Landmark Baptist

Last week, Dr. Fred Stevenson’s book on the Holy Spirit was quoted in another post on this forum by Gaylor, who said that he had a small photocopied portion of the book. Since I had the whole thing, I decided to spend a rainy Memorial Day morning reading it again. The result is a rather lengthy post and some of you might not be interested. In his unusual chapter discussing Acts 2:38, where he essentially rewrote the passage to suit his theory that the gift of the Spirit is received through water baptism, he offered the following on p. 46:

(quote) Why did not some Baptist give this reading long ago, of Acts 2:38? I suppose it is because no one ever thought of it, or saw the relationship which it seems to me exists in the verse. I have gone to great lengths to justify my rendering of the verse from the standpoint of language because I am not expecting Baptists to fall in with my idea very readily. I invite the readers to examine my defence most mercilessly, and bring to light any weakness that may be found there. I know I am justified from the language angle of the situation in moving a prepositional phrase. Whether I am justified from the doctrinal angle is for each reader to judge for himself. (end of quote)

In his chapter dealing with the connection between water baptism and Spirit baptism, he begins with the following on p. 34:

(quote) I have never seen or heard the subject of water baptism and Spirit baptism discussed as vitally related occurrences. I only conceived the idea myself about a year ago. (end of quote)
(quote) Today, water baptism is necessary to put believers into the special covenant relationship to the Holy Spirit, which does a special work in and through the church. Note carefully that I did not say water baptism is essential to salvation, for it is not. But water baptism is essential in bringing a saved person into the church, which is the only body that has the benefit of the special ministration of the Holy Spirit during the church age. No other body is guided into all truth. (end of quote, p. 35)

To understand how significant this “special work” of the Holy Spirit is in Stevenson’s views, he wrote on p. 44 of Acts 2:38:

(quote) This latter reading casts an entirely new light on the verse. Reading it in this order, we clearly see two conditions to be met, with a separate result coming from the meeting of each of the conditions. Taking away of sins comes from repenting and the gift of the Holy Spirit comes from being baptized. (end of quote)

On Page 50 of the chapter “How the Spirit Works Now”, he references John 14:16-17 and says:

(quote) This is the promise of the Spirit in Covenant relationship to the church, and it is said it will be with the church into the age, meaning until the close of the age. (end of quote)

To make his thinking clearer about the import of this, he wrote on p. 52:

(quote) At this point, it is well that we call to mind 1 Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are folly to him, and he is not able to know them because they are spiritually discerned.” He is spiritually dead and has no contact at all with the things of the Spirit of God. But this text has a wider application than to the unsaved. It includes worldly minded saved people as well. Their spiritual nature is dulled by indulgence and participation in the things of the world to the extent they have very little vital contact with the Holy Spirit. Thus we may infer that worldly church members and saved people who are not in a real church are not much better off than unsaved people when it comes to discerning the things of the Spirit of God. For the special ministry is to the church and to no one else. This is why all other religious bodies are foredoomed to apostasy. (end of quote)

As we saw quoted in his introduction to the book last week, he said:

(quote) So far as I know, there is no writing of similar nature to what this shall be. I confess that I first conceived the idea, as a reality and a forceful truth of the word of God, not more than a year ago. (end of quote)

I offer these quotes for the purpose of making a few observations and responses to some statements that have been made. Dr. W. A. Dillard has spoken often about the questioning of Stevenson’s views:

(quote)
As to Dr. Fred Stevenson, I consider it a travesty that his name is being dirtied when he is no longer present to defend himself. I knew him. I loved him. He stayed in my home for a time and I find no cause for castigating his integrity or scholarship.
It is of little wonder, but saddening, to me that some masquerading as theological experts should belittle a departed theological giant.
However, I do repeat for the sake of all who read this, that it is a travesty to castigate a wise and brilliant man of God who is no longer present to defend himself.
But it was not until I had the opportunity to study extensively under Dr. Fred Stevenson that the whole picture began to form from the multitude of language indicators.
(end of quote)

What Dr. Dillard calls a “travesty” and “castigation” is in fact EXACTLY what Dr. Stevenson requested. Stevenson invited his readers to MERCILESSLY examine his conclusions and bring to light any weaknesses in them from either a language or a doctrinal perspective. I regret that I was not born sooner or that he did not live longer so I could have done it personally. I am left to question his views with those who are still teaching them as biblical fact and even Landmark doctrine.

Secondly, I would like to allow Stevenson to answer for himself the question that I have posed on this and other forums for around 15 years now. That question comes from the idea that the promise of the Comforter in John 14:16-18 is a special ministry exclusively to water-baptized church members. I have asked repeatedly if there is any record of this view among Baptists before Stevenson proposed it. Stevenson himself answered in the negative. At least three times in the book Stevenson explains that he thought this up himself, and specifically says that no Baptist had ever proposed his ideas before. He even acknowledges that many Baptists would have great difficulty accepting them. I assert that he was correct on both counts – he started it, and lots of Baptists don’t believe it.

Third, how is it possible to deny his interpretation of Acts 2:38 to say that the gift of the Spirit is contingent on Baptism and at the same time say that John 14 promises the Comforter exclusively to water baptized church members? I guess after last week I’m just trying to understand why some people claim to be fighting Stevenson’s views; while at the same time it appears to me that they are teaching the most significant part of them verbatim. Stevenson wrote of this “special office work” of the Holy Spirit to the church in his introduction:

“As Baptists we have always set forth some of the benefits to be derived from having membership in a New Testament Church. These benefits are many, but I have come to think that the Holy Spirit in Covenant Relationship to the church is the most important one of all, and that by so great a margin that no other benefit is to be compared with it.”

That special covenant relationship which he says is the “most important of all” he defines as the promise of the Comforter in John 14:16-18.

Rich

Bro. Rich,
Thank you for sharing some of Stevenson's quotes from his book! I have not read any of Stevenson's articles or books and I was curious when others would bring him up. Just a little about me for one second, I graduated from the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock back in 1997 and I never heard any of the staff that I can remember ever refer to Stevenson. In fact, other men were mentioned as it pertained to "NewLightism." The quotes you share in each of the three threads were enlightening. I can see why you can attribute some of the teachings to Catholicism. There was an author here in California who wrote a book called "The Catholic Seed in the Newlight Creed" (or something like that) who made similar conclusions when it came to Newlight teaching.

As I have been reading and dwelling on several threads, I must conclude that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is either misunderstood and/or most controversial. My understanding in a nutshell is that every believer at the point of faith is indwelled with the Holy Spirit. This is before baptism and church membership. I do see a ministry of the Holy Spirit given to the Lord's church as executor or empowerer of the church. As you mentioned either in this thread or another one concerning John 14. It has perked my interest for sure as i go back study it again. I want to see if you can answer a few questions for me? I ask these questions purely in a motive to learn and not debate.

1. When do you see the Holy Spirit begin the indwelling of believers? ( I am talking about His specific ministry of indwelling, was he doing this in the Old Testament, New Testament only or when he came in the Book of Acts?)

2. Do you see a separate ministry of the Holy Spirit to believers only before baptism and church membership to that of the church being empowered?

I think, at least on my part, I see these questions at the center of our understanding of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I thought I had it figured out once but the more I learn the more ignorant I become. I hope you understand my questions and I look forward to your answers and comments made by others!

Thanks again!

Bro. Todd Dornan

Brother Todd,

Thank you for the encouragement and the background. The bulk of my educational experience was also from the MBS. I can't say that Stevenson was never mentioned while I was there, but I was taught by some of his students who passed along his principles without mentioning his name at all in connection with them. One of the current faculty members told me in a personal conversation that he had helped Dr. Stevenson prepare one of his books for publication. There is no question that Dr. Stevenson was greatly admired by many of his students who continue to show great loyalty to him, even though some say they did not agree with his doctrinal positions.

You asked about indwelling. The work of regeneration is particularly attributed to the Holy Spirit. If people were saved and stayed saved in the Old Testament, and surely all would agree that this is so, then there had to be an indwelling of the Spirit in some sense. Still, Jeremiah promised a New Covenant was coming that would bring a fuller experience with God than had been available in the past. In John 7, Jesus promised to those who believe on Him "rivers of living water." John tells us that he spoke of the Spirit which those who believe on Him "should" receive. There is some argument over whether the word "should" is to be considered as future, but John's next phrase to me makes it clear. "For the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus promised a new ministry of the Spirit to every one who believes on Him; a new ministry that John said would happen after Jesus was "glorified." Therefore I see the events recorded in Acts 2 in connection with Pentecost as the "public inauguration" of this new ministry. While the 120 assembled in the upper room received a mighty, glorious manifestation and ministration of the Spirit in wonder-working power, I believe there were many others who received the New Testament promise of the Spirit exactly as I did -- when I believed. I heard no wind and saw no fire. I've said before, I didn't cry, I didn't shout, and I certainly didn't speak in tongues. But I had been born into this New Testament ministry of the Spirit just the same. I think we can go on and say that the inaugural events of Pentecost which occurred in the upper room would show that God intended to do some incredible things through His churches, which the record of the Book of Acts plainly shows. Though I've never preached an earthquake in, the most powerful spiritual experiences in my life have occurred through the corporate gatherings of His churches.

This brings us to the second question of a "separate ministry to believers only." I wouldn't say it that way myself. I believe that the new birth brings us to the state known as union with Christ so that every believer is "in Christ" and Christ is "in us." Many scriptures could be cited if necessary because the truth is found all over the New Testament, but one of the greatest discussions of it is found in Romans 8:

Romans 8:9-17 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint–heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Please notice that having the Spirit in us is mentioned synonymously with having Christ in us. If Christ is in us, then the Spirit is in us; and if the Spirit is in us, Christ is in us -- they are one in the same thing. In the light of that fact, when Jesus said in John 14 "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you," and when He said that the Comforter was "with them but would be in them," I believe He was speaking of this new experience of His presence in all His people -- a promise that was not possible until Jesus was glorified. The language I see in John 14-16 goes much better with the doctrine of union with Christ than with the idea of membership in a church.

Jesus promised in both Matthew 18 and Matthew 28 that He would be with His churches to empower them to accomplish the work that churches are uniquely qualified to fulfill. Church discipline and the Great Commission are things that only churches in their corporate capacity are able to accomplish, and in that corporate capacity there is the presence and power of Christ both authoritatively and dynamically. But to take John 14 and the promise of the Holy Spirit as the Comforter and say that this is a promise made exclusively to church members suffers from some problems that no one as yet has really tried to address. I've been hammered with a lot of rhetoric, but the questions themselves remain unanswered. If the Comforter is promised exclusively to church members, then this promise of the presence of Christ must be obtained through baptism and the vote of a church that admits us to membership, so that we can be voted into and voted out of the ministry of the Comforter. That, to me, is not in keeping with the symbolic nature of baptism, and elevates church authority to an unbiblical extreme. Secondly, since the Comforter guides us into all truth, then a person saved outside of the church is left with no guidance whatsoever that would lead him or her to a scriptural church or to understand even what scriptural baptism is. At least Stevenson was honest enough to admit that a saved non-church member is no better off than a lost man when it comes to understanding the things of God within his purview. But since God's will is that all people be "saved and come to the knowledge of the truth," I find it impossible to believe that He leaves us without the leadership of the Spirit to guide us into the truth. There are actually more questions left unanswered by Stevenson's views, but this post is already too long.

Rich

Bro. Rich,
Thank you for answering my questions. Since, your post I spent the rest of my memorial day studying the subject of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I guess, for myself, I see some trying to separate today the working of the Holy Spirit as it relates to believing and church membership as if one did not recieve all the Holy Spirit at the point of faith. It appears by some that the Holy Spirit works in regeneration but not "indwelled" until church membership. I reject this understanding. I believe once a person is saved he recieves all the Holy Spirit he is ever going to get. I do not want to put words in your mouth but you stated,"While the 120 assembled in the upper room received a mighty, glorious manifestation and ministration of the Spirit in wonder-working power, I believe there were many others who received the New Testament promise of the Spirit exactly as I did -- when I believed. I heard no wind and saw no fire. I've said before, I didn't cry, I didn't shout, and I certainly didn't speak in tongues. But I had been born into this New Testament ministry of the Spirit just the same." So am I to understand that you were stating that you recieved all the Holy Spirit when you believed?

Thanks again!
Bro. Todd

Bro Rich quotes from Dr. Fred Stevenson's book,

richhamlin wrote:"Why did not some Baptist give this reading long ago, of Acts 2:38? I suppose it is because no one ever thought of it, or saw the relationship which it seems to me exists in the verse."

"I have never seen or heard the subject of water baptism and Spirit baptism discussed as vitally related occurrences. I only conceived the idea myself about a year ago."

"So far as I know, there is no writing of similar nature to what this shall be. I confess that I first conceived the idea, as a reality and a forceful truth of the word of God, not more than a year ago."

then he stated,

richhamlin wrote:I would like to allow Stevenson to answer for himself the question that I have posed . . . I have asked repeatedly if there is any record of this view among Baptists before Stevenson proposed it. Stevenson himself answered in the negative. At least three times in the book Stevenson explains that he thought this up himself, and specifically says that no Baptist had ever proposed his ideas before. He even acknowledges that many Baptists would have great difficulty accepting them. I assert that he was correct on both counts – he started it, and lots of Baptists don’t believe it.

I believe a careful reading of what he said will reveal that he didn't believe it was an idea that originated with him. He said (with emphasis mine):

"Why did not some Baptist give this reading long ago, of Acts 2:38? I suppose it is because no one ever thought of it, or saw the relationship which it seems to me exists in the verse."

"I have never seen or heard the subject of water baptism and Spirit baptism discussed as vitally related occurrences. I only conceived the idea myself about a year ago."

"So far as I know, there is no writing of similar nature to what this shall be. I confess that I first conceived the idea, as a reality and a forceful truth of the word of God, not more than a year ago."

While I do not personally agree with all of his arguments on the subject, I think I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is saying that he believed it to be a TRUTH that he himself had only discovered the year prior to his writing, (while possibly wondering why apparently no one else had discovered it -- or at least, had written that they had).
Bro Jerry

remove_not wrote:I believe a careful reading of what he said will reveal that he didn't believe it was an idea that originated with him. He said (with emphasis mine):

"Why did not some Baptist give this reading long ago, of Acts 2:38? I suppose it is because no one ever thought of it, or saw the relationship which it seems to me exists in the verse."

"I have never seen or heard the subject of water baptism and Spirit baptism discussed as vitally related occurrences. I only conceived the idea myself about a year ago."

"So far as I know, there is no writing of similar nature to what this shall be. I confess that I first conceived the idea, as a reality and a forceful truth of the word of God, not more than a year ago."

While I do not personally agree with all of his arguments on the subject, I think I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is saying that he believed it to be a TRUTH that he himself had only discovered the year prior to his writing, (while possibly wondering why apparently no one else had discovered it -- or at least, had written that they had).
Bro Jerry

I would have to agree with Bro. remove_not here.

By the way Bro. Jerry, is Enid near Oklahoma City?

Steve Waters

Brothers,

It seems to me that we are having difficulty trying to focus on a central issue. I would like to bring us back to a central issue which was brought by Bro. Hamlin, that of to whom was John 14-17 written. In the extreme of one way, making these chapters written to all the saved regardless of church affiliations, it seems to lend itself to the universal church point of view. On the other hand limiting these chapters to only the True New Testement Church seems to implicate some type of church or baptismal salvation. At least this seems to be the two extremes. I do not believe either of these extremes portrait the truth and I assume that no one else on this forum does. Allow me to develope what I think is the reality.

Eph. 3: 10-11 To the intent that now, unto principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus, our Lord
In this reading as with the verses ahead of them, there was something that was hidden to men and angels of other ages. I propose that what was hidden was the church, the church age and the special relationship that The Lord as founder and the Holy Spirit as continuing Administrator would have with his church. The church is identified as part of the eternal purpose or plan of God. The church that Christ founded during his personal ministry here on earth was an assembly. Focusing on the idea of the church assembly, not the individual member makes the relationship between God and the church easier for me to understand. There were many local assemblies in Bible days as there are many today. The assembly at Ephasis, Corinth. Rome, Jerusalem and so on all had the Holy Spirit as their Adminisrator when they were assembled. Do away with the assembly and all you have is baptized saints who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, they can be lead individually, taught, blessed, comforted and tested individually, but they are not a church until assembled. It was the assembly made up of 120 saved, already baptized, saints who were baptized by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. It is the ASSEMBLY which also can be lead, taught, blessed, comforted and tested collectively.

Luke 24: 49 And, behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. The church was empower on the day of Pentecost by the Holy Spirit when He took His office as Administrator of the assembly. 1 Cor. 5; 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, WHEN YE ARE GATHERED TOGETHER, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. The church could not act when dispersed, there was power only when they were assembled.

The impetus of John Chapters 14-17, I believe were addressed only to the then existing assembly, which was made up at that time of the twelve apostles. They were the only ones assembled. Gotta close, I would like to discuss the voting in and out in another post.

Gaylor

Bro. Gaylor,
You addressed the dilemma I was having with some of the comments others were making. You stated, "In the extreme of one way, making these chapters written to all the saved regardless of church affiliations, it seems to lend itself to the universal church point of view. On the other hand limiting these chapters to only the True New Testement Church seems to implicate some type of church or baptismal salvation" Of course I reject those extremes. I appreciate your comments.
Truly, the subject of the Holy Spirit is often misunderstood and controversial. I have not yet mastered it yet but trying to "rightly divide the Word of Truth."

Bro. Todd

SWaters wrote:By the way Bro. Jerry, is Enid near Oklahoma City?

About an hour and a half north north-west.

Bro. Hamlin,
Thank you for further insights into your understanding of a very difficult subject.
The more I study the Holy Spirit the more I understand why He is compared to “the wind, bloweth where it listeth” John 3:8. He’s hard to grab hold of!
I think even you, who have seemed to study this subject quite extensively, admit to difficulties when you say, “You asked about indwelling. The work of regeneration is particularly attributed to the Holy Spirit. If people were saved and stayed saved in the Old Testament, and surely all would agree that this is so, then there had to be an indwelling of the Spirit in some sense. Still, Jeremiah promised a New Covenant was coming that would bring a fuller experience with God than had been available in the past.”
And, “There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus promised a new ministry of the Spirit to every one who believes on Him.”

These underlined parts I marked show the struggle you and all of us have about details of the work of the Spirit and we all need to admit it – I certainly will!
These are also the same difficulties that have lead many saved Protestant teachers to conclude there is now a different plan of salvation, since the ministry and role of the Spirit has changed to some degree in the New Covenant age. I don’t believe salvation has changed, but I can see why some reach that conclusion based on this Spirit issue.

Then, when you say, “While the 120 assembled in the upper room received a mighty, glorious manifestation and ministration of the Spirit in wonder-working power, I believe there were many others who received the New Testament promise of the Spirit exactly as I did -- when I believed”

who were these “many others who received the promise of the Spirit” and where is this recorded? That is a quite a statement with no proof from the events described in Acts 2 – the day the “promise” was fulfilled.
For, to say that “there were many others who received the promise of the Spirit” is to say many, many hundreds outside that 120 received exactly what they did at that same moment all over Israel, yet we see no evidence of that - anywhere.
Who were these “many others who received the promise of the Spirit” at the same time as the 120?
Multitudes repented at the preaching of John and he was careful not to baptize them without this evidence. So, there were many hundreds of saved, even baptized, people in Israel and Jerusalem on Pentecost not part of the 120.
Then, Jesus baptized more than John (John 4:1,2) and surely Jesus would not allow baptism to be performed on multitudes without knowing they had repented. So, many more hundreds of saved people in Israel and Jerusalem on Pentecost, but we see no evidence of the same thing happening to them that day as what happened to the 120.
It sure seems as if the promise of the baptism of the Spirit came on all saved individuals that Pentecost day, there would have been notice of it made in scripture, yet there is not.

There were many “secret disciples for fear of the Jews” including some of the priesthood and ruling class. Where is it recorded they received the baptism of the Spirit at the same time as the 120?

Did these many hundreds of saved folks in Israel & Jerusalem, maybe thousands, receive what the 120 received at the same moment, but with no outward evidence? If not, why not? Why don’t we see any evidence of multitudes of saved people, not part of the 120, manifesting the gift of the Spirit on Pentecost? That’s an important issue to address. No one else spoke in tongues, which was the direct evidence of the baptism of the Spirit.
I’m only hammering this point, not at you directly, but to emphasize the general statements we all make about the Spirit without admitting also our lack of understanding of the “wind of the Spirit.”

Many of us see an enhanced role and office work of the Spirit in the house of God, the body of Christ.
1John 4:15 applies to the individual believer and John 14:17 applies to the NT church corporately, in my opinion.
All of us who accept this distinction in the various roles of the Spirit struggle with what the details of the differences are.
Our relationship with all Persons of the Trinity changed drastically the moment we were saved.
But, there are enhanced or additional ways our relationship with each Person is affected in the house of God.
Jesus is not only our eternal Savior at salvation, but in the church He becomes our potential bridegroom and is Head in ways He is not to a saved individual outside His house and His body.
If so with Christ, why not also the Spirit?

If I have understood your many posts this past year about the Spirit correctly, you seem to apply every role and office work of Christ and the Spirit to all the saved equally.

But, if as you say, “There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus promised a new ministry of the Spirit to every one who believes on Him”
is true, then the Spirit has a different ministry to saved people in the NT than He did in the OT.
If it is possible for the Spirit to have different ministries to saved people depending on the time period they were saved, why is it strange He has a different or enhanced or additional ministry to the house of God than He does to saved individuals outside the house of God? It doesn’t take anything away from their glorious salvation.

Understanding completely the things of the Spirit is like understanding completely the Trinity or the incarnation.
I usually run the other way when someone says they have God figured out.
That’s why I give a certain amount of latitude on this very difficult subject.

Bro. Gaylor,
You urged us, "It seems to me that we are having difficulty trying to focus on a central issue. I would like to bring us back to a central issue which was brought by Bro. Hamlin, that of to whom was John 14-17 written"

I am guilty as charged, and that by a deacon no less! That hurts me to admit such a thing - haha!

I do believe John 14-17 is directed primarily to the apostles, thus the church, but with both primary and secondary applications as well to those outside the church, such as John 16:8-11.

One main question might be, were the apostles primarily representative of the church or of all the saved?
For, when Jesus makes the many statements beginning with "you" we must decide if application is to be made beyond the "you" and to what extent.
I would think we must make a sure application to the church first and then if warranted, application can be made beyond the church to all who believe in Jesus, even in some cases to the whole world.

Brother Gaylor wrote, “The impetus of John Chapters 14-17, I believe were addressed only to the then existing assembly, which was made up at that time of the twelve apostles. They were the only ones assembled. Gotta close, I would like to discuss the voting in and out in another post.”

I find it impossible to accept this conclusion on the basis of several things. First, John 17 is the High Priestly prayer of Jesus. To even remotely imply that Jesus is only the High Priest of the church is a serious error, but in light of what He said in His prayer the application simply fails. Jesus prayed a number of things that seemed to refer to the disciples themselves, but then let us know that His prayer and His office extended beyond them even down to us today:

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Jesus spoke of the fact that all who believe would be in Christ and therefore in the Father, and if that wasn’t remarkable enough, He went on to say that He would be “in them” which means the Father would be, too – with the result that they “may be made perfect in one.” No wonder Paul said we are seated together in the Heavenly places in Christ. Second, I find Gaylor’s conclusion impossible because of how Jesus began the passage in question:

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus addresses a people He is going to prepare a place for, a people identified as the ones who believe in Him. If He is addressing the church, one cannot shun to say that He prepares a place exclusively for them. If He is addressing the church, one cannot shun to say that He is coming back exclusively for them. In which case “the way ye know” should have been believing, being baptized, joining the right kind of church, and serving faithfully until you die. Instead, Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”

Make this addressed to church members and you are left with a number of theological positions well known in the world and held by many – but they aren’t Baptists and they believe that outside their church salvation does not exist. On the other hand, if at the beginning of the passage Jesus gives truth that does not exclusively apply to church members through baptism and the vote of other people and their faithful works of service, then that isn’t the "impetus" of the passage.

Rich

Brother Howard,

I made the exact same statement about John 3:8 some months ago. Three thousand people were saved on the day of Pentecost, baptized, and added to the church. Did they all get a rushing mighty wind, speak in tongues, and have a cloven tongue of fire on their head? If we agree that the bible does not even give us a hint that the 3000 were brought into this miraculous manifestation, then we should have no problem believing that the other truly saved people in the world who weren’t in the upper room received whatever the 3000 received. My point, Brother Howard, is that the Pentecostal experience of the 120 in the upper room was absolutely unique to them and has never, ever, been repeated. I further suggest that this is not the normative experience of New Testament believers.

If the events of the upper room do not identify the normal experience of all New Testament believers for receiving the promised ministry of the Spirit, then where will we look in the book of Acts to find what is? Will we look at the Samaritan experience of saved, baptized people who didn’t receive this promised ministry until an Apostle laid hands on them? Will we look to Cornelius’s household where people received the promised ministry before they were baptized and without any one laying hands on them? Will we look to the Ephesian experience where saved people again were baptized but didn’t receive the Spirit until an Apostle laid hands on them? Will we look to Paul’s experience of receiving the Spirit through the laying on of hands by the famous Ananias before he was baptized? In fact, is there a single reference in the book of Acts to anyone who received the Spirit though water baptism? I’m trying to remember a passage in Acts that says, “And as they came up out of the water, the Spirit fell on them” but I can’t remember it. Maybe you guys can refresh my memory a bit.

So if we don’t look in the book of Acts to find the normal experience of receiving the promise of the Spirit, where do we look? I would start here:

Galatians 3:13-14 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

I would add in this great passage out of many others that could be considered:

2 Corinthians 3:14-18 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

What is the “that Spirit” to which Paul refers? Go back in the passage and we find:

2 Corinthians 3:6-9 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

Not only does Paul tells us that the Lord IS the Spirit, but he gives us one of the most specific descriptions of the New Covenant to be found in the Bible. It is “not of the letter” or not of the law of rituals and rules. That was the Old Covenant, whose glory from the time of its greatest moment was fading away. It is further identified as the “ministry of death” and the “ministry of condemnation.” By contrast, the New Covenant is called “the ministry of the Spirit” and the “ministry of righteousness”.

Now if saved people are today left out of the New Covenant, then they do not have the Spirit and they do not have righteousness. They do not with open face behold the glory of the Lord, and they are not being changed into His image from glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord. So just where are these people who are not in the New Covenant in the economy of God? Are they under the Old Covenant? I suggest that idea is impossible:

Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

I further suggest it is impossible because all those who are in Christ Jesus cannot possibly be left with no Covenant, for Paul said in Ephesians 2 that those who were once strangers from the covenants of God have been “brought near” by the blood of Christ. How “near”?

Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

We once were strangers from God’s covenants, but we are strangers no longer. Go through the passages in Ephesians 2 and there is no conclusion but that a person who has no covenant has not been made nigh, is not in Christ, does not have access to the Father through the Spirit – and without controversy is still “without hope and without God in the world.”

So, Brother Howard, there may be some things about the ministry of the Spirit I would have difficulty explaining, as do we all. But no, I can’t say “lets just be friends” and “lets all just get along” with those who are teaching that being a participant in the New Covenant that Paul calls “the ministry of righteousness” and the “ministry of the Spirit” is dependant on baptism and church membership. A truly saved person cannot be left with no covenant. One who has no covenant is LOST. This concept is far too serious for me to “wink at,” and I wonder why so many have for so long.

Rich

Brother Jerry,

The Old Covenant is gone. The New Covenant is “not according to” the Old one. Paul says in Ephesians 2 that those who are in Christ Jesus have been made nigh through His blood, and are no longer strangers to the covenant but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God.

The point I made I thought was clear. Because we are In Christ, we are no longer strangers from the covenants. Since the Old one is gone and has been replaced by the New, then a person who is not in the New is also not in the Old and is therefore left as a stranger from the covenant. Such a person must be still in the condition Paul described -- without Christ, without God in the world, and without hope. In other words, "LOST."

Discussing all the intricate details of the Old Covenant is a fun hobby, especially since so many on this forum try to prove so much of what they believe by it. However, I cannot understand why it is appealed to so much when the New one is fundamentally and foundationally different than the Old one; and since the Old one at its best did not bring "perfection". If it had, as the writer of Hebrews pointed out, no place would have been found for the New one. Besides, it is eternally obsolete:

Roman 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

RIch

Brother Jerry,

Actually it means that you missed the context in which that statement was made or else I didn't write it very well. This is where the statement came from:

richhamlin wrote:Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

We once were strangers from God’s covenants, but we are strangers no longer. Go through the passages in Ephesians 2 and there is no conclusion but that a person who has no covenant has not been made nigh, is not in Christ, does not have access to the Father through the Spirit – and without controversy is still “without hope and without God in the world.”

So, Brother Howard, there may be some things about the ministry of the Spirit I would have difficulty explaining, as do we all. But no, I can’t say “lets just be friends” and “lets all just get along” with those who are teaching that being a participant in the New Covenant that Paul calls “the ministry of righteousness” and the “ministry of the Spirit” is dependant on baptism and church membership. A truly saved person cannot be left with no covenant. One who has no covenant is LOST. This concept is far too serious for me to “wink at,” and I wonder why so many have for so long.

The statement you've referenced twice was not made in a discussion of the Old Covenant, but of what Paul said in Ephesians 2:19; and it is in that context that my statement is to be considered. When you questioned it, I said it again. Now if at some other time or context you wish to discuss the details of the Old Covenant then we can do that, but for now I wish you would explain how you reconcile the clear teaching of Paul in Ephesians 2 that every person who is in Christ is no longer a stranger to your belief that saved but non-church members are not in the New Covenant. Paul said we are "no more strangers" as opposed to the time when they were strangers from the covenants. But it appears to me that you say there are many who are in Christ that in fact ARE still strangers.

I think it would be much more profitable for us to spend our time discussing the Covenant we have now rather than the one that is obsolete.

Rich

Bro. Hamlin (and bro. younglandmarker from the other thread),
When you said, 'I think it would be much more profitable for us to spend our time discussing the Covenant we have now rather than the one that is obsolete

does the term "Old Covenant" also include the Abrahamic covenant or just the Law covenant in it's many references in the NT?
Wasn't the Law "added" Gal.3:19? What was it "added" to?
Maybe the Abrahamic covenant that was already in force?
And, wasn't the Law fulfilled and "taken out of the way" Col.2:14 to the point it "is ready to vanish away" Heb.8:13?

But, the Abrahamic covenant was before AND continued after the Law covenant and Abraham's name and connection to him and the promises made to him are always included in Roman, Galatians, Ephesians and Hebrews - the four books dealing most extensively with the New Covenant.

So, possibly the Abrahamic covenant was incorporated into the New Covenant and is not just about Israel as a nation but includes NT saints as "Abraham's seed" and therefore the Abrahamic covenant needs to be closely examined.

The Abrahamic covenant, like the New covenant, is a grace through faith covenant with obligations attached - not unconditional at all.
Was not Abram told to do 4 things, in Gen.12:1, before God would do 7 things in vss.2,3?
What if Abraham did not fulfill his 4 obligations - would God have remained obligated to give Abram the 7 promises anyway?
And, Abram was a man of faith before the covenant was made with him, so of necessity the covenant includes obligations.
If a covenant is always and ONLY about salvation, what was God doing making a covenant with a man already in covenant?

Bro. Hamlin, you said, "One who has no covenant is LOST."
You may have answered this in other threads - was Abraham lost before Gen.12? If not, under what covenant was he a saved man at this point?
If, as some seem to believe, he was not saved until Gen.15:6, what was God doing making a covenant with a lost man and keeping him lost for years while under that covenant?
So, off we go on the covenants.

I'll do a separate post on Bro. Hamlin's remarks on the Spirit.

Bro. Hamlin,
If you are as confused with my posts as I am yours, well, I hope not.

I assume you accept the "promise of the Father" of Acts 1:4 to be equal to the "baptized with the Holy Ghost" of Acts 1:5, to be equal to the "power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you" of Acts 1:8 and all these are dependent on the fulfillment that happened in Acts 2, which you give to all the saved anywhere on Pentecost.
This "power"....to be witnesses of Christ in the Great Commission "unto the uttermost part of the earth" must also then be given to all the saved.
Yet, I don't think you give the Great Commission to individual saved people apart from the church, do you?
If not, how do you separate the church alone having the Commission, yet all the saved given the "power" to fulfill the Commission?

So, as you state, and I agree, the 3000 that were saved, baptized and added to the church on Pentecost also received that same baptism of the Spirit.
But, you also are stating the many other hundreds, maybe thousands of saved people in Israel and Jerusalem received that same baptism of the Spirit as did the 120 and then the 3000, even though no scripture even implies that.

The only conclusion I can make from your view, is that all 3000 who repented at Peter's great sermon, were the only saved folks who went on to submit to heaven's baptism and become part of the NT church.

That would mean there were many hundreds or thousands of previously saved people who repented at John's preaching and Jesus' preaching (some baptized and probably many who weren't, for example, John 11:45 just a few days before His death) rejected the preaching of Peter and did not submit to heaven's baptism or become part of the NT church, yet were baptized with the Spirit the same day as the 3000 who did?

These many saved folks received the baptism of the Spirit but rejected the Spirit's guidance of what to do immediatley after that experience - that only the 3000 accepted?
Why aren't we told about the many "baptized with the Spirit" people that day who rejected the leading of the Spirit for baptism and church connection - the same Spirit leading that the 3000 did not reject?

That would be quite a story - more saved people who were "baptized with the Spirit" rejected the part of the advice about baptism by Peter in Acts 2:38 than accepted it. Those who "gladly received the word were baptized" were possibly less than those who had previously "gladly received his word" but rejected baptism or at least church connection?

Bro. Rick,
It seems to me that the Abrahamic Covenant made in Genesis 15 was unconditional. In verse 18 it states, "In that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euprhates." Now in context in order for a covenant to be binding a sacrifice must be done and both parties were to walk in the midst of the offering in order to ratify both parties agreement. However, what Abraham saw was God only walking in the midst of the offering. What God was doing was promising Abraham that "his seed" will be given the land. That is apart from whatever Abraham may or may not do in the future.

I would like to write more but I will spare further comments until I have time discuss them further.

Pastor Todd

Brother Todd -- excellent point.

Brother Howard,

As I said to Bro. Jerry, the consideration of the Old Covenant seems out of place when we can't even agree on what the New one means and how we get in on it. I say, again, that the New Covenant is not like the old one, so trying to somehow prove what the New Covenant does or doesn't do on the basis of the Old one doesn't work.

You suggest that the Covenant with Abraham is still in force and I suppose fully operational. If so, then we need to sharpen our knives because we may have a lot of cutting to do. Paul said the promises were made to Abraham and his SEED, not SEEDS, in Galatians 3:16. Then he said this:

Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The Covenant God made with Abraham was not just with Abraham but with Christ -- His Seed. Christ is the fulfillment of that Covenant so that it does not exist independently of Him. God also made promises to Abraham about the land, but since that promise was also to His SEED, then that promise will also find its fulfillment in Christ. All the Old Testament Covenants pointed to Christ and therefore find their fulfillment in Him. The Covenant in the Garden was certainly about Jesus as the seed of the woman. The Covenant with Noah was about Jesus, for the Ark as a type of Christ had delivered them from the judgment of God, and what Christ delivers us from can never be a threat to us again. The Covenant through Moses pointed them to Christ in so many ways it would be redundant to speak of them all. The Davidic Covenant was all about his Greater Son. As this passage tells us so clearly:

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

You asked a question about what I said, and I remind you in response as I did Bro. Jerry that the statement you refer to was made as a part of a very specific discussion, that of Ephesians 2:19. I wasn’t talking about people being saved under the Adamic Covenant or the Abrahamic Covenant or the Davidic Covenant. I’m asking a very specific question that apparently none of you want to deal with:

Ephesians 2 says that those in Christ are no longer strangers from the covenants – but a number of you on this forum say in fact that it is possible for people to be in Christ but still be strangers from the New Covenant. But the clear implication in Ephesians 2 is that a person who can be described as “still a stranger” must also still be without Christ, without hope, and without God in the world. LOST.

No matter when Abraham was saved.

Rich

Bro. Dornan,
Good comments.
I see Gen.15 not as the initial making of the covenant with Abraham, but a restating and an enlargement of what was stated in Gen.12:1-3, for many of the same provisions are in both.
And, by Genesis 15, Abraham had met all 4 of the obligations of Gen.12:1, so no further need to speak of the obligations, except as fulfilled as I show below in Gen.26:5, though he did have an obedient role to play in this passage as well.
And, Abraham offered sacrifices after the initial giving of the covenant, in Gen.12:7 and again in Gen.12:8 and a third time in Gen.13:18 and those sacrifices were made in connection with the same promise of the land you mention in Gen.15:18, so I see a covenant sealed to some degree anyway, with a sacrifice in all locations.

When Gen.15:18 says, "On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram" I don't see "made" as necessarly meaning brand new, having not existed before, since he also states the same idea in Gen.17:2, "And I will make my covenant between me and thee..."
I don't think we would say God had not yet made a covenant with Abraham.

The language God uses in covenant making is very interesting.
He says further in Gen.15:18 what you quoted, "...Unto thy seed I have given this land" as if it was already possessed by them, yet Heb.11:13 says, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises..."

God uses the past tense to stress the certainty of the promise and emphasizes this when He "passed between those pieces" which is of course the meaning of covenant, a "cutting" which Abraham did play a role in, by obeying God in bringing the correct animals and cutting them in two, vs.10.
What if Abraham refused to bring the animals and did not cut them in two?

God further tells Isaac, in Gen.26:5, after He renewed the promises of the land and the seed provisions of the covenant, by saying a reason for Him continuing this promise to Isaac was "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge..."
So, your statement of "That is apart from whatever Abraham may or may not do in the future"
is a little different than I might say it, based on Gen.26:5. I would say it is not apart from what Abraham had already done, which was mainly to have faith, and then act on that faith.

For the life of me I can't make it unconditional.
God called a man of faith and expected continuing faith and as a result, God blessed him with covenant promises.
Thus, my original question, what if Abram did not fulfill the 4 obligations of Gen.12:1? Would Gen.15:18 or Gen.17:1-4 have happened?

My personal opinion is that stevenson went overboard and had been influenced by Landmark thinking and had eased gradually over a long time into a worship of the local church that he finally gave himself whole heartedly to its worship and developed this justification for it in his mind!

I personally don't think this is a teaching that God wants us to be confused about because it leads to worship of the local church and church salvation and Romish tendencies!

When Jesus came to John to be baptized he clearly states

Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Water Baptism in Jesus' view is clearly a work of righteousness!

Titus 3:5 clearly "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

notice the washing of regeneration...not the washing of baptism .....notice the renewing of the Holy Ghost.....without baptism!

Lastly Romans 8:9 says "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

This verse leaves NO room for going back and forth or finding a middle ground.....either you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or you don't! If you don't then you are none of his!
Either you get it from faith in Christ apart from works of righteousness or you get it from faith in Christ plus a work of righteousness!
I think you all know what the answer is to that. And since Romans 8 is talking about all the saved apart from baptism then so can other scriptures ie John17

Now if you guys are trying to discuss what extra empowerments one gets from the Holy Spirit as a church member today that you don't get not being a church member then that's fine....But don't confuse it with indwelling and our spirits crying abba father at salvation! Could it be that there is a mixing up a bunch of stuff...and when Jesus said you will recieve the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost he was talking about the empowering as a church to do signs and wonders and confirming miracles that would eventually cease when the Word was completed.....remember it was the Churches that gave us the Word of God through the inspiration of God....And the giving of Gods Word has always been confirmed with such things in the special power of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think its so complicated but yet like Bro. Howard says I don't claim to know everything...I am still learning

Bro. Smith,

I'm going to say this again. I wholeheartedly agree with you on the point that one becomes a participant in the New Covenant through salvation by grace through faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Do not compare Landmarkism (as you said that Fred Stevenson came to his views from Landmark influence) to Newlightism or make the latter a logical conclusion of the former because they are as distinct from one another as the Old and New Covenants.

Bro. Young Landmarker,

you better open your spiritual eyes because it is happening right before you on this board and you still deny that the Landmark overemphasis on the local church has nothing to do with it? Ask yourself.....1. Why are those that hold to "new light" tendencies gravitate to us and are quietly welcomed in our work and not shunned and branded like those that hold to "universal church" teaching when in deed it is a more damnable heresy? 2. Do you understand that the origins and the teachings of Landmarkism and belief that only members of true nt churches can share the gospel and no one else. 3. Can you not see the obsession with the local church and how it effects long term the minds of those exposed to landmarkism as a whole and kills evangelism in our churches 4. Why are there more posts on this board about the local church, getting the holy spirit through the church, and local church issues than there are about Jesus Christ.....I have read comments by men on this board that in effect have said that the Church is Jesus Christ? I am a Landmarker in every doctrine who is not a pragmatic traditionalist and believes that one receives the Holy Spirit before baptism, and that all believers are authorized to share the gospel and this makes me a liberal Landmarker and borderline heretic to many.....now just look and see how many are struggling with this teaching and ask yourself if the overemphasis of the local church among landmarkers has anything to do with it?