Critiquing: How Could Someone in the Old Testament Have Believed without First Being Regenerated?

January 9, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Old Testament Belief — Regeneration — Devil’s Role — Total Depravity — Reformed Theology

---

Introduction

This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content from “How Could Someone in the Old Testament Have Believed without First Being Regenerated?” The analysis addresses logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and potential cognitive biases.

Outline of Content

1. Discussion on Regeneration and Belief
2. Interpretation of Old Testament and New Testament
3. Total Depravity and Satan’s Role
4. Distinctions in Theological Views
5. Cohesive Theological Argumentation

---

Analysis

1. Discussion on Regeneration and Belief

The content posits that Old Testament believers were not regenerated in the New Testament sense but had some form of divine intervention to believe. This view is built on the following arguments:

• Claim: “Jesus wasn’t referring to, okay, you know about being in the Kingdom…”
• Critique: This interpretation assumes that Jesus’ teachings were contextually bound to his immediate audience’s understanding of the Kingdom, which limits the broader applicability of his statements. This is a form of contextual fallacy, where the context is overly restrictive.
• Claim: “No one can understand the kingdom…”
• Critique: This is an appeal to tradition, suggesting that because Old Testament believers had no concept of the Kingdom, they couldn’t understand it. This neglects potential evolving interpretations of scripture.

2. Interpretation of Old Testament and New Testament

The content suggests that regeneration as understood in the New Testament did not apply to Old Testament believers:

• Claim: “Regeneration entails a remaking of our insides so to speak spiritually in virtue of the reception of the Holy Spirit that transform our nature.”
• Critique: The statement makes an unsubstantiated claim by asserting a clear-cut difference between Old and New Testament spiritual experiences without empirical evidence.
• Claim: “The giving of the Holy Spirit in that special way was a feature of the new covenant.”
• Critique: This presents a black-and-white fallacy, oversimplifying the complexities of spiritual experiences across different covenants.

3. Total Depravity and Satan’s Role

The argument discusses how total depravity relates to the necessity of Satan’s blinding work:

• Claim: “If total depravity is true… then how does 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 make any sense?”
• Critique: This appears as a straw man argument, misrepresenting the concept of total depravity to argue against it. Total depravity does not imply a complete inability to recognize any truth, but rather an inherent tendency to sin.
• Claim: “What is the chief weapon of the devil? It is lies. He’s a liar from the beginning.”
• Critique: While this aligns with certain scriptural interpretations, it is an appeal to authority that assumes the audience accepts the premise without critical examination of its basis.

4. Distinctions in Theological Views

The content differentiates between Reformed and other theological perspectives on regeneration and salvation:

• Claim: “Reformed theology… but everybody agrees that human beings are lost and they need some act of God.”
• Critique: This generalization oversimplifies the nuances within theological discourse, displaying a hasty generalization. The claim lacks sufficient differentiation between the theological specifics of various denominations.
• Claim: “That’s not Calvinistic theology. It’s biblical theology…”
• Critique: This assertion reflects a false dilemma, implying that one must choose between Calvinistic and biblical theology, ignoring other valid theological perspectives.

5. Cohesive Theological Argumentation

The content attempts to synthesize various theological elements into a cohesive argument:

• Claim: “The new creation happens in Christ. And there was not that new creation in the old covenant.”
• Critique: This dichotomy between the old and new covenants can be seen as an either-or fallacy, ignoring the continuity and development within scriptural narrative.
• Claim: “So what happened in the Old Testament? God worked in some unique way to overcome native sin in our hearts and bring us to a place where we could believe.”
• Critique: This vague assertion lacks specific details or evidence, making it difficult to critically assess or validate.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

• Confirmation Bias: The content selectively references scriptural interpretations that support a specific theological view, potentially disregarding contradictory evidence.
• Cognitive Dissonance: The attempt to reconcile Old Testament belief with New Testament regeneration creates an inherent tension, leading to possibly biased interpretations to alleviate discomfort.
• Appeal to Ignorance: The content implies that because we cannot fully understand God’s methods, the proposed explanations must be accepted without critical scrutiny.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

• Claim: “I have no reason to believe that [Jesus was referring to Old Testament regeneration].”
• Obligation to Substantiate: It is essential to provide scriptural or historical evidence to support such claims, ensuring the argument is grounded in verifiable data.
• Claim: “I see no evidence of that other than that kind of theological presupposition being imposed on Old Testament texts.”
• Obligation to Substantiate: Clear examples of where Old Testament texts explicitly contradict or support this view should be provided.

Methods to Test Alleged Promises

• Empirical Testing: Historical and archaeological research could provide insights into the lived experiences of Old Testament believers.
• Theological Consistency: Analyzing the internal consistency of theological claims across different biblical texts could offer a more robust understanding.
• Comparative Analysis: Comparing scriptural interpretations across various theological traditions may highlight strengths and weaknesses in the arguments presented.

Conclusion

The critique highlights several logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and biases in the content’s arguments. A thorough examination of the evidence and a more nuanced understanding of theological perspectives are necessary for a coherent and substantiated discussion. Engaging with diverse viewpoints and empirical data can provide a more balanced and credible analysis.

---

We invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section. Your insights and perspectives are valuable for a deeper exploration of these theological topics.