| SACERDOTALISM and the BAPTISTS An Exposure of the New Light Movement by Milburn Cockrell (1941-2002) All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without permission in writing from the author or publisher. ISBN l-932879-07 2 Published by the Berea Baptist Church PO Box 39 Mantachie, MISSISSIPPI 38855-0039 U S.A (662) 282-7794
Cover design by Christopher Cockrell
Printed in the U.S.A. by InstantPublisher.com P O Box 985, Collierville, TN 38027 l-800-259-2592 This Web Version was produced with permission from: Berea Baptist Church PO Box 39 Mantachie, Mississippi 38855-0039 USA (662) 282-7794 Printed copies may be ordered from the Berea Baptist Bookstore - Sacerdotalism and the Baptists. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without permission in writing from the Berea Baptist Church.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One - THE HISTORY OF THE PRIESTHOOD Chapter Two - THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY Chapter Three - WHO HAS THE HOLY SPIRIT? Chapter Four - MORE LIGHT ON NEW LIGHTERS Chapter Five - RUPTURE, NOT RAPTURE Chapter Six - ABSURDITIES OF THE PRIESTHOOD THEORY Chapter Seven - A FINAL WORD Rear Cover - A DEPARTURE FROM THE TRUTH Truth is stranger than fiction. This is most assuredly true of the modern New Light Movement now found among Sovereign Grace, Landmark, Independent Baptist Churches. That there can be found brethren in our ranks so weak and unstable in their knowledge of the Bible as to be taken in by any heresy which comes along is astonishing. I personally am shocked to see men I believed to be sound in the faith so wishy-washy in their view and so easily changed in their doctrinal position. If Jim Jones were still alive and were to come among our people, I have no doubt he could gather at least a small following. Until recent times I never believed that any people who called themselves Baptists would embrace sacerdotalism. No people have ever more bravely stood against the curse of priestcraft than our Baptist forefathers. But I have lived to see some brethren invent and preach a moderate form of sacerdotalism. "Sacerdotal" means "relating to priests or a priesthood." "Sacerdotalism" is the "religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and man." Modern New Lighters conceive of the Baptist church being God's priests on earth. To them there are no spiritual blessings or rewards outside of this anointed priesthood. Already in my lifetime I have seen a few of our preachers read post-trib books, written by religious liberals or Baptists in the charismatic movement, and suddenly embrace what they read in these books. Some were converted in less than a week's time. These men threw the pre-trib position out the door for the post-trib position of men like George Ladd and Dale Moody. Today they denounce their pre-trib brethren as "Darbyites" and "ultra-Dispensationalists". Some of these same brethren, having already confused no small number of our preachers on prophesy, are now compassing sea and land to confuse the brotherhood on the local church. They would replace the old Landmark position with an anointed priesthood which confers all spiritual blessings. Some in this crowd have taken it upon themselves to be a council of presiding bishops who alone has the authority to determine the doctrines taught in the Bible. All other preachers are limited in their understanding and must pay attention to them. How did the New Light Movement get started? A former Southern Baptist preacher left the Baptists and joined the Campbellites. He wrote a book which denied the perseverance of the saints and laid heavy stress upon the church. A Baptist preacher in the West embraced this heresy and added some to it. Then his idea seemed to penetrate to the North, East, and South. Each man who got a bit of this heresy added his own two cents worth to it. And thus we have with us today the modern New light Movement. Cold facts are indeed stranger than fiction! For over ten years I have given the New Lighters a fair hearing. I have read their papers. I have studied their books. I have listened to their sermons in Bible conferences with great interest. I have given them a fair hearing, but the more I hear their teaching, the less I think of it. More and more it is becoming pure sacerdotalism borrowed from the Roman Whore. I have given my book the title SACERDOTALISM AND THE BAPTISTS to awaken our people to the real issue that we now face. I ask the right to be heard. I ask no more than what church priesthood men have been asking for over ten years. I ask the reader to examine the facts and evidence carefully. Then search the Scriptures and see if what I say is so. If my book contains religious errors I ask my brethren to call these to my attention in a Christ like manner. No one will read the refutation of my writings with more consideration than I. I will not hide out behind the copyright laws to escape exposure at the hands of my brethren, for I know that no copyright law can protect me at the judgment seat of Christ. Elder Joe Bell very uncharitably refused to allow me to make any direct quotes from his book. Hence I was forced to make only indirect quotes to keep from violating the copyright law. I have done my best to give the essence of what he said, although a direct quote would have been much better. I have never known but one person in the religious field to deny another brother the right to quote from his material. John R. Rice, an Arminian, hid out behind the copyright law to escape exposure at the hands of Kenneth H. Good, a man who believes in the doctrines of grace. In my book I will show the main doctrines of the whole priesthood movement. It does not follow that every priesthood man believes every one of these points, for there exists serious disagreement among them on some major and minor points. Each person must be considered on his own merits or demerits. Priesthood men constantly change their theories from time to time. There is not a great deal of absolute certainty about what any particular one believes, unless he has just written down what he believes. I bear no animosity toward my brethren who hold to the New Light doctrine. I pray that the Holy Spirit will cause them to see their errors and the harm they are doing to our churches. But I will never desert the priesthood of all believes for their sacerdotalism. I seek to speak the truth to them in love, knowing that true love rejoices not in iniquity but in the truth. Milburn Cockrell July 16, 1979
CHAPTER ONE THE HISTORY OF THE PRIESTHOOD Someone has well said that you cannot understand a subject until you understand it historically. Therefore, before we go further into this treatise, I want to define the term priest and give a brief history of the priesthood from both the Old and New Testaments and church history. The word "priest" in the Old Testament is a translation of the Hebrew word KOHEN which means a minister or one officiating. It may have come from an Arabic root which is equivalent to the Hebrew root GARAB which has the meaning of to draw near. In scriptural terminology it has reference to the one who draws near the Divine presence while others remain afar off. Exodus 19:22 speaks of "the priests...which come near to the LORD." The presence of sin necessitates a priesthood. Sinful man feels his inability to draw near a holy God. He seeks someone who is likely to be more acceptable than himself to make intervention on his behalf. This mediator must offer his prayers, thanksgiving, and services. He is man's representative in things pertaining unto God. The one who fills such an office is a priest. THE PRE-MOSAIC PRIESTHOOD In the Patriarchal Age the office of a priest was occupied by the father of a family or the leader of the tribe. Job filled the office of a priest for his household (Job 1:5; Ex. 12). Noah (Gen. 8:20), Abraham (Gen. l2:7; 13:18; 26:25) and Jacob (Gen. 33:20; 35:7, 14) built altars, offered sacrifices for themselves and their families. Melchizedek seems to have been a priest to more than his immediate household. He is called "the priest of the most high God" (Gen. 14:17-20). To acknowledge the divine priesthood of Melchizedek, Abraham gave him a tithe of the spoils of war when returning from his victory over Chedorlaomer. Melchizedek's priesthood was "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life" (Heb. 7:3). There was no record of his genealogy or predecessor. This was hidden that he might typify the eternal priesthood of Christ (Ps. 110:4). The Bible mentions Potipherah (Gen. 41:45) and Jethro (Ex. 2:16) as priests in the pre-mosaic age. There were some who exercised priestly functions in Israel before the appointment of Aaron and his sons (Ex. 19:22). They held their priestly office by natural superiority of rank, either as elders or as firstborns (Gen. 4:7). THE HEBREW PRIESTHOOD The essential idea of Hebrew priesthood is seen in Numbers 16:5 which declares: "And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will show who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him." Three truths are seen in these words about the Hebrew priesthood: first, a priest must be chosen of God. Second, he must be holy. Third, he is allowed to approach God. Upon these three essential elements, the character of the whole covenant people is based. The entire nation of Israel was chosen as God's peculiar people. Deuteronomy 7:6 declares: "The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself." God said of the children of Israel in Leviticus 26:12: "Ye shall be my people." The whole nation of Israel was regarded as a holy nation. Deuteronomy 7:6 says: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God." "All the congregation are holy, every one of them" (Num. 16:3). Exodus 19:6 calls them "a holy nation." At first the whole nation of Israel stood in a priestly relation to God. They were all given the noble title of priests. To them the Lord said in Exodus 19:6 "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests." The Targums render it "kings and priests," and the Septuagint gives it "a royal priesthood and a holy nation." This language is found again in 1 Peter 2:9. We learn from Exodus 19:6 that Israel collectively was a royal and priestly race, a dynasty of priests, a people near to God (Ps. 148:14). The priestly position was contingent upon Israel's obedience to the covenant. This can be seen by reading Exodus 19:5-6. The demand of the covenant was obedience (Jer. 7:21-28). Israel's sinfulness prevented the realization of the whole nation being priests. When brought before Jehovah at Mount Sinai, they could not endure God's presence and asked Moses to act as their mediator (Ex. 20:18). Shortly after this the Aaronic priesthood was instituted. God by an act of sovereign favor committed the priesthood to Aaron and his sons (Ex. 28). This priesthood was a service gift from Jehovah (Num. 18:7). The tribe of Levi was assigned to the priests as their servants and assistants (Num. 3:5-13; 8:14-19). Aaron and his sons were committed the charge of the sanctuary and altar, while the Levites were to take care of everything else about the tabernacle. Was God defeated in purposing to make all Israel priests? No. God cannot be defeated (Dan. 4:35) nor can His purpose fail (Isa. 46:10-11). The priesthood promise in Exodus 19:6 will be realized in the Millennium: "But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall cal1 you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves" (Isa. 61:6). Isaiah 66:20-21 speaks of the time when Israel shall be brought "out of all nations" to Jerusalem. Concerning these returning Israelites the Lord says: "And I will take of them for priests and Levites." Israel will become a kingdom of priests. (Ezek. 42:13-14; 43:18-27; 44:15-16) when they become a regenerate people who keep God's laws (Ezek. 36:24-38). Modern New Lighters contend that the priesthood of Israel has been permanently revoked and that Israel's Aaronic priesthood has now been committed to the Baptist church (See GOD'S PRIESTHOOD ON EARTH p. 42, par. 5 and the end of par. on p. 43; p. 51, par. 1). They also contend that the Baptist church has an unchangeable priesthood (ibid., p. 52. par. 1. line 9). New Lighters ignore those passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel which mention the priesthood being restored to Israel in the Millennium. or they explain them away by Augustine amillennialism while some fly the banner of premillennialism. NEW TESTAMENT PRIESTHOOD As the Old Testament canon of Scripture was closing, the priesthood became a moneymaking profession. Every ministerial act was performed for a consideration (Mal. 1:10). They "corrupted the covenant of Levi" (Mal. 2:8) and forgot the idea that the priest was the messenger of the Lord (Mal. 2:7). They lost their influence and became "contemptible and base before all the people" (Mal. 2:9) Hence a new kind of priesthood was sorely needed. In the New Testament the priesthood of Aaron and his son is replaced by Jesus Christ and the Levitical priesthood by the priesthood of all believers. The sacrifices of the old order are superseded by the Sacrifice of Christ; the old priesthood is surpassed and a new priesthood inaugurated by a New Covenant. A change is made in the law governing the priesthood (Heb. 7:12). Before, priests must have come from the tribe of Levi, but Christ is from the tribe of Juda (Heb. 7: 14). The priesthood of Christ as to order is after that of Melchisedec and as to work is like that of Aaron. Today Jesus Christ is "a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb. 7:17, 21; 5:6; Ps. 110:4). No more sacrifices are needed on Jewish altars since the Son of God has become the Sacrifice (Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:26; 10:12) and the Mediator between God and man (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:6; 9:15). Since His advent there is no room for any other sacrificing priesthood. The priesthood of the New Testament is ruled by a single Priest, Jesus Christ. Christ is the great High Priest (Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 5:5; 6:20; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21) and all Christians are priests under Him. All true believers are included in Christ's Priesthood for they are all included in His Sacrifice (Rev. 1:6; 5:9-10). It is the Sacrifice of Christ which constituted the priesthood of all who believe on Him. It is only through His sacrifice that believers are enabled not only to claim their priestly privileges but to fulfill their priestly tasks. Our spiritual sacrifices are "acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1Pet. 2:5), not by the Baptist church as modern New Lighters would have us to believe. Every blood-bought saint has conferred upon him the title of "priest." Under the New Covenant all believers are unconditionally constituted a kingdom of priests (1Pet. 2:5-9). Royal priesthood is the right of all the spiritual seed of Christ, just as every qualified Levite was born to the priesthood. Those who participate through faith in Christ's atonement share the priesthood, which is His and theirs till the end of time. All Christians are priests in the New Testament and all have the right to do the priestly work of sacrificing. Under the old dispensation the Holy of Holies could only be entered by the high priest once every year on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:7; Lev. 16:11-17). When Christ died, completing a never-to-be-repeated atonement, the vail between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was rent (Matt. 27:51), showing that Christ had made "a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (Heb. 10:20). Now any blood-washed believer has free access to God (Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:18; 3:12). "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19). Our Divine right to worship and offer spiritual sacrifices is owing to "the blood of Jesus," not baptism at the hands of some Baptist preacher! What are the spiritual sacrifices of believer priests? first there is the sacrifice of self (Phil. 2:17; 2Tim. 4:6; 1John 3:16). Romans 12:1 commands us to offer our "bodies a living sacrifice." Second, there is the sacrifice of singing (Heb. 13:15-16). Third, there is the sacrifice of substance (Acts 24: 17; Phil. 4:18). Fourth, there is the sacrifice of souls converted to Christ (Rom. 8:26-27). Believers have unhindered access to God on the ground of Christ's blood, thus they can make intercession at any time (1Thes. 5:17). THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE EARLY CHURCH Writing of the foundation for the constitution of Christian communities in the apostolic age, Augustus Neander wrote: Christ, the Prophet and High Priest, for entire humanity, was the end of the prophetic office and of the priesthood. There was now the same High Priest and Mediator for all, through whom all men, being once reconciled and united with God, are themselves made a priestly and spiritual race; one heavenly King, Guide, and Teacher, through whom all are taught of God; one faith, one hope, one Spirit which should quicken all; one oracle in the hearts of all, the voice of the Spirit proceeding from the Father; ---all were to be citizens of one heavenly kingdom, with whose heavenly powers, even while strangers in the world, they should be already furnished. When the Apostles applied the Old Testament idea of the to Christianity, this seems to me to have been done invariable for the simple purpose of showing that no such visible, particular priesthood could find place in the new community; that since free access to God and to heaven had by the one High Priest, even Christ, been opened once for all to believers, they had by virtue of their union to him, become themselves a spiritual people, consecrated to God; their calling being none other than to dedicate their entire life to God as a thank-offering for the grace of redemption, to publish abroad the power and grace to Him, who had called them out of the kingdom of darkness into his marvelous light, to make their life one continual priesthood, one spiritual worship springing from the temper of faith working by love—one continuous testimony for their Saviour. (1) The early church fathers taught the priesthood of all believers. It was not only their view but their unanimous consent until the time of Origen and Cyprian. So prominent was it that it was a rare thing for a church writer of importance to be silent about it. Polycarp (A.D. 70-156), bishop of Smyrna, affirmed that all believers were saints. This proves too much for modern New Lighters who affirm there are no saints but those in church capacity. In his Epistle to the Philippians he wrote: Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High-priest Himself...and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints, and to us with you, and to all who are under heaven, who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead. (2) Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165), the Christian apologist, writing his Dialogue with Trypho, asserted the priesthood of believers. Neander cites his writings thusly: Instead of any reference to a particular priesthood we find the mention of the universal Priesthood...He says, 'God receives sacrifices from no one unless through his priests: but all Christians when purified from their sins are the true priestly generation'. (3) Irenaeus (A.D. 125-202), bishop of Lyons, also wrote of a priesthood of all justified by faith in the blood of Christ: And therefore did the Lord say to those who were His disciples because they plucked and ate the ears of corn rubbing them in their hands, 'Have you not read this, what David did, when himself was an hungered; how he went into the house of God, and ate the shew-bread, and gave to those who were with him; which it is not lawful to eat, but for the priests alone?' justifying His disciples by the words of the law, and pointing out that it was lawful for the priests to act freely. For David had been appointed a priest by God, although Saul persecuted him. For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank. (4) TWO NEW LIGHTERS APPEAR The Christian world might have continued in wondrous harmony on the priesthood of all believers, if two New lighters had not been born. The first priesthood of the church man was Origen, the Alexanderian theologian. He sought to explain the truths of the Bible according to the tenor of the Platonic philosophy. He explained the Bible by the same allegorical method that the Platonists explained the history of the gods. Mosheim tells us about him in these words: ...he alleged, that the words of scripture were, in many places, absolutely void of sense; and that though there were indeed, certain notions conveyed under the outward terms according to their literal force and import, yet it was not in these that the true meaning of the sacred writers was to be sought, but in a mysterious and hidden sense arising from the nature of the things themselves. This hidden sense he endeavours to investigate throughout the commentaries, neglecting and despiring, for the most part, the outward letter, and in this despiring, for the most part, the outward letter; and in this devious path he displays the most ingenious strokes of fancy, though always at the expense of truth, whose divine simplicity is scarcely discernible through the cobweb-veil of allegory. (5) His heresies even shocked the already corrupt Catholic Church of his day. He maintained that Satan could be saved, and Heaven was not considered a safe place because man's free will might rebel against God. He spiritualized away the resurrection of the body, denied Hell, repudiated pre-millennialism, speculated about preexistent souls and world cycles, and dissolved redemptive history into timeless myth by using the allegorical interpretation. Origen was condemned with his followers at the fifth general council at Constantinople (A.D. 553) and listed among ancient heretics. A man must have been a terrible heretic to have been declared such by the Great Whore! What did Origen believe about the priesthood? Writing in his commentary on John, he says: Now, both of these two things, the temple and the body of Jesus, appear to me, in one interpretation at least, to be types of the church, and to signify that it is built of living stones, a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the head comer-stone; and it is, therefore, called a temple... The body is the Church, and we learn from Peter that it is a house of God, built of living stones, a spiritual house for a holy priesthood. (6) Let modern priesthood of the Baptist church men ponder carefully the words of this ancient heretic. Here is the doctrine that they espouse and teach as God's truth. Here is the father of their religious system. Hence their dogma of the priesthood of the church is an old teaching which originated among an ancient heretic in the Catholic Church! Their teaching is post-apostolic in origin and like infant baptism and legions of other despicable heresies which now plague the world. It was first taught by Catholics, not Baptists. But another New Lighter came on the scene who was destined to make this awful heresy rank heresy. He was Thascius Caecillius Cyprianus (A.D. 195-258), bishop of Carthage. He was a bitter enemy of Novatus and his followers who were Baptist in principle. From him a new idea of the priesthood emerged. He surpassed Origen who had a church priesthood. He conceived that the bishop had a special priesthood and a special sacrifice to offer. The universal priesthood of all believers gave place to an actual sacrifice offered to God in the Eucharist. Here was the beginning of the whole sacerdotal theory. In the process of time the Cyprianic doctrine eclipsed the priesthood of the church of Origen and the apostolic idea of a priesthood of all believers, a doctrine so highly treasured by Christians in the first two centuries after Christ. At the first council of Carthage the doctrine of the priesthood of the believers vanished in the Catholic Church and was not revived by the Church until the appearance of Martin Luther in the sixteenth century. What had suddenly happened? For the first two centuries after Christ it was believed that every person who shared the benefits of Christ's sacrifice was a royal priest and responsible to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. In these first two centuries the priesthood of all believers was considered something spiritual and internal --- each believer's body being a temple in which spiritual sacrifices were offered. Origin suddenly made the priesthood material and external, and Cyprian not only restricted it to a visible church but to a priestly class in the church! Depraved men had now succeeded in making an earthly priesthood which stood between the human soul and the Saviour. Salvation was now placed in the hands of the priesthood of the Catholic Church. This pernicious error threw a dark shadow over the world and corrupted pure religion as no other one thing has ever done! It was this new light of Origen and Cyprian which brought about the Dark Ages! Commenting upon this sudden change, George Park Fisher says: In accordance with his theocratic idea, the priesthood was more and more regarded as representing the visible Church, as the link between the kingdom of God on earth and its divine head, and as the channel through which the Holy Spirit was communicated to the world. (7) John Lawrence Mosheim, writing this change in the thinking of some professed Christians near the end of the second century tells us: The Christian doctors had the good fortune to persuade the people, that the ministers of the Christian church succeeded to the character, rights and privileges, of the Jewish priesthood and this persuasion was a new source both of honours and profit to the sacred order. (8) Augustus Neander, writing of this same event, relates: The central point of the theocratic church system was the idea of a visible, outward priesthood, serving as the medium of connection between Christ and the church; of a sacerdotal caste distinctively consecrated to God, and requisite of the life of the church, ---through which order alone the influences of the Holy Spirit could be diffused among the laity. This idea had, in the previous period, become already a dominant idea in the church, and had exerted the greatest influence in changing and modifying all ecclesiastical relations. Though this idea was employed by such church teachers as Chrysostom and Ausustin only for the purpose of setting in its true light the religious and moral dignity of the spiritual order, of the bringing home to the hearts of such as were intending to form themselves for this order, and though such men meant by no means to disparage thereby the dignity of the universal Christian calling, yet thus the germ of many other errors came to be once introduced. Hence the false antitheses now set up between spiritual and secular, which had so injurious an influence on the whole Christian life, and by which the lofty character of the universal Christian calling was so much lowered. (9) BAPTISTS OPPOSED THE NEW LIGHTERS While the days of Cyprian and Origen marked a transition in the meaning of the priesthood and was an important landmark in church history, we must not assume the scattered true churches of Christ in Europe and Africa ever embraced sacerdotalism. Cyril Eastwood says: The doctrine of the Royal Priesthood of the Faithful had suffered eclipse not extinction, and it survived in spite of Cyprianic Teaching. (10) Our Baptist progenitors fought bravely to keep alive the priesthood of all believers against the priesthood of the Catholic Church. Fisher speaks of this time: In relating the history of the papacy we have noticed certain religious movements antagonistic to the medieval type of Christianity. The earlier of these had for their aim the overthrow of the exclusive domination of the priesthood, deeply infected as it was with worldliness and immorality. Prominent among the sects which arose were the Albigenses... The same general movement produced the Waldenses, a party not tainted with Manichean doctrine, who denied the exclusive right of the clergy to teach the gospel, and who, wherever they went kindled among the people a desire to read the Bible. (11) Most of the Baptist historians consider the Montanists an early progenitor of the modern Baptists. What did they believe about the priesthood? Speaking of them Sylvester Hassell says of Montanus, their leader: He recognized the universal priesthood and equality of believers, and he defended the right of all men to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. (12) Augustus Neander writes of the Montanists: ... The gifts of Spirit were to be dispensed without distinction to Christians of every condition and sex. Consequently those requisitions of holiness of life, which before had been confined wholly to the spiritual order, were extended by the new revelations to all Christians as such; they were thus led once more to give prominence to the idea of the dignity of the universal Christian calling, of priestly dignity of all Christians, which had in a measure, been suppressed by the confounding together of the fundamental principles of Judaism and Christianity. (13) Do not all true Baptists agree that the Waldenses were Baptists in principle and practice? What did they believe about the priesthood? Here is a quote worth considering: At Triers there were, says Neander, three schools of heretics; there seem to have been various sects, it is true; but the spread of the German versions of the Bible, and the doctrine of the universal priesthood (of Christians), are certainly marks which indicate the Waldenses. (14) On the Waldenses Hassell tells us: They maintained the universal priesthood of believers... (15) Baptist historians concede john Wycliffe (A.D. 1329-1384) to be either a Baptist or a man of Baptist principles. What did he believe about the priesthood? John Stanley says of him: He taught the common Priesthood of Believers; also that our Lord instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. He denied Baptismal Regeneration. (16) What were the views of Menno Simons on the priesthood? Do not nearly all Baptists agree that he was indeed a sound Baptist? Writing about the saving work of Christ he says: Recall that He redeemed us from the power of darkness, and according to His will and good pleasure led us into the kingdom of His dear Son. Yea, He has made us kings and priests so that we might be a chosen and holy people, a people that will serve Him in love and be His own, a people that is to publish His power, and show forth that He has called us out of darkness to His marvelous light, as Peter says, ...you are also priests....anointed, sprinkled, and beautified with the oil of the Holy Ghost, the blood of Christ, and the garment of righteousness; ordained and called there unto by God... ...priests who sacrifice them willingly as a sweet-smelling sacrifice for the sake of the Lord's truth, together with your fervent prayers and joyful thanksgiving. This you do out of a believing, converted, pure heart, for such offerings are well-pleasing to the Lord. (17) ENGLISH BAPTISTS ON THE PRIESTHOOD What views did the Baptists in England take concerning the priesthood? Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) declared his convictions in commenting upon Revelation 5:10 and 1Peter 2:9 by declaring: God's people are called Priests, and an holy Priesthood, as appears by these Scriptures... Saints are priests, not typical Priests, by a royal Priesthood, better than the Priests under the law; they are spiritual Priests, they offer up spiritual sacrifices... (18) All would probably agree with me that Col Henry D' Anvers 16?? - 1686) was a great Baptist. His views are stated in this fashion: Therefore is the believer the Royal Priesthood under Christ the high Priest (1Pet. 2:5,9; Heb. 8:l); they are the Temple, Tabernacle, the Mount Zion (Eph. 2:19-21; Heb. 3:6)... This is another part of the Saints Privilege this thousand years, not only to reign as kings, but be priests too, as Rev. l:6 and 5:10. (19) Another leader of the English was John Gill (A. D. l697-l77l). He doubtless was the greatest theologian which the English Baptists have ever produced. Commenting upon 1Peter 2:5 he says: 'An holy priesthood;' in allusion to the priests under the law, who were set apart, and sanctified for that office; but now, under the Gospel, all the saints are priests unto God, and are all appointed and directed 'to offer up spiritual sacrifices;' their whole selves, souls, and bodies, as a holy, living, and acceptable sacrifice... (20) J. Pye Smith in a lecture before the Baptist Missionary Society in England in 1842 said: "Christianity knows no other priesthood, except that which is common to all believers. We say, in the language of Tertullian, one of the fathers in whom the men referred to make their boast, that all Christians are priests." William Jones (A.D. 1762-1846), the Baptist Church historian, believed in the priesthood of all believers. He wrote: All the children of God are raised to royal honors becoming the children of such a Father; they are heirs of the kingdom, and shall inherit all things. They are consecrated priests unto God having access into the holiest of all by the blood of Jesus, 'to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ' (1Pet. 2:5; Heb. l3:l5-16). They are kings and priests even now while in this world, just as they are sons and heirs; though it doth not appear what they shall be, when they shall appear with Christ in glory, and shall obtain the crown and kingdom. (21) C. H. Spurgeon (l834-1892), who pastored for thirty years the famous Metropolitan Tabernacle, said in a sermon he preached on August l, 1897: But how are we priests? I am not now talking about ministers, I am talking about all of you who love the Lord. Christ has made all of us, who believe in him, to be kings and priests unto God: there is no priesthood in the world that is of God save the high-priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, next to that, the priesthood which is common to all believers; and the idea of there being a priesthood on earth above and beyond the priesthood of all believers, is a false one, and there is no Scripture whatever to vindicate it, to justify it, or even to apologize for it, it is one of the lies of old Rome. (22) Alexander Maclaren (A.D. 1826-1910), the prince of expository preachers, was not a new lighter. He wrote: So all believers are priests, or none of them are. The absolute right of direct access to God, without the intervention of any man who has an officially greater nearness to Him than others, and through whom as through a channel the grace of sacrament comes, is contained in the great symbol of my text. And it is a truth that this day needs. On the one hand there is agnostic unbelief, which needs to see in the rent veil the illumination streaming through it on to the depths of God; and on the other hand the there is the complementary error---and the two always breed each other---the superstition which drags back by an anachronism the old Jewish notions of priesthood into the Christian Church. It needs to see in the rent veil the charter of universal priesthood for all believers, and to hearken to the words which declared, 'Ye are a chosen generation, a spiritual house, a royal priesthood, that ye should offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable unto God by Jesus Christ.' (23) AMERICAN BAPTISTS AND THE PRIESTHOOD The American Baptists are almost unanimous in defense of the royal priesthood of every blood-bought saint. Commenting upon 1Peter 2:5,9, Thomas F. Curtis (1795-1858) said: All true Christians, then are by nature and inheritance, priests, and as such it is the highest privilege and imperative duty to pray for and teach all mankind knowledge of the true God." (24) Francis Wayland (1796-I865), president of Brown University, asserted: As a natural and inspired consequence of the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, we have ever held to that of the universal priesthood of believers. We have always proclaimed that every child of God has the right, in his own person, of drawing near to God through the intercession of the one only Mediator and High Priest. Hence we reject all notions of the necessity of human mediators and with it, all belief in holiness of a priesthood, and in general of an ecclesiastical caste. (25) Hezekiah Harvey (1821 18"), professor of Hamilton Theological Seminary, declared: Ministers, in the New Testament are never designated as priests. All believers are, indeed. made kings and priests unto God, and constitute a 'royal priesthood,' since, through the blood of Christ, they all have access through the veil into the immediate presence of God to offer spiritual sacrifices to him. (26) Thomas Armitage (1819-96), the American Baptist church historian, expressed himself on the priesthood thusly: Still; as if of set purpose, no specific officer in Christianity answers of the common order of priests in the Levitical economy; for the whole body of believers indiscriminately is designed by Peter, 'a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ! (27) Elder Sylvester Hassell, Primitive Baptist church historian of the l800's, spoke in vindication of the priesthood of believers: All elect saints are priests unto God (1Peter 2:5,9; Rev. l:6; 5:l0), specially chosen by the Father, specially redeemed by the Son, and specially purified by the Spirit; qualified to offer up to God the acceptable sacrifices of humble, broken and thankful hearts, and to receive assurances of His pardoning love... (28) Augustus Strong (1836-1921), president of Rochester Theological Seminary, held to the royal priesthood of all who share in the benefits of Christ. He asserted: "In Christ the believer is prophet, priest, and king." (29) He then lists 1Peter 2:5,9 as proof text. He was no modern New lighter. James Madison Pendleton (1811-91), Professor of Theology at Union University, held to the old paths: That believers are united to Christ is a truth unspeakably important and infinitely precious. It is a truth which the New Testament affirms in a variety of ways. When, for instance, Christ is termed 'the true Vine,' his disciples are said to be 'branches' of the Vine. John 15:l,5. When he is styled a 'Foundation' and 'Cornerstone, elect, precious.' Christians are described as 'living stones' out of which a spiritual house is built upon the foundation. (See 1Cor. 3:11; Pet. II 7,5). (30) James Bruton Gambrell (1841-1921), president of Mercer University and editor of THE BAPTIST RECORD, favored our position: Individualism correlates with the priesthood of all believers. Let it be known that every man may for himself, at all times, anywhere, come to a throne of grace and find pardon, peace, life eternal, and the whole vast system of priestcraft receives its death blow. Freedom to read God's word, freedom to worship God as he feels he should, freedom to act for himself in religious matters, freedom to go to God for himself for wisdom and all blessings without the intervention of a human priest or preacher, complete the disenthralment of the man and put him in the way of all blessings." (31) In the New Testament every believer is a priest. Believers are 'an holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices,' says the Holy Spirit. Each believer can enter into spiritual relations with God through Christ, the Great High Priest. No human priest can mediate divine blessing from God to men. Whoever assumes to stand between the human soul and the Savior is assuming priestly functions, whether he be in a Romish dress or a preacher's coat. (32) Isaac Massey Haldeman (1845-1933), was not a modern New Lighter. He wrote: The Priesthood of Christ belongs in heaven, and is for those only who are joined to Him as the man risen from the dead, ascended and seated in the glory. The Christian who goes under the law, goes under the Levitical priesthood; as Christ is a priest only for those who are judicially dead, risen and ascended in Him to heavenly places, then the Christian who goes under the law shuts himself out from the priesthood of Christ...But more than this, it would settle all controversy about sacerdotalism and make a separate priesthood in the church impossible. As priesthood on earth belongs exclusively to the people of Israel, then there is no priesthood on earth in the church except the spiritual priesthood which belongs to all believers. (33) Benajah Harvey Carroll (1843-1914), first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Bible commentator, writing on Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews said: In other words, every one born of the Holy Spirit is a priest who may at all times, in all places, and under all emergencies go for himself directly to God. (34) No one can doubt that B. H. Carroll was sound on the church question. No honest New Lighter would even dispute that he was not orthodox on the church question, but he saw no need of a Baptist Church Priesthood. He again wrote on the Pastoral Epistles: Writing on Revelation he says: The antitype is the universal priesthood of all Christians under the New Covenant: 'Ye are to be a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices—a royal priesthood' (1Peter 2:5,9). (35) James Britton Cranfill (1858-1942), Texas Baptist writer and leader, held our position: The celibate priesthood was unknown in New Testament times, the fact being that there was no priesthood among the New Testament churches, and certainly it was never intended for ecclesiasticism to reverse the Word of Jehovah, who when Adam lingered solitarily in Eden, said, 'It is not good to be alone." (36) Phillip Jones, for sixteen years Book Editor of the American Baptist Publication Society, said: This doctrine of the individual relationship of the soul to God has always and everywhere been, nor is, more Baptistic that this. No edict of the State, no ordinance of the Church, no act of the ecclesiastic, no function of the priest, will one imbued with Baptist doctrine permit to come between himself and his Maker. He says, with no one and no thing to intervene, 'my Father', and with filial affection in his heart he enters his presence... He never has surrendered, he never will surrender this priceless gift of the soul's competency in its dealings with God. Each man is a priest in his own inherent right; each woman is a priestess and can gain access to Him who has said 'all souls are mine.' No intercession of saints is needed no pleading of Mary, whom Rome has elevated to a position no scripture warrants; no placating ministry of the divine Lord himself is demanded. (37) THE MODERN NEW LIGHTERS I am not absolutely sure who was the first Baptist preacher to restrict the priesthood of the New Testament to Baptist churches. To the best of my knowledge, it sprang up in the 1960's and l97O's. The leader of the New Lighters in the West of our country is Elder Sharrel E. Ford, pastor of the Bethel Missionary Church, Sacramento, California, and editor of THE MIDNIGHT CRY. He has systematized the dogma more than any other man and is its most able defender. It is possible that he may have been the founder of the whole New Light Movement among Baptists. As to its beginning in the South I am well informed, being a Southerner and having spent most of my life in Mississippi. The first man I ever personally heard of that preached the New Testament Baptist Churches were God's priesthood on earth was Elder Joe Bell, pastor of the Central Baptist Church, Grenada, Mississippi. I was told by a brother that Elder Bell taught this doctrine in 1969. In a few years I heard Elder Bell and others preach this revolutionary doctrine in Bible conferences in my home state. In the process of time I have lived to see many of my Mississippi and Alabama brethren embrace this new teaching and commence to preach it in their churches. Some brethren were so unstable as to be converted to it in less than a week while others held out against it for years before accepting it. In 1978 Elder Bell published his book on GOD'S PRIESTHOOD ON EARTH. It is the first comprehensive treatment of the priesthood of the Baptist Church. A friend of Elder Bell immediately described this book as a "Baptist and Biblical work." The introduction of Elder Bell's book contains an eye opening confession. On page 10 he confesses that the knowledge of the subject in his book was learned from Bro. Irvin Wallace of Harmony, North Carolina. I commend Elder Bell for this noble confession, for an honest confession is good for the soul. It would appear from the statement aforementioned in Elder Bell's book that the leader of the priesthood of the Baptist Church idea in the East is Elder Irvin Wallace of Harmony, North Carolina. Elder Wallace taught the priesthood idea before Bro. Bell since Elder Bell admitted he learned it from Bro. Wallace. In the North Elder Austin fields, pastor of Arabia Missionary Baptist Church, Coal Grove, Ohio, embraced the priesthood dogma about the time of these other three men. He wrote an entire paper in defense of this new position in the October issue of his paper, THE COMFORTER. Elder Fields soon lined up a few other brethren with his New Light Movement in his area. About 1976 Elder Robert Burnett joined the new movement of Elder Fields. Elder Burnett's church, the Maryville Missionary Baptist Church, Maryville, Illinois, was a daughter of the Arabia Baptist Church and Pastor Fields. Burnett quickly far surpassed Fields in the New light Movement. So far did Robert Burnett go that on June of 1977 the Arabia Baptist Church and Pastor Fields withdrew fellowship from Maryville Church for departing "from the faith." I offer some questions for my New Light brethren at this point: What has happened to the Maryville Baptist Church? Where is Bob Burnett its former pastor? What practical effects did the priesthood doctrine have on this man and his church? Let my brethren give the answer according to the facts. The truthfulness of any doctrine can be seen in its practical effects upon a man and his church. If the priesthood of the Baptist Church makes men stronger Baptists, how do they explain Bob Burnett and his church? Does their doctrine make stronger Baptists, or does it have a killing effect upon a preacher and his church? I ask my priesthood brethren to give the answer. The Baptist Church Priesthood Doctrine started in the West by Sharrel Ford, in the East by Irvin Wallace, in the South by Joe Bell, and in the North by Austin Fields and Robert Burnett. Elders Ford, Fields and Burnett have been disfellowshiped by the vast majority of our Baptist churches. Elders Bell and Wallace remain in good standing among most churches, both holding to a more moderate position than either Fields or Ford. Among Landmark Baptist Churches, especially Sovereign Grace Landmark Churches, there is a great uproar about the New Light Movement. Bible conferences and even revival meetings are often the scenes of heated debates and doctrinal discussions. A good number of our churches have already barred the door to all brethren who have embraced the New light Movement. Others have disfellowshiped the extreme Baptist Church priesthood advocates and continue fellowship with moderate priesthood brethren. The prospect for a complete break in our ranks is perhaps soon to occur for a number of reasons. First, the New Lighters are becoming more extreme in some of their views and bold to preach them. They denounce their brethren who hold to the priesthood of all believers as "men who lack the mental capacity to understand deep church truth," or "watered down Baptists." Second, those who oppose the New Lighters are beginning justly to apply the name "heretic" to the priesthood men. Third, this whole situation is made worse by a growing hyper-Calvinism and an ever-changing position on Bible prophecy on the part of the Baptist Church priesthood men. It is not to be expected that those who hold to the priesthood of all believers are going to give up what they have always understood the Bible to teach and Baptists to have always believed for the sake of fellowship with New Lighters. Nor can we expect the New Lighters to give up their new dogma as they have written books and preached it for years. There is serious conflict between the two views and total disruption between the two groups is inevitable in the future. It is sincerely hoped by this writer that when such division comes that it may come in the manner of the parting of Lot and Abraham (Gen. 13:5-9). NOTES l. Augustus Neander, GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND CHURCH (London, England: Henry G. Bohn, 1853 edition), Vol. I, P. 249. 2. J. B. Lightfoot, THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House), p. 99. 3. Augustus Neander, LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN DOGMAS (London. England: Henry G. Bohn, 1858 edition), pp. 238-239. 4. ANTI-NICENE FATHERS (Grand Rapids Mich; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), Vol., I p. 471. 5. John Lawrence Mosheim, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 75-76. 6. ANTE-NICENE FATHERS op. cit., Vol I, pp.400-404. 7. HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924 edition), p. l0l. 8. ECCLESIASTTCAL HISTORY (Rosemead, Cal.: Old Paths Book Club), p. 50. 9. Neander, op. cit. Vol III, p. 207-208. l0. Cyril Eastwood, THE ROYAL PRIESTHOOD OF THE FAITHFUL (London, England: The Epworth Pres), Vol. I, p. 89. ll. Fisher, op. cit., p. 272. l2. Sylvester Hassell, HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF GOD (Atlanta, GA: Turner Lassetter), p. 367. l3. Neander, op. cit., Vol II, pp. 2l2-2l3. l4. Cited by William Cathcart, THE BAPTTST ENCYCLOPEDIA (Philadelphia: Louis H. Evens, l88l edition), Vol. II, p. 1200. 15. Hassell, op. cit., p. 440. 16. John Stanley, THE CHURCH IN THE HOP GARDEN (London, England: The Kingsgate Press), p. 24. 17. Menno Simons, THE COMPLETE WRITINGS (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald Press), pp. 326-327. 18. Benjamin Keach, PREACHING FROM THE TYPES AND METAPHORS OF THE BIBLE (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, Copyright in 1974, Used by permission), p.777. 19. Henry D' Anvers, THEOPOLIS (London, England: T. Ratcliff; 1672 edition), pp. 241, 104. 20. John Gill, GILL'S EXPOSITOR (Streamwood, Ill. Primitive Baptists Library), Vol IX, p. 544. 21. William Jones, LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE (London, England: Holdsworth and Ball 1830 edition), p. 24. 22. C. H. Spurgeon, THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE PULPIT (Pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim Publications), Vol. XLIII, p. 366. 23. Alexander Maclaren, EXPOSITTONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURES (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.), Vol. V, p. 349. 24. Thomas F. Curtis, THE PROGRESS OF BAPTTST PRINCIPLES (Boston, Mass: Gould and Lincoln. 1857 edition), pp. 337-338. 25. Francis Wayland. NOTES OF THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTTCES OF BAPTIST CHURCHES (New York, N.Y.: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1857 edition), p. 131. 26. Hezekiah Harvey, THE CHURCH: ITS POLITY AND ORDINANCES (Philadelphia, Penn: American Baptist Publication Society, 1879 edition), p. 73. 27. Thomas Armitage, PREACHING: ITS IDEAL AND INNER LIFE (Philadelphia, Penn: American Baptist Publication Society, 1880 edition), p. 19. 28. Sylvester Hassell, HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF GOD (Atlanta, GA.: Turner Lassetter), p. 88. 29. Augustus Strong, SYSTEMATTC THEOLOGY (Westwood, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Co.), p. 805. 30. James Pendleton, CHRISTTAN DOCTRINE (Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson Press), 324. 31. James Gambrell, DISITNCTTVE BAPTIST PRINCIPLES (Richmond, Va.: The Religious Herald Co. 1902 edition), p. 251. 32. J. B. Gambrell BAPTTST AND THEIR BUSINESS (Nashville, TN.: Sunday School Board of S.B.C., 19l9 edition), p. 117. 33. I. M. Haldeman, HOW TO STUDY THE BIBLE (Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1904 edition), pp. 24, 394. 34. B. H. Carroll, AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House), p. 272. 35. B. H. Carroll. ibid., pp. 211, 87. 36. J. B. Carnfill, RE-THINKING BAPTIST DOCTRINES (Louisville, KY: The Western Recorder, 1937 edition), p. 148. 37. Philip Jones, A RESTATEMENT OF BAPTTST PRINCIPLES (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society. 1909 edition), pp. 16-l7.
THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY The crucial point of the dispute is: Who is, in this age, a priest of God? Most independent Baptists still hold to the priesthood of all believers, although a good number are now embracing the New Light doctrine. Honest priesthood men will freely confess that their old position was the priesthood of all believers. They have changed their views; we have not changed ours. New Lighters limit God's priesthood on earth to their special kind of Baptist churches. Elder Austin Fields, writing in the October 1974 issue of THE COMFORTER, said "The church like the kingdom of priests in the Old Testament, has the Lord abiding with her in the form of the Comforter, and no other body or individual can be called a priest or a kingdom of priests, outside the building which the Lord built." In the September 22, 1973 issue of THE BAPTTST EXAMINER Bro. Fields said: "My conclusion is that the priesthood of the church is not in any sense of the word universal, rather it is local, and the believer must be a member of the body (Baptist Church) before he can be in contact with the head of the body, Jesus Christ" (p. 4). Elder Robert Burnett, a disciple of Austin Fields, wrote in the September, 1976 issue of THE DELIVERER; "We have been turned by the Lord from the false doctrine of the priesthood of the individual child of God unto the Sprit's teaching of the priesthood of the church of Jesus Christ" (p. 3). Elder Joe Bell's whole book is written to prove the Landmark Baptist Church is God's priesthood on earth and that the priesthood resides in such churches (pp. 14, l7, 32, 34, 37, 42-43, 52, 67, 74, 76, 84, 90, 96-97, 100). He goes so far as to say on page 74, paragraph 1, line 7, that the Baptist Church continues Christ's priestly work on earth. Elder Sharrel E. Ford, writing in the September, l976 issue of THE MIDNIGHT CRY declared: "Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant (Heb. 8,9,l0) and all church members are priests in the New Covenant sanctuary, 1Pet. 2:5,9; 1Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20; Eph. 2:20-22; Heb. l0:2l-25). From these passages it is clear that (1) the church is the temple of God, (2) those in the church (God's temple) are priests, and (3) the priesthood is limited to the church in this age." Elder Ford believes that a person enters the priesthood at the point of water baptism: "In baptism the old man (body) is reckoned to be crucified, dead and buried with Christ. Yet out of the watery grave figuratively comes the new glorified man. In baptism we symbolically put off the old sinful body and put on the new glorified body. This glorified body is the priestly garment. Only those in a true church with scriptural baptism have symbolically put on the glorified body or priestly garment, and can thereby serve as priests in the temple of God" ( THE MIDNIGHT CRY, Sept., 1976). These views set forth by Elders Fields, Burnett, Bell and Ford are in perfect harmony with the dogmas of Roman Catholics and Campbellites, but totally foreign to what Baptists have believed and taught over the years. While the Roman Catholic Church maintains an ordained minister in their church who administers the sacraments and teaches the Word is a priest, they also teach the priesthood of all lay members of their church. The 1975 CATHOLIC ALMANAC says under "PRIESTHOOD OF THE LAITY": Lay persons share in the priesthood of Christ in virtue of the sacraments of and confirmation. They are not only joined with Christ for a life of union with him but are also disputed by him for participation in his mission, now carried on by the Church, of worship, teaching, witness and apostolic works. St. Peter called Christians 'a royal priesthood (1Peter 2:9) in this connection. St. Thomas Aquinas declared: 'The sacramental characters (of baptism and confirmation) are nothing else than certain sharings of the priesthood of Christ, derived from Christ himself." (1) Please observe the Roman Catholics believe there is no priesthood outside the members of their churches. To them you become a priest by "the sacraments of baptism and confirmation." This is closely akin to what modern New Lighters teach. Roman Catholics teach that outside of their Church there is no salvation. New Lighters on the one hand affirm salvation is in the Baptist Church, and on the other hand deny they believe this. N. B. Hardeman, the well-known Campbellite preacher, limited God's priesthood on earth to the Campbellite Church. He said: I call attention to 1Peter 2:9: 'Brethren, ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that you should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light'. Who are those that constitute a peculiar people? Who are those that go to make up a royal priesthood? Who is that chosen generation, and that holy nation? It is God's people, God's church. So, then, the church of God is big enough, broad enough, comprehensive enough, to embrace every child of God on earth. (2) Hence the teaching of limiting the priesthood to a religious society is not a novelty at all. Origen, the Roman Catholic theologian of the third century, held this view, and it is still maintained by Roman Catholics today. The Campbellite Church has always taught that their church is God's priesthood on earth. But unlike these water salvationists, Baptists have never limited the priesthood to their visible churches; they have not done so because they do not make baptism synonymous with salvation or the priesthood. Modern New Lighters would change all of this. They would lay hold upon the doctrines of Roman Catholics and Campbellites and transfer them into the Baptist churches, which have remained free from these errors for over nineteen hundred years. I call these Baptist brethren "New Lighters," not because their doctrine is new (it is old Catholic and Campbellite heresy), but because their teaching is new in the ranks of Baptists. All the teaching about the priesthood of the church is contingent upon Scriptural proof that water baptism puts one into God's priesthood on earth. If this single point can be proved from dear Scriptures, they have a plausible case. But if it cannot be shown by a "Thus said the Lord," their foundation is rotten and their whole superstructure is no better. Over the years I have asked them for one plain verse which teaches that water baptism places one into the priesthood. Needless to say, I am still waiting for such a proof text until this day. Realizing the bad light this put them in, they set out to prove their new teaching by verses which never mentioned the priesthood. At other times they seek to prove it all by Old Testament typology--- a thing they tell us pre-tribers would never do to try to prove the pre-trib rapture. It is strange to me that typology is a fine thing to prove the priesthood of the Baptist Church and worthless to prove the pre-trib position! A third way they try to establish the new dogma is by saying that everything said or taught in the New Testament was "taught or spoken to people in church capacity." Two honest priesthood men admitted to me some years ago there was no plain verse which said baptism put one in the Baptist Church priesthood, yet they went on to tell me that they believed with all their heart in the Baptist Church being God's priesthood on earth. The whole idea of the Baptist Church priesthood started out with an assumption--an assumption which has not one single verse to prove its validity. They assume the church is God's priesthood and proceed to interpret the whole Bible based upon this assumption. Since the church is the priesthood you enter the priesthood the same way you enter the church. They do not seek to prove by plain Scripture that water baptism put you into the priesthood. For this we must merely take their word that it is so. I might assume that black is white, but that would not make it so. 1PETER 2:5,9 New Lighters depend upon 1Peter 2:5,9 for their doctrine as much as Campbellites depend upon Mark 16:16 and the Roman Catholics John 20:23. These they call their irrefutable proof texts. One of the passages reads: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." What have Baptist theologians in times past understood this passage to teach? John Gill applied these words to "all the saints" "all the people of Christ." N. M. Williams in AN AMERICAN COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT applied 1Peter 2:5,9 to all Christians. Most other Baptists for the last three hundred years have said the same. Those Baptists who applied it to a church were referring to a universal, invisible church--not a local, visible Baptist Church. But enough of what men have said 1Peter 2:5 means. The Bible was written for our understanding (Rom. 15:4). One does not have to be a great theologian to understand God's Word. Let us examine the verse. What is meant by "lively stones"? This part of the verse priesthood men seldom mention. The same "ye" that are priests are also lively stones. The fact that those Peter addressed were lively stones is what qualified them for the other things he mentioned. Did these "lively stones" obtain spiritual life by baptism at the hands of a Baptist preacher? Or, were they given spiritual life by the Holy Spirit apart from the ordinance of water baptism? Unless one wants to shut up salvation inside of a Baptist Church, he must not limit the "lively stones" to Baptist church members. If the "lively stones" are not limited to Baptist church members, then why the priesthood? Remember the same "ye" is applied to both cases. But what about "a spiritual house"? Does not the Bible call the church the house of God and a temple of the Lord? Yes, the church is called by these names in Ephesians 2:20-22 and 1Timothy 3:15, but it does not follow that Peter is speaking about the Church when he used the word "house". The term "house" has many different meanings in the Bible. It often means in the New Testament the descendants of a person (Matt. 10:6; Luke 1:27, 33; Acts 2:36, 7:42), or the members of a household (Luke 10:5; Acts 7:10; 1Tim. 3:4, 5, 12; 2Tim. 1:16; 4:19). The "spiritual house' mentioned by Peter is all believers made alive by the Holy Spirit, all of those which are "lively stones," all the spiritual seed of Christ. New Lighters affirm that you cannot offer up acceptable spiritual sacrifices apart from membership in a Baptist church. 1Peter 2:5 is their proof text. Does this verse establish their doctrine or just the reverse? Our spiritual sacrifices are acceptable "to God by Jesus Christ." This means that our services are acceptable in virtue of Christ's sacrifice. It is through Christ's redemption that we who are so worthless in ourselves are made pleasing to God. Modern New Lighters would do away with Christ's sacrifice which makes our service acceptable. They teach that it is baptism in water by a Baptist preacher which makes our services acceptable. To them Christ does not make our services acceptable to God, but the Baptist Church can—-exalting the church above Christ. Writing in the June 17, 1972, issue of THE BAPTIST EXAMINER Bro. Richard Farnham said: "Most of us that hold to the truth of the Lord's Church believe that there is no true service outside the New Testament Baptist Church. That the only lawful service is in the church...Others may be saved, but cannot serve Him, because they are outside the pillar and ground of the truth, His Church and His Priesthood" (p. 8). Priesthood men exalt the church over Christ's sacrifice. They make the church to do what the blood of Christ cannot do--empower us to offer acceptable service to God. Peter said our spiritual sacrifices were acceptable to God through Christ; modern New Lighters say it is through the Baptist Church! They have been known when going to extreme effort to prove their new doctrine to place salvation in the church. In my presence one of the leaders of the New Light Movement said twice in one sermon: "Salvation is in the church." Another speaking at another conference said: "I take the position that there is no salvation outside of the Lord's church or kingdom." In the September 22, 1973, issue of THE BAPTIST EXAMINER Bro. Austin Fields declared: "... the believer must be a member of the body (Baptist Church) before he can be in contact with the head of the body, Jesus Christ." Please note that Elder Fields said that a person contacts Christ through His church! Elder Joe Bell affirms in his book that to abide in the Baptist Church is to abide in Christ (p. 113, Par. 3, line 11). Let us now consider 1Peter 2:9. Before discussing the meaning of this passage let us consider from the preceding verses to whom Peter is writing. Is he writing to a local Baptist church in a certain town? Verse 1, of chapter l, says he addresses scattered strangers throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia. If this is one big Baptist church it is indeed a gigantic one for it covers five Roman provinces! Jack Hyles has never built such a church, nor does history ever record such a church. These people were scattered. Do scattered saved people in five Roman provinces constitute a church? Can you have a church where people are scattered and never assemble together? In verse 2, chapter 1, Peter makes it plain he writes to those elected by the Father, sanctified by the Spirit, and sprinkled by the blood of Christ. To limit these words to a Baptist church is to reprobate all non-Baptists to Hell. Are New Lighters ready to take this position? In verse 3 he speaks of those born again. In verse 5 he speaks of those who have salvation and faith. In verse 15 he mentions effectual calling. In verse 21 and 22 he mentions those who believe in God. In verse 23 those born again of the incorruptible seed. Are we to limit these statements to a Baptist Church? To my knowledge, not even New Lighters are ready to do so. In chapter 2, verse 2, Peter addresses "newborn babes." Are all newborn babes in church capacity? If so then the church must give spiritual life. In verse 2 he speaks of those who have come to Christ. Is this limited to the Baptist Church? If not then why limit 1Peter 2:5,9 to people in a Baptist church? There is absolutely no reason to do so from the context. No one would have ever thought up such an idea if they did not have a dogma to defend. In 1Peter chapter 2, verse 6, Peter speaks of "he that believeth on him." In verse 8 of those "which believe." Then he goes on to say that these same people are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people." No one by looking at the context would fail to see that he speaks of all believers. Peter has not even mentioned the church. He is addressing all who believe in Jesus Christ. What is meant by "a chosen generation"? This is not Baptist church members, but all of those the Father chose to salvation in Christ. To shut up election inside of a Baptist church is to reprobate all non-Baptists to hell. It is to teach a conditional election based upon church membership. God's election was not based upon man's works. The last part of 1Peter 2:9 speaks of effectual calling. This cannot be limited to a Baptist Church. In fact, a person who has not made his calling and election sure has no business in a Baptist church. 1Peter 2:5, 9 teaches the priesthood of all believers, all of those saved by Christ and elected by the Father. These verses teach there is no acceptable service outside of Christ and His atonement for our sins. The word church is not even found in 1Peter 2, yet New lighters would have us to believe these two verses teach the priesthood of Landmark Baptist Churches. Question for New lighters: Where does it say in 1Peter 2:5, 9 that baptism puts one in the priesthood? REVELATION 1:5-6 In Revelation 1:5-6 the Bible says: "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father..." Here the same ones who are loved by Christ and washed from their sins by His blood, are the same ones who are constituted priests by Christ. These people did not make themselves priests by water baptism; they were made priests by Jesus Christ. All these blood-washed saints enjoy priestly privileges because they all receive the benefit of Christ's blood. Question for the New Lighters on this passage: (1) Did Christ wash only Baptists in His blood? If so did they contact the blood of Christ in water baptism? (2) Are only Baptists washed from their sins? If so why do New Lighters teach there are some saved outside the Baptist church? (3) If you limit the priesthood to Baptists and apply the love of Christ and the benefits of the blood to all believers, are you consistent? Brethren, what will you do? Will you shut up salvation inside a Baptist church, or give up the church priesthood doctrine? (4) If all believers have the blessings of Christ's blood, then why not the priesthood? (5) If one is baptized into the priesthood, why is the word baptism not mentioned in these verses? REVELATION 5:9-10 The priesthood is mentioned again in Revelation 5:9-10: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." Here we see that those whom Christ made priests are those whom He redeemed out of Adam's race. It is the saints who shall reign on the earth. This must include both Old and New Testament saints for they all will reign with Christ (Dan. 7:27; Ps. 149:5-9). Unless one denies that the Old Testament saints will reign with Christ, he cannot help but see that those in the reign are every blood-washed saint. These are already made priests and kings by the blood of Christ. If the doctrine of church priesthood men is true, then the saints here in Heaven should be seen praising the Baptist Church, not Jesus Christ, for their priesthood. REVELATION 20:6 The last New Testament text on the priesthood is found in Revelation 20:6 which reads: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Here it is plainly stated that all in the first Resurrection will be priests unto God and reign with Christ. This harmonizes with Revelation 1:5-6 and 5:9-10 which confers the priesthood on all blood-washed saints. To limit the priesthood to Baptist churches in the New Testament is to limit the first Resurrection and the millennium to Baptists only. Most priesthood men, regardless of their views on prophecy, are not ready to take this position yet, although Elder Joe Bell just about takes this position in the last chapter of his book. If priest is applied here to all the saints in the first Resurrection and who reign with Christ, is it not so applied in Revelation 1:5-6 and 5:9-10? Questions for New Lighters: (l) Will only Baptists be in the first Resurrection? (2) Are only Baptists blessed and holy? (3) Are only Baptists exempt from the second death? (4) Will only Baptists reign with Christ in the Millennium? (5) Since 1Corinthians l5:23 says all in the first Resurrection are Christ's does this not teach that more be involved in the first resurrection than Baptist church members? Or, will the New Lighters affirm that non-Baptist believers do not belong to Christ? (6) If only Baptists are priests and belong to Christ, then have New Lighters not shut up salvation inside the Baptist Church? (7) Why is baptism not mentioned in Revelation 20:6 as a condition of being in the priesthood? I have examined every passage in the New Testament which mentions the word "priest." Not one single verse connects the word "church" with the word "priest." Not one verse says a person is made a priest by water baptism. Not one single verse speaks of "the priesthood of the Baptist church." No place does it say that a man can make or help make himself a priest. All the passages teach that our priestly services are accepted by the merits of Christ and that we are made priests by being washed in His blood. To teach that the Baptist church makes one a priest is to repudiate passages like Revelation 1:5-6 and 5:9-10. It is to confer a power upon the Baptist church, to dethrone Christ, and to attempt to invalidate His sacrifice! Men cannot confer upon us the office of priest; God only can do this (Heb. 5:1-4). The Baptist church is as powerless to confer the priesthood upon a man as it is to save his soul! NO ACCEPTABLE SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH? I freely agree with my opponents that there is no Scriptural baptism, Lord's Supper, or any church privileges to be enjoyed outside of a New Testament Baptist Church. Unlike them, l do not believe that all service to Christ is limited to an actual church service. I do not believe that the only time you can serve God is in the assembly of baptized believers. This would limit our service to the few hours we spend in church services each week. New Lighters need very much to qualify what they mean by no service outside of a Baptist church. Some of them admit that a man outside of the church can pray. If they are correct in this then there is at least one acceptable service outside the church--prayer. This means that they are wrong in teaching there is no acceptable service outside of the Baptist Church. Do they mean that service can be done by a Baptist when not in church capacity? How can you be in church capacity if the church is not assembled? If a person acts in serving Christ at a time when the church is not assembled and without the vote of the church, is he serving outside the church or in church capacity? Is every act of a Baptist church member null and void during the week when the church is not assembled? NOTES 1. Felician A. Foy. 1975 CATHOLICC ALMANAC (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor. Inc. Copyrighted 1974. Used with permission), p. 372. 2. N. B. Hardeman, HARDEMAN'S TABERNACLE SERMONS (Nashville, Tenn.: McQuiddy Printing Co., 1928 edition). Vol III, p. I54.
WHO HAS THE HOLY SPIRIT? Within the last few years a new doctrine has suddenly made its emergence into some Baptist circles. This neophyte belief is that the Holy Spirit cannot be received by individual Christians, but is promised only to those who are members of a Baptist Church. The advocates of this teaching maintain that no one can have the Spirit as the Comforter who is not first baptized in water. This is a brand new doctrine hatched up in the last few years by New Lighters. Elder Austin fields wrote: "He has not promised the Holy Spirit as the Comforter to us as individuals, rather it was to His church that He promised power and His abiding presence unto the end. We know that each child of God has spiritual life, whether he be a Baptist, Methodist, or whatever denomination, but we do contend that no one outside of the true church has the Spirit as the Comforter. The Shepherd promised that He (Comforter) would guide into all truth where there is no truth, there is no Comforter' (THE COMFORTER, Jan. 1976, p. 4). Elder fields again writes: "From these accounts, we are contending that unless one is baptized in water upon the authority of an institution of the Lord, they do not have the right to claim they are in possession of the gift of the Holy Spirit." Elder Robert Burnett penned these words: "..if the Comforter was sent into every regenerated heart, then indeed, there would be a universal church (which thing we detest), but He was sent by the Son of God to one place, the CHURCH of Jesus Christ. There are many half-brothers in the midst of darkness who proclaim that the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of the individual child of God, and by so espousing such a doctrine, are unwittingly advocating a 'universal church" (THE DELIVERER, July, 1976. P. 4.) Elder Sharrell E. Ford says: "The Holy Spirit is received at the same moment one is scripturally baptized in water (Acts 2:38). The believer receives the indwelling Holy Spirit when he is baptized into the body which is the temple of the Spirit, 1Cor. 12:13. Not until scriptural water baptism is the believer indwelt by the Spirit, John 7:37-39, 14:17; Acts 2:38, 19:1-7," (THE MIDNIGHT CRY, Sept., 1976, p. 3). Elder Ford says in the April 1, 1977, issue of the MIDNIGHT CRY: "The Holy Spirit was neither promised nor given to all saved people---only to the church which does not include all saved people... Modern traditions of men say that ALL saved people have the Holy Spirit, that ALL saved people are justified, that ALL saved people are God's elect. The Bible does NOT agree with these and many other charges which Satan has surreptitiously produced over the centuries." (p. 1) He again writes: "From the day of Pentecost, without exception, the Holy Spirit has been received from a true church in which the Spirit was dwelling. To receive the indwelling Holy Spirit one had to repent, believe in Christ, and be baptized by a properly appointed representative of a true church. To put it in still other words, the church is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The individual believer receives the indwelling Spirit when he becomes a member of a church where the Spirit dwells. Believers outside true churches do not have the indwelling presence of the Spirit" (ibid., July, 1978, pp. 2-3). BAPTO-CAMPBELLITES? It is very interesting to note that in 1835 Alexander Campbell wrote this: We also have believed all this, repent of our sins, and been immersed into Christ...Having disowned the great apostate and his ranks, and enlisted under the Messiah, and taken sides with the Lord's Anointed, he now proposes to put his Holy Spirit within us, to furnish us for the good fight of faith, and to anoint us as the sons and heirs of God... But the Spirit is not promised to any person out of Christ, it is promised only to them that believe and obey Him..one Spirit, even the Advocate, the Sanctifier, and the Comforter of Christ's body...the church.' (1) I have never met a New lighter who admits that he believes in baptismal regeneration. To me it would seem that their teaching would necessitate the dogma of baptismal regeneration. If you cannot be indwelt by the Spirit until you become a Baptist, and the Spirit is not promised to individuals but to the church, then when is a person regenerated by the Spirit? lf no one can have the Spirit except he is baptized, then he must be not of Christ's until he is plunged under the water by a Baptist preacher. If this be the case, then New Lighters hold baptismal regeneration just as the Catholics and Protestants. New lighters are loud and long in denying that they believe in baptismal regeneration, yet in my presence I have heard them say in sermons, "There is no salvation outside of the Lord's church." Another said in my presence, "I take the position that there is no salvation outside the Lord's church or kingdom." If such statements do not teach church salvation, then language has lost all its meaning. I now quote directly from written statements of New Lighters. Elder Robert Burnett: "We can only conclude that the Holy Spirit dwells in the church of Jesus Christ, and that the doctrine of salvation can only be understood by those in the light. We have no warrant from the Scriptures to indicate that those with spiritual life, predestinated to remain outside the body (church) of our Lord, will ever come to the light, or will ever understand salvation." Again he writes: "To clarify this, let us state that all men without exception have life, but eternal life is that spiritual life spoken of by our Lord Jesus Christ to His churches (Baptist)..Eternal life is the spiritual life that only those predestinated to be in the bride of the Son of God now possesses..." Elder Austin fields wrote: "We do not invite you to join with those who have the water of which a man drinks he will thirst again, rather we invite you to the well of water springing up unto everlasting life, which can be found in the wells (true Baptist churches) of Jesus Christ". Was Elder Wayne Cox wrong when he called these brethren "camouflaged Campbellites"? Was the writer of this book in error when he dubbed such people "Bapto-Campbellites' some years ago? I shall leave the intelligent reader to make up his own mind. THE SPIRIT DOES DWELL IN THE CHURCH The historic Baptist position has been that the church does enjoy the special presence of the Spirit in this age, and so does each believer, whether a Baptist or not. The area of controversy is not about the special presence of the Spirit in the churches. Rather, it is in limiting the presence of the Spirit only to the assembly of believers. 1Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:18-22 plainly teach the Holy Spirit does reside in the assembly of the baptized saints. Matthew 28:20 and l8:20 reveal Christ is present in His assembly in the person of the Holy Spirit. The church as the institution of Christ is blessed by the residence of the Spirit until the Rapture (2Thes 2:6-7). This presence of the Spirit is in the worshipping assembly as they observe the ordinances and execute the work of Christ. This is not a literal presence like as was the case in the tabernacle and temple. The spirit of Christ does not indwell the church building (Acts 17:24), but He is spiritually present in the worshipping body of baptized believers. THE SPIRIT INDWELLS ALL BELIEVERS The Bible certainly does teach also that each believer has the indwelling Holy Spirit. In 1Corinthians 6 Paul writes of meat for the belly and the fornication of the body (v. 13). Then he says: "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid" (v. 15). He adds: "He that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body" (v. 18). After such clear references to the fleshly body of a saved person, he says: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit" (vv. 19-20). Observe that the Apostle Paul says "your body" not Christ's body, meaning the church. The terms "your body" and "your spirit" clearly point to the mortal body of the saint. If this be true, then why limit the indwelling of the Spirit to the church? If you reply that those addressed by Paul were church members, I ask did he speak here of the Spirit indwelling individuals in their bodies, or of His indwelling the collective body of church members? Does the Bible anywhere call the church "your body", implying that the church belongs to some man? Or is the church called His body (Col l:24)? ROMANS 8:9 New lighters look upon Romans 8:9 as a proof text of their doctrine. The passage reads: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you." Because this Epistle is addressed to the church at Rome, New Lighters assume that every word in this Epistle must be applied to church members. I have no argument with New Lighters as to this Epistle being written to the church at Rome. Most of the New Testament epistles were written to churches. But I deny this verse limits the Holy Spirit only to baptized believers in Baptist churches. I affirm that certain things in the Roman Epistle applies to lost sinners. Other things are true of all believers in all ages as well as the members of the church at Rome. Such matters are to be determined by the context and the subject at hand. This can be said of other epistles in the New Testament. Look at the Roman Epistle. Some things in the book apply to lost persons (Rom. l:2l-32; 3:10-18; l0:l-3; 11:7-10; l6:l8). No thoughtful person would limit the civil teaching in Romans l3:1-10 to Baptist church members only. The great themes of this book such as sin, election, predestination, salvation, calling, justification, sanctification, security, and glorification must not be confined to merely church members, unless one holds that Baptists are the only persons who possess these things. What does Romans 8:9 teach? We must not only know to whom the Epistle was sent, but we must also determine the subject being discussed. Is it baptism or church membership? The context answers no. Paul did not even mention these in the whole 8th Chapter of the Book of Romans. By examining verses l to 4 we see the subject is salvation by Christ. In verses 5 to 16 the subject is the spiritual man in Christ who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. In verse 9 of Romans 8 Paul makes it known that those who are not indwelt by the Spirit are unbelievers. Note that he says "any man," not "any church member." Then he is talking about an individual man, not the collective body of the church at Rome. To apply all in the 8th chapter of Romans to Baptist church members only would give much New Light. The Epistle of Romans would then teach in this chapter that all believers outside the church are condemned (v. 1), have no spiritual life (v. 1), have no resurrection (v. 11), are not children of God (v. 16), have no predestination, calling, justification, and glorification (w. 29-30). Which horn of the dilemma will the New Lighter take? Will they consign all non-Baptists to the fire of Hell, or will they admit there are some statements in the Epistle to the Romans which can be applied to saved people outside the church? If they take the first position, they prove to all they are Bapto-Campbellites. If they take the latter, then down the drain goes their New Light about Baptists only having the Spirit. THE GREAT QUESTION Does the Bible associate the reception of the Spirit with faith or water baptism? Does the Spirit indwell the believer before baptism, or after baptism? What does the Bible teach? Galatians 4:6 says: "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." This passage discloses that because we are sons in God's elective purpose, the Father sends the Spirit of Christ into our hearts. There is no way you can make the words "into your hearts" to mean into the assembly of baptized believers. Adoption precedes baptism, just as the elect receive the Spirit in their hearts before baptism. 2Thessalonians 2:13 speaks of the chosen of God experiencing the "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." How can an individual be sanctified by the spirit and brought to faith without receiving the Spirit? Does sanctification of the Spirit precede water baptism, or follow after it? All truly saved persons know that it was the Spirit who led to faith in Christ (1Cor. 12:3) which occurred before water baptism. If a person is not sanctified by the Holy Spirit, he has no business being baptized. To the Ephesians Paul wrote: "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" (Eph. 3:17). Here faith and the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ are associated together. The believer is said to receive the Spirit of Christ into his heart, not into the church. Since faith must precede water baptism (Mark 16:16), then a believer is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ before baptism. Hence all who have faith have the Spirit in their hearts. In Ephesians 1:13 it is written: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also alter that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." This sealing of the Spirit is the indwelling of the Spirit: "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" 2Cor. 1:22). Nothing is said here about baptism as a condition of receiving the Spirit. Nothing is said about the church receiving the Spirit. The reference is to the individual believer. In Galatians 3:2 Paul asked: "Receive ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" New lighters would have a ready reply to Paul's question. But what did the inspired apostle write? He is of age; let him speak for himself: "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (Gal. 3:14). If the Spirit is received at the point of faith, then every believer has the Spirit before baptism. Since faith is something which a person does by the working of the Spirit as an individual, then the Spirit is given to individuals--not only to churches. In John 7:37-39 it is written: "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)" These words from Christ leave no doubt about all believers being given the Spirit. Christ did not confine the reception of the Spirit to those baptized by a Baptist preacher. What queer language to come from Christ, if New Lighters claim no one has the Spirit but baptized church members. The promise of the Spirit was to all who believe, not to the church only. In Acts 10:44-48 we see the household of Cornelius receiving the Spirit before baptism. Peter says in verses 47 to 48: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Such plain language destroys without remedy the teaching of modern New Lighters that you cannot receive the Spirit until after you are baptized into a Baptist church. Did these people receive the Spirit as individuals, or as a church? If as a church, they were a church before baptism, for they received the Spirit before baptism. 1John 5:10 declares: "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." This witness is the indwelling holy Spirit: "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness" (1John 5:6). New Lighters contend that the Spirit is not promised to individuals, but only to the church. The Apostle John says that the believer has the witness in himself. It would strain the most able New Lighter to make the expression "in himself" refer to an assembly of baptized believers. NO TRUTH OUTSIDE THE CHURCH When New Lighters are pressed hard on their doctrine, they will say that no one can have the Holy Spirit as a teacher to know God's truth unless He is a member of a Baptist church. They say you cannot know any truth outside the church. I readily agree with them that the best place to become acquainted with all the commandments of Christ is to sit under the teaching of a true New Testament Baptist church, but I deny that those not Baptists are totally ignorant of the truth of God's Word. The writings, songs, and sermons, of some Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Puritans, etc., proves that they did believe much truth. Since the Bible is spiritually discerned, it must be that they had the Spirit as their teacher, for no one can know the things of God unless revealed to Him by the Spirit (1Cor. 2:9- 16). QUESTIONS FOR NEW LIGHTERS 1. If you cannot receive the Holy Spirit until you are baptized into a Baptist church, why did Paul declare in 1Corinthians 12:13 that the Holy Spirit leads one to receive water baptism? How can one be led of the Spirit who has not received the Spirit? 2. lf you cannot know any truth until you get inside a Baptist church, how can a person know that he is a sinner and needs Christ as Savior? What leads one to repentance and faith which comes before water baptism? 3. If you cannot know any truth outside of the church and without the Spirit, then what led many present Baptists out of false churches? 4. If you cannot have the Spirit outside of the Baptist church, who taught many non-Baptists the doctrines of grace? Did the Devil or the Holy Spirit reveal these truths to them? 5. If you cannot have the Spirit apart from a Baptist church, then can a non-Baptist be saved? Can a man be saved without the Spirit? 6. Who has used Acts 2:38 as a proof text for receiving the Spirit after baptism—Baptists or Campbellites? 7. If water baptism is a condition of receiving the Spirit, how could John the Baptist be "filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb" (Luke l:l5)? Can a man be filled without receiving the Spirit? If baptism is essential to receiving the Spirit, then who baptized John in his mother's womb? Was John even baptized after he was born? 8. Elisabeth (Luke 1:41) and Zacharias (Luke 1:67) were both filled with the Spirit without water baptism. Will any New lighter affirm they were members of some Baptist Church? 9. The Old Testament prophets received the Spirit (1Peter 1:11). Who baptized them? What Baptist church did they belong to? NOTES l. Alexander Campbell THE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM (Nashville, Tenn.: Gospel Advocate Co.) pp. 47-48, 12
MORE LIGHT ON NEW LIGHTERS To consider all the points of the New light system of teaching would take a book much larger in size than this writer has time to write. Nearly every book or paper they write contains some new wild and weird position. It seems that their system has no banks or bottom. Each sermon they preach contains a prolific stream of unheard of things. As to what strange teaching they shall finally settle on as the basic points of their system only God knows. The priesthood of the Baptist church has undergone a number of changes since its first inception. In a measure they have had Vatican I, Vatican II, etc. At first in unmistakable terms they taught "salvation is in the church." But upon castigation from their brethren they revised their doctrine to mean merely that the salvation of the life is in the Baptist Church, but after suffering reproof at the hands of their brethren some now say you could have the Spirit but not the Comforter--as if the Comforter and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same. They first taught that every word in the New Testament was written to persons in church capacity; now they have modified their position to mean for the benefit of those in church capacity. The final verdict of what the priesthood of the Baptist Church means is not in yet. These men have introduced a new system of theology. Like other new religious drinking it must under go a number of revisions in order to take a more logical form. They could all save time by embracing the entire system of Elder Sharrel Ford, who already has the priesthood doctrine arranged in a logical order- -a logical order which is totally unscriptural. Roman Catholicism is logical but wholly unscriptural. ANTI-PRIESTHOOD MEN DO NOT DENY LANDMARKSIM Repeatedly Baptist church priesthood men have charged that those who do not agree with them believe in the universal, invisible church. This charge is made even though priesthood men know for a certainty that their landmark brothers believe in church truth as much as they do. Unlike them, we see no connection between the Old Testament priesthood and a New Testament Baptist church. It is very uncharitable to brand those Landmark Baptists who believe in their priesthood of all believers of holding to universal, church heresy. Such a false charge discloses the utter extremes priesthood men will go to to drive their brethren into the New light camp. In GOD'S PRIESTHOOD ON EARTH, Elder Joe Bell asserts that theory of a universal, invisible church would be true if every believer were a priest. He goes on to say that if every believer were a priest he would have authority to baptize, spread the Lord's table and receive tithes (p.26, par. 4). Elder Austin Fields has written: "To deny that the priesthood is in the church is to deny the authority which our Lord gave to His church. I am also aware that there are many Baptist churches who will contend to the end that all authority belongs to the church; yet when they insist upon the priesthood of the believer, they become very inconsistent, to say the least, and deny what they teach to be the truth regarding the church which Jesus built" (THE COMFORTER, Oct. 1974, p. l). Elder Robert Burnett said in the July 1976 issue of THE DELIVERER: "...if the Comforter was sent into every regenerated heart, then indeed, there would be a Universal Church (which thing we detest), but he was sent by the Son of God to one place, the CHURCH of Jesus Christ. There are many half-brothers in the mist of darkness who proclaim that the Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of the individual child of God, and by so espousing such a doctrine, are unwittingly advocating a 'Universal Church'" (p. 4). Elder Sharrel Ford declared: "In spite of all this, many today will tell us that every saved person has the indwelling presence of the Spirit. This is a removing of an ancient landmark, a corruption of a cardinal doctrine. It paves the way for embracing the universal invisible church theory" (THE MIDNIGHT CRY, April 1979, p. 2). Such a charge is outrageous. The very men who have made these charges know that their Landmark brethren do believe and teach the truth of the New Testament Baptist church. The great Baptists of the past held to church truth while not holding to the modern church priesthood view. Proponents of the Baptist church priesthood idea will not charge men like B. H. Carroll with universal church heresy, but they freely denounce their brethren of today as people who either believe in the universal, invisible church theory or ought to. Their false charge grows out of their equating the New Testament Baptist church with God's priesthood on earth. Someone should inform them that their Landmark brethren who believe in the priesthood of all believers see no connection between the priesthood and the church; therefore, we have no problem whatever in contending for church truth while holding to the priesthood of all believers. We are not saying any believer can baptize. We are not saying we believe in open communion. We are saying that any soul washed in the blood of Christ can approach the throne of grace whether a Baptist or not. This is what we mean by the priesthood of all believers We do not mean that all believers are in the New Testament Baptist church. I plead with my brethren to try to understand our position and to cease their baseless charges that those who do not agree with them teach universal, invisible church heresy. I am living proof that their charge is untrue. I have believed and preached the local church truth all of my Christian life. At the same time I have always taught the priesthood of all believers. I have not obtained any New light in either area. There are thousands of other Baptist preachers who could relate the same of themselves. UNION WITH CHRIST PERVERTED New Lighters confuse spiritual union with Christ with union with a Baptist church. To them to be in Christ is to be in a Baptist church. After condemning the idea of all saved people being in Christ, Elder Sharrel Ford says: "But this is not what inspired writers usually had in mind when they frequently used the terms 'in Christ,' 'in Him,' 'in one body,' etc. An entirely different application must be made. The terms are restricted and must be applied only to the body of Christ, (a true church, God's covenant people, the faithful)." This statement can be found in the May 1975 issue of the THE MIDNIGHT CRY In the July 1975 issue of his paper he affirms that a person excluded from the church is severed from the body of Christ. He even affirms that you can have a saved person not "in Christ." Other priesthood men do not go quite this far to my knowledge. Elder Joe Bell says only that to abide in Christ is tantamount to abiding in His church (GOD'S PRIESTHOOD ON EARTH p. 113, par. 3, line 11). Austin Fields declared in the September 1973 issue of THE BAPTIST EXAMINER that "the believer must be a member of the body (Baptist Church) before he can be in contact with the head of the body, Jesus Christ." All these statements confuse being in Christ with being in the church. It seems never to occur to them that you can be in Christ without being in the church, or vice versa. The Bible speaks of false teachers in the churches (Rom. 16:17-18; Eph. 5:6; Col 2:8; 2Pet. 2:1-3; Rev. 2:14,20) but they were not in Christ. The thief on the cross was in Christ, although he was not in the church. The saints in the Old Testament were in Christ, but they were not in the church. The church is metaphorically the body of Christ, meaning the church is under the authority of Christ. But the church is not literally Christ's body, for Christ is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23). Hence He and His body, the church, are not one and the same, seeing He does not save Himself. To be in Christ is to be in union with Christ, to be joined spiritually to that regenerated, believing, and justified humanity of which Christ is the Head (Rom. 5:12-21; 1Cor. 15:22, 45). It is not union with a system of doctrines, nor with a Baptist church. It is union with a personal, risen, living, omnipresent Lord. Every born-again believer is in Christ (Rom. 8:1; 6:11) and Christ is in the believer (John 14:20; Rom. 8:9-10). God regenerates the soul by uniting it to the living Christ (2Cor. 5:17). This brings about a spiritual union with Christ (1Cor. 6:17,19; Eph. 3:16) which can never be dissolved (Rom. 8:39), although one can be excluded from the church-—showing being in the church is not the same as being in Christ. The blessings of this union are spiritual life (Eph. 2:10; 2Tim. 1:1), redemption (Rom. 3:24), effectual calling (Phil. 3:14), grace (2Tim. 1:9; 2:1), God's love (Rom. 8:39), justification (Acts 13:39), perseverance (Jude 1), resurrection (1Thes. 4:16), completion (Col. 2:10) and all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3). To limit these blessings of union with Christ to Baptists only is to put non-Baptists in Hell. To limit these blessings to the members of Baptist churches only is to put all Baptists in Heaven--saved or lost! How does one get into Christ? This is an old Campbellite question which deserves a Scriptural answer. The Bible says that God puts us in Christ: "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus" (1Cor. 1:30). God put us in Christ by sovereign election: "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). Works such as baptism and church membership have nothing to do with our position in Christ (Gal. 6:15). In time those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world are actually put in Christ at the point of regeneration (Eph. 2:10) and faith (John 6:26, 35, 40, 47; Eph. 3:17; Acts 15:9). Water baptism pictures this event which has already taken place (Gal. 3:26-27). Baptism is the shadow of this union not the substance of it. If the Bible says God puts us in Christ by sovereign election, then how can New Lighters teach that only baptized church members are in Christ? Does the church have the power to put us in Christ? If so the church has the power to give regeneration. If the Baptist church can put us in Christ and regenerate us, why do New Lighters teach unconditional election? If baptism puts us in Christ then it cannot be said that God put us there, for God has never baptized one single person! NO GLORY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH Priesthood men limit God's glory in this age to a Baptist Church. Elder Sharrel Ford has written: "The saved person outside the body of Christ cannot serve God. He cannot keep God's commandments outside the body...Outside the body of Christ they can do nothing to God's glory. They are 'without Christ' as far as the body is concerned. If they are 'without Christ' (as to the body of Christ), they are 'without Christ as to the church, the bride, the house or temple of God. etc., 1Cor 5:12" (THE MIDNIGHT CRY, Oct. 1975, p. 8). I have preached for over 21 years that the church in this age is the primary institution through which Christ receives glory. This is a well-attested fact: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end" (Eph. 3:21). This verse says to New Lighters that no one can bring glory to God outside of the Baptist church. But did the verse say that? No. The verse did not limit God's glory to a Baptist church. Rather, it said that Christ now receives glory from His church and will go on receiving glory from it in the ages to come. God's glory is not limited to a Baptist church. If Ephesians 3:21 limits God's glory in this manner, then it does it unto worlds without end. This would permit God to receive no glory from Israel in the Millennium, a thing well attested in the Scriptures (Num. 14:21; Ps. 72:19; Isa. 24:23; 60:1-9). Such a limitation would not even allow the angels to give glory to God, when the Bible teaches they do (Rev. 4:8-9). Man himself was made to glorify God (Isa. 43:7), and even in his fallen condition in a very limited sense he can give God glory. After the awful judgments of the tribulation period the earth dwellers are said to give glory to God: "And the same hour there was a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of Heaven" (Rev. 11:13). God's glory cannot be limited to a Baptist church only, for God receives glory from all things He has created (Rom. 11:36). Psalms 19:1 tells us: "The heavens declare the glory of God." Christ receives glory from the salvation of all the elect (Eph. 1:6). He receives glory whenever a person confesses Christ (Phil. 2:11). The angels in Heaven constantly ascribe glory to God (Rev. 4:11; 5:12- 13; 7:12). Will New Lighters affirm that the angels in Heaven are in church capacity? I wonder when they last baptized an angel into one of their churches. Even lost people are commanded by an angel in the coming Great Tribulation to: "Fear God, and give glory to him" (Rev. 14:7). The failure of a lost person to give glory to God can result in his physical death. Old wicked Herod was killed by an angel of God "because he gave not God the glory" (Acts 12:23). Was Herod a member of a Baptist church? No. Did he have responsibility to give glory to God? He must have for he was killed by God for the expressed reason of failing to do this. Did God kill him for not being a Baptist? Why kill him for not giving glory to God if only Baptist church members can give glory to God? Let modern New lighters give the answer. NO CROWNS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH Writing of the crowned saints in Revelation 4, Elder Austin Fields says: "These can only be the bride because no one else will be crowned" (THE COMFORTER, April 1978, p. 4). On page 5 he goes on to add: "Without scriptural baptism, one can be God's child, but he is not in the race for an Incorruptible Crown." Here is another example of hyper-churchism. To restrict all crowns to Baptist church members leaves no place for Old Testament saints to be rewarded, a thing which the Bible says must take place (Ruth 2:12; Ps. 19:11; 58:11; Isa. 40:11; 62:11; Prov. 11:18; 2Chron. 15:7; Jer. 31:16; Prov. 13:13). Someone needs to tell New Lighters that God had a people for thousands of years before Christ organized the church. The people of God in the Old Testament were in the main in the nation of Israel. Are rewards to be restricted to faithful Baptists, or promised to believers? Are rewards promised for baptism or for other actions--- actions which have nothing to do with the church? The incorruptible crown is promised to the person who keeps his body in subjection (1Cor. 9:24-27). Do not some Christians outside the Baptist church do this? Did not some Christians outside the Baptist church do this? Did not some Old Testament saints keep their bodies in subjection? We know they did, and unless God is unjust He will give such persons an incorruptible crown. 1Thessalonians 2:19 promises a crown of rejoicing to the soul winner. Will New Lighters affirm that no person ever witnessed for Christ outside of a Baptist church? Were not some New Lighters saved by the witnessing of non-Baptists? If some non-Baptists do witness for Christ, then why will they not receive a crown of rejoicing at the coming of Christ? Did not the Old Testament saints witness for Christ? 2Timothy 4:8 promises a crown of righteousness, not to those in Baptist churches, but to all those who love the appearing of Christ. Did not the Old Testament saints look for the second advent (Deut. 30:1-3; Ps. l02:l6; 96:13; 98:7-8; Isa. 25:8-9; 26:21; 35:4; 40:10; 66:15; Zech. 14:5; Mal. 4:2-3; Jude 14) as well as the first? Are there not many Christians today outside of Baptist churches who love the Lord's appearing? Is the crown mentioned by Paul to be given out on the basis of membership in Baptist churches, or on the basis of loving the Lord's appearing? Please observe that his crown is to "all" them "that love his appearing." New Lighters may limit this crown to Baptist church members, but Paul said "all" that "love his appearing." Most New Lighters will miss this crown because they are looking for Antichrist instead of Jesus Christ. Revelation 2:10 promises a crown of life to those who become martyrs and James 1:12 to those who suffer much for Christ. The martyrs of Christ have in the church age been largely from the Baptists, but it is also true that some have died and are now dying for Christ who are not Baptists. There were martyrs in the Old Testament time. It seems to me that the Lord is going to give a crown of life to all of those who ventured to give up their life for Christ. All of those who suffer for Christ will receive the crown of life. The conditions upon which one is given the crown is suffering and martyrdom, not church membership. I would agree with New Lighters and others that the crown of glory in 1Peter 5:1-4 is restricted to faithful elders in New Testament Baptist churches. It is not only restricted to true churches but to the elders in these true churches. The elder's crown is for the elder and no one else. RUPTURE, NOT RAPTURE New Lighters hold to a rupture of some of the saints rather than a rapture of all of the saints at Christ's coming. On page 115 Elder Joe Bell in GOD'S PRIESTHOOD ON EARTH makes the bride (Baptist Bride) to be those who attain to the out-resurrection. These he says are the faithful in all true churches. He goes so far on page 110 of his book to put saved people in the last resurrection in Revelation 20:11-15. Then by a sleight of the hand he connects the lake of fire with the fiery judgment of 1Corinthians 3:13-15. To the best of my knowledge this is pure NEW LIGHT. Those in the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 are only the faithful Baptist to him. These only will reign with Christ for a thousand years, according to him. I am unable to accept Elder Bell's reasoning on this. Those in the first Resurrection are described as "blessed" and "holy". The second death has no power over them. Christ spoke of this same resurrection from among the dead in Luke 20:35-36. But Christ did not limit this resurrection to faithful Baptists as does Elder Bell. Christ declared that those in it were all "the children of God" (Luke 20:36). Bro. Bell's theory would exclude all the Old Testament saints from the kingdom. This cannot be according to Jesus Christ's words in Matthew 8:11 and Matthew 16:28, 17:6. His theory ignores numerous Old Testament passages which put the Old Testament saints in the reign of Christ. Elder Bell's millennium is a far cry from the one spoken of in both Testaments of the Bible. Can we find the resurrection of the Old Testament saints in Revelation 20:11-15? Can we find the resurrection of believers not in Baptist Churches? Can we find so much as one saved person in this whole resurrection? Absolutely not! Consider the passage in question: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whomever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:12-15). Unaided by a book written by a New Lighter, one would never guess this resurrection included all the Old Testament saints, all the saints not in Baptist churches, and all saints in Baptist churches who were unfaithful and have not suffered for Christ. Why do I say this? First, this resurrection consists of subjects called "the dead." Generally. God speaks of His people being asleep, not dead. Second, they are seen as "small and great," that is, in some special resurrection body, but not a Christ like body. This can hardly be a description of the multitudes who are saved and conformed to the image of Christ (Phil. 3:20-21) at His coming. Third, the dead are judged according to their works to determine the degree of punishment in the lake of fire. Are New Lighters trying to say these people's work make them saved or lost? Fourth, the subjects of this judgment have their spirits brought up from Hell. How many of God's elect are in Hell? Fifth, verse 15 says the subjects of this judgment are cast into the lake of fire. Are God's elect going to the lake of fire? Nothing is said about a coming of Christ with His saints in Revelation 20:11-15. None in the resurrection in Revelation 20:11-15 are said to be blessed and holy. They are all subject to the second death--eternal separation from God. None are said to be raised in the likeness of Christ. Nothing is said about any being asleep in Christ. Those in Revelation 20:11-15 are judged according to their works and cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:11-15 is the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29), of shame (Dan. 12:2), and of the unjust (Acts 24:15). Psalm 1:5 indicates the ungodly will not be judged at the same time as the godly. The Bible does not teach a split rapture. Rather, it teaches a rapture of all saints when Christ appears in the air. 1Corinthians 15:23 declares: "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." Note that the apostle does not say: "Some that are Christ's at His coming." Neither does he say: "All the faithful Baptist at His coming." If a person is in union with Christ, if he shares the atonement of Jesus Christ, if he is one of the sheep, redeemed, he will go to be with Christ when He appears at the Rapture. 1Thessalonians 4:13-18 teaches a Rapture of all the saints at Christ's coming in the air. It says that those who sleep in Jesus will return to their bodies on earth (v. 14-16). It does not say Christ will bring some of them which sleep in Jesus. Neither does it says anything about Him returning with only faithful Baptists. Those alive on earth who believe that Jesus died and rose again will be translated (v. 17). Nothing is said about some who are alive. Neither is there any mention of "faithful Baptists." This resurrection is for all who believe the gospel (v. 14), all who belong to Christ (v. 16), and all who sleep in Jesus (v. 14). A man will find much said in New Light literature about the resurrection of faithful Baptists. However, no such doctrine can be found in the New Testament. Nor can it be demonstrated from history that the split rapture position is "the historical position of Baptists." The bodily resurrection of the believer is not based upon membership in a Baptist church. It is based upon the resurrection of Christ: "Because I live, ye shall live also" (John 14:19). It is for all believers. "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me (not he that is baptized into a Baptist church,) though he were dead, yet he shall live" (John 11:25). It is something one has because he is in Christ: "Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached in Jesus the resurrection from among the dead" (Acts 4:2 improved translation). This passage settles once for all that the out-resurrection is for all those "in Jesus." The resurrection of the believer also has to do with the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11) and the power of God (1Cor. 6:14). Neither of these two things can be limited to "faithful Baptists" found "in church capacity." 1John 2:28 poses a serious problem to the split rapture theory. New Lighters say that only the faithful Baptists will be caught out at a secret coming of Christ and then later the remaining saints will be taken as they have learned faithfulness by suffering. This makes none to be caught out but the faithful, regardless of the time when they go. But 1John 2:28 says: "And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." John speaks here of some who are ashamed before Christ at his coming. How can this be if only the faithful are raptured? There are two groups of believers seen in 1John 2:28: those who have confidence and those who are ashamed before Christ at His coming. Thus 1John 2:28 like the rest of the New Testament teaches a Rapture of all the saints, faithful and unfaithful, at the coming of Christ. ABSURDITIES OF THE PRIESTHOOD THEORY Just what is the priesthood of the church teaching? Most priesthood men would answer by saying that it is the teaching that all authority to witness, to do missionary work, to baptize, and to conduct worship services is given to the New Testament Baptist Churches. This general definition seems to be utterly lacking in the main, for all Landmark Baptists believe this regardless of their views on the church priesthood question. If the priesthood of the church was no more than this, there would not be the present controversy in our ranks. In this chapter I intend to prove that the priesthood idea to New Lighters is far more than the teaching that all ecclesiastical authority is in the church. When I first heard the priesthood doctrine, I thought this was all that it was. I excused their unusual statements as merely a different way of presenting what we had always believed. But is was not very long until the New Lighters convinced me I had made a serious mistake. That I could be so easily deceived by New Lighters is amazing to me. It has made me very cautious from that day forth to be more careful in analyzing every new teaching that I now hear. Some priesthood of the Baptist church men assume Matthew was written to saints in church capacity because the word "church" is mentioned in the book (Matt. 16:18; 18:17). This is very poor logic. By the same logic I could assume it was written to the Devil since he is written in the book (Matt. 4:2-13). But it would be more reasonable and consistent with Christian scholarship to assume it was generally written to Jews (Matt. 2:2; 27:11; 29, 37; 28:15) or Israelites (Matt. 2:6, 20-21; 8:10; 9:33; 10:6, 23; 15:24, 31; 19:28; 27:9, 42). Any person who reads the Four Gospels with no theory to defend can easily see there are some works addressed to specific individuals, some to the church, some to Israel, some to all believers, and at least some to unbelievers and Satan. Baptist church priesthood men claim that every word in the epistles of the New Testament was written to saints in church capacity. Their theory permits no place for a personal epistle or a general epistle. I agree with priesthood men that many epistles in the main are written to local churches and to saints in church capacity such as Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and 1st and 2nd Thessalonians. But unlike them I would not take the extreme position that every word in these must be applied to church members and never to believers outside the church. No doubt the whole Bible was written for the benefit of the saints in the Lord's churches, but this is not to say that the Bible does not contain some things for believers outside the churches. In no way can I agree with priesthood men that 1st and 2nd Timothy were written to the church of Timothy. Timothy was a man (1Tim. 1:1-2; 2Tim. 1:1-2), not a Baptist church. These two books were addressed to a young preacher and not a church, although their message concerned the orderly management of church affairs. Titus and Philemon were persons, not Baptist churches. There is abundant information for the Lord's churches in these books, but they were written to individuals. Because 1st Peter is so essential to the priesthood theory, priesthood of the Baptist church men are quick to affirm it was written to saints in church capacity. I do not deny that some of the persons addressed were church members and had elders (1Pet. 5:1-4). I do have trouble with believing that saints in five Roman provinces (1Pet. 1:1) were all in one big Baptist church. This would be a much larger church than Jack Hyles even has today! I have an equally hard time believing that saints in a Baptist church are the only ones elected by the Father (1Pet. 1:2), sprinkled with the blood of Christ (1Pet. 1:2) begotten again (1Pet. 1:3), saved (1Pet. 1:5), purchased by Christ (1Pet. 1:18-19) and new born babes (1Pet. 2:2). To believe such is to shut salvation inside a Baptist church. The Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (Jas. 1:1). Since every word in the New Testament was written to saints in church capacity, I would assume that priesthood of the Baptist church would be forced to make this twelve Baptist churches. Since they were scattered they would probably my these were twelve scattered Baptist churches. This would be to ignore the fact that the term "twelve tribes" is used throughout both the Old and New Testaments to designate the twelve tribes of Israel. But remember to priesthood men there are no statements in the New Testament to Israel. I believe it would be much better to take the twelve tribes to be believing Jews in the twelve tribes. This has been the general views of all scholars until some in very modern times obtained New Light. NO SIN BUT A DOCFRINAL SIN Some New Lighters take the position that there is no sin but a doctrinal sin. They do not hesitate to preach this among their followers, and it has already had its practical effect upon some of them. One of their disciples was so carried away with this New light that he left his wife for a new woman. Other disciples of theirs are seen in the booze joints and some engage in premarital sex. The term "iniquity" to Elder Fields means "false doctrine," not fleshy sins. Writing in THE BAPTIST EXAMINER (9-22-73), he said: "The Psalmist David in discussing the issue as to who can have communion and fellowship with the Lord said, 'If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me,'--Ps. 66:18. The iniquity here is false doctrine" (p. 4). In his paper, THE COMFORTER (9-78), he said: "But it is not the mission of the church to control the fleshly man...It is not the church's business to teach fleshly morals..." Elder Robert Burnett wrote in the September 1976 issue of THE DELIVERER: "May I just burst the bubble of the multitudes? God does not acknowledge the prayers or any form of worship of any child outside the spiritual house, the church (Baptist) that Jesus created, energized by the Holy Spirit. 'If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me.' Ps. 66:18, and brother, sister iniquity is FALSE DOCTRINE, not the sins we commit in these bodies of flesh." There is at least one comparison between Elder Burnett and the Apostle Paul: both studied in Arabia. Paul studied in the country of Arabia and was taught by Christ. Elder Burnett studied in Arabia, Ohio, and was taught by Elder Austin Fields. Here are a few sample statements which have been made by New Lighters in the presence of witnesses: "I don't do it, but a person could live any way he wanted to and still go to Heaven." "If a preacher 'shacks up' with a deacon's wife, the church should do nothing about it, but if a babe in Christ gets wrong on doctrine, he should be excluded." Such statements turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, impeach the existence of a new nature within, deny the teachings of the Bible, and is nothing but a revival of Antinomian heresy. In one New Lighter's church a young unmarried girl who was a church member was found with child. One man arose in the church and asked for some action because such a problem existed. He was rebuked by the New Light pastor. Finally, the New Light church excluded the man who wanted the disorderly member disciplined. The charge against this godly man was that he committed spiritual adultery, or he disagreed with the pastor who holds: "There is no sin but doctrinal sin." THE BIRTHRIGHT BOOMERANG Elder Joe Bell makes much of the birthright in his book. He sees in the birthright mentioned in the Old Testament the authority which Christ gave His church. According to him the birthright involved three things: (1) Priority of rank; (2) a double portion of the fathers' goods; (3) the right to act as a priest for the family (See GOD'S PRIESTHOOD ON EARTH, p. 46). The Bible is plain that the firstborn son was to receive a double portion of his father's estate (Dent. 2l:l7). We may also safely assume that the firstborn had some priority in rank for in most cases it made one an heir to the throne of his father in the case of the royal family (2Chron. 21:3). There were some exceptions to the general rule. The priority of rank was due to Reuben, the firstborn of Jacob, but it was lost by sin and the birthright was given unto the two sons of Joseph (1Chron. 5:1). However, the firstborn priority was finally transferred to Judah (1Chron. 5:2; Gen. 49:8-10; Ps. 60:7; 108:8). Hence Christ, the King of Jews and the One Lawgiver, was of the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). That the firstborn carried the right of the priesthood I am not so sure of as Bro. Bell. In pre-Mosaic times each head of the household acted as a priest, whether he was a firstborn son or not. In Numbers 3:12-13 God chose the Levites to be priests unto Him in Israel "instead of the firstborn." Levi was the third son of Jacob by Leah. He was not the firstborn. However God gave the priesthood to Levi while the priority in rank went to Judah, the fourth son of Jacob. On Page 52 of his book Elder Bell affirms the priesthood of Christ cannot be revoked or forfeited. Then adds that the priesthood of the church, being like that of Christ, is unchangeable. Then to our surprise on pages 54-55 he asserts the church can lose its priesthood! Then to make bad matters worse he declares on page 56 that when it is gone there is no way to recover it! What is wrong with Elder Bell's reasoning on the birthright? He has set forth some truth about it, but he has intermingled it with some errors. His error is trying to apply the birthright to the church. There is no parallel between the two. A "birthright" is one's "legal rights by birth." A "church" is "an organized body of believers." The church has nothing to do with spiritual birth. To affirm such is Campbellite and Catholic heresy. A church does not have any power to confer a birthright. She could only if she were the mother of all believers. Such a teaching would make God have grandchildren. It would make God have children and the church to have children. Since the children of the church received their birthright from the church, such persons would be God's grandchildren! Such an idea is preposterous! Anyone knows that a birthright is conferred by a Father, not by some religious organization on earth. Spiritual birthright is conferred by God our spiritual Father in regeneration. It is something enjoyed by every person born again by God the Father. Every quickened soul has the priority of rank--- he is an heir to a throne and is a king (Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10). Every child of God is an heir to His Father's estate: "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..." (Rom. 8:14-l7). If Paul had said: "Every Landmark Baptist church member is an heir of God," we would have known the priesthood men were right in their contention. But Paul never said any such thing. Paul wrote: "And if children, then heirs." Our legal right to our Father's estate is not based on our church membership but upon our regeneration. There is no way you can make church membership essential to the obtaining the birthright unless you teach the church regenerates sinners. Priesthood men are wrong in making the church God's firstborn. They are wrong not only in limiting the birthright to the church, but also in making the church God's firstborn. The Bible says that Christ is God's firstborn (Ps. 2:7; Col. 1:15, 18; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). New Lighters constantly confuse Christ and the church; they even would exalt the church over Christ. They say that since Christ is the Head of the church, He has in some mysterious way conferred the birthright, which is His by virtue of being the firstborn, upon the church in this age. All of this has been before the marriage of Christ to the church. Who ever heard of a woman engaged to a man already having legal right to all of that man's estate? New Lighters would rob Christ of His birthright in order to attempt to sustain their doctrine. If the church has it as they claim then Christ must not have it, especially since they say He conferred it on the church in this age. If the church has the birthright of Christ, then the church is greater than Christ--it has a superiority of rank above and over Him. Such a teaching is unworthy of men who believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ. On page 54 Elder Bell makes an awful play upon James 1:18. He confuses "the firstfruits" with "the firstborn". Any man who does not know the difference between fruits and birth is to be pitied. He quotes Hebrews 12:23 to prove the church is the firstborn. But the "firstborn" in this verse is a title of Christ as it is elsewhere in the New Testament. The church is not made up of the born again, but it consists of baptized believers. AN ANOINTED PRIESTHOOD Elder Bell asserts the Lord's church was anointed on the day of Pentecost (p. 87). Daniel 9:24 is supposed to be a prophecy of this. Daniel 9:24 is a prophecy about the anointing of a millennial temple, not the church. How any premillennialist can find the church in Daniel 9:24 amazes me. The Bible says the seventy weeks concern Daniel's people---the Jews. Daniel's people were not in the church and there is no reference to the church in Daniel 9. Luke nowhere quoted Daniel 9:24 in Acts 2 as a fulfillment of prophecy, plainly showing Daniel did not refer to Pentecost. The church was not anointed on the day of Pentecost in fulfillment of Daniel 9:24. Where is the New Testament text which says God anointed the church on Pentecost? Will any priesthood man quote it to me, or tell me where it is found? By what authority do men arrogate to themselves the right to make an anointing and a baptizing the same? The priests were anointed in the Old Testament. Did this mean they were baptized? If so they were baptized by pouring and not immersion. Are New Lighters ready to affirm that pouring is baptism? Jesus had prophesied that the church would be baptized in the Spirit at Pentecost (Matt. 3:11). He never foretold, nor did any other New Testament writer mention, the church being anointed. An anointing is not a baptizing. People were anointed by pouring a vial of oil on the head (1Sam. 10:1; Ps. 133:2). An anointing is a pouring; a baptism is a complete immersion in water (Rom. 6:4). It would seem New Lighters do not know the difference in pouring for baptism and immersion for baptism. At Pentecost the church was immersed by Christ in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). The Spirit was not merely poured out on the heads of those in the upper room. The Bible says the Holy Spirit "filled all the house where they were sitting" (Acts 2:2), a complete immersion in Holy Spirit--not a Pedobaptist pouring! If priesthood men were consistent with their theory, they would practice pouring for baptism as they confuse an anointing with a baptizing. In anointing the Spirit is the actor; in Spirit baptism Christ is the actor and the Spirit the element in which the baptism takes place. Christ was anointed by the Spirit (Acts 10:38) after He was baptized in water (Matt. 3:16). Elder Bell would shut up the anointed priesthood inside a Baptist church and leave all other believers unanointed. He believes the anointing mentioned in the first Epistle of John is only to those "in church capacity" (GOD'S PRIESTHOOD ON EARTH, p. 89). This is done despite the clear words of John in chapter 5, verse 13, that he wrote to them "that believe on the name of the Son of God." If John wrote to people "in church capacity" and to all believers who possessed eternal life (1John 5:11-13), then there can be no believers who have eternal life outside of the Baptist Church! If everything in the New Testament is to people "in church capacity," verily priesthood men must confess that there is not one word in the New Testament about any man being saved outside of a Baptist church! Any one can see from 1John 5:13 that John wrote to all believers who have eternal life. The Epistle no where says all these believers were church members. John writes to the church of God (2:2; 3:1- 2), those cleansed by Christ's blood (1:7), those who had passed from death unto life (3:14). No one can honestly confine all such people to Baptists churches, unless he believes the Baptist church makes children of God, washes souls in Christ's blood in baptism, and gives spiritual life. It is little wonder that modern New lighters go to great length to confine the first Epistle of John to Church members. No one reading the Epistle without a priesthood book to cloud his thinking would ever come to such a conclusion. John is writing to all believers, and all believers have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit. "Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" (2Cor. 1:21-22). Here those anointed with the Spirit are the same ones that are said to be "in Christ". If they are in Christ they have been anointed with the Spirit, whether baptized in water or not. John writing to all believers who have eternal life said: "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things" (John 2:20). This unction or anointing is not from the Baptist church but from the Holy One. 1John 2:27 declares to all believers in Christ: "But the anointing which ye received of him (not the Baptist church) abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." The sleight of hand used by Elder Bell upon Revelation 11:15 is amazing. On pages 89-90 he changes the words of the Bible which read "our Lord and his Christ" to "our Lord and his anointed church." Here is a clear cut case of deliberately substituting the church in the place of Christ. By another sleight of the hand he would change Acts 11:26 to read: "...the disciples were called the anointed ones first in Antioch." Shades of Aristotle! How far will a man go to prove his new theory! There is no translator of any reputation who has ever rendered these verses like Elder Bell. This is not only New Light, but it is a cleaver perversion of the Holy Book, an adding to the Bible which is forbidden (Rev. 22: 18-19). THE UNPARDONABLE SIN Modern New Lighters have gone beyond the point of extreme theology as professed Baptists. Elder Austin Fields holds to a far out view on the unpardonable sin. He wrote: "Therefore, the unpardonable sin is a sin which the disciples of Christ can commit, and one for which there is not forgiveness" THE COMFORTFR, Nov. 1974, p. 3). On page 5 he adds: "Therefore, willful sin is unforgiven in this life or the life to come. Heb. 10:26-27 is teaching the same thing that Matt. 12:31-32 and Luke 12:10-12 teaches." Writing in THE BAPTTSIS EXAMINER (9-8-73), Elder Fields wrote: "It is my firm conviction that only the elect of God can commit the sin of blasphemy against the Spirit...Because this particular sin is against the Spirit and not against the Son or Father, it could only be the Spirit in His work as the Comforter who was sent to lead and guide each true Baptist Church in the truth." He goes on to write: "I believe that this sin and the second death are one and the same..." Let us carefully consider what Elder fields has written. First, he affirms the child of God is the only one who can commit the unpardonable sin. Wow! Think about this heresy! Here a saint has a sin which will never be forgiven in this life or the life to come. I thought that New Lighters believed that Christ died for all the sins of the elect. Evidently, Fields does not. If he believes what he has said he has either consigned a believer to Hell, or asserted that an unforgiven sinner can be saved! Second, he said that the unpardonable sin and the second death are the same sin. Wow! Think about his heresy! The first death is physical death. I assume we all agree on this-—-that is, unless some one has obtained New Light. The second death is eternal separation from God. Thus Fields has an elect of God who commits an unpardonable sin being eternally separated from God! If this is not a denial of the perseverance of the saints and a repudiation of the satisfaction of Christ, language has lost all its meaning. Elder Joe Bell makes a statement in his book that should raise serious doubts about his view of perseverance. (On page 104 he speaks of a child of God saving his soul or losing his soul. I did not know that Sovereign Grace Baptists believed in a child of God losing his soul, but it would seem that some New Lighters do. Elder Bell asserts on page 113 of his book in paragraph two that there is a sense in which one can be detached from Christ. In paragraph three on the same page he affirms one can cease to abide in Christ and thereby forfeit his position in Christ. Sharrel Ford believes there are some saved people who fall from grace. In the August l, 1975, issue of THE MIDNIGHT CRY he wrote: "Being put out of the church, the saved person has fallen from grace, for there is no grace to serve God out there, GRACE TO SERVE is found only IN the church" (p. 6). He goes on to add: "In conclusion, saved church members who go back under the Law fall under the curse of the Law, and must be severed from Christ. Christ will profit them nothing. They are no longer 'Christ's'---no longer His in this covenant capacity, no longer in His bride, no longer in His body, no longer IN Christ. They are outside the temple of the Holy Spirit, therefore without the Spirit and no longer in the Spirit." Ford denies the perseverance of the saints. In the October 1978, issue of THE MIDNIGHT CRY he asserted; "The apostle Peter in 2Peter l:5-l0 also writes of a class of people who were once purged from their old sins, but do NOT persevere in the will of God... They are saved but do not preserve according to the Scripture... This warning is clearly to saved people who do NOT persevere in the will of God" (p. 2). On page 2 he writes: "To say that all saved people persevere requires either that ALL saved people are in the true churches, OR, that saved people OUTSIDE true churches can be FAITHFUL." It is not necessary that I refute the New Lighter's denial of perseverance as many Baptist books have already been written to vindicate this point of the doctrines of grace. I have given this information to prove what these men have said against perseverance. NOT REAL LORD'S SUPPER Robert Burnett, a disciple of Elder Austin Fields, does not believe a Baptist church should literally partake of the Lord's Supper. In the January 1977 issue of THE DELIVERER he penned these words: "As the Spirit causes us to understand that it is the Lord who prepares the spiritual bread and provides the spiritual wine that the servant serves to the church, it becomes more and more unbearable to consider eating of unleaven literal bread which is prepared by a literal woman in a literal oven, and the thought of drinking unleavened literal wine as a memorial in regards to Christ's shed blood is also repugnant...Maryville considers a literal passover feast (Lord's Supper) as observed by Baptist churches to be comparable to Rome and her doctrine of transubstantiation" (p. l). But despite such absurd doctrines there are men among us who maintain that these New Lighters believe like we do, except they have a different way of saying a thing. Brethren, this is just simply not so. A PRIESTLY CASTE In the main New Lighters have been content to restrict the priesthood to local Baptist churches. They have not dared to go past the teaching of Origen. But on May of 1979 the church priesthood doctrine took a new advance. One of them, like Cyprian, set up a priestly class inside of the Baptist churches who alone have the Divine right to interpret the Holy Scriptures. Writing in THE BAPTIST (5-79), a New lighter said: "Brethren, one of the things wrong with us today is that we have men in key positions who are not qualified to deal with the issues at hand. No doubt, they are fine pastors and outstanding and holy men of God, but they are totally unfit to deal with issues because they don't know the original languages, Theology, or Baptists history. They should do the honest thing and disqualify themselves on controversial subjects because of their limitations." p. 8). This statement represents a new low in religious writing and is the height of scholarly pride. It is an insult to every God-called preacher who did not have the advantage of a seminary education. It is a reproach upon the men Jesus Christ has called and qualified to be His ministers. It stinks with all the priestly caste system of Roman Catholicism. Consider a few facts that are asserted by this New Lighter. First, he maintained that God has called some men who are "totally unfit to deal with" Bible issues. Thus God called some men to preach who were not qualified; that is, God made a mistake. Second, since the whole Bible is controversial all God-called men void of a seminary education in some Armenian school should disqualify themselves on any controversial subject. Third, since the whole Bible is controversial, all God-called men who do not know the "original languages, Theology, or Baptist history" should realize their limitations and should do the honest thing and disqualify themselves. Fourth, such reasoning implies that all people "in church must rely completely upon the few men in our ranks who are scholars and without limitations, men to whom God has supposedly given new revelations. To follow the line of reasoning of these New lighters you would be compelled to reject the teachings of Jesus Christ, Who was considered unlearned by the religious crowd of His day (John 7:15). New Lighters would disqualify Peter and John who were "unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). It is strange that a man who professes to know so much about theology dares to display so little of his learning and to reveal his ignorance of what the world called the poor, ignorant Anabaptists who wrote their names in blood in the snow of the Alps. I call the reader's attention to the fact that the writer of this book does not have a seminary education. He is according to the New Lighters unqualified to discuss the controversial subjects in this book. Therefore, they would say this whole book has been written by a man who is "totally unfit to deal with the issues at hand." So don't expect too much of my exposure. But then consider that if a man who is "totally unfit to deal with the issues at hand" can punch this many holes in their new theories, just imagine what will happen to these New lighters when their theories come under the inspection of a man who knows the original languages, Theology, and Baptist history! A FINAL WORD I have just finished writing a book that I did not want to write. You have just read a treatise which was written because I felt it must be done for the good of Christ's churches. I found it most grievous to have to expose the unsound doctrines of men I love and hold as dear brethren in Christ. I have sought only to admonish them as brethren, not as my enemies. It is my prayer that this book may cause them to reconsider some of their extreme positions which have created such an uproar among our churches. Needless to say, if they had not started the New Light Movement I would have never felt the need of writing this book. But they have put forth their books and papers containing their new teaching. No choice was left to me for conscience sake and Christ's sake to expose their errors and defend what I have always believed the Bible to teach. What do I really think of the priesthood of the Baptist church movement? I believe it is a reactionary movement on the part of some dear brethren which started some years ago to oppose more strongly the universal, invisible church heresy. Their intentions were good; they never intended for their reaction to become the present overreaction that it now is; they never originally aimed to make Baptists sacderdotalists. They never really proposed to place the church in a greater position than Jesus Christ. They never dreamed they would come to the place of declaring themselves a priestly caste within our churches, which alone is qualified to resolve all doctrinal problems. Personally, I do not think that they had the least idea that some of their people would teach: "There is no sin but doctrinal sin," nor "There is no literal Lord's Supper." Being men strong on sovereign grace they never expected some of their people to hold that a child of God can be detached from Christ--commit the unpardonable sin and experience the second death--can lose his soul. They could have never brought themselves in the early days of their movement to believe their unstable views of prophecy would make amillennialists out of some premillennialists. But all of these have happened and much more. The leaders in the New Light Movement ought to have considered the ultimate effect of their new teachings upon the brotherhood. With the purest of intentions they in the main sought only to fortify our churches against the liberal Baptist movements which are ever gaining grounds. But their effort has done nothing to hurt the liberal Baptists, and it has given our enemies more rocks to throw at us. It has had a disastrous effect upon Landmark Baptists churches. Their over-reaction may end up causing an over-reaction on the part of their brethren who oppose them. This would leave the modern New Lighters to go eventually into complete sacerdotalism at the expense of the doctrines of grace they presently count so precious. On the other hand, it could drive some who are now local church men into universal, invisible church heresy! If this happens, as it may very well do, both sides will have lost and Satan gained his greatest victory over the small and few true Baptist churches left in the world. Was the New Light Movement really needed to strengthen Landmark churches? No, for nearly all of our churches and pastors have held to church truth and still do, notwithstanding the present New Light over-reactionary movement. We all know that God is not the author of confusion. Can they honestly say that their teaching has been good for our Landmark Baptist churches? Since they sought to strengthen us in an area where there was no weakness, it causes one to wonder if they really wanted to build up the churches, or did they seek merely to feed their scholarly pride? The arrogance in which some New Lighters set forth their teachings reminds one of the cry: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (Acts 19:28). Some of the leaders of this movement, like the Athenians of old, spend "their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or hear some new thing" (Acts 17:21). I do not deny that the New Light Movement is gaining momentum and gathering converts from the unstable. In a few cases New Lighters have split churches and started them a new church. This is exactly what the Southern Baptist Convention and the Campbellite movements did to Baptist churches in the 1800s. Any movement which splits true Baptist churches to gather converts to a new system of teaching is not of God. How can they say that they want to strengthen our churches when they are dividing our churches? It is high time that Old Lighters arouse to the threat which these New Lighters now pose. Let the battle lines be drawn and may we stand our ground against the onrush of these unscriptural and unbaptistic doctrines. The absurdities of the New Lighters are both amazing and amusing. Some of them lay claim to being strong on the local Baptist church, then invite Reformed Baptists (I like to have said Deformed Baptists) to speak in their Bible conferences and revival meetings. Some say salvation is in the Baptist church, then deny they believe such or ever said such. Some speak of the child of God losing his soul, while still claiming to believe the soul is eternally secure in Christ. Some say there is no spiritual life outside of a Baptist church which has the Holy Spirit, then say they believe a person is saved without the preaching of the gospel by a Baptist preacher. Some claim there is no sin but a doctrinal sin, which is the worst doctrinal sin any professed Baptist can commit. Some say that every word in the Bible is to saints "in church capacity," while declaring that the Bible says some are saved outside of the Baptist church. What will be the final results of the New Light Movement? This is uncertain at the present time. The best thing that could happen is for these men to lay aside their scholarly pride and repent of their religious errors. It would be a very small price to pay for restoration of fellowship among our churches. It would demonstrate to all concerned that they are great men, for only a great man is humble enough to admit he is wrong and ask forgiveness. I plead with my brethren in the New Light Movement to do this. But it is not likely that they will repent and recant. Men who invent a religious system and champion a cause seldom if ever give it up and admit they are wrong. Generally, the followers of men will take their new doctrines far beyond their first teachers, a fact well attested by most Protestant churches of our time. If this does happen the New Lighters will have given the world a new generation of BaptoCampbellites (Baptists who preach Campbellite doctrine). There can arise such a blind loyalty to their leaders that they could go off into a false cult. However, this is also most unlikely. In all probability they will go further down the road they are already traveling and be disfellowshiped by their brethren. If they do not separate from us, we will be compelled to separate from them. A split between New Lighters and Old lighters at present seems almost unavoidable. New Lighters have in the main departed too far from the Bible and the historic position of our Baptist fathers. Old Lighters must be careful that they do not write off some dear brother as a New Lighter who is merely strong on the local church and in the main rejects totally most points of the New Lighters. There are brethren among us who are wavering between the two ideas. They need time to think and to decide for themselves what course of action is best for them. Let us be patient with them; let us bear long with them. But when a died-in-the-wool New Lighter is discovered in our ranks, let us close the door of our churches to him, seeing "that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (1Cor. 5:6). Let New Lighters do what they will. It is our business as Christ's churches to go on with the business of making disciples, baptizing these disciples and teaching all things which Christ commanded. If New lighters separate from us for holding God's truth for which our fathers died by the thousands, let them separate. If they want to tell people how smart they are and how ignorant we are, let them say what they will. They will answer to the Head of the church for such accusations. There is work for us to do for Christ. Nothing must hinder us in this---not even the heresy of modern New Lighters. Let us be always about our heavenly Father's business, for soon we will hear Christ say to His churches and saints: "Come up hither" (Rev.4:1).
(Rear Cover of Book) Until recent times I never believed that any people who called themselves Baptists would embrace sacerdotalism. No people have ever more bravely stood against the curse of priestcraft than our Baptist forefathers. But I have lived to see some brethren invent and preach a moderate form of sacerdotalism. "SacerdotaI" means "relating to priests or a priesthood." "Sacerdotalism" is the "religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and man." Modern New Lighters conceive of the Baptist church being God's priests on earth. To them there are no spiritual blessings or rewards outside of this anointed priesthood. Already in my lifetime I have seen a few of our preachers read post-trib books, written by religious liberals or Baptists in the charismatic movement, and suddenly embrace what they read in these books. Some were converted in less than a week's time. These men threw the pre-trib position out the door for the post-trib position of men like George Ladd and Dale Moody. Today they denounce their pre-trib brethren as "Darbyites" and "ultra-Dispensationalists". Some of these same brethren, having already confused no small number of our preachers on prophesy, are now compassing sea and land to confuse the brotherhood on the local church. They would replace the old Landmark position with an anointed priesthood which confers all spiritual blessings. Some in this crowd have taken it upon themselves to be a council of presiding bishops who alone has the authority to determine the doctrines taught in the Bible. All other preachers are limited in their understanding and must pay attention to them.
See also The "Spectre" by Ray Hiatt |
