Author : 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
followed by those of Dr. J. D. 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.
