The Paradox of Faith and Regeneration in "Responsible Grace" Theology

[frumanchu]

It has been asserted by proponents of "Responsible Grace" theology that not only does regeneration follow faith, but that it also must follow the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is to say that regeneration is an action the Holy Spirit performs after indwelling a believer.

This presents a critical paradox for this theological system.



The indwelling of the Holy Spirit was promised as a future event by Christ when speaking to His disciples:

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." - John 16:7,13 (NASB)​

Furthermore, the Apostle Peter pointed to the events at Pentecost as the fulfillment of the prophesy of Joel that God would “pour out [his] spirit upon all flesh.”

But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. ​

"For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: ​

'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says,​

'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;​

AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,​

AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,​

AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; ​

EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,​

I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT​

And they shall prophesy. ​

'AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE​

AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,​

BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE. ​

'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS​

AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,​

BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME. ​

'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.' - Acts 2:14-21 (NASB)​

Jesus, when speaking to Nicodemus, said plainly that unless one is regenerated (literally “born again”) he cannot see or even enter into the Kingdom of God.

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." - John 3:3,5 (NASB)​

"Responsible Grace" theology asserts that being born again is only possible with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Since, with few cited exceptions of the Spirit “filling” or “coming upon” someone in the Old Testament, the saints prior to Pentecost did not have the indwelling Spirit, it follows inescapably that "Responsible Grace" proponents must believe that no believer prior to Pentecost could have been born again. It then follows that no believer prior to Pentecost could have seen or entered into the Kingdom of God.

Such a conclusion appears to be at odds with the fact that Jesus clearly expected Nicodemus to understand the basic principle of the necessity of regeneration even though (according to "Responsible Grace") it was not yet possible at that point in redemptive history. This presents a clear paradox with respect to the salvation of men prior to the events of Pentecost.

I submit that such a paradox cannot be accommodated as it necessarily implies that the OT saints were not born again (regenerated) and therefore could not see or enter into the Kingdom.

I am seeking an explanation as to how "Responsible Grace" theology addresses and accomodates this paradox.


Note - This thread is intended specifically for discussion of this aspect of "Responsible Grace" theology. Please keep this thread on topic.

 

[cygnusx1]

hi Fru , what's the bet someone is going to say men in the OT weren't born again , that it is reserved for NT saints ......... here come the dispees

 

[JAL]

Frumanchu, do you yourself believe that OT saints did not have the Spirit's indwelling? You seem to suggest as much, unless you were merely expounding the views of the Responsible Grace party.

Because I agree with you that the OT saints were born again, but it seems to me this would require the indwelling Spirit. However, I would understand if you don't want to debate this issue on the current thread.

 

[frumanchu]

Frumanchu, do you yourself believe that OT saints did not have the Spirit's indwelling? You seem to suggest as much, unless you were merely expounding the views of the Responsible Grace party

Because I agree with you that the OT saints were born again, but it seems to me this would require the indwelling Spirit. However, I would understand if you don't want to debate this issue on the current thread.

I agree that the OT saints were born again. It would make no sense at all for Jesus to give Nicodemus a hard time for not knowing about the necessity of regeneration if none of the OT saints were regenerate.

However, I do not believe that as a matter of principle all OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. While there are recorded instances in which the Spirit came upon individuals, Jesus made it quite clear in speaking to His disciples that the indwelling of believers was a future event. To be sure, it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates the OT saints, but it is erroneous to maintain that the Spirit can only affect or operate upon a person by indwelling them.

 

[JAL]

However, I do not believe that as a matter of principle all OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Well frumanchu, as you haven't expressed any objections to my discussing it on this thread, here I go. First of all, are you sure that the Reformed creeds would agree with you on this point? (I have my doubts).


Secondly, there is a very serious logical problem in postulating any distinctions between OT saints and NT saints. Why so? As Reformed theology recognizes, OT and NT saints are saved by the same cross. Justification may rightly be called, therefore, a "Covenant of Grace" or a "Covenant of Redemption" (regardless of whether Scripture itself uses this exact phraseology). This grace (the cross) was retroactive to OT saints - without it there is no legitimate basis for an OT relationship with God given the problem of the Fall. Since NT saints do not get a "better cross" than OT saints, NT saints are entitled only to the same benefits as OT saints. It's not a different covenant. Paul makes this very clear in Galatians 3 when he argues that the redemptive Covenant of Grace was embodied in the Abrahamic Covenant valid for both OT saints and NT saints, and Paul says this covenant was so inviolable that God neither added to it nor detracted from it (verses 15-17) and thus NT saints are merely heirs of what Abraham already enjoyed (verse 29). In fact the passage insists that Abraham received the same Holy Spirit as the Galatians themselves. How so? In verses 2 and 5, Paul says that the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith. In verse 6 (the very next verse) Paul adduces Abraham as the paradigmatic exemplar of the preceding verse (the reception of the Spirit by the hearing of faith). Here Paul is referring directly toAbraham's experience at Gen 15:1-6 where the divine Word (an outpouring of the Spirit) fell upon Abraham. Galatians 3 is a discussion of the Abrahamic inheritance. An heir inherits what the parents already enjoyed - the Holy Spirit.

Again, "Consider Abraham" (verse 6) adduces Abraham as the paradigm of receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith. Am I reading too much in Galatians 3:6? This is what Calvin said about it:

"[Verse 3:6] refers only to the verse immediately preceding [namely 3:5], to the 'ministration of the Spirit and of miracles by the hearing of faith;' as if [Paul] had said, that, in the grace bestowed on [the Galatians], a similarity might be found to the case of Abraham."(John Calvin: Commentaries, tr. Joseph Haroutunian, public domain, italics mine).


Again, the context in this passage is Paul's discussion of the permanence and inviolability of the Abrahamic covenant. No OT saint was exempted from it.

I have several other arguments demonstrating that the OT saints had the Spirit, perhaps I'll share them later.

 

[frumanchu]

Frankly, I don't want to hear them. Based on our previous discussions I have little desire to hear about your doctrines. Consider this an objection to your further discussion of the issue in this thread.

The idea that the NT covenant is the same in every way as the OT covenant is patently absurd and contrary to Scripture.

Calvin's quote says nothing about the Spirit indwelling Abraham, only the ministration of the Spirit. I submit that you cannot provide ANY Scripture which explicitly shows the Holy Spirit indwelling all believers in the OT. The Spirit is fully capable of working upon a person without indwelling them, and if the Holy Spirit did indwell OT saints there would be NO POINT AT ALL in Jesus presenting the indwelling of the Spirit as a future event.

 

[Van]

Lets take the false premises of this thread one at a time. Indwelling comes after a person is regenerated, born again. First a person is baptized into Christ, where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, and arise in Christ a new creation, then they are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

Second, the OT saints were not born again until after Christ died on the cross, then they were spiritually placed in Christ where they were born again, made alive by being united with Christ. Therefore, while the Holy Spirit came upon OT saints, they were not indwelt forever as that is part of the New Covenant. We are made "perfect" complete in Christ and the OT saints did not receive that promise until after the cross, Hebrews 11:39-40.

The meaning of John 3:3 and 3:5 is that you must be born again in Christ to enter the kingdom of God. And of course, you must enter it, to see what is in heaven; from outside we are only aware of its descriptions. The idea that as unregenerates, we are unable to be aware (see) the kingdom and thus would never attempt to enter it is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

 

[JAL]

Frankly, I don't want to hear them. Based on our previous discussions I have little desire to hear about your doctrines. Consider this an objection to your further discussion of the issue in this thread.

Well, I don't intend to remain silent merely because you dislike me or my opinions. Rather I was trying to determine whether the issue I was raising was too far off-topic. Your statement is hardly clear on this point.

The idea that the NT covenant is the same in every way as the OT covenant is patently absurd and contrary to Scripture.

Calvin's quote says nothing about the Spirit indwelling Abraham, only the ministration of the Spirit. I submit that you cannot provide ANY Scripture which explicitly shows the Holy Spirit indwelling all believers in the OT. The Spirit is fully capable of working upon a person without indwelling them, and if the Holy Spirit did indwell OT saints there would be NO POINT AT ALL in Jesus presenting the indwelling of the Spirit as a future event.

Frankly most scholars would acknowledge that the Galatian epistle is referring to the NT indwelling Spirit. Having mentioned this indwelling Spirit at verse 3:5, Paul goes on to name Abraham in verse 6 as the paradigmatic exemplar of that Spirit. Calvin therefore didn't need to explicitly refer to the "indwelling" Spirit in that citation. The context in the Galatian epistle is clear enough. Of course you are free to argue that the term "Spirit" as used in Galatians does not refer to the NT indwelling Spirit.

In that citation, Calvin admitted that Abraham is adduced in verse 6 as exemplar of verse 5. Therefore if verse 5 is referring to the indwelling Spirit, so is verse 6.

I submit that you cannot provide ANY Scripture which explicitly shows the Holy Spirit indwelling all believers in the OT.

Galatians 3 is clear enough. Moreover, you are trying to shift the burden of proof on me. This is questionable, for the following reason. You admit that the OT saints were reborn. I can easily show that this claim is problematical if they didn't have the indwelling Spirit. Since you are making a problematical claim, there is an equal burden of proof on you. I submit you cannot provide ANY Scripture which explicitly shows that the Holy Spirit did NOT indwell OT saints.

My other argument was that if NT saints are under the same Covenant of Grace as OT saints, the benefits should be the same. The logic is simple, clear, and reasonable, and instead of refuting the logic, you simply call it absurd. The truth is that YOUR position has the appearance of absurdity, because I just don't see how, logically, two populations can be UNDER THE SAME COVENANT with two totally different sets of benefits. That doesn't make sense. If anyone's being absurd, therefore, clearly it is you.

You argued that the Spirit was promised as a future event. (I didn't have time on my lunch break to address this). While this contention is reasonable, it is also vulnerable to a number of objections. For example, let's suppose I promise my wife a necklace or a bracelet this upcoming Christsmas. Does this imply that she never received one before? You've already admitted that some OT saints DID receive the Holy Spirit. Are you postulating a favoritism wherein God was willing to do this only for some OT believers but not for others? Again, if all the OT saints were under one Covenant of Grace, I fail to see why one OT saint would be entitled to more benefits than the other OT saints.

On another thread, as I'm sure you'll well recall, I argued that the new birth is an outpouring of the Spirit upon part of the heart, (a light, sparse sprinkling), and the remainder of the heart is the sinful nature. Sanctification consists of outpouring after oupouring upon the remainder of the heart as to FILL the heart with the Spirit. I made that argument at post #3 on this thread:

http://foru.ms/t6255103&page=12

I followed it up with an exegetical discussion of this "volumetric" approach to the Spirit at post #74 on the same thread:

http://foru.ms/t6255103&page=5

Again, the logic is this. Since the new birth is only a light sprinkling, the disciples needed a HUGE outpouring (a revival) to become mature, as to truly become FILLED with the Spirit. This is why Christ promised them the Spirit as a future event. Calvin put it this way. He said that prior to Pentecost, the Twelve “were only sprinkled by his grace, but were not filled with power [until Pentecost]” (Calvin’s Commentaries on John 20:22, italics mine). Note how Calvin makes the same distinction I made - the distinction between a light sprinkling versus a substantial filling. (And I can quote Calvin more on this point).

Thus Pentecost, as a special sanctification aimed mostly at the 12, was NOT a "New Covenant" for the church. One way to demonstrate this is to point out that the outpouring (the volumetric Tongues of Fire) only fell upon 120 people. As Roy Aldrich has stated, “only 120 received the initial baptism at Pentecost" (Roy Aldrich, “The Transition Problem in Acts,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 114:455 (1957), p. 237).


Again I suspect most Reformists themselves would agree with me that the OT saints had the same indwelling Spirit as NT saints (I haven’t researched this enough to be sure). So if you’re going to call me absurd, you should at least cite some Reformed scholars on this issue.

 

[frumanchu]

Given time, I will do precisely that. However, I am heading into a very busy weekend and will be out of town quite a bit, so it may take awhile.

 

[JAL]

Given time, I will do precisely that. However, I am heading into a very busy weekend and will be out of town quite a bit, so it may take awhile.

As I argued on the other thread (post #3), the new birth establishes holiness in the heart. As long as the new birth is in place, therefore, the heart is holy (at least that part of the heart on which the Holy Spirit fell).


If the OT saints achieved this holiness without the indwelling Spirit, then NT saints don't need Him either in order to be holy. Frumanchu, is it your position that NT saints don't need the indwelling Spirt for the pursuit of holinesss? Whereas I would say that the OT saints DID need Him to achieve this holiness, and therefore NT saints need Him as well. EVERYWHERE the NT seems to suggest that the indwelling Spirit is the NECESSARY source of holiness. Reformed theology CLEARLY states that the OT saints walked in holiness given by the Holy Spirit.


In the writings of both John and Paul, the term "life" is a technical term for the saving/sanctifying grace infused during the new birth. Paul says we were dead in sin until God made us alive in Christ Jesus. John puts it like this, "He who hath son hath life, but he he who does not have the Son does not have life." This is a reference to the indwelling Christ - and therefore all the OT saints had Him. Paul puts it like this:

"And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness" (rom 8:10). Here Paul indicates that Life (such as occurs during the new birth of OT saints) is possible only if Christ is in you.



On Reformed assumptions, saving faith is the gift of God, a monergstic work by the Holy Spirit. The worries and temptations of this life, however, tend to lapse faith into doubt and unbelief. Saving faith would not be secure, therefore, apart from the continual operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart to sustain it.


Many cults (such as the Pharisees, Jehova Witnesses, Mormons) worship the "God" of the Bible. That is to say, they read the Bible and form a picture of Him, and worship that. Even Jews do the same. Now if this image that they worshiped were the true God, they would be true Christians. The problem here is that the depraved human mind CANNOT form, on its own, an accurate mental picture of a transcendtly holy God. As Calvin attested, therefore, the new birth is in part a Spirit-given vision of the true God. Were the Spirit to cease that revelation even for a moment, we would cease to be Christians. This is yet another reason why the OT saints needed the indwelling Spirit.

To some of my statements you might reply that the Holy Spirit worked ON OT saints but not IN them. That's really an artificial distinction, if you ask me. The Spirit's work upon the heart is understood to be immediate (not mediate). He is therefore in contact with the heart, operating directly upon it. Thus the onus falls upon you to make some kind of intelligible distinction between working "on" the heart versus working "in" the heart. In my opinion, not only will you fail to make any convincing distinction but, moreover, you will unlikely be able to support this distinction biblically.

 

[JAL]

In the following citation Charles Hodge (Systematic Thology Volume II) attributes holiness to the indwelling Spirit (the indwelling Christ):

"Holy affections and exercises are not due to the mere moral power of the truth, or its control over our natural affections, but to the indwelling of the Spirit of God. So that it is not we that live,
but Christ that liveth in us. It is indeed our life, but it is a life divine in its origin, and sustained and guided in all its exercises by a higher influence than the laws of mind, or an influence which operates merely through them, and according to their natural operations. This distinction between nature and grace, between the
providential efficiency of God and the workings of his Spirit in the hearts of his people is one of the most important in all theology. It makes all the difference between Augustinianism and Pelagianism, between Rationalism and supernatural, evangelical religion."

I noticed SEVERAL statements where Hodge refers to the indwelling Spirit as dwelling in the whole "Church." In these statements I did not see him excluding OT saints. Consider the following statement:


"Protestants believe that the Church, under all dispensations, has been the same. It has always had the same God; the same Redeemer; the same
rule of faith and practice (the written Word of God, at least from the time of Moses), the same promise of the presence and guidance of the
Spirit, the same pledge of perpetuity and triumph."

Reformed theology teaches that the inward witness is crucial to engender and sustain saving faith. The fact that they call it an "inward" identifies it with the indwelling Spirit. Paul says, 8:15" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Most scholar would admit that the term "Spirit" in Romans 8 refers to the NT indwelling Spirit. Here we find Him responsible for the inward witness common to both OT and NT saints.


Charles Hodge says the following in regard to the inward witness - what's important here is that he uses biblical references to the NT indwelling Spirit as proof of the inwward witness. Since the OT saints needed the same inward witness, they needed the same indwelling Spirit, it seems to me.

"God, or the Spirit of God, testifies to the truth of the Scriptures and of the doctrines which they contain...Faith was not to rest on argument, on historical or philosophical proof, but on the testimony of the Spirit. The Spirit demonstrates the truth to the mind, i.e., produces the conviction that it is truth, and leads the soul to embrace it with assurance and delight. Passages have already been quoted which teach that
faith rests on the testimony of God, and that unbelief consists in rejecting that testimony. The testimony of God is given through the Spirit, whose office it is to take of the things of Christ and show them unto us. The Apostle John tells his readers, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. . . . . The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you: and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” (1 John ii. 20, 27.) This passage teaches, (1.) That true believers receive from Christ (the Holy One)
an unction. (2.) That this unction is the Holy Ghost. (3.) That it secures the knowledge and conviction of the truth. (4.) That this inward teaching which makes them believers is abiding, and secures them from apostasy."


Hodge goes on to cite 1Cor 2:14 as another example. Hodge writes, "The Scriptures thus expressly teach that the ground of true saving faith is the inward witness of the Spirit." Hodge further argues that Rom 5:5 is part of the inward witness, in this case it convinces us of God's love, "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us"(Rom 5:5)


Hodge further states that saving faith is not even POSSIBLE without the indwelling Spirit: "And the indwelling of the Spirit is the source of all spiritual life. Faith is indeed the fruit of the Spirit, and therefore the gift of the Spirit must precede the exercise of faith." Hodge's claim here is solid based on Gal 5:22-23. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." This verse is a reference to the NT indwelling Spirit who is here said to be the source of the good fruit. OT saints walked in holiness/good fruit. Therefore they had the same Spirit referred to in Gal 5:22-23.


I could quote many more statements from Hodge on this issue. You have called my position "patently absurd." Well, then, I guess Charles Hodge is FULL of absurdity. So is Paul, apparently.


All of are fallible. It may be that my conclusion in this case is incorrect. But it is hardly absurd. It rests upon a considerable amount of Scripture, scholarship, and plausible reasoning

 

[DeaconDean]

In the following citation Charles Hodge (Systematic Thology Volume II) attributes holiness to the indwelling Spirit (the indwelling Christ):

"Holy affections and exercises are not due to the mere moral power of the truth, or its control over our natural affections, but to the indwelling of the Spirit of God. So that it is not we that live,
but Christ that liveth in us. It is indeed our life, but it is a life divine in its origin, and sustained and guided in all its exercises by a higher influence than the laws of mind, or an influence which operates merely through them, and according to their natural operations. This distinction between nature and grace, between the
providential efficiency of God and the workings of his Spirit in the hearts of his people is one of the most important in all theology. It makes all the difference between Augustinianism and Pelagianism, between Rationalism and supernatural, evangelical religion."

I noticed SEVERAL statements where Hodge refers to the indwelling Spirit as dwelling in the whole "Church." In these statements I did not see him excluding OT saints. Consider the following statement:


"Protestants believe that the Church, under all dispensations, has been the same. It has always had the same God; the same Redeemer; the same
rule of faith and practice (the written Word of God, at least from the time of Moses), the same promise of the presence and guidance of the
Spirit, the same pledge of perpetuity and triumph."

Reformed theology teaches that the inward witness is crucial to engender and sustain saving faith. The fact that they call it an "inward" identifies it with the indwelling Spirit. Paul says, 8:15" The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Most scholar would admit that the term "Spirit" in Romans 8 refers to the NT indwelling Spirit. Here we find Him responsible for the inward witness common to both OT and NT saints.


Charles Hodge says the following in regard to the inward witness - what's important here is that he uses biblical references to the NT indwelling Spirit as proof of the inwward witness. Since the OT saints needed the same inward witness, they needed the same indwelling Spirit, it seems to me.

"God, or the Spirit of God, testifies to the truth of the Scriptures and of the doctrines which they contain...Faith was not to rest on argument, on historical or philosophical proof, but on the testimony of the Spirit. The Spirit demonstrates the truth to the mind, i.e., produces the conviction that it is truth, and leads the soul to embrace it with assurance and delight. Passages have already been quoted which teach that
faith rests on the testimony of God, and that unbelief consists in rejecting that testimony. The testimony of God is given through the Spirit, whose office it is to take of the things of Christ and show them unto us. The Apostle John tells his readers, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. . . . . The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you: and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” (1 John ii. 20, 27.) This passage teaches, (1.) That true believers receive from Christ (the Holy One)
an unction. (2.) That this unction is the Holy Ghost. (3.) That it secures the knowledge and conviction of the truth. (4.) That this inward teaching which makes them believers is abiding, and secures them from apostasy."


Hodge goes on to cite 1Cor 2:14 as another example. Hodge writes, "The Scriptures thus expressly teach that the ground of true saving faith is the inward witness of the Spirit." Hodge further argues that Rom 5:5 is part of the inward witness, in this case it convinces us of God's love, "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us"(Rom 5:5)


Hodge further states that saving faith is not even POSSIBLE without the indwelling Spirit: "And the indwelling of the Spirit is the source of all spiritual life. Faith is indeed the fruit of the Spirit, and therefore the gift of the Spirit must precede the exercise of faith." Hodge's claim here is solid based on Gal 5:22-23. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." This verse is a reference to the NT indwelling Spirit who is here said to be the source of the good fruit. OT saints walked in holiness/good fruit. Therefore they had the same Spirit referred to in Gal 5:22-23.


I could quote many more statements from Hodge on this issue. You have called my position "patently absurd." Well, then, I guess Charles Hodge is FULL of absurdity. So is Paul, apparently.


All of are fallible. It may be that my conclusion in this case is incorrect. But it is hardly absurd. It rests upon a considerable amount of Scripture, scholarship, and plausible reasoning

Let me also point out that Hodge advocates regeneration preceding faith:

"It is the special office of the Spirit to convince the world of sin; to reveal Christ, to regenerate the soul, to lead men to the exercise of faith and repentance; to dwell in those whom He thus renews, as a principle of a new and divine life. By this indwelling of the Spirit, believers are united to Christ, and to one another, so that they form one body. This is the foundation of the communion of saints, making them one in faith, one in love, one in their inward life, and one in their hopes and final destiny."

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Theology Proper, Chapter VIII, The Office of the Holy Spirit, The Spirit's Office in the Work of Regeneration, Section 4.

The duty of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin, to reveal Christ, then to regenerate them and lead them to faith and repentance.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic1.pdf

Hodge goes further to say:

"Regeneration an Act of God.

Regeneration is an act of God. It is not simply referred to Him as its giver, and, in that sense, its author, as He is the giver of faith and of repentance. It is not an act which, by argument and persuasion, or by moral power, He induces the sinner to perform. But it is an act of which He is the agent. It is God who regenerates. The soul is regenerated. In this sense the soul is passive in regeneration, which (subjectively considered) is a change wrought in us, and not an act performed by us."

Regeneration an Act of God’s Power.

Regeneration is not only an act of God, but also an act of his almighty power. Agreeably to the express declarations of the Scriptures, it is so presented in the Symbols of the Protestant churches. If an act of omnipotence, it is certainly efficacious, for nothing can resist almighty power...The assertion that regeneration is an act of God’s omnipotence, is, and is intended to be, a denial that it is an act of moral suasion. It is an affirmation that it is “physical” in the old sense of that word, as opposed to moral; and that it is immediate, as​

opposed to mediate, or through or by the truth."

Ibid, Vol. III, Soterology, Chapter XV, Regeneration,
Regeneration an Act of God., Section 1.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic3.pdf

Charles Hodge was also "hip" to the doctrine that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit came only after regeneration:

"God, or the Spirit of God, testifies to the truth of the Scriptures and of the doctrines which they contain. This testimony, as has been seen, is partly external, consisting in prophecies and miracles, partly in the nature of the truths themselves as related to the intellectual and moral elements of the soul, and partly special and supernatural. Unrenewed men may feel the power of the two former kinds of testimony, and believe with a faith either merely intellectual and speculative, or with what may be called from its ground, a moral faith, which is only temporary. The spiritual form of testimony is confined to the regenerated. It is, of course, inscrutable. The operations of the Spirit do not reveal themselves in the consciousness otherwise than by their effects. We know that men are born of the Spirit, that the Spirit dwells in the people of God and continually influences their thoughts, feelings, and actions. But we know this only from the teaching of the Bible, not because we are conscious of his operations. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John iii.8.)"

Ibid, Vol. III, Soterology, Chapter XVI, Faith, Section 4, Faith and Knowledge,
What is meant by the Testimony of the Spirit, p. 58.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic3.pdf

He goes further on to show:

Proof from Express Declarations of Scripture.

"That this is the Scriptural doctrine on the subject is plain from the express declarations of the Scriptures. Our Lord promised to send the Spirit for this very purpose. “He will reprove the world of sin,” especially of the sin of not believing in Christ; “and of righteousness,” that is, of his righteousness, — the rightfulness of his claims to be regarded and received as the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, and the Saviour of the world, “and of judgment,” that is, of the final overthrow of the kingdom of darkness and triumph of the kingdom of light. (John xvi. 8.) Faith, therefore, is

always represented in Scripture as one of the fruits of the Spirit, as the gift of God, as the product of his energy (Colossians ii. 12)."​

Ibid, Vol. III, Soterology, Chapter XVI, Faith, Faith and Knowledge,​

Proof from Express Declarations of Scripture., Section 1, p. 59

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic3.pdf

It is very clear from Hodge's Systematic Theology, that the work of the Holy Spirit follows as such:

The Holy Spirit comes upon the sinner, works from within to convict the heart of sin, regenerates the sinner, gives the sinner the faith to believe and repent, then indwells the sinner.

Only after regeneration, faith and repentance has taken place, does the Holy Spirit indwell the believer.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JAL]

Frumanchu, you argued that the Spirit was promised as a future event, and that therefore the OT saints didn't have Him.

The weakness of this argument lies in its assumption that the temporality of biblical promise is punctiliar (point-in-time) whereas the major promises are, in actuality, non-punctiliar (ongoing) in fulfillmement. Allow me to explain.


Galatians 3 uses the phrases "The Promise" and "The Covenant" and "The promises" (plural) interchageably. Why did Paul do this? "Promise" and "Covenant" are interchangeable because God's promise(s) of salvation voiced to Abraham obligates Him covenantally to fullfull these promise(s). On the one hand, there is only one Covenant of Grace and thus only one Promise. On the other hand, this leads to an unlimited number of new promises/covenants because the blessings of God are innumerable and renew every morning.

The Abrahamic Covenant is thus simple - it is a matter of God voicing promises to His people. "The [covenantal] promises were spoken [loud and clear] to Abraham and to [us] his seed...And your are Abraham's seed" (Gal 3:16, 29). Paul had earlier referred to the Galatians receiving the Spirit by the hearing of faith as Abraham did (verses 2, 5-6). Since this Covenant of Grace is inviolable (3:15-17), even the law couldn't contradict it (vs. 17). As a result the law had to be God's voice - it did not originate in stone tablets. God voiced the law to the whole nation of Israel (Ex 20).

A voiced promise from God doesn't have to be spectacular. Suppose for instance you lost your job today. If the Holy Spirit speaks to your heart to reassure you that He will provide for you, this is the Abrahamic Covenant at work. Louis Berkhof remarked that God appeared to Abraham again and again to vocally reassure him of impending blessings. In the same manner, Christ repeatedly reassured the Twelve by appearing to them again and again in the 40 day period preceding Pentecost.


As stated, the Promise/Covenant is an ongoing (i.e. nonpunctiliar) fulfilment manifested in an innumerably many "new" promises/covenants, some of which are recorded in Scripture, for instance God's promise to Israel of a "new" covenant "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." (That was a promise only to Israel but is RELEVANT to the Gentiles because the Abrahamic Covenant gives Gentiles the same blessings). Another imporant promise is Joel's last-days promise of the Spirit of Prophecy. The Spirit of Prophecy was not something new. It CANNOT be new because the Abrahamic Covevant is unchanging, inviolable. In fact Scripture called Abraham a "prophet". Although the Spirit of Joel's promise is not new, the promise is important because it is one of the first explicit promises of (a) last-days outpourings and (b) outpourings upon all nationalities. As Albert Barnes noted, "all flesh" doesn't mean everyone (even unbelievers?). No. It means all types of flesh (all nationalities, all ages) as happened in the early church (see all the nationalities listed in Acts 2).


Joel's promise of last-days outpourings of the Spirt of Prophecy upon "all flesh" is inexhaustible. This is Promised Land. By faith (the hearing of faith), the people of God are to go up and possess the land. Sadly enough we have generally failed to do so.

It is crucial to note that the Spirit of Prophecy is an essential element of Joel's promise - that's why the 120 believers prophesied (in tongues) when the 120 Tongues of Flame fell upon them. Joel doesn't say, "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and they MIGHT prophesy" bur rather, "They SHALL prophesy." Anyone who has not prophesied, therefore, has not partaken of Joel's promise, he has not taken possession of this Promised Land. Even in the days of Joshua, there was a tendency in Israel to possess SOME parts of the promised land while failing to acquire ALL of the land.

Thus the Pentecostal claim that "speaking in tongues" marks the Spirit of Joel is an exgetical travesty. Clearly, the Spirit of prophecy is the mark of Joel's promise. Anything less is eisigesis, not exegesis.

 

[JAL]

Let me also point out that Hodge advocates regeneration preceding faith:

"It is the special office of the Spirit to convince the world of sin; to reveal Christ, to regenerate the soul, to lead men to the exercise of faith and repentance; to dwell in those whom He thus renews, as a principle of a new and divine life. By this indwelling of the Spirit, believers are united to Christ, and to one another, so that they form one body. This is the foundation of the communion of saints, making them one in faith, one in love, one in their inward life, and one in their hopes and final destiny."

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Theology Proper, Chapter VIII, The Office of the Holy Spirit, The Spirit's Office in the Work of Regeneration, Section 4.

The duty of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin, to reveal Christ, then to regenerate them and lead them to faith and repentance.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic1.pdf

Hodge goes further to say:

"Regeneration an Act of God.

Regeneration is an act of God. It is not simply referred to Him as its giver, and, in that sense, its author, as He is the giver of faith and of repentance. It is not an act which, by argument and persuasion, or by moral power, He induces the sinner to perform. But it is an act of which He is the agent. It is God who regenerates. The soul is regenerated. In this sense the soul is passive in regeneration, which (subjectively considered) is a change wrought in us, and not an act performed by us."

Regeneration an Act of God’s Power.

Regeneration is not only an act of God, but also an act of his almighty power. Agreeably to the express declarations of the Scriptures, it is so presented in the Symbols of the Protestant churches. If an act of omnipotence, it is certainly efficacious, for nothing can resist almighty power...The assertion that regeneration is an act of God’s omnipotence, is, and is intended to be, a denial that it is an act of moral suasion. It is an affirmation that it is “physical” in the old sense of that word, as opposed to moral; and that it is immediate, as​

opposed to mediate, or through or by the truth."

Ibid, Vol. III, Soterology, Chapter XV, Regeneration,
Regeneration an Act of God., Section 1.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic3.pdf

Charles Hodge was also "hip" to the doctrine that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit came only after regeneration:

"God, or the Spirit of God, testifies to the truth of the Scriptures and of the doctrines which they contain. This testimony, as has been seen, is partly external, consisting in prophecies and miracles, partly in the nature of the truths themselves as related to the intellectual and moral elements of the soul, and partly special and supernatural. Unrenewed men may feel the power of the two former kinds of testimony, and believe with a faith either merely intellectual and speculative, or with what may be called from its ground, a moral faith, which is only temporary. The spiritual form of testimony is confined to the regenerated. It is, of course, inscrutable. The operations of the Spirit do not reveal themselves in the consciousness otherwise than by their effects. We know that men are born of the Spirit, that the Spirit dwells in the people of God and continually influences their thoughts, feelings, and actions. But we know this only from the teaching of the Bible, not because we are conscious of his operations. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John iii.8.)"

Ibid, Vol. III, Soterology, Chapter XVI, Faith, Section 4, Faith and Knowledge,
What is meant by the Testimony of the Spirit, p. 58.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic3.pdf

He goes further on to show:

Proof from Express Declarations of Scripture.

"That this is the Scriptural doctrine on the subject is plain from the express declarations of the Scriptures. Our Lord promised to send the Spirit for this very purpose. “He will reprove the world of sin,” especially of the sin of not believing in Christ; “and of righteousness,” that is, of his righteousness, — the rightfulness of his claims to be regarded and received as the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, and the Saviour of the world, “and of judgment,” that is, of the final overthrow of the kingdom of darkness and triumph of the kingdom of light. (John xvi. 8.) Faith, therefore, is

always represented in Scripture as one of the fruits of the Spirit, as the gift of God, as the product of his energy (Colossians ii. 12)."​

Ibid, Vol. III, Soterology, Chapter XVI, Faith, Faith and Knowledge,​

Proof from Express Declarations of Scripture., Section 1, p. 59

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic3.pdf

It is very clear from Hodge's Systematic Theology, that the work of the Holy Spirit follows as such:

The Holy Spirit comes upon the sinner, works from within to convict the heart of sin, regenerates the sinner, gives the sinner the faith to believe and repent, then indwells the sinner.

Only after regeneration, faith and repentance has taken place, does the Holy Spirit indwell the believer.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm no expert, but I am not sure you are reading Hodge correctly.As I cited earlier, Hodge says that saving faith is not even possible without the indwelling Spirit.

As "proof" that Hodge held to post-regeneration indwelling, you cite Hodge's references to Christ promising the Spirit to the Twelve as a future event. But you seem to be assuming that Hodge's understanding of such promises was punctiliar rather than ongoing (see my last post for more info on this distinction).
Calvin said that Christ baptizes His people DAILY in the Holy Spirit. Hodge was of course aware of such statements held by Calvin and may have held to a similar nonpunctiliar view. Thus the fact that Hodge alluded to post-regeneration Spirit-baptisms is not proof that Hodge believed that regeneration is possible without the indwelling Spirit. The reality is that Hodge, like many Reformists, is probably a bit unclear as to the precise role that Pentecost played in the redemptive economy.

I once went into a Reformed forum to start a new thread ask one simple question, "Precisely what happened at Pentecost in the Reformed view." I got maybe 2 answers, neither of which were clear. One of the responders admitted, as I recall, that most Reformed writers say little about Pentecost and are not in any clear consensus as to what happened on that day.

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm no expert, but I am not sure you are reading Hodge correctly.As I cited earlier, Hodge says that saving faith is not even possible without the indwelling Spirit.

Hodge lists the seat of all sin as in the heart as does Jesus. The Holy Spirit has to be working from within prior to regeneration in order to convict (reprove) the heart of sin. But does that mean that the Spirit is already "indwelling?" No I don't think so.

"for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" -2 Cor. 6:14 (KJV)

As "proof" that Hodge held to post-regeneration indwelling, you cite Hodge's references to Christ promising the Spirit to the Twelve as a future event. But you seem to be assuming that Hodge's understanding of such promises was punctiliar rather than ongoing (see my last post for more info on this distinction).
Calvin said that Christ baptizes His people DAILY in the Holy Spirit. Hodge was of course aware of such statements held by Calvin and may have held to a similar nonpunctiliar view. Thus the fact that Hodge alluded to post-regeneration Spirit-baptisms is not proof that Hodge believed that regeneration is possible without the indwelling Spirit. The reality is that Hodge, like many Reformists, is probably a bit unclear as to the precise role that Pentecost played in the redemptive economy.

Where did I mention anything about Baptism?

As a matter of fact, no where in Vol III does Hodge address Baptist being mentioned with the Office and Work of the Holy Spirit. In chapter 8, of Vol I, Theology proper, there are only three sections and they are:

1) His Nature

2) The Office of the Holy Spirit

3) History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

I mentioned what happens to the sinner prior to regeneration.

And if you would have read what I posted from Hodge you would have seen:

It is the special office of the Spirit to convince the world of sin; to reveal Christ, to regenerate the soul, to lead men to the exercise of faith and repentance; to dwell in those whom He thus renews,

Well, as I showed, Hodge did believe that regeneration by the Spirit, preceded faith and repentance.

And permemant "indwelling" of the Spirit was only after regeneration, faith, and repentance.

The above quote says it. "To regenerate the soul, lead men to the exercise of faith and repentance, to dwell in those He thus renews."

He dwells in them only after after regeneration, faith and repentance. Those are Charles Hodge's exact words.

Charles Hodge, Vol. I, Theology Proper, Chapter VIII, The Holy Spirit, Section 2, The Office of the Holy Spirit, Part B, The Spirit's Office in the Work of Redemption, Sub-Sect. 4. p. 398.

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/hodge_systematic1.pdf

You have your views, I have mine.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JAL]

Hodge lists the seat of all sin as in the heart as does Jesus. The Holy Spirit has to be working from within prior to regeneration in order to convict (reprove) the heart of sin. But does that mean that the Spirit is already "indwelling?" No I don't think so.

"for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" -2 Cor. 6:14 (KJV)

Well it now seems to me that you are very unclear, in which case please expect to be misunderstood. Here you make a distinction between the Spirit being "in" the heart to convict without dwelling "in" the heart. Huh? It seems to me this so-called distinction is of no substance at all.

Perhaps you are making the point that, initially, the PERMANCENCE of the indwelling isn't yet finalized. If so, so what? How does this really show that indwelling is subsequent to regeneration. Look, I don't want get caught up in nitpicky distinctions. Fact is, if the Spirit must be "in" the heart for regeneration, then I'm justified (for all relevant intents and purposes) in claiming that regeneration requires the indwelling Spirit. Let's not get bogged down with nitpicky distinctions that have little relevance to the present discussion.

Where did I mention anything about Baptism? I mentioned what happens to the sinner prior to regeneration.

You seemed to be alluding to Christ's promise to Spirit-baptize the Twelve as a future event. Perhaps I am mistaken.

And if you would have read what I posted from Hodge you would have seen, "To regenerate the soul, lead men to the exercise of faith and repentance, to dwell in those He thus renews."... He dwells in them only after after regeneration, faith and repentance. Those are Charles Hodge's exact words.

That's a pretty facile basis for reading Hodge that way. In my view that statement by Hodge proves nothing of the sort. But as you say, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well it now seems to me that you are very unclear, in which case please expect to be misunderstood. Here you make a distinction between the Spirit being "in" the heart to convict without dwelling "in" the heart. Huh? It seems to me this so-called distinction is of no substance at all.

Perhaps you are making the point that, initially, the PERMANCENCE of the indwelling isn't yet finalized. If so, so what? How does this really show that indwelling is subsequent to regeneration. Look, I don't want get caught up in nitpicky distinctions. Fact is, if the Spirit must be "in" the heart for regeneration, then I'm justified (for all relevant intents and purposes) in claiming that regeneration requires the indwelling Spirit. Let's not get bogged down with nitpicky distinctions that have little relevance to the present discussion.




You seemed to be alluding to Christ's promise to Spirit-baptize the Twelve as a future event. Perhaps I am mistaken.

That's a pretty facile basis for reading Hodge that way. In my view that statement by Hodge proves nothing of the sort. But as you say, you are entitled to your opinion.

Well then i guess Hodge lied when he wrote:

"To regenerate the soul, lead men to the exercise of faith and repentance, to dwell in those He thus renews."

1. Regeneration
2. Exercise faith and repentance
3. Indwell those He thus renews.

I guess He doesn't indwell the renewed.

My bad.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JAL]

Well then i guess Hodge lied when he wrote:

"To regenerate the soul, lead men to the exercise of faith and repentance, to dwell in those He thus renews."

1. Regeneration
2. Exercise faith and repentance
3. Indwell those He thus renews.

I guess He doesn't indwell the renewed.

My bad.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I read it the first time, and repeating it three times doesn't much help your case.

Suppose Moses had said, for example, "God created the land, and inhabited the land which He created." Would you deduce from this statement that the one is necessarily subsequent to the other? Logically subsequent, perhaps, but not temporally subsequent,.

All I'm saying is that what you have here is a POSSIBLE interpretation of Hodge, but I don't think you've made your case until you address the citations I made earlier.

Hodge says that neither saving faith nor spiritual life is possible without the indwelling Spirit. "Life" is a technical term for the new birth. You need to address these kind of statements if you want to adduce Hodge for post-regenerative indwelling.

 

[Ormly]

Hodge says that neither saving faith nor spiritual life is possible without the indwelling Spirit.

Hodge is wrong in this by looking at it through Calvin's dogma.

And he said unto her, Daughter, your faith has made you whole; go in peace.
Luke 8:48 There are other instances of "saving" personal faith.

 

[BBAS 64]

Hodge is wrong in this by looking at it through Calvin's dogma.

And he said unto her, Daughter, your faith has made you whole; go in peace.
Luke 8:48 There are other instances of "saving" personal faith.

Good Day, Ormly

I do not think that Hodge ever said there is no such thing as personal faith, nor do I belive he is quoting Calvin.

Why build a strawman??

In HIm,

Bill