Indwelled by the Holy Spirit — VS — not indwelled by the Holy Spirit according to the Calvinist?

Upvote:1

This article by JAMES M. HAMILTON JR. (summarizing his PhD dissertation) sets forth six views:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/were-old-covenant-believers-indwelt-by-the-holy-spirit/

The article lists Theologians who subscribe to each view (except one hypothetical which the author could not find any proponents of).

From the article, here are the positions and their adherents (bolding and section labels are mine):

Basic continuity. 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 indweltby the Spirit. Adherents of this position include John Owen, B.B. Warfield, Sinclair Ferguson, Dan Fuller and Leon Wood.

Continuity with Heightened Experience post-resurrection. 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.

OT saints Regenerate but not indwelt. 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.

OT saints Operated upon but not indwelt. 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.

OT saints Not indwelt. 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.

No position on OT Saints and Holy Spirit. 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.

Some of the above are Calvinists (like John Calvin). As you can see, there is a considerable variation in views!

The article then dissects the evidence for and against the views. As you can see, Calvin himself believed that NT believers experience a heightened experience of the Holy Spirit, but not an essentially different one. However, not all Calvinists agree. Another quote from the article:

Also, there are people who are soteriologically Calvinistic who argue that old covenant believers were not indwelt (Carson, Packer, Ware).

The author then goes on to argue the position that most believers in the OT were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The exceptions were prophets and key leaders, like Moses and David. Instead, for the people, God dwelt "with" his people, not "in" them.

However, he expresses the idea that people can be regenerated by the Holy Spirit (pre-resurrection) but not indwelt.

And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Comforter, that he might be with you forever, the Spirit of Truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he is with you, and he will be in you (John 14:16–17).30

The distinction made by John is again between the Holy Spirit being with you and being in you.

Paul Chernoch 11163

Upvote:1

Without reading the sources you take a couple of quotes from, all I can flag up from what little is quoted is with respect to point 2 in the first quote.

It speaks of indwelling of the corporate body by the Spirit. This indicates a significant difference between how the spiritual Body of Christ (his Church) experiences the indwelling Holy Spirit, and how individuals may have their experience of the Holy Spirit's presence. There is a corporative experience which Paul speaks of. He starts by saying how husbands should related to their wives, in love:

“…even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish…For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones… This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” Ephesians 5:25-32

This mystery is revealed in the New Testament, and it is the Holy Spirit who is at work with the corporate church – spoken of as “it”. This mystery was not revealed in the Old Testament, though clues were there. Only after the Holy Spirit was poured out in a particular way, at the ‘birth’ of the church that Pentecost day, was the mystery revealed. All Christians who have the indwelling Holy Spirit should also know of the corporate experience of the Holy Spirit at work in the church.

As for the second quote, from a different source (with the same title as the first source), there is no way this can be examined and responded to from a Calvinistic point of view without reading the whole section. There would need to be a significant increase in information from both your sources before a detailed answer could be given, but I will try to look at both sources next, to see if I can add anything worth-while.

EDIT – I’ve now seen both sources and would simply say that each article sets out to answer different questions from different individuals. Then you have asked your own question here on Stack. If you have read both articles and still remain confused, I suggest you contact monergism.com to put your question to them, and likewise with learntheible.com It is their respective articles that you are still struggling with, so they would be the best ones to help you out.