Regardless of syllogisms, fountains of rhetoric, or the means by which God works through providence and prayer, the debate propositions reveal THE point at issue: Does the Holy Spirit work directly to sanctify the heart of the faithful Christian or indirectly through the medium of His Word? Some may find this topic to be still confusing. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to make the distinction as clear as possible.
We will discuss a few statements from Mac’s speeches in the debate. For brevity’s sake, we will designate each quotation by the day of the debate, followed by a colon and whether it was the first or second speech of the day.
Most brethren have contended through the years, whether or not they believed in the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit does things for us (on our behalf), but not to us. The Deavers now claim that the Holy Spirit does something personally and directly to the Christian’s spirit. This view is new and different to many of us, and Mac agrees with this assessment. He stated in his very first speech that those who hold his view “have been very quiet for the last thirty years…” (1:1).
He contends that God’s working proves his case: “If God can help me externally in some sort of direct way, and there are people here who believe that, then I’m saying He can also do it internally. There’s no way to stop that once you start that program” (2:2). “Bill Lockwood understands that if God can operate outside directly, he can also operate inside directly” (2:1).
God working outside has reference to God’s working through prayer and providence. God’s working inside refers to Spirit-on-spirit influence. The assertion is, therefore, that if God can work outside the Christian to accomplish His providence, then there is no way to deny that He can work directly internally on the Christian’s behalf.
But wait a minute. Can God work on behalf of the non-Christian externally? If someone is genuinely seeking the Lord, can God not work providentially (externally in some sort of direct way) on behalf of the non-Christian? Why, then, can He not work internally on him (Calvinism)? Consider God’s active, external work in the conversions of the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius.
The Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot” (Acts 8:29).
While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them” (Acts 10:19-20).
In these instances the Holy Spirit was really direct. Therefore, according to Mac’s own argument: If God helped them externally in some sort of direct way, then He could help them internally, also. Perhaps the Calvinists are correct when they say that God opened Lydia’s heart directly so that she might receive the Word (Acts 16:14). Readers should not misunderstand: the Deavers do not believe in Calvinistic doctrine, and Mac denied that the Spirit works directly on the sinner’s heart; but his argument, if valid, proves that He can.
Mac affirms that the Spirit gives the Christian additional strength he would not otherwise have. He thinks the Scriptures prove his contention, and he cites Ephesians 3:16, in which Paul on behalf of the brethren prays to the Father “that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man.” Admittedly, one might infer, from a cursory reading of this verse alone, that perhaps the Christian is promised Spirit-on-spirit strength. That the inward person–man’s spirit–is to be strengthened with power by the Spirit of God cannot be denied.
But where did the verse say that the strength would come directly, through the Spirit exerting some kind of Spiritual pressure on our spirits? If God had chosen to impact us in a direct manner, none of us could possibly object, but such is not the teaching of the New Testament. In fact, in this same letter, Paul writes:
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand (Eph. 6:10-13).
Then Paul describes the Christian’s armor. If Mac’s interpretation of Ephesians 3:16 is correct, then why does Paul not write: “Therefore take up the whole armor of God, and don’t forget to rely upon the extra strength that comes to you directly through the Spirit”? Is it not our faith (rather than immediate help from the Spirit) that quenches all the fiery darts of the wicked one (Eph. 6:16)?
Furthermore, Mac is arguing for God’s help from the wrong angle. He thinks we are given extra strength to resist sin and live the Christian life. The Scriptures teach the opposite:
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it (1 Cor. 10:13).
In other words, God knows our limitations. He keeps us from sin, not by providing extra strength when we are tempted, but by keeping overpowering temptations from devouring us (which does not require a direct, Spirit-on-spirit operation). We just cannot see that the Spirit would provide the Word to completely furnish us, keep us from being overwhelmed, work providentially on our behalf, yet still need to provide extra strength.
Besides having extra strength for living the Christian life, Mac says that the Spirit directly supplies wisdom to the saint. We are taught to pray for wisdom, and we do so often. God promises to grant it to us, but He never says He will do so directly (James 1:5-6). Mac addressed this issue:
“When God helps me or you come to a better understanding of the Scripture, I do not know the time. I do not know the degree to which the help is supplied at that time. I do not know the degree it comes. Like asking, explain the mechanics of this. Who can, without being God? I do not know that, but I know that I’m in a situation. I’m part of a program that lends itself to my development in knowledge by God’s Spirit working in me so I can say ‘perhaps’ like Philemon 15” (3:2).
If a person does not know when, how, or to what degree that God imparts wisdom, is it possible that he might be mistaken that wisdom is granted directly in the first place? Mac kept insisting that we cannot explain the mechanics of miracles, either. While we do not know all of the particulars, of course, we do know one thing–WHEN. When Jesus walked on the water, raised Lazarus from the dead, healed the blind man, etc., we know that: 1) He exercised power on those individuals or over nature; and 2) we know WHEN He worked a miracle. In the case of turning the water into wine, few may have known the exact moment when it occurred, but they knew within a few minutes.
People knew when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So why cannot Mac say WHEN he is given this direct infusion of wisdom? He is arguing for something unobservable in any form and untestable by any objective means. Oh, we could possibly get together five brethren who believe as he does and give them a difficult passage of Scripture, let them earnestly pray, and then have each one explain the passage. But when the interpretations did not match, they could simply say we are putting time constraints on the Almighty and tempting Him (which would sound strangely like the Pentecostal quibble to the demand for objective evidence of a miracle).
We are left, then, with a doctrine, that teaches what cannot be proved conclusively or demonstrated. But even worse, we are told we cannot know how much strength or wisdom we are receiving. On the fourth day of the debate the following question was asked.
1. When the Spirit operates directly on our spirit, His Divine effort keeps us from (check the correct answer):
__ all sin;
__ an indeterminate amount of sins that we would otherwise have committed;
__ no sins that we would have otherwise committed.
Mac checked “an indeterminate amount.” Why? Obviously, none of us is kept from all sins, and he had already cited 1 John 1:8, 10 to refute that idea. Neither could he answer that with this Holy Spirit’s direct aid would we be no better off than we would be without it–or the “direct operation” doctrine would be useless. So he must say we are better off than with no direct help at all, but he cannot say how much better. Are we 5% improved? 10%? 25%? Perhaps 50%? Could it be as high as 75%? What about 99%? That figure still leaves room for human fallibility.
Mac adds the following note to the question: “However, this Divine effort is effective only as I am willing for it to be effective. It is a cooperative or combination effort. It is not a Holy Spirit ‘takeover.'” Okay, but then his answer to the second question on Thursday is puzzling.
2. Divine effort, as applied to our spirit is (check the correct answer):
__ completely sufficient for us to resist sin;
__ limited in its ability to enable us to resist sin;
__ of no power at all in enabling us to resist sin.
Mac checked the first choice. Obviously the third choice would conflict with his doctrine. The first two choices, however, pose a dilemma. No one would want to say that the Spirit is limited in His ability to help us (the second option above), but that means Divine effort, as it directly impacts us, is completely sufficient to enable us to resist sin. Yet we sin.
Now Mac would say, “So what? The Word of God is all-sufficient and we still sin.” True, but the Word provides indirect help, which means it must be filtered through our minds, our emotions, and our wills. Direct help circumvents all that by definition. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is suppling direct, Spirit-on-spirit help, how could we then fail? The third question on the final day of the debate was: “True – False. The Holy Spirit is all-sufficient for its purpose.” Mac answered true. So, 1) if a person asks sincerely and fervently for God’s help in overcoming sin or in obtaining wisdom, and 2) the Spirit is all-sufficient for His purpose, and 3) Divine effort, as applied to our spirits is completely sufficient for us to resist sin, and 4) God directly impacts our spirits, then we must have the ability to overcome sin and understand fully everything revealed to us in the Scriptures. If not, why not?
Are we saying that Mac agrees with this conclusion? No, but we are saying that he agrees with points 2, 3, and 4 (and cannot falsify number one without becoming judgmental). Therefore, the conclusion results from the related facts that lead up to it.
These four points are almost in the form of a syllogism and probably could be put into one with but little effort–and perhaps used in another debate.
But what good is being accomplished here? To the minds of many, Mac has not proved his case of direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit. The other side of the coin leads to positions that are unsound and unsafe (not that he believes them). Is it really worth pressing a point that has not been substantiated through the Scriptures (and cannot be proved by any other means)? What is to be gained? Even if the doctrine were true, all that it means is that we have an indeterminate amount of additional help that we cannot know anything about. Is this view worth upholding to the point of division in the brotherhood?
And if it is not true, what harm has already been caused, and how much more may yet occur? Sterling reputations have become tarnished. The friendship and fellowship of co-workers has been utterly devastated. Many of us have been sidetracked from important matters on which we all agree–matters that affect the morals of this nation and the salvation of souls. In a manner of speaking, the barbarians are at the gates, and we are discussing how much extra power we may or may not be receiving directly from the Holy Spirit!
Concern about what may occur in the future was expressed well by brother Moffitt during the Questions and Answers on Wednesday:
I cannot for the life of me, and I think I speak for a lot of gospel preachers here, ever conceive of Roy Deaver or Mac Deaver ever going into the liberal mindset. However, I know what we believe eventually has an effect on our actions. And though I don’t believe it for them, those who imbibe their doctrine later on, I believe, are going to go pall mall straight into denominationalism where we came out of. Campbell recognized this as the most serious false doctrine. We ought to ask our question, “Why is it so readily accepted by our liberal brethren?” and see if this kind of material will contribute to a digression.
In other words, the Deavers (and those who agree with them) deny that this “direct” influence can be felt, that it makes one perfect or superior in wisdom to all others. But the door leading to those conclusions has, by the implications of the doctrine, been left ajar, and someone, perhaps followed by a multitude, will come charging through it. Even if the conclusion of this writer’s four-point “if-then” statement can be shown to be false or invalid, how many others will draw the same conclusion (but failed to be corrected for their “erroneous” logic)? If there is no compelling reason for this doctrine to be propagated, such as that it is crucial to salvation, then why insist upon it?