On the historic apology

It can't have escaped your notice that the unstoppable runaway train that is Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership bid has been a rich vein of material for this blog of late (see here and here). And today is no exception. In today's Guardian, Corbyn announces that if he becomes leader he will apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for the (most recent) military intervention in Iraq.

I dared to reply to the Guardian twitter update with the following:

@guardian why? He was one of very few who have zero need to apologise!

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) August 20, 2015

This led to a small twitter-spat (as these things tend to do) which I will not bother boring you with here (for those interested in such things, you can find it here).

This got me thinking about the value of historic and symbolic apologies. On one side of this discussion are those who think they are a symbolic show of future intent. Never mind that Jeremy Corbyn consistently voted against the Iraq war, it doesn't matter that he himself always opposed it, as leader of the Labour Party he would be making an important symbolic gesture moving forward. On the other side of the debate are those who think it is a totally valueless act. His future intent is clear enough when he called for Tony Blair to be tried as a war criminal and has consistently and repeatedly voiced his opposition to military intervention. If the word 'sorry' conveys contrition and remorse, how can those uninvolved in a felony, and who consistently stood against the action, show such penitence? I fall into the latter of these two camps.

Symbolism is only really valid when the symbol applies to the one associating themselves with it. I am sure scores of Iraqi citizens would find value in an apology from the perpetrators. I am far less convinced they will find an apology from a man who consistently voted against the action and has repeatedly and vociferously called out his own government on the decision remotely worthwhile. His views on the issue have been clear from the beginning, remain clear and his plans going forward are no less transparent. An apology under such circumstances is neither symbolic nor meaningful. Only those who are responsible for an act can offer a meaningful apology. An apology from someone who always rejected the action does nothing to change the fact that those responsible are still unrepentant. It is like receiving an apology from the mother of a murderer (who you never held responsible) whilst her son continues to brag publicly about his heinous crime. It is simply a hollow gesture.

That also brings into question the nature of the historic apology altogether. The Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, recently apologised to America for Japanese actions during WWII though he has more recently claimed that modern-day Japan shouldn't have to keep apologising for WWII actions. Angela Merkel has made further apologies for German atrocities under the Nazis. And Tony Blair, though unable to apologise for his own actions in Iraq, seems to have no issue apologising for Britain's past involvement in the slave trade and our part in the Irish potato famine.

It is Blair's own apologies that bring into sharp relief the pointlessness of the historic apology. It is easy to say sorry for actions with which we were personally uninvolved and that we have consistently made clear were wrong. There is little doubt in the modern age that virtually everyone in the Western world despises slavery. There are no policy decisions from any party across the political spectrum that suggest, explicitly or implicitly, any desire to return to such days. To apologise for something universally rejected in the West, and for which we bear no personal responsibility, is but a valueless and hollow gesture. We are really apologising on behalf of others which seems to defeat the very purpose of an apology. I can express sorrow and disgust about the actions of others but I cannot be remorseful or penitent on their behalf. An apology is only worth something if there is a recognition of wrongdoing on the part of the perpetrator. For those of us who always rejected the action, apologising on behalf of others does nothing.

It is ludicrous to me that people who openly and repeatedly reject the actions of the Nazis in modern day Germany are expected to continually apologise for something with which they had no part, neither passive nor active. It is silly that a hollow apology from a modern world leader about the horrors of slavery, when they have repeatedly and consistently stated their opposition to it, is deemed of value. It is rather more telling that Tony Blair has no problem whatsoever apologising for historic crimes in which he had no part but cannot bring himself to say sorry for the very real problems his decisions have directly caused for those who are still alive, affected by such things and for whom an apology would be both laden with meaning and of any intrinsic value. It says to me that the only apology worth anything is one from the individuals responsible. It says to me that is a much harder apology to give because it involves owning up, to those affected, to that for which we are personally responsible. It says to me that anyone can express sorrow and remorse for what they have not done; it is much harder to own what we personally and directly have done and admit we were wrong.

It also brings into sharp relief the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:13f: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Many of us are happy to accept that the way is hard. Jesus also said “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." And so we expect following Jesus to be tough. But we often don't like the fact that "the gate is narrow... and those who find it are few". It is not simply following Christ that is hard but even entering by the gate - a gate that Christ elsewhere makes clear is himself - is also difficult.

Those from other religions may not understand what is so difficult about salvation by faith alone. What on earth could be difficult about that? It is precisely the same thing that is easy about the historic apology and extremely difficult about the current, only valid, one. To come to Christ necessitates an understanding that we are personally responsible for our own sin. It is not an historic crime in which we have no part and remains entirely the fault of Adam, Paul tells us "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Without acknowledging our own personal responsibility for the sin that separates us from God, there can be no forgiveness. And there is no denying that accepting responsibility for what we have done, acknowledging that we have not lived as we ought and accepting that we have actively pursued what is wrong is difficult indeed!

It also means - if I must accept personal responsibility for my separation from God - that somebody else cannot be penitent on my behalf. If I am separated from God because of my sin, it is simply no good for my father, mother, brother, sister, friend or colleague to be terribly sorry on my behalf. My personal responsibility has in no way been accepted if I am personally unwilling to seek forgiveness for what I have done. It is only when we accept that we have done wrong and that forgiveness is found in repentance and faith in Christ alone that we can be made right with God. It is something that requires a personal and heartfelt penitence. A meaningful apology - that is true repentance and genuine faith in Christ - are the only means of real forgiveness.

By contrast, historic apologies are neither personal, do not accept responsibility and are not an acceptance of wrongdoing. It is pleading on behalf of another who has potentially shown no remorse whatsoever. If we want the word 'sorry' to mean anything at all, let's please stop insisting we use it on behalf of others.

Would this make your list of 'the worst sins'?

"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." (Eph 5:5)

In our church, we are just drawing to a close in Daniel and I have been preparing our next series in Ephesians which is due to start a week on Sunday. I was recently putting together a sermon on Eph 5:3-14, due to be delivered midway through October (yes, I really do prepare sermons that far in advance!). As I was doing so, I was particularly struck by Eph 5:5. You can see the verse above.

By way of orientation, Paul's general thrust in the preceding verses is to explain how Christians ought to live in the nitty-gritty of everyday Christian life. His main concern in 5:3-14 is to encourage believers to live as people of light. He then goes on to explain precisely how we are to do that.

In 5:3-5, Paul is trying to explain what sort of behaviour is inappropriate for Christian people. He is not trying to lay down the law and have a go at the reader. Rather, he is trying to say that you were once totally unconcerned about these sorts of things but now, as Christian people, you want to avoid these behaviours. It is meant to be an encouragement to Christian people he knows are keen to avoid the things he lists. 

When we get to 5:5, Paul is implying that these believers will inherit "the kingdom of Christ and God" because they no longer engage in these practices. Of course, the reverse of this remains true not least because, rather than being implied, it is specifically what Paul says. Those people who are given over to these sorts of behaviour show that they never really belonged to Christ and thus will not inherit the kingdom.

Most Christian people affirm that those who are given over to sexual immorality or continually doing whatever makes for impurity (1) show that they are not true believers. Rightly, we should put all the appropriate caveats on that and distinguish between those given over/continually practicing/walking in sin and those who have fallen into sin but are repentant. Nonetheless, most are prepared to say those who continually practice these two things are not walking in Christ and will not inherit the kingdom. In fact, as most Christian people manage to avoid such major sin throughout their Christian life, it is readily apparent that those walking in them must be disregarding Jesus' commands and place themselves outside of his people (2). So far, so in line with Paul's thinking.

However, Paul doesn't only talk about sexual immorality and impurity. He actually talks about three areas of sin: sexual immorality, impurity and covetousness. Though the tendency of most Christians is to agree with Paul on the first two, I suspect many of us have little or no concern regarding covetousness in reality.

What is particularly concerning is that Paul doesn't even put covetousness in the same bracket as sexual immorality and impurity. Now, most of us don't put them under the same banner either but, unlike us, Paul puts covetousness in a worse category of sin than the first two. It is covetousness alone which Paul links to idolatry which, throughout the Old Testament, was the sin that most consistently and inevitably drew the righteous anger of God.

It is worth mentioning that at the heart of sexual immorality and impurity is covetousness. In each case, we want what is not ours and/or we want more of what we may currently have in part. These first two are, to some degree, an overflow of a covetous heart. And covetousness is idolatry because it is seeking satisfaction and joy in something other than Christ. We want what does not belong to us because we believe whatever it is will make us complete. We are saying such things will satisfy us in a way that Christ does not/cannot. That is idolatry.

Most of us can conceive of reasons to take action, or begin the steps of church discipline, against someone who has been found doing what is sexually immoral. Likewise, it is easy to think of times we do the same against public impurity of one sort or another. But I suspect most of us could not conceive m/any circumstances under which we would take action against covetousness. And that is perverse given that Paul sees it as worse than these other two. He at least sees it as at the root of these other two.

The reason for our quandary is obvious enough. Most of us are prone to some form of covetousness. It has become one of those "respectable sins". In fact, we can even "christianise" covetousness and make what is fundamentally sinful into a virtue. We covet particular gifts, we covet recognition or we covet the size and work of other churches. We even tell ourselves that such covetousness is for God's glory. And yet, Paul says this is all idolatry.

I have no great answer to our condition except for repentance and faith in Christ. Rather than pointing fingers at "those big sins", perhaps we are harbouring significant sins of our own that we have made respectable. It is a reminder to all of us, if we are continually walking in and characterised by these sins, then perhaps we are standing outside of God's kingdom. Again, we must make appropriate caveats. There is a difference between falling into and walking in covetousness. One speaks of a constant state of mind, a regular discontent and continual longing for what does not belong to you. The other speaks of an irregular discontent and longing which, though still sinful, shows some desire not to be characterised by a covetous heart. It is the former which signifies our lack of standing in Christ.

Nonetheless, it is a stark reminder that we are sinful people. We are only in a right relationship with God based on our standing in Christ. God does not love us more or less depending on our performance each day. Yet, if we are truly in Christ, our lives will reflect our new identity in him. The question is not whether we have done these sins. It is whether we are characterised and continually walking in these sins. This applies as much to covetousness, if not more so, than to these other things.

Notes

1. Impurity is often linked to sexual immorality by Paul but it is not exclusively tied to it. Though impurity encompasses sexual immorality, it is a much wider term that covers anything that might defile us before God
2. John Newton used to make a similar case that most Christians avoid the most major and obvious sins but fail to grow because they fail to deal with (seemingly) smaller sins. You can read more on that here and here

Grace & Service

Grace is a great Christian truth. It is the means by which we have faith at all (cf. Eph 2:8f) through which we come into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Not only is it the basis of God's saving act toward us, it is also a means to live out the christian life (cf. Rom 5:2; Eph 2:8-10; 1 Pet 5:12). God's effective calling of his children, the means by which he makes us holy, by which we live out our Christian walk, and the basis of how and why He keeps us until the end are all of grace. Little wonder then that Christians are happy to talk about grace. A lot.

However, I have become increasingly convinced that our view of grace can impact in the most direct way on our service for the Lord. If you will forgive the crass terminology (I didn't have anything better to hand), there is a low view of grace (or, cheap grace) and a high view of grace (costly grace). Please don't confuse low and high, cheap and costly, as necessarily indicative of which view is "correct". Both affirm something rightly and deny something wrongly.

The low view of grace rightly affirms that works play no part in salvation or forgiveness. However, it tends toward a form of antinomianism. It establishes grace as the means of forgiveness and then fails to concern itself with individual sin. That is it takes a blasé attitude to sin because, of course, God will just forgive me. It is cheap because in the old analogy - we stand in court, God is the judge and we are unable to pay the fine - this low view treats the price paid by Christ as though it were a mere speeding fine. An inconvenience, for sure, and money we'd rather not pay but hardly an eye-watering sum. Perhaps, to take the analogy further, we may accept we were broke and couldn't pay £60. Yet, it is still only a relatively small price. Thus Christ's forgiveness comes cheaply and easily available.

The high view of grace, by contrast, rightly affirms we are saved from sin and are brought into a relationship with God in order to glorify him. It correctly holds dear the truth that just as God is holy so we are to be holy (1 Pet 1:16). However, it tends toward a form of nomianism (or legalism). It can have a particularly hard attitude to sin as God hates sin and Christ paid such a high price to remove it from us. Grace is, therefore, hard to come by. It is costly because in the old analogy - we stand in court, God is the judge and we are unable to pay the fine - this view treats the price paid by Christ as trillions of pounds that not even the richest man in the world could pay, let alone you or I. Thus forgiveness comes at the highest of costs. To add further sin to the debt is to pile Pelion upon Ossa.

The problem the low view causes for our service is ultimately this. Christ has paid the price for my sin, I am no longer guilty before God and I don't have to continually worry about my standing before him. I don't have to keep working out my righteousness by doing anything. Thus far, thus correct. However, because I am right with God I have no need to prove anything. If I don't fancy serving him I don't have to. If I don't want to do x, y or z for him, so what? I'm forgiven. I don't need to earn my way to Heaven so why bother working hard for the Lord when I don't necessarily fancy it. And, even if I ought to have done something, well, he'll forgive me won't he.

The problem the high view causes for service is this. I'm forgiven and because of what he has done for me, I owe Jesus everything. Thus far, thus correct. However, because I owe Christ so much, I effectively have to pay him back for all he has done for me. Every time I sin, that adds to my debt (which I know he has forgiven and I am no longer liable for it). But every time I do something good, that pays him back in a small way for all he has done for me. Therefore, I must get to every meeting, do all the evangelistic events I can and generally try to do as much good as I can. I can measure my holiness and righteousness by the amount of stuff I do for God. Whilst I know he will forgive me when I sin, I've already got a mountain of debt I owe so I don't want to be adding to that. Though I know I will never (indeed, couldn't) fully pay him back, I'd like to do what I can as best as I'm able.

Both views have hit on some truth to the detriment of an equally important truth. The low view is thoroughly liberating whilst simultaneously dismissing biblical imperatives to pursue holiness and to follow particular commands. It ignores the work of the Spirit in our lives who empowers us to keep God's law. The high view emphasises personal holiness but can lead to a crushing expectation in our spiritual walk. It can also create a two-tier system of believers and super-believers, based on the twin measures of the amount of stuff we do and our personal piety (usually assessed entirely negatively in how much stuff we are willing to shun).

How do we avoid the Scylla of cheap grace and the Charybdis of legalism? The high view primarily errs in presuming we can "pay back" Christ at all. It is not simply that the price he paid was beyond our means, it was that the price he paid was in a currency to which we have no access. No amount of good works will pay him back one penny. Equally, when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us we are clothed in Christ's righteousness. You cannot be more or less righteous, you either are or you aren't righteous at all. If we are in Christ, we have his perfect righteousness. This means there cannot be tiers of believer. Yes, there are those who do more for Christ than others and the scale of our reward in Heaven may differ as a result. But our fundamental righteousness, our standing before God, is a flat platform as our holiness in glory will also be.

The low view errs inasmuch as it treats Christ like an insurance policy. I may aim not to sin but, if I do, it's not the end of the world because Christ will forgive. It equally denies the ongoing work of the Spirit in our hearts. He isn't called the Holy Spirit for nothing. It seems highly unlikely God would put his Holy Spirit into our hearts simply to sit there and care not one jot about our personal holiness. If all true believers receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (and they do), it follows that all true believers would pursue holiness. If we are growing in holiness, it follows that such will have a clear a noticeable outworking in our lives and in our service. Though our service is no payback scheme, nor does it earn us righteousness, it does please the Father (as Kevin DeYoung points out here). 

At heart, grace is the means by which we are saved. It is the means by which we receive Christ's righteousness. Yet, it is also the means by which God empowers his children to live lives that are generally pleasing to him. When talking grace, it's always worth keeping these two truths together.

A return to regeneration, indwelling and the coming of the Spirit

Almost exactly a year ago, I began tentatively exploring the nature of belief and salvation; specifically regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit before and after Pentecost. Briefly stated, I considered passages such as Ezekiel 36:24-28 and John 16:7, among others, which speak of a distinct difference between the pre- and post- coming of the Spirit. However, the Reformed ordo salutis (to which I subscribe) insists regeneration must occur prior to receipt of the Spirit. To state the problem briefly: if the Spirit is required in the work of regeneration and this precedes repentance in the ordo salutis, how did believers come to repentance prior to Christ's ascension when the Spirit was not present in their hearts?

You can read my three previous posts on this issue here, here and here. I last left this discussion having arrived (very tentatively) at the following conclusions: first, and never really in doubt during discussion, salvation was always by faith alone. Second, regeneration was always necessary to counter Total Depravity in both the OT and NT. Third, there appeared to be a distinction between the Spirit 'on' individuals in the OT and the Spirit 'in' believers in the NT (broadly speaking). The mechanics of how this all held together was left unclear.

I was (relatively) OK with this broad position until a recent discussion pointed out 1 Peter 1:10-11: 

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and enquired carefully, enquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.

This verse appears to suggest the prophets had the Spirit of Christ indwelling their hearts prior to the coming of the Spirit himself. This sent me back to the issue for a reappraisal. Here are some further (still tentative) thoughts on this topic.

Before I go on, it's important to affirm what I uphold. Principally, I maintain salvation - in both OT and NT - was by faith alone. Similarly, I maintain the Reformed ordo salutis that Total Depravity demands regeneration by the Spirit prior to conversion. However, I want to uphold a legitimate distinction between Christ's going and the Spirit's coming. I also want to maintain a reasonable distinction between Ezekiel's comment (related to a future reality) and the present experience, at the time of writing, of OT believers.

In previous discussions, I posited the idea the Spirit may not necessarily have indwelt OT believers (though they were regenerate). The question follows: is it possible to have regeneration without indwelling? Certainly, the ordo salutis would allow for this. Further, there is no scriptural reason to insist - just because the Holy Spirit indwells believers as a sign and seal of their faith today - that excludes God's work on unbelievers prior to faith. Even in the church age, where we certainly receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, we believe regeneration occurs prior to conversion from which indwelling follows. Indeed, John 16:8-11, Titus 3:5 and James 1:18 would bear this reading out. If such is true, we have good grounds to argue regeneration occurs without indwelling (though receipt of the Spirit follows for believers today). If it is true that regeneration occurs prior to indwelling, this could readily apply to OT regeneration irrespective of their indwelling.

Given that, Jesus words in John 14:16-17 would also bear out this reading:

I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Notice Jesus' construction here. His disciples know the Spirit because he dwells, or abides, with you (present tense) but he will be in you (future tense). As John Hendryx helpfully points out:

This is a future tense of an indwelling. Apparently the saints of the OT enjoyed regeneration but may not have enjoyed indwelling... Regeneration and indwelling are not exactly the same for in regeneration the Spirit works to illumine our minds and renew our hearts prior to our faith in which He comes to indwell us. That pre-salvific action is not called indwelling. "WITH YOU" and "IN YOU" appear to demonstrate qualitative differences.

So, just as the OT believing Jews experienced a type and shadow of things to come, so it may be they were regenerate - that is the Spirit worked on the hearts and minds of OT believers - without indwelling their hearts. Today, the ordo salutis is largely logical (not necessarily sequential). That is, regeneration is logically prior to conversion which is logically prior to indwelling and sanctification though the latter three (broadly) occur simultaneously and end in glorification. For the OT believer, the same logical sequence would be true but regeneration and conversion happen in quick succession, whereas indwelling, sanctification and glorification may all occur later in a much more rapid succession.

There is an argument that OT believers were both regenerate and indwelt by the Spirit. Yet, this quashes any meaningful difference, as outlined in Ezekiel 36 and John 16, pre- and post- the Spirit's coming. It is often argued the difference was between a partial experience of the Spirit and the fullness after his coming, the emphasis falling upon Joel 2:28-29 and the post-Pentecost signs and wonders. However, it can't escape our notice that such things also happened in the OT. Visions and dreams were experienced and miraculous works were done as well. This doesn't really provide us with any quantitative or qualitative difference.

How then do we explain OT believers doing miraculous works and specific tasks? It seems, in the OT, the Spirit came upon people and anointed them selectively and temporarily for particular works (cf. Judges 15:14; 1 Samuel 16:12f; 2 Chronicles 20:14; et al). It is notable that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Saul (1 Samuel 10:10) and yet he is widely regarded to have died in unbelief. As such, the Spirit coming upon an individual did not necessarily indicate their spiritual state. The Spirit thus moved individuals to specific acts without necessarily indwelling. Again, such causes a problem for the view that Pentecost was the dawn of the fullness of the Spirit's coming (these acts of the Spirit were occurring in the OT). 

How then do we explain verses such as Numbers 27:18; Ezekiel 2:2; 3:24; Micah 3:8; Luke 1:15, 41, 67; 1 Peter 1:10f? They are best understood as the Spirit moving these individuals at particular times for particular tasks. So, the prophets who enquired "what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating" could be read less as a reference to their ongoing, permanent indwelling and more a reference to the empowering of the Spirit at the point they were prophesying. In other words, this is a manifestation of the selective, temporary anointing of the Spirit. It does not speak to permanent indwelling but their anointing by the Spirit as prophets, spokesmen for God, whom the Spirit also anointed to write the canon.

This reading allows us to make a qualitative difference between the pre- and post- coming of the Spirit. It stops us from quashing all meaningful difference in the words of Ezekiel and Jesus. It also allows us to uphold Paul's statements in Romans that the Spirit - the same Spirit who descended on Jesus, anointed him at his baptism and on whom he relied to live out a perfect human life - will empower us to keep God's law in a way OT  believers could/did not. This reading maintains the continuity of Covenant Theology - salvation by faith alone requiring the regeneration of the Spirit of God to overcome our Total Depravity - without flattening any sense of discontinuity from when the Spirit begins to dwell in the hearts of God's people.

How do you sell God in the 21st Century? More Heaven; less Hell

I came across this article in today's Guardian online. The piece recounts a conservative Evangelical journey away from their faith. It outlines the story of somebody growing up in an Evangelical baptist family, going to Moody Bible Institute (a conservative, Evangelical seminary), engaged in evangelism and yet becoming increasingly disaffected with theodicy and theology of Hell. In many ways, it is a common story of an Evangelical unable to square what they see in scripture, the apologetic arguments and theology they are taught and their own internal sense of what is just, fair, moral and right. Though lengthy, the article is certainly worth reading.

Nevertheless, the article's emphasis isn't really autobiographical. The writer isn't ultimately trying to share how they became disaffected with Evangelicalism (though they do share that and do so - in my view - in a way that still exhibits fondness for Evangelicals if not for Evangelicalism nor Evangelical theology.) Rather, the writer is trying to address why the perception of Hell - and certainly the formulation of the doctrine of Hell at a popular level - has changed over time.

The article contends that 30 years ago - whilst the writer was growing up in Evangelical baptist circles - Hell was taught in, what would now be considered, an anachronistic way. It was all fire and brimstone, eternal torment and attempts to scare folk into Heaven. It notes a shift in emphasis, focusing on the preaching and writing of Bill Hybels, toward less of a focus on Hell itself. Certainly when Hell was mentioned, it was brought into focus by empathetic appeals to sin and evil existing in all people. The writer then considers how this has changed again, focusing on the writing of Rob Bell. It argues Hell is now either (a) something to be experienced here on Earth; or, (b) a purgatorial refinement leading to ultimate, universal reconciliation and the end of Hell itself.

The article misses the mark in various respects. Principally, it argues the way to avoid Hell, according to protestant Evangelical theology, is to say the sinner's prayer. It states "For contemporary evangelicals, it’s solely this act that separates the sheep from the goats." Though there are undoubtedly people who hold this view, most at a personal level, it is not mainstream Evangelical belief. 

Paul Washer, a well-known conservative Evangelical couldn't be clearer when he states "We call men to repent and believe. And if they repent and believe, truly in that moment they are saved in that moment. But the evidence is more than just the sincerity of a prayer. It is a continuation of the working of God in their life through sanctification." He has also argued "We have taken that truth [that if you truly believe and you confess Christ, even if it costs you your life, you will be saved]… we have taken that beautiful truth and reduced it down to, “If you pray a little prayer before a bunch of people in a church in America, you can be guaranteed you were saved if you think you were sincere.”"

Denny Burk - Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College (Southern Baptist seminary) and associate pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church - has published this comment by David Platt - president of the International Missions Board, the mission agency of the Southern Baptists (a conservative Evangelical denomination). Platt states:

Do I believe it is “wrong” for someone to pray a “prayer of salvation”? Certainly not. Calling out to God in prayer with repentant faith is fundamental to being saved (Romans 10:9-10). Yet as I pastor a local church and serve alongside pastors of other local churches, I sense reasonably serious concern about the relatively large number of baptisms in our churches that are “re-baptisms”—often representing people who thought they were saved because they prayed a certain prayer, but they lacked a biblical understanding of salvation and were in reality not saved. This, in addition to a rampant easy believism that marks cultural Christianity in our context (and in other parts of the world), leads me to urge us, as we go to all people among all nations with the good news of God’s love, to be both evangelistically zealous and biblically clear at the same time (Matthew 28:18-20).

Plenty of other conservative Evangelicals can be found stating categorically that nobody is saved simply because they prayed a "sinner's prayer". Though a prayer of repentance may be an outward expression of the repentance that has already taken place in the heart of a believer, it is this ongoing state of repentance and trust in Christ's atoning work that saves.

However, the article is helpful in pinpointing where the boundaries of belief lie. It quite rightly sees the arguments advanced by Rob Bell as demonstrating "the potential pitfalls of the church’s desire to distance itself too quickly from fire and brimstone." As the writer comments:

Bell claims to address the exact theological problem that motivated me to leave the faith, but rather than offer a new understanding of the doctrine, he offers up a Disneyesque vision of humanity, one that is wholly incompatible with the language biblical authors use to speak about good and evil. Along with hell, the new evangelical leaders threaten to jettison the very notion of human depravity – a fundamental Christian truth upon which the entire salvation narrative hinges.

The issues for the writer were plain enough. The Bible teaches the doctrine of Hell. An internal sense of that which is just and merciful couldn't accept the doctrine of Hell. One either accepts the teaching of the Bible or rejects it. Bell's attempts at "disneyfying" the doctrine seemed too hollow and shallow for credible belief.

What the article helpfully states in the clearest terms is the following:

what made church such a powerful experience for me as a child and a young adult was that it was the one place where my own faults and failings were recognised and accepted, where people referred to themselves affectionately as “sinners”, where it was taken as a given that the person standing in the pews beside you was morally fallible, but still you held hands and lifted your voice with hers as you worshipped in song. This camaraderie came from a collective understanding of evil – a belief that each person harboured within them a potential for sin and deserved, despite it, divine grace. It’s this notion of shared fallibility that lent Hybels’s 9/11 sermon its power, as he suggested that his own longing for revenge was only a difference of degree – not of kind – from the acts of the terrorists.

Without a clear and defined understanding of the doctrine of Hell the message of the gospel is liable to be lost. No amount of rebranding is going to help. For a reformulation of the doctrine of Hell means the gospel, the message of salvation in Christ, ultimately loses its power. No Hell soon leads to a watered down, or non-existent, statement of sin. No sin means no need of salvation. No need of salvation means no need of Christ. No need of Christ makes Jesus a pitiable character indeed.

Efforts to rebrand Hell, or to push it to the sidelines, are misguided at best. That is not to say our preaching must be fire and brimstone every week. Nor is it to say Hell must be the centre of all our gospel presentations. It is to say, that to pretend it doesn't exist or to speak of it in such ways as it seems little more than trifling irritant - like a small wart on God's created order - is to undermine the gospel.

A right view of sin - to see it as God sees it - lends credence to the existence of Hell. To do anything other than present Hell as scripture presents it damages our understanding of sin, salvation and the work of Christ. Whatever else the article made clear, it is apparent that changes to the doctrine of Hell were ultimately unconvincing and - despite the title of the piece - more Heaven and less Hell doesn't do much to win anybody. If anything, it undermines the achievement of Jesus on the cross and the reality of our standing before a holy God.

What is it to "hate [your] brother"?

I've just been working through a bible study in 1 John to be delivered next month (one likes to keep oneself ahead). I have spent considerable time looking at 1 John 2:9-11:

9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling.11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

It is a passage I have read many times before. The point John makes here is pretty obvious; if you hate your brother it seems highly unlikely you have been saved. If God is love (and light), as John says repeatedly in the letter, then those who abide in him are unlikely to exhibit lots of hatred (and darkness). A simple, yet profound, point.

What is almost never discussed is what hatred of one's brother actually looks like in practice. How do I know if I hate my brother? Is hatred and dislike the same thing? If I simply find someone annoying, or I get on better with someone else, am I written outside of God's love? If hatred of other believers is a mark of unbelief, how can I ever know the truth of the antipoint John is actually making, the assurance of my salvation, if this hatred is never defined?

I have heard some wildly contradictory (and, largely, unsatisfactory) views on what hatred of one's brothers looks like over the years. I am still not certain I could give any categorical definition. But, I offer the following as a potential starting point.

John spends much time outlining the differences between light and dark, love and hate, godliness and worldliness. These seem to be the fundamental contradistinctions John wants to make. Given this, it follows that hatred of one's brother can be identified by determining the defining features of love and inverting them. Though not exhaustive (1), Paul's list of loving attributes in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 can help.

Paul comments on love:

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

This might be inverted to read:

Hatred is impatient and unkind; hate envies and boasts; it is arrogant and rude. It does insist on its own way; it is irritable and resentful; it rejoices at wrongdoing, but not with the truth. Hate bears nothing, believes nothing, hopes for nothing, endures nothing.

Perhaps this is where we should start to assess our state before the Lord.

Notes

1. I do not think Paul is offering a definition of love here. I rather suspect he is outlining all the things the Corinthian church are doing and telling them that love would not do those things. It isn't a definition but rather draws some boundaries around what love is (or, is not)

Cliff is not the last, just the latest. How do we respond?

Sir Cliff Richard is the latest celebrity to be accused of an historic sex-crime. He has yet to be formally charged with anything but an accusation has been made and the police have begun their investigations. Although unconnected to Operation Yew Tree - the police investigation into child sex offences following the Jimmy Saville revelations - it marks yet another chapter in the seemingly endless slew of accusations following just about every celebrity that was famous pre-1990.

What is especially disheartening about this particular accusation is that Cliff Richard is a Christian. He has suffered professionally for his religious stance. Upon his conversion, he planned to quit music altogether but, deciding against this, changed his act, which had been labelled "too sexy for TV". In later years, he lost credibility within the music world seemingly for no other reason than his Christian stance. This is supported by the fact that he released a number of tracks in the 1990s under the pseudonym Blacknight, receiving widespread airtime and critical acclaim until his true identity was revealed as the artist. There have been plenty of people waiting for Cliff to fall in the most public of ways and, certainly until now, he did not oblige. Whilst no Christian is beyond any form of sin, it is astounding to think it possible, after such a long-standing and clear Christian witness, that this might be true.

What are we to draw from this latest saga? 

We should presume innocence until proven otherwise

It is a well establish principle of law that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Many of us let the phrase trip off the tongue so easily. Yet, in the emotive case of child sex offences, this principle is rarely applied outside the court room. Trial by tabloid seems to be the order of the day. Phrases like "he looks like one" and "I always knew he was a bit weird" belie claims to impartiality. Very few people acknowledge that many accused celebrities, even those formally charged, have ultimately been found innocent. William Roach, Michael Le Vell, Jim Davidson and, long before the floodgates opened, Matthew Kelly have all been found innocent following charges. In this case, as yet, Sir Cliff has not even been formally charged. Let us call off the dogs and hold our fire until a trial has taken place and a verdict been reached.

We should see Moral Relativism for what it is

We have seen plenty of celebrities charged with offences. In the cases of Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris and Max Clifford the charges have been upheld and prison sentences given out. Others have been charged and find cases ongoing, recurring or new cases arising. The defence that seems to crop up time and again is that the culture was different back then, nobody really thought these things wrong. 

Aside from the fact such offences were against the law even in the 1970s, showing the authorities evidently thought these things wrong, the victims themselves clearly don't share that view either. The problem we have is that a moving moral compass opens the door to such nonsense. Today, we believe we have advanced so far that previous social mores simply do not hold. If such is the case, then existing social mores cannot be pressed retroactively. If morality is ever-changing, we cannot hold people to account historically for things that were not deemed amoral when they were committed. If we want to see justice done in historical cases, moral relativism simply makes it impossible to do so consistently.

We should recognise why we have an appetite for these stories

What is it that makes us buy tabloid papers screaming about these things? Can we honestly say that it is nothing more than a desire to keep informed? More likely, it is because we enjoy feeling superior. We feel good when we see others fail and that is not because we particularly enjoy watching heinous acts of sin. Rather, it is because in judging others worse than ourselves we make ourselves relatively good. An unchanging moral compass means that the sin of another does nothing to effect the value of my own sin. Moral relativism allows me to look at those committing worse acts than me and justify my own shortcomings by arguing I'm not as bad as that.

Knowing a number of people involved in prison outreach, it may surprise you to know that moral relativism is as alive in gaol as it is on the outside. Murderers, though guilty by their own admission, justify themselves as not as bad as the paedophiles. Paedophiles have their own sliding scale. The barrenness of this view is evident. it leads us to conclude, despite the Biblical claim "there is none who does good, not even one", that all do good, except one... the one who is the worst person in society. Really, our agenda is driven by counting ourselves good and doing so by deeming all those worse than us as bad.

We should acknowledge Christians are not beyond sin, even of this magnitude

Even a cursory reading of the Bible will show that none of us are beyond the reach sin. Christians, like everyone else, may fall in public and disgraceful ways. Any reading of Paul or John that does not lead us to understand our inherent propensity to sin shows we haven't understood either the Bible or the gospel. 

Bearing in mind the point above, I do not want to accuse Cliff Richard of anything here. Yet, we cannot pretend that Christian people are beyond even gross acts of sin. A common perception is that "sin" is what Christians talk about when they point the finger at unbelievers. Such a view misunderstands the Biblical position. Far from pointing the finger, Christians know all too well how sinful they are and take both Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8 very seriously indeed. The wonder shouldn't be that people do such heinous things, the wonder should be that less of us do. God's grace holds back the tide of sin.

We should remember, though some escape justice, none escape justice

The spark that ignited the fire was the Jimmy Saville revelations. Many are frustrated and angry that Saville not only indulged in this grotesque behaviour for so long but was never brought to justice. For many, Saville simply got away with it. The Bible tells us we have a loving and merciful God. Yet, the Bible is also clear that God is just. All will have to stand before him and give and account of our life, both Christian and non-Christian alike. Though justice may not have been done on Earth we can rest assured that it will be done by Almighty God.

We should not be fooled. Judgment is not only for those who have committed the most heinous crimes. If moral relativism is flawed, God's justice cannot only extend to the worst of all criminals. Indeed, his justice must simply extend to all those who have fallen short of his glory. If scripture is to be believed, none of us have lived up to that exacting standard.

We should rejoice that God welcomes those who repent, even repentant celebrities

The God of justice is not only concerned with what is just. Though his justice demands satisfaction, his love and mercy demand a means of escape. In Jesus Christ, God simultaneously satisfied his justice and mercy. The central message of the Bible is not that all are sinners. The central message is that Jesus Christ welcomes sinners who repent. Moral relativism keeps us from recognising that we have all fallen short of God's perfect morality. Yet, if we acknowledge our shortcomings and look to Jesus in repentance, the just wrath of God that we deserve can be laid upon Jesus Christ.

It is sad that there was no evidence of repentance on the part of Jimmy Saville. In the cases of Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris, the same seems to apply. They seem sorry at having been caught but not all that sorry for what they have done. Whatever views one has on the British prison system, they will ultimately have to answer to the Lord and face the real punishment for their crimes and not just those for which they have been sent to prison.

But God does welcome repentant sinners. The apostle Paul states "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of which I am foremost" (1 Tim 1:15). And that was not moral relativism at play or false modesty, Paul had well documented reason to think of himself as the chief of all sinners. Yet, Paul - who was a murdering, religious persecutor not unlike IS, formerly ISIS - repented of even this heinous sin and the Lord Jesus Christ welcome him. Likewise, he offers forgiveness to you and I if we turn in repentance to him. If he can save a repentant Paul, he can save any of us!

A tentative answer from an open discussion

I previously posted here and here regarding salvation for believers prior to the coming of the Spirit. The question is as follows: if the reformed ordo salutis is correct, how did believers prior to Christ's ascension come to be regenerate and sanctified if the Spirit, at that time, did not dwell in their hearts? Alternatively framed: if the Spirit is required in the work of regeneration and this precedes repentance in the ordo salutis, how did believers come to repentance prior to the indwelling of the Spirit?

An open discussion took place over the last couple of days which has resulted in a (very) tentative solution. I found the discussion useful and, in the hope others might find it similarly helpful, thought I would reproduce it here (with permission from the contributors):

Alan: 

I sympathise with the problem, and I'd add as strong an emphasis to the giving of the Spirit to indwell as exclusive to the New Covenant as I can.I think my thoughts are very much in line with yours on the solution, that the Spirit worked in the hearts of OT (better OC? Same thing in Greek...) believers but without indwelling them.

Jeremiah 31:33-35 is very clear in showing how the giving of the Spirit, the priesthood of all believers and individual, personal relationship with God are marks of the New Covenant. So is OC salvation dependent on a moment of repentance beginning a personal relationship with God at all? That personal relationship is a wonderful feature of the New Covenant which OC believers can't have known. The Spirit was certainly active under the OC, but came upon and also later left people (i.e. Saul).

I wonder if the problem is one of our own making in drawing up an NT ordo salutis that was never a feature of the OC, where salvation was a matter of being located in the Covenant the same as it is now, requiring the same work of the Spirit, but not with the same wonderful indwelling, and I agree that the next question is how sanctification is impacted.

Sorry that doesn't add much, except hopefully some extra weight behind what you'd already got.

Me: 

Yes, you've rather reframed the same question!

The issue with the above is it makes regeneration all but impossible (and sanctification nonexistent) in the OT. Sanctification is perhaps easier to deal with but Jesus is clear unless one is "born again" they cannot be saved and that necessitates regeneration of the spirit. So how were OT believers ever saved without that regenerating, indwelling work of the spirit?

Dispensationalism offers an immediate answer but the other problems it as a view causes are worse than the presented problem (which suggests it is not the answer). Some of your answer seems to border on the dispensational, which is not particularly satisfying

Alan: 

You seemed like perhaps you'd appreciate a little confirmation of the Spirit's indwelling being distinctly NT, no?

Why exactly does it make them impossible though? Can the Spirit only accomplish those through permanent indwelling, or could he have worked them then without indwelling? It may be that I've not read or thought deeply enough on the specifics, but the indwelling doesn't seem like an absolutely necessary part of regeneration or sanctification.

And I utterly sympathise and am probably be more firm than you in dismissing dispensationalism's solution!

Me: 

I agree indwelling is a new covenant phenomenon - Jesus words are meaningless otherwise. That is the crux of the problem. Nevertheless, It is dispensational to suggest salvation was by, and worked through, other means in the OT. So, I want to avoid that. Moreover, it seems regeneration and justification are tied exclusively to the Spirit's indwelling.

Your suggestion that the Spirit could achieve regeneration/ justification without indwelling is interesting. It would solve the issue neatly but I'm not sure there is scriptural warrant for the claim as regeneration is tied so closely to indwelling. That would fit in with my proposed sanctification argument but how can the spirit regenerate and bring perseverance without indwelling?

Alan: 

Before dispensationalism 'proper' theologians and commentators often spoke of dispensations, but dividing history into just two as per the covenants, rather than the fanciful however-many there are in "Schofieldism." We shouldn't avoiding a good solution because a study Bible abused it should we?

Could another angle help crystallise thought here? To be saved, under either covenant, is only a matter of positionally being in it. In the New Covenant that is achieved by the Spirit. I know we will baulk against the suggestion, but wasn't it actually by means of obedience in the Old Covenant? Ah... as I write that I realise the uniting factor is faith. If the uniting factor as Scripture states it is faith, could we accept that regeneration was not actually part of the Old Covenant, where justification is?

If regeneration can't be separated from indwelling, and indwelling was categorically not OC, regeneration not being OC seems to follow. On first thoughts I'm happy with that, being another wonderful benefit of the New Covenant achieved in Jesus. You may have already spelt it out and I've forgotten between sermons, but what's the problem with that?

Me:

I agree - we shouldn't throw out the good because we baulk at the term. However, I'm trying to avoid suggesting salvation was by another means under the old covenant (it wasn't, it was always by faith, and it simply is dispensational to say otherwise).

Where I see an issue with your proposal boils down to total depravity. How can someone ever be saved without a working of the spirit beforehand? We usually call that working 'regeneration'. On your view, justification is reached without regeneration in the OT. That seems to speak against Paul.

So, the question remains: how is one regenerate ie saved without the indwelling of the spirit? Evidently many OT were justified but, if justification necessarily requires regeneration and repentance, how is this possible without the indwelling work of the spirit? 

Mark:

I don't know if any of these thoughts can help but... there are two extremes to avoid: flattening out the distinction between the OT & NT, and creating such a distinction that we fall into dispensationalism. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the two covenantal periods. Mistakes come when we either emphasize the continuity or discontinuity. May I suggest that it might not be entirely helpful to think of the coming of the Spirit as a matter of space-time travel. Clearly, prior to Pentecost, the Spirit was already present. On a basic level, the Spirit, as God, is omnipresent. In a particular sense, the Spirit was present in the Messiah, who had the Spirit without measure. Added to this, John 20:22 records Jesus breathing on his disciples and saying receive the Holy Spirit. This act takes place prior to Jesus' promise in Acts that the disciples should wait in Jerusalem to receive the Spirit. This is clearly not a matter of presence as opposed to absence, lest we rob the Spirit of his deity or ongoing work. It is not that the Spirit was present in heaven and absent on earth prior to Pentecost, yet present on earth and absent in heaven subsequent to Pentecost. Flattening out this 'coming' of the Spirit into a mere space-time travel is an error of catagory tantamount to asking 'what colour is the Holy Spirit?' or 'how much does he weigh?' Rather, the coming must be seen in terms of his work and the capacity of that work. The prophesies of Joel fulfilled at Pentecost were not of a Spirit who had previously been inactive, but of an unprecedented work of the Spirit. The unprecedented work spoken of is not that of regeneration, hence we need not view the OT believers as being absent from the regenerative work. It is helpful, I believe, to view the coming of Christ to see how these 'comings' are utilized in Scripture. Christ is omnipresent, yet the eternal Son of God did come in the incarnation in fresh capacity for the work of salvation. Following the ascension, Christ remained omnipresent as to his deity, yet believers may still speak of Christ's presence with them in public gatherings of the body of Christ. Yet we still await the 'coming' of Christ for the work of consummation. All of these comings are not merely space-time arrivals viewed in contrast to previous absences, but in terms of capacity and work.

Me:

Thanks for your input, some very helpful thoughts.

I certainly agree with you regarding the ongoing presence of the Spirit. Clearly, the Spirit was 'present' in some sense prior to his giving. I was certainly not suggesting the Spirit was somehow inactive and not present prior to Christ's ascension. What I was suggesting was that the Spirit did not dwell in the hearts of believers prior to this. The question then concerns regeneration: how is regeneration possible without such indwelling (not specifically related to his presence altogether)?

I think I disagree with your view of Christ's current omnipresence. Christ's ongoing presence with us is explained through his giving of the Spirit and is tied intricately to the nature of trinity. Indeed, Christ is with us to the end of the age by his Spirit - he is not bodily with us! Christ is currently bodily in Heaven acting as an advocate for us with the Father. The claim to Christ's presence in the gathering of believers, in my view, is rather a red herring because that specifically relates to church discipline. It actually makes clear when church discipline is meted out correctly, just as Christ has given authority to the church and guides them by his Spirit, it is as though such discipline has been enacted by Christ himself. I see no reason from the text to go beyond this application and some reason elsewhere to argue that such a claim would be false if explained apart from the presence of the Spirit. This is not really a reference to his actual, bodily presence. It would be my contention that Christ is omnipresent by the nature of the trinity. He himself is currently resident in Heaven, with the Father, in a resurrection body.

So, clearly you are right to point out the fact the Spirit was present and active prior to his giving. Certainly, Jesus had the Spirit by virtue of the trinity. Jesus giving of the Spirit to the disciples came post-resurrection. The statement in John 20 seems to be an act of Jesus as a pledge of the Holy Spirit to come, not the point specifically at which they received the Holy Spirit (otherwise Thomas is left out). Clearly, just as Acts details the extending out of the gospel in salvation-history, it began with Jesus' giving of the Spirit to the disciples at pentecost and, over time, the extension to larger and wider people groups. Again, the giving of the Spirit strikes me as the first step in the indwelling of the Spirit as part of the account of the extension of the gospel in salvation-history starting with the disciples. So, I'm not sure this really sheds light on the question at hand (this is merely the first time the Spirit is given).


So, this leads me back to the question. How were OT believers (and those whom were with Christ) regenerate without the Spirit's indwelling? That is not to say the Spirit was inactive and unmoving but how was regeneration, repentance and justification worked without such indwelling? If we want to argue that the Spirit did these things prior to the inauguration of the new covenant (which we may well be correct), we must explain the difference in what Jesus says about the Spirit's coming. Why is it better that he goes away if the Spirit already regenerates, justifies and sanctifies? Is not Jesus making a purely artificial and pointless distinction if that is the case?

Alan:

Well, I might have missed the morning this morning...I can't think of any books I'd have that would be specifically on this subject, though commentaries of the key passages might help.

In the systematic theologies I've got there's not so much help, Grudem and Reymond don't seem to say much at all about the issue, though Grudem's citing of the new heart in Ezekiel 36 may suggest a more dispensational than unity-focussed approach.

Bavinck seems to head that way from what I can tell. Page 47 of the 4th volume of Reformed Dogmatics highlights the impossibility of human input to regeneration, the requirement for it in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Psalm 51, etc, and the promise of God's working through the Spirit in the New Covenant. He then shows how John the Baptist and Jesus spoke of this need for internal renewal, but he doesn't seem to say much about how that worked, or acknowledge the development.He sums up the section (page 52) saying how the presentation was different but the OT and NT both point to the same reality, but he seems to leave it as an expectation as far as OT believers are concerned and doesn't attack the question you're asking.

Culver seems the brightest hope of the Sytematic Theologies I've checked so far. (On page 692-3) He begins by focussing on the presence of the theme in OT history, among the patriarchs, as an underlying theme in Deuteronomy for the generation who had seen their parents perish though redeemed from Egypt. He comments a little on the question of when Jacob was converted, and then says, "it does seem clear, however, that spiritually the sons of Jacob scarcely rose above a coarse level of moral and spiritual outlook. The records of the time do not say anything specific about a persona level of fellowship with God." Deut 30:6 seems to be a promise of regeneration by the hand of the Lord, but more immediate than a Messianic promise. He then says, "in any case the story of Old Testament Israel describes many sincere people who approached the ideal of the circumcised heart," and that "these evidences - and much more - demonstrate that whether called regeneration or not, there were some, even innumerable multitudes, who were 'born again' before Jesus uttered the memorable words of John 3." His treatment of OT prophecy does the same as Bavinck and others, showing that there was something coming of a different order, or a different magnitude at least.

Unfortunately they all seem to brief to really tackle the question, but they confirm the frame some more! There must be a change with the coming of the New Covenant, something that was not present before. But there is also continuity with OT believers being saved through faith, and evidence of spiritual rebirth present in OT characters.

One thing I think we can say is that clarity came with the New Covenant, and what before was a difficult thing to define or even detect is now something that has been revealed and is known by all. Maybe from that we can say that the Spirit's work under the OC was difficult to detect (as in John 3, not knowing where the wind/spirit blows), whereas now the Spirit has been given to permanently indwell us. And so the Spirit was active before, regenerating (but in some somehow lesser sense?), perhaps even indwelling, but now the work is known and appreciated to a far, far greater degree. (I've got a half dozen more I could check, but from the four so far I don't get the feeling it'll be worth the effort! I'll hopefully be in WEST for a couple of days this week, I could see if there's anything on it there.)

Me:

Yes, i checked out Grudem, Berkhof and Milne on this, none of whom really give a satisfactory answer (mainly because they don't deal with the specific problem). I'll keep looking.

Clearly, salvation is, and always was, by faith. The question is how did that faith come to be when the Spirit had not yet dwelt in the hearts of those who believe?

I think the on/in distinction between OT and NT may be significant i.e. the Spirit was 'on' individuals in the OT but was not yet 'in' them. That would potentially accord with your view that regeneration could occur without indwelling and would allow for the view that regeneration occurred whilst the Spirit was 'on' an individual whilst ongoing sanctification only occurred once the Spirit dwelt 'in' believers. Thus, for OT believers, sanctification/glorification were effectively simultaneous whereas for us they are not. The issue with this is whether the biblical data really bears the view out

Alan:

I think it has to be something like that, and I think on/in sounds like a very good way to approach it. Sanctification as a benefit of the NC certainly seems to fit with the prophetic passages that speak of the people then knowing God's word and being able to keep it in contrast with the repeatedly failing OT nation, though perhaps it isn't entirely ruled out of the OC 'on stage.'

Mark:

Steve, I realize I did not answer the question. However, I tried to present something that might help with the reasoning process. It seems the logic goes this way: the Spirit came at Pentecost/in the New Covenant, therefore prior to the 'coming' he must have been absent in some way. I realize that you would not present a position where the Spirit had been previously inactive, yet the activity of the Spirit prior to Pentecost does demonstrate the that the 'coming' does not preclude a continuity between the Spirit's work in NT believers and OT believers (though a discontinuity remains). The question is whether or not the regeneration and indwelling of believers belongs to the continuity or the discontinuity. Paul's discussions in Romans seem to indicate that the means of salvation belongs to continuity despite the discussions in Hebrews that demonstrate the 'shadow-like' nature of the revelation of that salvation to OT believers. I would caution against renouncing Christ's omnipresence in the present age, as omnipresence belongs to the divine nature. The early church fought a long battle against those who claimed Christ lost elements of the divine nature. As you pointed out, the 'special presence' of Christ with his people is 'by the Spirit', yet this is differentiated from omnipresence. However, we are free to use the Biblical language (whilst understanding the underlying systematics). The Biblical language provided in the upper room ministery is that the Father and Son make their home with the believer. Whilst realizing the role of the Spirit in this, the Biblical language is not inadequate to describe this. Have you read Wright on the Spirit in the OT. I haven't read it all, though I seem to remember he addresses the issue.

One thing I've always found helpful with the ordo salutis is that it is not so much a chronological order, as it is a logical order. The logic is driven, in part, by total depravity. If man is radically incapable of pleasing God, then regeneration must logically precede repentance and faith (as you know). As total depravity is traced by Paul to Adam in Romans, the ordo salutis cannot be limited to the NT period, lest we restrict total depravity. Likewise, Paul's 'golden chain of redemption in Romans 8 makes this process an eternal one.

Me:

Let me just deal with easier, side-issue. I am not denying Christ's divine nature nor am I intending to claim he somehow 'lost' his omnipresence. I am arguing, since he is eternally the God-man, his divine nature is now forever linked to his human nature. Thus, whilst Christ's divine attributes are possessed alongside his human attributes, they are not always expressed. As Bruce Ware puts it, "he accepted finite limitations to the full expression of his infinite divine qualities, while he also possessed those divine qualities in their infinite fullness". Given that Jesus continues to live as a man, this means that his omnipresence - just as when he was on Earth - has not ceased to exist. Nevertheless, He possesses omnipresence whilst, as a man, not fully expressing it. Therefore, his presence with us now is better explained by the nature of the trinity rather than by reference to omnipresence.

The harder issue is the one at hand. Clearly, we agree the Spirit worked and was active during OT and NT periods. You state:

"the activity of the Spirit prior to Pentecost does demonstrate the that the 'coming' does not preclude a continuity between the Spirit's work in NT believers and OT believers (though a discontinuity remains). The question is whether or not the regeneration and indwelling of believers belongs to the continuity or the discontinuity. Paul's discussions in Romans seem to indicate that the means of salvation belongs to continuity despite the discussions in Hebrews that demonstrate the 'shadow-like' nature of the revelation of that salvation to OT believers."

I would venture that Ezekiel's comments in 36:24-28 rather rule out your suggestion that indwelling can occur without the 'coming' of the Spirit. It is quite clear Ezekiel sees a time (future) when God will put his Spirit into the hearts of his people. That suggests such an indwelling of the Spirit had yet to occur and the result of this indwelling looks remarkably close to what we might call the ongoing work of sanctification. I see no way around that on your view (unless we want to argue Ezekiel was making a totally arbitrary point where there is no real distinction).

I agree with you, that the ordo salutis is both logical and driven (in part) by total depravity. I also agree regeneration must logically precede repentance and this cannot be anything other than a working of the Spirit. If we tie indwelling and regeneration tightly together (and I see why we would do this), this is rather where the conundrum arises for, unless we make a nonsense of Ezekiel, we must argue there was an indwelling of the Spirit where Ezekiel makes clear there was none.

This is what makes the on/in distinction between OT and NT quite attractive. If it is possible (and this is a big IF) for the Spirit to regenerate without indwelling e.g. the Spirit regenerates a believer whilst 'on' them without being 'in' them, then we have grounds for saying Ezekiel was really talking of the new covenant in which we are given God's Spirit whilst also maintaining regeneration as a work of the Spirit in both OT and NT. The potential resulting difference in these two states, to which Ezekiel seems to allude, is that the indwelling Spirit allows us to keep God's commandments (i.e. there is a process of sanctification) whereas with the Spirit 'on' a believer, sanctification and glorification may be simultaneous.

Now, that seems to be a compelling position but I am not yet wholly convinced this is borne out in the biblical data. It is certainly attractive but my concern is whether it is correct

* Two further comments were written under the original article (accessible here) following this discussion. I reproduce them here for completeness:

Sarah:

I think the distinction is between the spirit being given for particular people at particular times for a particular purpose in the old testament - eg. Bezalel, gideon, samson list goes on 'spirit was on them' and as you rightly point out God's desire to pour out his spirit on all people (Joel) and put a new heart within them (Ezekiel). This outpouring very clearly begins on the day of Pentecost and is very clearly distinct from all that has gone before - i think before only a few good experience the in filling of Gods presence and power, and maybe even then it was in a different way. I don't think its about how you experience salvation. Clearly people could identify Jesus as messiah and believe in him before the day of Pentecost, and in acts we see believers who then receive the holy spirit. Your question was primarily about salvation but i think its coming down to whether there is a distinction between God's ability to influence hearts and minds (by his spirit) and God's desire to create people experiencing the presence of his spirit drenching them as a separate thing. Peter sees that Jesus is the Christ and Jesus says that is because his father in heaven has revealed it to him, the Peter who then has a dramatic encounter with Gods spirit on the day of Pentecost is then a separate issue not just restricted to the question of salvation. In the OT they achieve their salvation through faith, though they do not know the means, and it is credited to them, but they do not get to know the Holy Spirit the way we do. And perhaps if that is not clear in many churches, if it looks just like knowing God in the old testament, maybe that is because the teaching on the Holy Spirit isn't in line with what God has done.

Me:

Thanks for your comments. Certainly some helpful things in there.

I think we must be careful about suggesting “the distinction is between the spirit being given for particular people at particular times for a particular purpose in the old testament”. This is the very Dispensationalism we are trying to avoid!

Scripture is clear that salvation was (a) always by faith and, (b) never limited to the Jews alone. Paul says “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom 9:7f) and the OT is replete with non-Jews coming to faith (Rahab, Ruth, Nebuchadnezzar, Naaman, etc). In the case of Nebuchadnezzar specifically, here we have a nation used as a judgment against the Jews becoming a light to other nations at a time when Israel were spiritually nowhere. So, faith was always themeans of salvation and this always extended beyond a “particular people”.

You seem to be emphasising the manifestations of the Spirit and bring Joel to boot in your comment. On this, you are right that Pentecost marks the first point in salvation-history where Joel’s prophecy takes hold. However, I specifically didn’t refer to Joel because he is dealing with an altogether different issue that is not really pertinent to the question (though not entirely unrelated). 

Ezekiel, on the other hand, envisages a time at which God’s Spirit will be placed into the hearts of believers, the fruit of which is an ability to keep God’s law as we ought. Unless Ezekiel is wrong, or making an arbitrary distinction, this must mean that God’s Spirit was not in the hearts of believers (at the time of writing) and they were not able to keep God’s law as they ought. This seems to be directly related to the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

Paul makes clear that saving faith is the result of the regenerating work of the Spirit in our hearts. So, the question follows, how were believers previously saved if the Spirit did not dwell in their hearts? It may appear either Ezekiel is wrong (the Spirit already dwelt in hearts despite his statement to the contrary) or, Paul is wrong (the regenerating work of the Spirit is not always necessary for salvation (cf. Rom 8:9ff). Of course, the truth is there must be some answer that unifies both...

...I think the on/in distinction between covenants is significant and Paul’s comment could easily apply to the Spirit ‘on’ those in the OT just as it applies to the Spirit ‘in’ those in the NT. The distinguishing feature between the on/in would appear to be (a) the ongoing process of sanctification prior to glorification (Rom 8:26) and; (b) the inner testifying witness of the Spirit (cf. Rom 5:5; 8:16) both of which accord with Ezekiel’s view of the differences between these two covenantal states.