|
The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Part 1)
Direct-Indwelling
Position Examined
Keith Sharp
On
the night of April 19, 1938, one of the more influential debates involving a
Christian to be conducted in the twentieth century began. Dr.
Ben M. Bogard, Dean of
the Missionary Baptist Institute and Pastor of the Antioch Missionary Baptist
Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, encountered in dispute Dr. N. B. Hardeman,
President of Freed-Hardeman College in Henderson, Tennessee and one of the
most admired gospel preachers of his day, in the building of the Fourth and
State Streets Church of Christ in Little Rock, where my own great-grandfather
was an elder. That evening Dr.
Bogard affirmed: “The Bible teaches that in
conviction and conversion the Holy Spirit exercises a power or influence in
addition to the written or spoken word.” This is, of course, the old
theory of “the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.”
In
the Firm Foundation magazine, from October, 1966 through February, 1967,
brother J. D. Thomas authored a series of articles supporting the position
that the Holy spirit dwells in the hearts of Christians separately from the
word.
One
might immediately ask, “So, what is the connection?” More will be
said about this later. For the moment, I hasten to admit that over the years
many good and faithful brethren have espoused the position that the Holy
Spirit dwells “directly-yet-non-miraculously” in the heart of the
Christian. These fine Christians have neither espoused nor encouraged either
Calvinism or Pentecostalism. I do believe, nonetheless, that the logical
ramifications of their position involve both Calvinism and Pentecostalism,
however averse to those false, human theories these good saints may be.
I
also readily admit and confidently affirm that the Scriptures undeniably
teach that the Holy Spirit does dwell in all faithful children of God (Romans
8:9).
What
then is the issue? It is quite simple. How does the Holy Spirit dwell in believers generally?
Does He indwell the saints of God directly, apart from the revealed Word, or
does He dwell representatively, through the instrument of that Word? How does
the Holy Spirit dwell in all Christians?
“Direct-Indwelling” Position Examined
We
shall first examine the “direct-indwelling” position. Do the.
Scriptures teach that the Spirit of God dwells directly within the Christian,
apart from the written Word?
Parallel to the “Direct-Operation”
Theory In That Both Are Assumed Without Proof
I
believe this to be a human opinion assumed without biblical testimony, in the
exact same way the Baptist “direct-operation” theory is one of
assertion devoid of Scriptural evidence. Our Baptist friends can read plainly
from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit saves the sinner (Titus 3:5), They therefore assume that this is done directly; apart
from the word. But this is merely an assertion devoid of proof. Our brethren
can read clearly from the Bible that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian
(Romans 8:9). They thereupon assert that He does this directly, apart from
the word. But I contend this is an assumption lacking in Scriptural
support.
Allow
me to illustrate. God called the nation of Assyria
“the rod of My anger” (Isaiah 10:5). Though Assyria did not know
God and had no intention of carrying out the will of the Lord, God in His
might and wisdom used this pagan nation to accomplish His purpose (Isaiah
10:5-11). Assyria was but an axe with which
God chopped (Isaiah 10:15).
Even
so God’s Word is His instrument to accomplish His will, and it always
effectively does what the Lord purposes (Isaiah 55:10-11). And the word of
God, given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9-13;
Ephesians 3:1-7), is the instrument of the Spirit (John 6:63).
Parallel to “Direct-Operation” Theory
In Fallacious Arguments Used in Defense
Even
more striking is the fact that both the “direct-operation” theory
and the “direct-indwelling” position are commonly defended by
identical arguments. In the following paragraphs I will first list the
arguments of Dr. Ben M. Bogard, Baptist, in his
attempts to defend the Baptist doctrine of
“direct-operation-of-the-Holy-Spirit” followed by those of Dr. J.
D.
Thomas, Christian, in his efforts to defend his
doctrine of “direct-yet-non-miraculous-indwelling-of-the-Holy-Spirit.”
Finally I will reply to both sets of arguments, since they are identical
“There is the Word of God - the Bible is what
we mean by that - but in addition to that Word, there is a personal
influence, exercised by Almighty God, through the Holy Spirit” ( Ben M.
Bogard, Baptist, in defense of
“direct-operation” theory).
“Although God’s Spirit dwells in the
hearts of Christians representatively through the Bible, he also dwells
personally” (J. D. Thomas, Christian, in defense of
“direct-indwelling” position).
Both
positions are assumed and asserted with Scriptural proof. Both admit God
works through the word, while contending He also works through the direct
agency of the Holy Spirit. I can read that the Holy Spirit saves sinners. I
can demonstrate Scripturally how he saves - through the word.
Protestants cannot demonstrate by the Scriptures He
saves apart from the word. I can read that the Holy Spirit dwells in
Christians. I can demonstrate Scripturally how He dwells - through the word.
I do not believe my brethren can demonstrate by the Bible that He indwells
apart from the word.
“The Bible is the all sufficient rule of
faith and practice, but that perfect rule of faith says the Spirit does
something in addition to the word for us” ( Bogard).
“The Word furnishes the Christian perfectly
unto every good work. But one of the chief things the Word furnishes us is
knowledge of the indwelling Spirit” (Thomas).
Whether
from Bogard or Thomas, the argument is pure
sophistry and double-talk. In essence it says that, while the Word is
all-sufficient, it reveals we need some influence in addition to the word. Of
course, if this be so, the word is not all-sufficient, for something
else is needed. As the Pharisees of old, those who advance this reasoning
give mere lip service to the all-sufficiency of the word of God (Matthew
15:1-9).
“Has he (the Holy Spirit) written a book that
we call the Bible? From that time on just sits back and does nothing but
looks on with interest?”
(Bogard).
“The real question is whether God still
personally works in the hearts of men; or whether he has done all the work,
written it down for us is a Book, and retired personally from the scene of
action” (Thomas).
If
this argument is valid in respect to the Holy Spirit, it is equally valid in
regard to the Father and the Son. In fact, brother Thomas specifically
asserts, “God still personally works in the hearts of men.” In
order to demonstrate His personal concern for our welfare, must the
Father dwell in our hearts directly, personally, apart from the word? Must
Christ so do? If not, why must the Spirit? Are the Father and the Son
literally within our hearts rather than in heaven? What about the Holy
Spirit? The question is not whether or not God maintains a personal interest
in our lives. He assuredly does so. The question is how He manifests that
interest.
“The necessity of prayer in behalf of the
sinner and in behalf of the minister, proves there
is something more than the word necessary” (Bogard).
Can we ask God to be with a preacher as he
proclaims the Word? And then can we expect God to help that preacher in any
sense whatsoever except as he remembers and is guided by Scripture? (Thomas)
(All the questions of Bogard and Thomas are taken
from The Holy Spirit, His Person and Work, by Jimmy Tuten,
Jr. 29).
I
most assuredly believe in praying in behalf of both the sinner and the
preacher. But, may I sincerely inquire, where do the Scriptures affirm
that the Spirit is the instrument of God in answering prayer?
I
beseech the Father to impart wisdom to the preacher, that he might more effectively
wield the sword of the Spirit (James 1:5), to grant that the word might go
forth unimpeded by persecution, to protect the servant of God that he might
not fall prey to wicked men (2 Thessalonians 3:1-2), to open an opportunity
for the word to produce fruit and to enable the evangelist to plainly
proclaim the precious tidings (Colossians 4: 2-4). I intercede in behalf of
the sinner to the end that he, by the providence of God, might be granted an
opportunity to hear the precious truth (Colossians 4:3). All this
involves the word. While the providence of God is certainly involved, I am
aware of no passage that affirms the Holy Spirit is the executor of that
providence. Nor am I aware of a passage that teaches the Holy Spirit works
within the hearts of either sinners or uninspired preachers.
Is
it not obvious that Dr. Bogard’s reasoning in
defense of his “direct-operation” theory is pure sophistry? Is it
not equally clear that brother Thomas’ arguments in defense of his
“direct-indwelling” opinion are fallacious? You see, brother
Thomas’ arguments, wittingly or unwittingly, were simply borrowed from
the Baptists.
Parallel to “Direct-Operation” Theory
In Practical Application
The
fatal parallel with the “direct-operation” doctrine extends to
the practical application of the “direct-indwelling” position.
Those
who believe the Spirit of God indwells Christians
“directly-yet-non-miraculously” are faced with a very real
dilemma when they examine New Testament examples of the reception of
God’s Spirit. If their position be true, surely there should be just
one example of “direct-but-non-miraculous-indwelling.”
Where
would such a case be? The apostles? No, theirs was indeed direct, but
obviously miraculous (cf. John 14:26; 16:13-15; Acts 2:1-21). Would the
household of Cornelius lend weight to the position? No, for he and his
household spoke “with tongues,” a miraculous sign, when they
received the Spirit of Grace (Acts 10:44-46). Perhaps the example of the men
at Ephesus
will help. No, when they received God’s Spirit, they “spoke with
tongues, and prophesied” (Acts 19:1-7).
I
can find several examples of “direct-indwelling” of the Holy
Spirit, but I am unable to detect even one case of “direct-yet-nonmiraculous”
indwelling. When God’s Spirit dwelt in man directly,
miracles were the evidence and result. Therefore, if New Testament examples
mean anything, “direct-indwelling” of the Holy Spirit and
miraculous powers were inseparable. Thus, the
“direct-yet-non-miraculous” position leaves the gates wide open
for Pentecostalism. Is it any wonder the “neo-Pentecostal” fad
has infiltrated the Lord’s church?
There
is yet another direct conflict between this position and the examples in
Acts. Although the Samaritans had believed and had been baptized (Acts
8:12-13), none of them had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8: 14-17). It will
not help to contend this is a case of miraculous reception of the Spirit of
God and does not apply, for this would be begging the question, since I
contend all direct receptions of the Holy Spirit were miraculous.
Likewise,
when Paul found “certain disciples” at Ephesus, he inquired of them, “Did
you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 19: 1-2) Why did
the apostle pose such a query if all believers received the direct-indwelling
of the Spirit? Later, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus. And when Paul had hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon
them...” (Acts 19:5-6). Why did the apostle Paul have to impart the
Spirit of God to these baptized believers if all Christians have the
direct-indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
Furthermore,
what could the Spirit of Truth abiding directly in one’s heart
accomplish that the Spirit working through the word could not? If by the
Spirit-revealed Scriptures we are made “complete, thoroughly equipped
for every good work” (2 Timothy 3: 16-17), what is left for the direct
agency of the Spirit?
I
believe this very pertinent question, one which has always been a “burr
under the saddle” to “direct-indwelling” advocates, points
to yet another flood gate left wide open by this false notion. If the Spirit
within the heart does nothing, I earnestly inquire, “Why is He
there?” In defending the “direct-indwelling” stance, J. D.
Thomas asserts, “God still works in the hearts of men.” Of course
He does, through His word and providence. But if the Holy Spirit works
directly, what could He do that would neither fall into the category of
Calvinism nor of Pentecostalism?
Carl
Ketcherside, on the basis of his affirmation
of the “direct-indwelling” of God’s Spirit, affirmed,
“the Spirit within opens up new insights when I hold the sacred book in
my hand and read it” (“Mission Messenger,” 33, 1, 41). Of
course this is nothing but the Protestant “inner light” position,
based on their “direct-operation of the Holy Spirit” theory (cf.
the Westminster Confession of Faith on the work of the Holy Spirit).
This means that anyone who dares to differ with Ketcherside’s exegesis of a passage is actually
differing with the Spirit of God, for the very Spirit of Truth supposedly
provided the insight for Ketcherside’s
view. How does this differ from the Protestant position that we can only
understand the Scriptures by the guidance of the Holy Spirit mysteriously
within our hearts? Yet, this is the legitimate offspring of the
“direct-yet-nonmiraculous-indwelling”
of the Holy Spirit doctrine.
In
the next study, I will explain and defend my position that the Holy Spirit
dwells in the Christian through the word of God.
______________________________
~ ~ ~
|