Mac Deaver, the champion of “the direct help from God” heresy, occasionally prompts the reader who is considering his 2007 book (The Holy Spirit) to laugh. He does not intend to be humorous, but the reader cannot help but chuckle at his tactics. In his first chapter, Mac tried to establish that Gus Nichols agreed with his position while at the same time saying that in his oral debates he “never claimed brother Nichols to be in agreement” with what he had publicly defended (11). It remains confusing, then, to hear him say that brother Nichols probably did agree with him (12). Anyone who has read Gus Nichols’ book on the Holy Spirit knows that he did not agree with Mac, despite Mac’s suspicions to the contrary. Do these quotes of brother Nichols (from his book, Lectures on the Holy Spirit, published in 1997), sound like he believed that the Holy Spirit directly helped or influenced the Christian?
Question: Should we pray to God to give a preacher a ”ready recollection?” Is this providential, miraculous, or what?
Answer [from brother Nichols, GWS]: That’s all borrowed from the Apostles in John 14, when Jesus promised them that the Spirit would inspire them to reveal Christianity, to reveal the Gospel. He said, “He shall bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26) Jesus did not want them to go out and preach without knowing exactly what he had taught, without any perversion whatsoever. He would not let them preach until they had received that power.
In Luke 24:48, he said, “Ye are witnesses of these things.” And then in v. 49, “Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high.” It is error for a man to claim that same power tonight, when he is not an apostle, not in the same class they were, when the world is not in the same condition. (Acts 1:8)
They had no New Testament at that time, not a line of it. And I say again, it is a pity for people to reason in circles and ignore the facts that make a difference (151).
The reason that this quote is particularly pertinent is that many of Mac’s supporters are constantly asking, “Don’t you ask for the Holy Spirit to help you when you preach?” or some variation of that sentiment. Brother Nichols, who allegedly agreed with Mac, utterly demolished that view. Below is a further comment that cannot be misunderstood.
Question: How does the Holy Spirit guide men today other than through the Word?
Answer: Tonight I have been saying over and over that he does not! The Holy Spirit’s guidance is in the written word of God, and by it he does a thorough job guiding us. “Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel.” (Ps. 73:24) (83).
Unlike Mac, brother Nichols believed that the Word of God was sufficient and that we did not need direct help. This next quote is equally clear.
Question: Does the Holy Spirit speak through men today in a direct way? Does he motivate them to speak by “influence” on this behavior?
Answer: The Holy Spirit now through the Bible influences us to speak; but there is now no direct “independent of the word” operation, or revelation, for us. Such ideas “make the word of God of none effect” today because people will ‘turn up their noses’ to the word, and look forward to, or expect, imaginary direct revelation. This is absolutely a “decoy” to get people away from the word of God. The whole thing is a work of Satan, who wants to belittle the “word” of God and render it ineffective (82).
It is both comical and sad to see Mac Deaver trying to get brother Nichols to agree with his position. His treatment of brother Woods is both puzzling and humorous. In chapter one of his book, Mac spent a good deal of time trying to show that brother Warren utterly defeated Woods’ position on the Holy Spirit’s indwelling at a forum in 1967. Then Deaver begins his third chapter by attacking what Woods wrote concerning the Holy Spirit. But after doing so, he then tries to convince the reader that this man with lame arguments actually agrees with him (does that make Mac equally lame?). In other words, if a man was so erroneous in his Holy Spirit views as Deaver alleges Woods was, then why would he trumpet that Woods agrees with him? Mac does not seem to be able to help it. Sooner or later, everyone agrees with him.
It parallels the global warming enthusiasts. If it is hot, that is evidence of global warming. If it is severely cold, that is also evidence of global warming. If it is too wet or too dry, guess what? It is just further proof of global warming. So it is with Mac. If someone’s views are different from Mac’s, he nevertheless agrees with him. Even if he plainly denies what Mac believes, he still wrote a phrase or sentence that could possibly be construed as agreeing with Mac. There is no escaping this irresistible conclusion—everyone agrees with Mac!
James 1:5
Since this discussion focuses on James 1:5, let us see what Mac says, Woods says, and the Scriptures teach. To begin with, James 1:5 teaches: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” The first thing that one studying the book of James would notice is that this verse is not isolated but is part of a text. The wisdom being sought here is probably that which will enable the Christian to understand the reason for various trials which must be endured in order to develop patience (vv. 2-4). After this verse come three that encourage the seeker of wisdom to pray in faith; if he doubts, he will not receive an answer because he is unstable and double-minded.
Brother Woods kept this verse in its context; he wrote: “The ability to see great blessings in sore trial is not an inherent one, and must, therefore be acquired” (40). Brother Woods then elaborates on the means by which this wisdom is and is not acquired. He made clear that this wisdom does not come from:
1) a study of philosophy;
2) meditation;
3) consulting with wise men.
In other words, brother Woods differentiated between a) knowledge obtained through study by the accumulation of facts, and b) wisdom, which is the ability to apply the knowledge one has learned. In that connection he wrote that facts stored in the head “are obtained only through mental effort” (40). Wisdom, on the other hand, can only be bestowed by God.
Whether the reader agrees or not with brother Woods, the point is that this is what he taught in his commentary. He closed this section by saying that the manner in which God grants the wisdom prayed for is not dealt with in the text, which is absolutely correct. James did not tell how God would grant the wisdom—just that He would.
Everybody Agrees With Mac
Perhaps a television network would like to pick up the above title as a religious sequel to the secular Everybody Loves Raymond. Although brother Woods simply stated a fact—that the manner of God’s granting the wisdom was not specified—Mac immediately (and incorrectly) draws the conclusion that therefore brother Woods believed it was a direct infusion from God. He argues that, since the wisdom can only come from God and not through mental effort or study, that it must come direct from God’s mind to ours. Mac concludes: “Now, will someone please explain to me how it is that brother Woods did not imply direct help from God!” (49, emph. Mac’s).
Okay, Mac, read the following explanation carefully. What are the ways in which God can grant His people wisdom? Of course, there is the direct method, which was actually done in the first century. Wisdom is one of the nine spiritual gifts that Paul lists in 1 Corinthians 12; in fact, it is the first one he mentions (v. 8). The second is knowledge. In granting these gifts, God gave Christians the information or the ability directly. Just as prophets were given the words to speak, those with these gifts could communicate spiritual knowledge they had not studied to obtain or impart wisdom which usually came from observation and application of principles. By the way, to say that God grants wisdom today directly implies that these gifts are still operational. If it is argued that even one of the gifts remains operational, how can anyone shut the door to the other eight, which includes speaking in tongues and the working of miracles? To suggest that brother Woods would have opened this door would be a repudiation of everything that he ever taught on this subject.
Although brother Woods affirmed that wisdom did not come through mental effort, which studying would require, he did not rule out thinking, period. Suppose, for example, that the one praying for wisdom to understand why Christians face trials was brought face to face with a situation in which a brother had suffered. God, through His providence, might allow him to overhear a conversation in which a pagan was so impressed by the demeanor of the Christian in the face of the trial that he was considering the authenticity of Christianity. Having heard of the benefit of a brother’s suffering, he immediately achieved the understanding for which he had prayed. Did this wisdom come from study or mediation? No, he grasped the point in a moment, in a flash (as it were). This sudden realization that came through God’s providence required a minimum of mental activity—totally unequal to that which is achieved through mental effort.
Mac immediately rules out the explanation just provided for God giving wisdom through providence, but he does so erroneously. Misapplying what Woods said about knowledge requiring mental effort, Mac then concludes that no mental effort is required in wisdom, either: “Thus, it has nothing to do with reflection or any other mental activity at all” (49). As already shown, the mental activity required in studying and learning and the mental activity in coming to a sudden realization are two entirely different matters.
Andrew Connally
Now the careful reader notices a bit of misinformation in Mac’s book on the Holy Spirit. Below the quote from brother Guy N. Woods is footnote 50, which begins on page 48 and finishes on page 49. Mac states that Connally quoted the Woods’ passage and then drew the following conclusion: “But God gives it, directly to us, and He gives it ‘liberally’” (49). The only problem is that Connally made that statement before quoting the passage by Guy N. Woods. Whoops! All right, it is only a technicality, but is it one that a man who prayed for wisdom would make? Surely, Mac prayed for wisdom in writing his book.
Connally was assigned James 1:1-12 for the ninth Annual Denton Lectureship book, which was published in 1990. The quotation cited above came before the Woods’ quote. Immediately after it, Connally wrote “Thus here is something God does for the child of God personally and directly in response to believing prayer” (50). What Connally meant by the word directly only he knew. In 1990 Mac did not hold the position he currently advocates, let alone Andrew Connally. Although it is possible that Connally believed what Mac now teaches, it might be the case that he was thinking of God’s providence, in which God brings something about apart from the Word versus something that comes about as a result of our studying the Word.
Certainly brother McClish, who edited the book, did not understand brother Connally to be saying that God infuses wisdom directly into our minds, just as He would have a spiritual gift in the first century. As editor of the original Gospel Journal, brother McClish devoted an entire issue that dealt with the various aspects of Mac’s teaching. Mac did not say that either Connally or McClish agreed with him (which is surprising), but he did offer this comment in the footnote 50 already alluded to: “Notice that Connally uses the word “directly,” and please consider that this book was edited by Dub McClish” (49). The reader is left to draw his own conclusion.
Wisdom
James says to pray for wisdom, but Jesus had earlier promised others that they would be granted miraculous wisdom. In Luke 12:11-12, He said that, when His disciples were delivered up to authorities, they should “not worry about how or what” they should answer. In other words, both knowledge and the wisdom to use that knowledge would be provided. Jesus added that the Holy Spirit would tell them in that very hour what they should say. This same idea is repeated in Luke 21:14-15 when Jesus told His disciples: “Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.”
This means that God gave them the words directly and the ability to speak with wisdom. Again, this clearly indicates a miraculous ability. Do we still have this ability today? No, the promise was made to Jesus’ disciples in the first century who did not have the Scriptures—not to us who do have the opportunity to learn and use them properly. Stephen literally did what Jesus promised. As he faced his adversaries, “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke” (Acts 6:10).
Of course, Jesus Himself set the standard. When He finished teaching on various matters, no one had anything else to say. He perplexed those with His question on John’s baptism so that they admitted they did not know how to answer Him (Matt. 21:23-27). When He gave His answer on taxes, they marveled and left (Matt. 22:22). When He answered the Sadducees concerning the woman married to seven husbands “they were astonished at His teaching” (Matt. 22:23-33).
Jesus silenced His adversaries with His great wisdom. Mac has silenced no one. Daniel Denham wrote 90 pages of criticism of Mac’s book, which is included in Profiles in Apostasy #2, recently published by Contending for the Faith (Feb. 2011). He had at least three times that material which he has accumulated on the subject, showing the fallacies of Mac’s reasoning and positions. If Mac had a fraction of the wisdom of Stephen, the apostles, or the Lord, no one would be able to refute the positions set forth in his book, but brother Denham, this writer, and others have shown that Mac’s teachings do not reflect wisdom but folly.
Brother Denham points out that Mac wrote “that God in answering our prayer would be increasing our personal capacity to grasp or comprehend that wisdom provided in the Scriptures…” (109). Really? And Mac knows that—how? Mac’s problem is that Mac teaches that man, when he prays for wisdom, cannot receive information; so he fancies instead that God will enhance his “Capacity to comprehend or better grasp that source material” (109). In other words, he alleges that his “comprehension skills of the revealed Word would increase.”
Brother Denham rightly says: “There you have it! Just accept Mac’s doctrine and God will multiply your brain cells, energize your cognitive functions, and/or juice up your intellect” (115). Once again, we see that Mac’s case is built on assumptions that are only conjectures. James is not teaching that our brain cells will be supersized if we pray for wisdom. In some manner God will grant our request, as brother Woods wrote. God is capable of supplying wisdom in a way other than directly.