Indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

Steve, (or Sean, or anyone for that matter)

Could you please give a scriptural argument for the idea that the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer is a post resurrection phenomenon? In other words, OT saints were justified by their faith, but did not have the benefit of that indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit until Jesus came. I know that this is the common belief among evangelicals, but I'm having discussions with a brother on this who believes that it is a dangerous doctrine because he says that it suggests they themselves had the power to keep themselves in the faith.

I know of a couple of verses that support the idea of a post-resurrection indwelling (1 Pet 1:3, John 7:39, John 20:22) but I don't have a solid case to present to him and the others in my bible study yet.

Thanks.

[Guest]

Hi Chris, Sorry i'm not the right Steve but i think OT saints were annointed individually by God with the Holy Spirit and they sometimes lost their annointing. But i don't have any verses to back this up at the moment.

[_Steve]

Hi Chris,

In my opinion, the verses you listed present a much stronger case for your point than any your friend can present for a contrary opinion. I would also add to your list Christ's discussion in the upper room, where He said that if He did not go away, the Spirit would not come, and that when the Spirit did come, He would abide with them forever (John 14:16; 16:17).

This last phrase, in my opinion, suggests a change from the previous administration of the Spirit. I agree with "Guest" (above) in the belief that, in Old Testament times, the Holy Spirit would come and go in relation to certain anointed individuals, but that He did not "abide...forever" in them—nor did He unite the whole believing community, before Pentecost, into a single, corporate "holy temple in the Lord" which is now the case (Eph.2:21-22). The Holy Spirit now abides permanently in this "temple," though individuals who abandon Christ may also forfeit their part in the Spirit of God by ceasing to be associated with that spiritual house.

I know of no scriptural support for your friend's position, which seems to rest entirely upon a particular presumption of the total depravity of human nature. He thinks it anathema to suggest that people, without the indwelling Spirit, could choose to keep the external requirements of the law or could have an obedient heart. This concept of human nature does more than full justice to the doctrine of original sin, but it does less than full justice to the phenomenon of original righteousness. Mankind was created in God's image, and despite the introduction of sin that has marred the divine likeness in man, there is no suggestion that nothing remains of God's image or that sin is the only motivation stirring in the hearts of the unregenerate.

To my knowledge, the Bible nowhere teaches that a man in his natural state cannot desire to keep and externally submit to the outward ordinances of God's law. Notwithstanding the spate of proof-texts that Calvinists present to support their view of total depravity (with which I am as familiar as they are), it would be my contention that an exegetical approach of these texts in their contexts falls very much short of establishing their point.

Even a moral man can not be justified by his mere keeping of the law, because he cannot do so perfectly (in fact, most Christians who do possess the Spirit do not obey perfectly either), and because the law cannot justify him from his sins. However, the idea that non-Christians cannot live pious and moral lives strikes me as a doctrine from the Medieval Church, suited to an age when European Christians had had little contact with (for example) devout Hindus and Muslims (other than those who waged war against them in the Crusades and the conquest of Constatinople, and such). It was easy for the church, in such cultural isolation, to view all non-Christians as beastial devils, like their Muslim and Barbarian invaders. The concept of a Hindu or Buddhist "holy man," I assume, had never crossed their minds.

Yet, even Paul acknowledged that the heathen of Athens worshipped (albeit ignorantly) the God he had come to preach to them (Acts 17:23) and that the unsaved Jews had a similarly ignorant "zeal for God" (Rom.10:2). Truly Paul knew of the satanic spirit that animated his Jewish persecutors, and the debauched rituals of Greek and Roman religion, where they offered sacrifices to demons (1 Cor.10:20). But he never ruled out the possibility that a Jew or Greek (though not yet converted) might be of a different spirit or temperament from the generality of his countrymen.

How God will ultimately judge such ignorant worshippers remains something of a mystery to us, but the fact that there are examples of unregenerate people who live religious and moral lives—possibly even with good motives—is difficult to contest. Therefore, I do not find your friend's objection to be biblically weighty.

[Guest]

Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-6) seemed to be doing quite well at keeping the faith prior to the Holy Spirit being sent! I can only hope to do as well!

[_Steve]

I agree with you, Homer. A Calvinist would take the position that Zacharias and Elizabeth, like all Old Testament saints, were actually regenerated. I assume they would also claim that their regeneration included possession of the Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve, guest, and Homer,

I can understand where my friend is coming from though because I used to believe as he does, although I never thought it dangerous to believe otherwise. I only changed my view on this fairly recently. I had a few discussions with some of the elders and pastors in my church back when I held this view and even stumped some of them.

My original starting point for the argument was the assumption that God is unchanging and gave all men equal chance to know Him and live victoriously in Him no matter when they happened to be born.

Then there were explicit examples in scripture of the Holy Spirit being "in" people. Joseph (Gen 41:38 ), Joshua (Num 27:18 ), and Daniel (Dan 5:11) were all individuals specifically said to have the Spirit "in" them. And actually Homer, I used to use Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist as people who had the Spirit before Pentecost. Similarly, there were groups of people said to have the Spirit in them as well. The prophets did (1 Pet 1:11), and presumably the whole congregation did at some point (Isa 63:11, Although I now see this verse as saying the Spirit was in their midst rather than in their hearts).

The verse most people would use in John 7:39 (I used to argue) does not explicitly say that the Spirit had not yet been given to anybody at anytime. That has to be implied in the verse. And using the examples I cited above, I would say that the implicit must be interpreted by the explicit.

So that was pretty much my argument when I thought this way. And I think that is how my friend is thinking as well. However, that argument is pretty anecdotal, which is difficult to build a doctrine on. I now see it the way you do and I think you nailed it on the head when you said that:

The Holy Spirit now abides permanently in this "temple,"

Since Israel was a type of what we now call the body of Christ (the church) and God dwelt in their midst but not in their individual hearts. They had Moses and the prophets to convict them and lead them to repentance and give them assurance and encouragement when they needed it. But now we have the Holy Spirit in us to do that. I think Jeremiah 31:33 is a good verse for that promise:

Jer 31:33
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
NKJV

I also like the entire chapter of John 14 for this point.

Anyway, thanks again as usual Steve for taking the time to give me very thorough answer to my question. I will chew on it and present it to my study group in the prison on Monday. One of the challenges in leading a bible study in there is all of the various backgrounds, theologies, and opinions that arise. But that's also exactly what I love about it. It forces me to stay sharp and know why I believe certain things. I sure love "growing in grace and knowledge of our Lord".

Thanks again. God bless.

[Guest]

Christopher,
Also consider "the Holy Spirit came on Saul and he became a new man". Kind of sounds like he was born again.

[Guest]

Homer wrote:

Christopher,
Also consider "the Holy Spirit came on Saul and he became a new man". Kind of sounds like he was born again.

True, but I wouldn't put Saul in the same class as OT saints (the believing remnant). He may have been zealous for the law, but I don't think he was a believer until Damascus road.

[_Steve]

Actually, the statement refers to the Old Testament Saul. But I think his case is a great example of the Spirit coming and going in the Old Testament. I am not sure whether the reference to him being "a new man" has the regeneration concept attached that we are likely to attach from our New Testament orientation. Perhaps. But I could also see it as saying that Saul was so changed by the experience as to be hardly recognizable as his old self. Perhaps I am depending too much on our modern idiom for this suggestion, though.

[Guest]

Thanks for clarifying. I often have difficulty identifying scripture verses without a point of reference.