What Labour Party divisions can teach church denominations

Yesterday, The Guardian reported that over 50 Labour MPs plan to defy Jeremy Corbyn's stance on a British military intervention in Syria. The Labour leader has made no secret of his opposition to a bombing campaign. Corbyn's supporters, such as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, have gone on record backing his stance. They too reject a bombing campaign, with Abbott in particular vociferous in her criticism of those who plan to defy the party leader. What is abundantly clear is that not all those who belong to the Labour Party reside within the same political camp as their current head.

The parallels with the Church are striking. For not all those who associate with the Church belong in the same camp as its head. Both Jesus (cf. Mt 7:21-23) and Peter (cf. 2 Pet 2:1-3) make this clear enough. Jesus tells us that we will recognise those who are his by the fruit expressed in their lives (Mt 7:15-20). Elsewhere, the fruit that Jesus expects is clear enough: "if you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The one who is the head of the church expects those who really belong to the church to actually keep his commands.

Hand wringing by centrist MPs over whether to remain in the Labour Party are reminiscent of various internal denominational battles between theologically conservative and liberal wings. Significant internal differences within the denominations have been dealt with in a variety of ways; from the perennial splits upon splits within Presbyterianism to the staunch refusal to leave the Church of England despite fundamental, insurmountable differences between those who purport to have communion. Other denominations have worked such things through in a plethora of different ways, from complete isolationism to an emphasis on non-denominational gospel partnerships.

Until the Labour Party can form a direction around which the MPs will unite, it will continue to face these same problems over and again. Likewise, though a wholly pure church is the world of fantasy, churches would do well to heed the lessons being played out in Labour Party politics. Denominations, gospel partnerships and associations can only press forward when those seeking to work together are united in purpose and agree on certain core beliefs and values. Without such agreement, partnerships and denominations will forever find themselves unable to move forward. Jesus said something like that (cf. Mark 3:24f).

O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!

Freedom and liberty, the clarion calls of those who typically abuse the very things they claim to defend. The news is awash with yet another American mass shooting. President Obama makes his 15th statement about shootings since he took office. He once again makes a plea for tighter gun controls. The usual suspects reply with their standard cry. In the name of freedom, people continue to be killed all the day long.

It is a gross act of sin to use the cause of freedom to persist with a situation that continuously and repeatedly leads to death. Just as the those on the right would (rightly) have no truck with arguments that rely on freedom to continue the systematic destruction of children in utero, the call for tighter gun controls are no less unimpressed with arguments from freedom while people are being repeatedly killed. While human beings are dying, using freedom and liberty as the basis for letting it continue is nothing short of iniquitous.

This side of the pond, where we have never quite had the same national obsession with personal armaments, may seem easy. The Dunblane massacre in 1996 was the impetus to introduce two firearms Acts which effectively banned the private ownership of handguns. However, even prior to the mid-90s, it was not exactly the norm to own a gun. Nevertheless, this same approach to freedom exists as much here as it does in the US. Our approach to abortion rights is often based on this same spurious reasoning and our recent national debate on the 'right to die' also leaned heavily on such arguments. Though it may not be gun control, we are not immune from the questionable application of freedom despite the obvious, dangerous and highly troubling effects on the people.

As Christians, we don't always stand apart from this specious reasoning either. Yes, we may oppose abortion and euthanasia, we may be pro-gun controls, yet this same tendency can exist in Christian circles too. It is called antinomianism. There can be an insistence upon freedom despite the fact that, in the name of the freedom we proclaim, people are lost. In the name of freedom in Christ, gross acts of sin are justified because "we're free". Freedom once again becomes a call from those who, frankly, want to abuse the freedom that is theirs in Christ. By abusing freedom this way, many who think they are safe remain lost in their sin. Christ did not win our freedom so that we may carry on as before. Our freedom in Christ is not a freedom to ignore his commands and continue in our sin. We have been freed from sin in Christ. To carry on sinning, and to use this hard won freedom as the basis to do so, is the most offensive way to treat Jesus. 

Freedom is a most important civil liberty that must be defended. It is a most important Christian concept that must be defended theologically. However, using freedom as a basis to defend/reject law that was intended to protect the individual, is nothing short of perverse. It doesn't matter whether we are talking civil liberty or Christian liberty, freedom is not there to the detriment of the life of the people. Anyone arguing otherwise has neither stared down the barrel of a gun nor come to terms with the doctrine of Hell.

The first female bishop is the Anglican's AV referendum. The second may cause further issues

Having only just appointed the first, the CofE have now appointed a second female bishop. The Guardian report Rev Canon Alison White will accept a bishopric in the see of Hull. The announcement comes shortly after the first female bishop, Rev Libby Lane, was appointed as bishop of Stockport. Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, called it a "joyous day" and hailed the move as "fantastic".

Rt Rev Lane has already come under fire from some liberal quarters for not being quite liberal enough. Given that Conservative Evangelicals and High Church traditionalists were never going to wear the appointment, regardless of the theological inclinations of the appointee, it seems an ill-conceived move to appoint a woman who wasn't a thoroughgoing liberal. 

The group for whom this appointment was most welcome, and long overdue, is the more liberal wing of the church. To then appoint a mildly conservative, or even middle-of-the-road, candidate has caused the most receptive group to have their noses put out of joint because the appointment is not sufficiently liberal for them. This seems to be an exercise in shooting one's church body in the foot. Nobody, neither opponent nor proponent, got what they were seeking. This is the CofE's very own AV referendum; an attempt at progress which neither liberals nor conservatives actually want. As attempts at politically progressive acts that seek to uphold some semblance of unity go, this seems to be a total dog's breakfast.

No doubt, once again, we will be entreated to the next round of Conservative Evangelical hand-wringing. The lines will be drawn ("here I stand..." and all that), they will once again be breached, new lines will be drawn ("Here we really stand...") and they will be pushed. Inevitably, the current protection for Evangelical complementarians to reject the headship of a female bishop will be the next battleground.

In years past, I had little sympathy for Evangelicals that wished to remain within the bounds of the Anglican communion. My feeling was that the issue was quite simple: the church had departed from the gospel and the Evangelicals could either choose to remain in fellowship with non-gospel churches or remove themselves and join with like-minded gospel churches. In many respects, that choice remains the same.

However, the matter is wildly more complicated now. In the past, Evangelicals could have left over the denigration of the gospel. Having chosen not to do that, many are now faced with leaving over important, but secondary, external matters such as complementarianism and gay marriage. What the world would have seen as an exodus over gospel issues - a watering down of theology and an inability to have meaningful fellowship with churches that eschew basic gospel truth - will now simply be seen as a hissy fit by misogynists and homophobes who couldn't get their own way. Cries of "but this is a gospel issue" will be lost on those who see only years of increasingly errant doctrine, denounced as dreadful at the time but nonetheless tolerated to the point of remaining in fellowship, while the inclusion of women and homosexuals is the prima facie cause of schism.

Whilst we in the Free Churches may look on and wonder why such lines were not drawn decades ago, the CofE is where it is. The question has now become eminently more complex. Do Evangelicals remain in a church broader than the Norfolk waterways and risk increasing compromise or do they leave for the sanctuary of independency and risk a misconstruction of the basic issues? 

I have to say it is not a choice I envy. But one feels the "it's a gospel issue" boat sailed some while ago. One way or the other, there are choppy waters ahead.

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.

3 doctrines to which we assent in word but not always in practice

There are several key doctrines to which confessional evangelical churches subscribe and to which the entirety of the membership assent upon joining the church. Yet, very often, though the membership claim assent to what is written in the doctrinal basis/statement of faith, it is apparent many do not in practice really believe such things. Here are three doctrines to which we often assent but in practice do not always hold:

The sufficiency of scripture
Most evangelical church members would confess a high view of scripture and have no problem assenting to it as the final authority in matters of faith and practice. Yet, it seems to be one of those doctrines that is most commonly ignored in practice. It never ceases to amaze me when people sign up to such a doctrine in a statement of faith but fail to seek to conform their church practice, or more commonly, their own lives to scriptural principles.

I have had more than few conversations with people, over many years, who claim assent to this doctrine. Yet when it comes to matters of church practice or personal holiness, the Bible suddenly becomes subservient to whatever they happen to feel is right or what their reason tells them is appropriate. In either case, scripture is not the final authority in matters of faith and practice, one's logic or feelings on a matter become the arbiter of right and wrong. 

I was staggered when I first had a conversation with somebody about a matter of personal sin. They agreed with my interpretation of scripture; that what it said was precisely what it meant. It was equally obvious that interpretation didn't tally with their ongoing choice of action. Nevertheless, they were going to continue in their sin nonetheless because they felt it was OK - they had peace about it. That sort of action is not submitting to scripture as one's final authority in matters of faith and practice.

The work of the Holy Spirit
There is obviously some debate about the nature and extent of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not my intention here to rehash all those arguments or even make a case for any particular view. It is not the issue of gifts and the empowerment of the Spirit for service and mission that is in view here.

Rather, on pretty much all evangelical views of the Holy Spirit - irrespective of the scope and nature of all his work - most agree that one aspect of the Spirit's work is proper understanding of scripture, conviction of sin and regeneration of true believers. This is a standard article of faith in most confessional evangelical churches. Most members are happy to assent to this position.

However, in concert with the non-practice of the sufficiency of scripture, the Holy Spirit - far from giving proper understanding of the Bible - is often reduced to a feeling which simultaneously manages to contradict scripture. The Spirit becomes a tool, not for the conviction of sin, but to press the particular desires the individual claiming the Spirit's guidance happens to hold already. The Spirit unerringly agrees with the predisposition of the person claiming his guidance, irrespective of whether it contradicts scripture or not (which the individual usually agrees was written under the inspiration of the same Spirit they now claim contradicts portions of God's word). When we don't accept the sufficiency of scripture, the work of the Spirit normally extends to guiding us in all sorts of ways that readily contradict God's word.

The doctrine of the Church
Most are happy to assent to the concept of the universal church made up of all true believers. The outworking of this for personal practice has very few implications. Members will also assent to the idea of the universal church being expressed in the local church. They will even go further and assent to local church being - as the FIEC statement of faith puts it - "congregations of believers who are committed to each other for the worship of God, the preaching of the Word, the administering of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for pastoral care and discipline, and for evangelism."

Yet, in practice, many members are dumbfounded when the church is not keen to admit to membership those who actively refuse to commit in any meaningful way to the local body. Likewise, it is often not well received when an individual is refused membership for ignoring scriptural commands. They are similarly perturbed when the church enacts biblical discipline against members in unrepentant sin.

I was amazed when I first heard somebody insist a church at which I was a member must admit an individual who gave no credible testimony and refused to follow basic scriptural criteria (despite agreeing scripture demanded them) on the basis "their heart is right". There was no concern for the heart of the individual to follow scripture nor for the individual to give a clear testimony of how they came into a relationship with Christ. On another occasion, I recall an individual seeking membership despite stating outright they didn't always fancy coming to church, attending Sunday or midweek meetings and often didn't really want to spend time with other believers in the church. They were flabbergasted - despite assenting to the view of local church above - this view didn't really fit.

God, Utilitarianism & Deontological Ethics

I have been struck by two interesting (almost certainly not original) thoughts. The first is clear and obvious: God's law exists for our benefit. Though it shows how sinful we are, when we receive his Spirit we are capable of keeping it with the Spirit's help. As such, our actions can be deemed good or bad according to whether we are living in line with his divine decrees. In essence, God calls us to live under a framework of deontological ethics.

According to Kantian deontological ethics, consequences do not determine whether an action is morally good. Rather, good actions are determined by individual motives which are borne out of adherence to universal morals. For Kant, a good will and right motive determines whether an action is good, not the consequences of the action itself. In simple terms, Kant argues for a model of personal integrity. He says individuals should only act (1) according to laws they wish to be universal and (2) treating humanity as an end, not merely a means. This is a remarkably similar statement to Jesus' "Golden Rule" in Luke 6:31 and his comments in Matthew 22:39. It is little wonder then that many deontological ethicists are moral absolutists and often hold to Divine Command Theory.

That God's word calls us to personal integrity, based upon the moral law (summarised in the 10 Commandments), is clear enough. The Penal Substitution model of atonement encourages a guilt-righteousness worldview. All are personally guilty of breaking God's moral law - and thus liable to judgment - and are only counted personally righteous once found in Christ. On this view, our guilt is determined by our ability to keep God's moral law. Our actions are only morally good when motivated by a desire to keep God's law and when we positively manage to do so.

The second thought, in contrast to the first, is that God (in a sense) is the ultimate utilitarian. If Divine Command Theory is to be believed, an action is only morally right when God decrees it morally right. But this means God cannot himself be held to a Kantian ethical model because he is not governed by any external moral law. His motives cannot be judged according to a set rule because he sets the rules. Though his law flows from his divine character, God's goodness is not determined by adherence to a prescribed list of rules. Rather, his goodness is essential to his nature thus he cannot be deemed good according to Kantian ethics.

If we dispense with the Benthamite terminology of 'the greatest happiness principle', it is possible to see that God works for the greatest ultimate good of mankind (a fundamentally utilitarian view). God's greatest desire is that all men everywhere be saved. On both the Calvinist and Molinist views, God has ordered the world such that the greatest possible number of people will freely choose to turn to him. Both the Calvinist and Molinist views differ on the mechanics and order of how he does that, and more fundamentally over the nature of what constitutes freedom, but they do both agree God orders events to win the greatest number freely to himself (1). In essence, God seeks to implement the greatest possible amount of good by his activity in the world.

It is also clear from scripture that God orders the events of the world to work out his greater plan. He orchestrates good and restrains evil to achieve his purposes. He permits - without being the author of - sin and wrongdoing where such will serve his ultimate glory. Plenty of examples can cited from scripture, such as the story of Joseph or the roles of Daniel or Esther during periods of judgment for Israel/Judah, but is seen most clearly through Jesus Christ's death on the cross. A gross act of sin and injustice on the part of those who tried and crucified him. Yet, this was an act of sin permitted by God and determined before the foundation of the world, to achieve his greater salvific purposes. God ordered the act, without being the author of the sin, to achieve his good ends.

So why does God, who appears to be the ultimate utilitarian, demand that those who trust him follow a deontological system of ethics? It is specifically because God is the ultimate utilitarian that deontological ethics are necessary for his followers. Because God is omniscient - holding knowledge not only of all actual events but also of all possible events - he can see how each universal event, from the greatest to the smallest, can work for ultimate good. Further, because God is God, he alone can determine, without interpretative fallibility, those actions that can truly be deemed good and those which are objectively bad. 

As mere human beings, our subjective attempts to determine ultimate good are liable to fail as we cannot see the bigger picture and only know good from bad as a result of God's divine command and general revelation. God requires a deontological ethic of his followers because we cannot truly determine utilitarian principles. God is the ultimate utilitarian because he is the only one in any position to determine the greatest possible good. Our subjective attempts to figure that out will fail because we cannot see the bigger picture and have no knowledge of future possible events (and subsequent consequences). God, on the other hand, is perfectly capable of this and in his sovereign goodness divinely decrees those good actions that will work for the greatest possible good. In such circumstances as individuals fail to obey his divine decrees, it is only because God has permitted their disobedience to bring about an even greater good as part of his ultimate plan of redemption in Christ.

Utilitarianism fails at a human level. We cannot possibly know what actions will bring about the greatest good. The only one who can truly know this is God himself. He gives us divine commands and orders the world so the greatest possible good may come about. He calls us to live under a deontological framework of ethics because to do anything else would result in sub-optimal goodness. 

In layman's terms: if we're charged with bringing about the best of all possible worlds, we'd make a right hash of it. God gives us good commands because he knows (a) what is ultimately good and (b) what direction we need in order to attain it.
Notes

1. For a more full discussion of these issues see here, here and here. For further reading see William Lane Craig's book The Only Wise God, Bruce Ware's God's Greater Glory and John Frame's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God

Steve Chalke, Evangelical Alliance & why Cranmer is wrong about a new schism

Yesterday, the Archbishop Cranmer blog commented on the expulsion of the Oasis Trust from the Evangelical Alliance (EA). EA have released a statement regarding the issue. Oasis have responded in kind.

His Grace is quick to note that "The EA do not expel members who support abortion; nor do they sever links with those who marry divorcees or accept pre-marital sexual relations as a forerunner of marriage. They do not even expel a member for repudiation of the foundational Evangelical doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which the Rev'd Steve Chalke terms "cosmic child abuse", as though God casually murdered His Son for the salvation of the world, and penal substitution is barbaric and utterly morally indefensible."

It is this that causes him to argue we now see a new schism in Evangelicalism. He states "And so we now have (another) schism - Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals, who welcome fornicators, adulterers and abortionists, and Liberal (or 'Accepting') Evangelicals, who welcome all of the above plus gays and lesbians." 

Worse still, claims Cranmer, the EA are themeselves guilty of this error. He argues removal of Oasis Trust from the EA is hypocritical since Gavin Shuker MP sits on their Council of Reference and has voted consistently in favour of gay marriage. This, says Cranmer, is hypocrisy and should see Gavin Shuker MP removed from the Council of Reference.

On two fronts, I believe His Grace has gotten this one wrong.

Firstly, in respect to Gavin Shuker MP, it is entirely possible to uphold the traditional Christian positions on marriage and homosexuality whilst allowing for a recognition of same-sex partnership in law. As Tim Keller has noted: "you can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal. Those are not the same issues. They overlap" (1). I have commented similarly here, here, here and here.

Now, I have absolutely no idea about the specific position of Gavin Shuker on marriage and homosexuality. But, it is entirely possible he holds a view not dissimilar to the Anabaptist position outlined by Keller. Unless Mr Shuker openly and repeatedly espouses a view that homosexuality is not sinful, his voting in favour of Gay Marriage is not reason to expel him from the EA Council per se. 

Neither does this represent any hypocrisy on the part of EA. As Cranmer himself notes, "the Evangelical Alliance has excommunicated the Oasis Trust simply because its founder has stated (time and again) his support for committed monogamous same-sex relationships". Unless he has repeatedly made similar comments in the public square, the EA are perfectly entitled to "excommunicate" Steve Chalke whilst retaining the counsel of Gavin Shuker. Should His Grace produce evidence that Mr Shuker has stated monogamous homosexual relationships are blessed by God and do not represent any form of sin, his argument may stand. In lieu of this, we cannot say the EA have erred on this issue.

On the matter of a supposed Evangelical schism, His Grace argues "we now have (another) schism - Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals, who welcome fornicators, adulterers and abortionists, and Liberal (or 'Accepting') Evangelicals, who welcome all of the above plus gays and lesbians." Evidently, this is a false classification of the two sides.

Though the EA may defend the traditional position on homosexuality, they fail to defend orthodox views on abortion, penal substitution and a range of other issues. For this reason, most Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals in the UK would describe the EA as outside the 'Conservative' or 'Traditional' camp. Given, as His Grace rightly notes, the differences between EA and Oasis Trust seem based on homosexuality alone (rather than the more heinous theological errors for which they should have withdrawn fellowship long ago), one struggles to see how they sit on different sides of a schism.

Surely, if schism exists within Evangelicalism, it is between those who uphold traditional, Conservative theological positions and those who do not. Clearly it is possible to hold to traditional, Conservative theology whilst not seeking such implementation in law. Yet, schism does not exist between those who accept legal recognition of certain positions and those who do not. Rather, it is between those who argue that scripture itself permits and blesses those things which are clearly sinful which we may, or may not, choose to legally permit. That being the case, despite his expulsion from the network, Steve Chalke and the EA seem to sit on the same side of the divide. 

That EA have said "thus far and no further" does not alter the fact that the lengths to which they were willing to go before expelling Steve Chalke well and truly write them out of ever being credibly labelled 'Conservative' or 'traditional'. Compare Spurgeon with the Baptist Union or Lloyd-Jones with the Evangelical Alliance itself. If you want to see real schism within Evangelicalism, they occurred long before the EA kicked Steve Chalke out of membership. If the lines drawn by Lloyd-Jones still hold (and I think they probably do), EA and Steve Chalke - despite their recent separation - still remain part of the same camp.

Notes

1. Keller has specifically clarified this statement. He says "In explaining the Anabaptist tradition, I was quoted saying, "You can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal." I did say that—but it was purely a statement of fact. It is possible to hold that position, though it isn't my position, nor was I promoting or endorsing the position. I was simply reporting on the growth of that view."

The nature of the cross and why Good Friday is still good

In an article I read recently, it was pointed out - via the questions surrounding when Christian was saved in Pilgrim's Progress - that we are not saved by the cross. Having outlined his position on when and where Christian was saved (at the wicket gate, if you are interested), the author states:

“Are you saying that someone can be saved without the cross?” a concerned student asks.

“No,” I answer, “No one can be saved apart from what Jesus accomplished on the cross, but the Bible proclaims that a person gets saved when he receives Christ, and the Bible does not say that a person gets saved through believing that Jesus died for him. Christ himself is the proper object of saving faith, not some part of his work.”

The author rightly goes on to say: 

virtually everyone has been told that if he will believe that Jesus died for him, he will be saved, but I repeat: this is not found in the Bible. A person is saved not when he believes in right doctrine (substitutionary, penal atonement, in this case) but a person is saved when he believes in the right person, namely Christ. So the object of saving faith is not a doctrine but a person. Christ himself is the treasure chest of salvation. Receive him, and you receive all that is in him.

The article correctly notes that penal substitution is a vital, indispensable part of the gospel. However, it is not the whole gospel and it is not through proper understanding of this doctrine that one is saved. In short, "all who receive Christ the risen Lord as Lord and Savior are saved".

It is also worth noting that none of the apostles seem to ground their hope in the cross either. Their hope seems to rest, not on the cross but, on the resurrection event. So, the cross is neither the object of salvation nor the basis of Christian hope.

Before we go throwing out Good Friday and ignoring Jesus' death altogether, here is why the cross is vitally important and Good Friday is still good. Despite the cross neither being the object of our faith nor the basis of our future hope, the cross is where Jesus ultimately and finally secured our salvation. The cross is the place whereby Jesus paid the penalty for sin, once for all, and completed the mission for which he came. At the cross, the price for sin had been paid, the debt cleared and - unbeknownst to them at the time - the salvation of all believers finally secured.

Although our future hope is not based upon Jesus' work of the cross (more of which on Sunday), without the cross our salvation would not, and could not, exist. The cross is of vital importance because it marks the point in salvation-history at which God punished, in himself, the sins of those for whom Christ died. The cross is neither the object of our salvation, nor the basis of our hope, but there would certainly be no salvation without it. 

That is why Good Friday remains good.

Whose faith prompted the healing of the paralytic man?

And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." - Mt 9:2

On seeing this paralysed man, Jesus goes on to forgive his sins. But it appears on first glance there is no mention of the paralysed man's faith. The "their", whose faith Jesus saw, seems to point specifically to the man's helpers rather than to the man himself. This throws up several possible questions: does this mean the friends' faith saved the man? Was the man saved without expressing faith of his own? Did Jesus forgive the paralytic man's sin without addressing the salvation of those who brought him?

There are at least three possible solutions:

1. "Their" actually includes both the man and his friends
2. Although Jesus specifically highlights the faith of the friends, we can presume the man had some faith given he was willing to be taken to Jesus. So, "their" refers to the friends but the man must have had some faith too
3. The friends' faith was in Jesus' ability to physically heal the paralysed man. Jesus was concerned to demonstrate that forgiveness, as with healing, is entirely a work of God. Thus, Jesus forgives the paralysed man, knowing (a) his sin had been forgiven in eternity past and (b) he will exhibit saving faith upon seeing the proof his sins had been forgiven

The key drawback to option 1 is its lack of consistency with the object of the sentence. It seems apparent the friends are the object of "their", not the man. It also begs the question why Jesus pronounced the man's sins as forgiven when he already had possession of saving faith. Similarly, why was the man forgiven when his friends, whose faith Jesus saw, were not?

Option 2 appeals in several respects. It makes the friends the object of "their" whilst allowing for the man's own faith to be the basis of his forgiveness. The major drawback is that the only grounds to presume the man had faith is the forgiveness Jesus grants. We have no grounds to presume they approached Jesus with any expectation other than physical healing (and, for the paralysed man, we don't know even that). Further, if they already had saving faith, why would Jesus need to pronounce the sins of the man forgiven (a) when this was already known and (b) without pronouncing the same of his friends, whose faith prompted Jesus in the first place?

Option 3 is also appealing in several ways. It maintains the friends as the object of "their" and makes sense of the surprise that came with Jesus' pronouncement (it does appear that nobody presumed the man already forgiven). Further, this reading fits nicely with the effectual calling of Matthew immediately following. The major drawback of this reading is that it might imply some are saved without possessing saving faith. As an initial riposte, we might note (a) the ordo salutis expects a work of the Spirit prior to recognition of our own conversion and (b) if election means anything, it is that God knows in eternity past that our sin is forgiven even though we do not.

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.