Which position do you favor? By all means, feel free to comment.
I personally waffle between the first and second positions, but chose option 2.
Excerpts from:
Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
http://www.swbts.edu/resources//SWBTS/Resources/FacultyDocuments/Hamilton/them30_1.pdf
"James Hamilton teaches OT and NT at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Houston Park Place Campus. An ordained Southern Baptist minister, he is a recent graduate of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY, where he studied under Tom Schreiner."
“At least five positions have been taken on the issue of whether or not ordinary, individual members of the old covenant remnant were continually indwelt by the Spirit.
Some scholars assume that a sixth position exists, but I am yet to find an affirmation of this sixth position. Here I will list the five real and one alleged positions, giving a brief description and listing major proponents of each.
[1] On the issue of the Spirit’s role in the lives of believers, some scholars see basic continuity from the old to the new covenant. These authors argue that the old covenant remnant was both regenerate and indwelt by the Spirit. Adherents of this position include John Owen, B.B. Warfield, Sinclair Ferguson, Dan Fuller and Leon Wood.
[2] Another set of scholars agrees that old covenant believers experienced both regeneration and indwelling, but seek to incorporate texts like John 7:39 into their understanding by using language that allows for a greater or heightened experience of the Spirit under the new covenant. Nevertheless, these scholars see no fundamental change in the way believers experience the Spirit when the new covenant is inaugurated. Interpreters who can be placed here include Augustine, John Calvin, George Ladd, Dan Block and Wayne Grudem.
[3] The third position is the midpoint of the possible views. These scholars indicate that they see OT saints as regenerate by the Spirit but not indwelt by the Spirit. From statements in their writings, it seems best to place here Millard Erickson, J.I. Packer, Willem A. VanGemeren and Bruce Ware.
[4] The next position is for those who see the old covenant remnant as operated upon but not indwelt by the Spirit. Unlike those in the previous category, these scholars stop short of using the word regeneration with reference to the old covenant faithful. Articulators of this view include Martin Luther, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Craig Blaising, D.A. Carson and Michael Green.
[5] At the opposite end of the spectrum from those who affirm full continuity between the old and new covenant ministries of the Spirit would be those who affirm that the Spirit had nothing to do with the faithfulness of the old covenant remnant. Those who argue that OT saints were indwelt sometimes assume that this is the only alternative to their view, but I have not found anyone who takes this position.
There are, however, a number of interpreters who stress the new nature of the Spirit’s ministry after the Christ event but offer no explanation of how old covenant believers became and remained faithful. Here we find prominent dispensationalists such as Charles Ryrie and John Walvoord. Most scholars who have written on the Spirit from the perspective of NT theology fit here, as do several authors who have written both commentaries on John and studies specifically on the Spirit in John – C.K. Barrett,
Raymond Brown and Gary Burge.
Before we continue, we should observe some interesting points regarding these positions. First, there are dispensationalists on both sides of this question. Leon Wood argues that old covenant believers were indwelt; Craig Blaising argues that they were not. Also, there are people who are soteriologically Calvinistic who argue that old covenant believers were not indwelt (Carson, Packer, Ware). This is noteworthy because those who argue that the old covenant remnant must have been indwelt usually do not agree with the Arminian understanding of prevenient grace and thus view sinners as dead and unable to respond. In their view, if OT saints were believers, they must have been indwelt.
Finally, the position that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the faithfulness of the old covenant remnant is, at best, very rare. This point is significant because some scholars assume that this view is held, and it seems to be associated with dispensationalists. I have found no one who either affirms or argues for that position.”
I personally waffle between the first and second positions, but chose option 2.
Excerpts from:
Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
http://www.swbts.edu/resources//SWBTS/Resources/FacultyDocuments/Hamilton/them30_1.pdf
"James Hamilton teaches OT and NT at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Houston Park Place Campus. An ordained Southern Baptist minister, he is a recent graduate of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY, where he studied under Tom Schreiner."
“At least five positions have been taken on the issue of whether or not ordinary, individual members of the old covenant remnant were continually indwelt by the Spirit.
Some scholars assume that a sixth position exists, but I am yet to find an affirmation of this sixth position. Here I will list the five real and one alleged positions, giving a brief description and listing major proponents of each.
[1] On the issue of the Spirit’s role in the lives of believers, some scholars see basic continuity from the old to the new covenant. These authors argue that the old covenant remnant was both regenerate and indwelt by the Spirit. Adherents of this position include John Owen, B.B. Warfield, Sinclair Ferguson, Dan Fuller and Leon Wood.
[2] Another set of scholars agrees that old covenant believers experienced both regeneration and indwelling, but seek to incorporate texts like John 7:39 into their understanding by using language that allows for a greater or heightened experience of the Spirit under the new covenant. Nevertheless, these scholars see no fundamental change in the way believers experience the Spirit when the new covenant is inaugurated. Interpreters who can be placed here include Augustine, John Calvin, George Ladd, Dan Block and Wayne Grudem.
[3] The third position is the midpoint of the possible views. These scholars indicate that they see OT saints as regenerate by the Spirit but not indwelt by the Spirit. From statements in their writings, it seems best to place here Millard Erickson, J.I. Packer, Willem A. VanGemeren and Bruce Ware.
[4] The next position is for those who see the old covenant remnant as operated upon but not indwelt by the Spirit. Unlike those in the previous category, these scholars stop short of using the word regeneration with reference to the old covenant faithful. Articulators of this view include Martin Luther, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Craig Blaising, D.A. Carson and Michael Green.
[5] At the opposite end of the spectrum from those who affirm full continuity between the old and new covenant ministries of the Spirit would be those who affirm that the Spirit had nothing to do with the faithfulness of the old covenant remnant. Those who argue that OT saints were indwelt sometimes assume that this is the only alternative to their view, but I have not found anyone who takes this position.
There are, however, a number of interpreters who stress the new nature of the Spirit’s ministry after the Christ event but offer no explanation of how old covenant believers became and remained faithful. Here we find prominent dispensationalists such as Charles Ryrie and John Walvoord. Most scholars who have written on the Spirit from the perspective of NT theology fit here, as do several authors who have written both commentaries on John and studies specifically on the Spirit in John – C.K. Barrett,
Raymond Brown and Gary Burge.
Before we continue, we should observe some interesting points regarding these positions. First, there are dispensationalists on both sides of this question. Leon Wood argues that old covenant believers were indwelt; Craig Blaising argues that they were not. Also, there are people who are soteriologically Calvinistic who argue that old covenant believers were not indwelt (Carson, Packer, Ware). This is noteworthy because those who argue that the old covenant remnant must have been indwelt usually do not agree with the Arminian understanding of prevenient grace and thus view sinners as dead and unable to respond. In their view, if OT saints were believers, they must have been indwelt.
Finally, the position that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the faithfulness of the old covenant remnant is, at best, very rare. This point is significant because some scholars assume that this view is held, and it seems to be associated with dispensationalists. I have found no one who either affirms or argues for that position.”
