in binary, i.e. filled-or-absent terms. But, as the Spirit can be "grieved away" from a believer now, his power is not always present in degree or measure, and was not in the OT. The H.S. is sovereign as well, and blows where he wills; so there's never been a time when he was simply "on tap" for someone sufficiently holy.
 
Eyedoc84 said:
The work of the Spirit in individual OT saints (ordo salutis) was no different in terms of what God was working in them, just as they were saved by Christ in the same way we are (through faith in his name). But it was different in their experience because in the historia salutis, the Spirit hadn’t been given yet. They had glimpses, hopes, types and shadows. They had the substance, but only saw it dimly. We have the same substance but in full revelation, and we experience him in light of that.
Click to expand...
You could have done better if you qualified what 'experience' was.
 
Eyedoc84 said:
The work of the Spirit in individual OT saints (ordo salutis) was no different in terms of what God was working in them, just as they were saved by Christ in the same way we are (through faith in his name). But it was different in their experience because in the historia salutis, the Spirit hadn’t been given yet. They had glimpses, hopes, types and shadows. They had the substance, but only saw it dimly. We have the same substance but in full revelation, and we experience him in light of that.
Click to expand...

So as u asked, I am re-reading your first statement. I see no issue w/ the first portion; where u say, ‘the spirit hadn’t been given yet’ is the pothole. I never questioned your position in regards to the ordo, though I did wonder how you reconciled this with this ‘spirit that hadn’t been given yet’ And hence my earlier responses. Possibly, as Bruce has mentioned, we are talking past each other. Feel free to clarify.

the Pneuma hagion vs the Paraclete. Both the Holy Spirit. Just like the theocratic anointings in the OT, the Pentecost event was very similar, x for the idea that this paraclete, was in larger portions, given that it went to those outside of Israel now. The range of effectuality was increased and the gifts were amplified; or as I said earlier, the volume has been turned up. The distinctions are obvious; and given that all believers have the HS upon regeneration, the HS that will never leave us or forsake us, this distinction happened in OT times as noted and in NT times like the event at Pentecost. Possibly the same for the apostles, given their gifts.

You go on to ask, ‘you don’t think the apostles were regenerated and converted?

Judas wasn’t. Demas, after the days of the Apostles, was Paul’s ‘fellow worker in his ministry’, was not. But I digress. Eventually, some maybe immediately, but who’s to really know; I have come to these conclusions after doing a long study on the subject of the HS. For example, since the HS is Omnipresent and in all believers, prior to Pentecost, what was Jesus doing teaching the Apostles and saying, receive the HS, if they were already regenerate? Can a true believer ever deny the Lord? If Peter was actually regenerated and converted, when under pressure, could he deny the lord? Not once or twice, but three times?

In Isaiah, we can see reference to the parables; Jesus uses them and attempts to teach the Apostles; the parables are spiritually discerned, no? In many ways, these teaching were an act of mercy to the hearers, given if they understood, their cup would be more full than previously. For believers, they hold miles of information and grace. Only the regenerated can understand. Why did Jesus have to take the Apostles into a back room and explain it to them? If they were regenerated, they would have had eyes to see these truths. Jesus Himself said as much.

I only make mention of these examples because they have come to light, over the years of my studies on the HS, to be significant in these studies. is it important to hang my hat on any of this w/ certainty? I would say no; I am not a young man any longer (65 in a few days) and one thing I have learned in my walk, is that today u may believe certain things and tomorrow, not so much. Many here know me from years ago on the board. I was pretty dogmatic and militant. I am no longer like that and give much room for the people of God to grow in their faith and walks. So, yea….some of what I have posited, I believe should be dogmatized-that being the subject at hand; when the apostles were actually regenerated, not as much.

This may be my last post as I do not have the backbone any longer to debate and argue. I pop in here, now and then, only.


Pastor Buchanan,
Forgive me for making a statement and not qualifying exactly what I meant, when I said that ‘this goes against the bible’. What I should have explained was that the majority of God’s word would support the idea that all believers, in all epochs, were filled with the HS upon regeneration and conversion. I did previously cite that the historic Reformed agree as does the WCF.

“Nor do I read people opposed to the idea that the H.S. remained with those OT saints who were regenerated for the work of sanctification and their spiritual growth.”

Again, to all reading, forgive me, Eyedoc forgive me, if I am assuming wrongly, but when someone makes the statement ‘the spirit hadn’t been given yet’, which is what the majority of believers believe in this age-even some (r)eformed folk believe, I find myself falling into that idea and respond by default.

Bruce, as far as the rest of your response:

‘I suggest it is not useful to think of believers in binary, i.e. filled-or-absent terms.’

ok. I believe it is important, given the discussion.

‘But, as the Spirit can be "grieved ,away" from a believer now, his power is not always present in degree or measure, and was not in the OT.’

i don’t understand what u wrote here, unless there is a typo and u meant to say, as was in the OT’, I.e. King David, ‘Lord. Do not take your spirit from me’.
 
Last edited:
Eyedoc84 said:
Yes you were assuming wrongly, and yes I forgive you. Happy to clarify further if need be.
Click to expand...
Eyedoc84 said:
The Spirit had not been given because Christ was not yet glorified. Pentecost was the historia salutis reality behind the ordo salutis of every believer Old and New. Pentecost was integral to the work of Christ on our behalf.
Click to expand...
Thank u for your kindness. It would seem, and again, I could be wrong, but it seems as if u are saying that salvation was the same in both old and new, but that the HS hadn’t been ‘given’ prior to Christs glorification, in the history of salvation.
 
Last edited:
Scott Bushey said:
Thank u for your kindness. It would seem, and again, I could be wrong, but it seems as if u are saying that salvation was the same in both old and new, but that the HS hadn’t been ‘given’ prior to Christs glorification, in the history of salvation.
Click to expand...
Ok I’ll try again. Every OT believer was regenerated, indwelt, sanctified, etc. with the Holy Spirit just as we are. He was given to them in the ordo salutis sense. But he had not yet been given in the historia salutis. Pentecost was part and parcel of Jesus’ redemptive work in history. Jesus’ incarnation, baptism, active obedience, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and giving the Spirit at Pentecost are all inseparable, and all indispensable to all believers in all times. It is because of Acts 2 that all believers in the OT had the Spirit.

Let me quote Gaffin:

The latter part of John 7:39 should be taken at face value; we should not miss or tone down its epochal absoluteness. Getting its sense may be helped by the terseness of a more literal translation: “For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” The two occurrences of “not yet” are categorical: no glorification of Jesus, no Spirit. This absoluteness, to head off a misunderstanding, is not to be understood as if John is denying the obvious, as if he means that prior to Christ’s glorification the Spirit was not present and active in the creation or not at work among God’s old covenant people and in Jesus’s earthly ministry. Rather, in view here is a new state of affairs in the future as far as the Spirit is concerned, one that did not exist previously: the Spirit will be present, not as he was before, but on the basis of and as the consequence of the glorification of Christ having actually occurred. Helpful for our understanding here, again, is the historia salutis-ordo salutis distinction…what belongs to the accomplishment of redemption in distinction from what belongs to its application. In John 7:39, the “not yet” of the Spirit — the future coming of the Spirit contingent on the glorification of Jesus — has in view a once-for-all event in the historia salutis, a climactic event in the history of redemption; it does not belong to the ordo salutis, to the ongoing application of redemption and appropriation of its benefits…The coming of the Spirit on Pentecost is not first of all a matter of the individual experience of those believers present there. Their experience is surely involved. It should not be ignored or minimized…but [it] is not the primary significance of Pentecost. [The primary significance] is Christological.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Bushey said:
‘But, as the Spirit can be "grieved ,away" from a believer now, his power is not always present in degree or measure, and was not in the OT.’

i don’t understand what u wrote here, unless there is a typo and u meant to say, as was in the OT’, I.e. King David, ‘Lord. Do not take your spirit from me’.
Click to expand...
What I mean is that, for most OT believers--excepting believers like David, types for the Mediator to come--"filling" was measured in a shot-glass (a small capacity); whereas those in whom the Spirit was mightily infused, their enlarged capacity was more like an ordinary believers' full-bucket today as their new-birthright, resulting from a divine-sized flood of outpoured Spirit and king-sized apportionments for each. Believers also do not always live up to their Spirit-filling potential because of sin, neglect, etc.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
What I mean is that, for most OT believers--excepting believers like David, types for the Mediator to come--"filling" was measured in a shot-glass (a small capacity); whereas those in whom the Spirit was mightily infused, their enlarged capacity was more like an ordinary believers' full-bucket today as their new-birthright, resulting from a divine-sized flood of outpoured Spirit and king-sized apportionments for each. Believers also do not always live up to their Spirit-filling potential because of sin, neglect, etc.
Click to expand...

‘Thanks for the clarification, Pastor. I don’t know if I fully agree. Here is my assessment. The HS (Ruah) in the OT is immutable. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. If there was any differences, it was due to the sin of Israel. you do make mention of this sin. In our age, the same result can be found in many believers; not drawing close, sin, resistance, going one’s own way, etc.

This HS is available to all believers, over all ages. The only difference I see is that at Pentecost, when the Helper (Paraclete) was given, what we have is the HS (pneuma hagion) an amplified version of the HS. Think of the pneuma hagion as Clark Kent; the paraclete as Superman. This blessing, according to Joel, went beyond the borders of Israel, to those that were afar off; In the OT, the Paraclete is given for special times, determined by God the Father to deliver special revelation and tasks (Theocratic anointing).

This Pentecost event and outpouring has expired. We are left with Clark Kent. Since the HS is God, there remains no limit to His power and this power is available to each and every believer. Consider the faith of a mustard seed and being able to move mountains. This is exactly why I tell people daily, ‘pray for the fire, brother! Pray hard for the miracle; be like Jeremiah and reject those that tell u to resist the HS’s unction. Pray for the fire that is in your bosom, screaming to get out And get to work!’

“John 7:37–38 (ESV): If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
 
Last edited:
Scott Bushey said:
difference I see is that at Pentecost, when the Helper (Paraclete) was given, what we have is the HS (pneuma hagion) an amplified version of the HS.
Click to expand...
What I can tell, you see somewhat difference in the divine Agent himself, a view you're entitled to so long as it stays orthodox (i.e. no change of the divine Person ad intra): that by a mystery there is extra grandeur in the H.S.'s presence at Pentecost, which also you describe as having faded from our (church-militant) view directly.

Whereas, I see the difference not in the Spirit at all, but rather in what God has done, in altering both history and the believing creature. I also don't think we're beyond the effect of Pentecost. 2000yrs is not nearly enough time for the sloshing-about of the waves of that flood to abate.

Perhaps our ideas are closer than presented by our chosen words for description. We both aim to explain profound truth drawn from Scripture. Pax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top