Preliminary
At Freed-Hardeman University’s 2014 lectureship, on Monday afternoon, material was presented relating to the topic, “How Does the Holy Spirit Convict Today?” Once the doctrine taught in this lecture is examined, it will be apparent that this is not your father’s and especially not your grandfather’s Freed-Hardeman lectures.
The speaker was Jonathan Jones, who grew up in Tennessee and preaches at Maryville. Although his views may not reflect all of the professors and instructors at FHU, he does have a Bachelor’s from there, as well as a Master of Ministry and Master of Divinity. It would not be unreasonable to think that his thinking on this subject may have come, in part, from the university. He was introduced as a “good friend, brother, and former student” by one of the members of the faculty, and in his opening remarks, brother Jones said that “the lectureship committee has entrusted to me this topic….” He said that the primary lesson text was 1 Thessalonians 1:5, but then added that he had “also been asked to look some at chapter 4, and verse number 8.” All of these clues seem to indicate that at least some of the faculty are in agreement with him.
If so, that is unfortunate because his position is both false and therefore dangerous. Past knowledgeable speakers such as Guy N. Woods and Gus Nichols would have opposed mightily the contents of this lecture, but we are living in a different era when few care if lines of demarcation are drawn between truth and error. Many have shown themselves willing to fellowship anything (nearly) that is taught. One can only wonder how long it will be until the Max King A.D. 70 doctrine, Pre-millennialism, and Pentecostalism will be accepted by some in the church. Many have already opted for false worship practices, such as instrumental music and handclapping. Instead of marking false teachers, many brethren now mark those who oppose false teaching!
Sorting Out Holy Spirit Passages
Studying the Holy Spirit often proves a difficult challenge because some fail to keep in mind two key principles. One is that of agency, which was discussed previously (June 1, 2014). Simply put, the Holy Spirit may be said to do something when He actually accomplished the goal through His Word. For example, are people convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit? John 16:8 says that He would convict the world of sin. On the Day of Pentecost, many were convicted of sin through the message Peter preached which was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jones recognized this principle and used the example himself.
A literary device is also used in the Scriptures which may confuse some Bible students. When Jesus told His disciples to drink the cup (1 Cor. 11:25), He was using metonymy—in this instance the cup stands for the contents of the cup. Many times the Holy Spirit stands for something that the Holy Spirit gives, such as spiritual gifts. Simon saw, for example, that when Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans, they received “the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:14-19). In fact, he offered to buy that ability. But when Peter and John laid their hands on the brethren, what did they receive? Although the text does not say specifically, when Paul did the same things in Acts 19, the twelve newly-bap-tized souls received the spiritual gifts of speaking in tongues and prophecy (1-6). The Holy Spirit represents that which He gives.
What the Holy Spirit gives might not even be miraculous. In Matthew 7:11, Jesus says if evil human beings give good gifts to their children, how much more will the heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him. On another occasion the Lord made the same point, but in place of good things, He said the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13). The Holy Spirit once again represents what it is that He gives.
1 Thessalonians 1:5
Brother Jones began by quoting the words of an old hymn:
I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word,
Creating faith in Him.
The speaker would have done well to stick with the words of the song, but he thought he could answer the question that the songwriter did not know, and he sets about doing so on this “vital topic and one of contemporary concern.” After urging that all his listeners be students of the Bible and compare his teaching with the Scriptures (an offer herein accepted), he began with an examination of the text. Interestingly, however, he did not make any comments whatsoever about the passage prior to verse 5, and he did not actually finish the verse under consideration. His analysis stopped at “with much assurance.” The entire verse is presented below:
For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake (1 Thess. 1:5, NKJ).
Before giving attention to his speech, we ought to take the time to analyze the background and the verse. When Paul went to Thessalonica, he found a synagogue of Jews there, and as was his usual custom, he went in “and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). That included “explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead.” Then Paul said: “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ” (Acts 17:3).
In Acts 17:1-10, no miracles are named or even hinted at. The only word that might be thought to refer to the miraculous is in Acts 17:3, but the word translated “demonstrated” there basically means “to set forth” and is not used to describe the working of miracles. Furthermore, when Paul went to Berea, Luke likewise makes no mention of Divine demonstrations in that locale. He does, however, contrast the Jews’ attitudes in the two cities. Those in Berea were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica because they “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether” the things Paul was preaching were so.
Furthermore, no mention is made of miracles used in Thessalonica in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 as Paul describes his entrance into the city. Do these observations mean that Paul performed no miracles in this city? No. He may have imparted some spiritual gifts before he left, or someone else might have. He tells the brethren not to despise prophecies (5:20). The point is that Luke emphasized the teaching, explaining, and the setting forth of the gospel in Acts. Then, just as now, people could only be saved by preaching.
But, then, what did Paul mean when he wrote of the gospel coming in power and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance? Of course, he could have referred to the miraculous. McKnight says that the power refers to the miracles and signs that Paul wrought while the Holy Spirit might refer to some of the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit that Paul imparted, such as speaking in tongues or prophecies (402). Certainly, other interpretations could be suggested, but this one seems reasonable and fits with other passages of Scripture.
What about the full assurance? This phrase means that the brethren in Thessalonica were fully persuaded of the message. McKnight comments that the Greek word “denotes the carrying of a ship forward, with her sails spread and filled with the wind” (402). Paul set forth three reasons for the full assurance on the part of the Thessalonians.
- The gospel message itself, as noted in Acts 17. Paul does not discount the reasoning that he did in proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ any more than Peter would decry the logic he used on the Day of Pentecost. Paul is simply saying that logic was not all he had used to convince them of the truth.
- The use of the miraculous, when Paul showed the signs of an apostle and imparted the miraculous gifts of the Spirit to them.
- Paul’s example (and that of those with him). They could believe the message because of the behavior on the part of Paul and the other workers in their presence. Paul elaborates on this subject just a few verses later in 2:1-12. The Thessalonians in turn became examples to others (1:7).
Brother Jones, however, went beyond what is stated in the text. He says that “it was not just the words spoken that were instrumental in the conversions of these people; there were other things at work.” If by those words he was meaning what was said above in point 2, we would be in agreement, but he went beyond those parameters to make an unwarranted assumption. Although he acknowledged that miraculous signs often accompanied the message to confirm its validity, he decided that something more was involved. For whatever reason, he decided to conclude:
So Paul indicates in our text that the Holy Spirit Himself convicts the hearts of unbelievers. These were unbelievers that are now converted to Christ. He convicts their hearts in conjunction with but in addition to the words that are spoken.
What does that statement mean, exactly? And who else has been saying similar words (Mac Deaver is a hint)? First, how does the Holy Spirit convict apart from the Word? The only other way taught in the Bible is through providence—through circumstance and situations. The speaker does allow for that possibility elsewhere, but he is advocating something else here—a direct action of the Holy Spirit.
The following words are absolutely chilling:
Conversion does not occur with the interaction of cold words on a page. Nor does transforma-tion of life happen through intellectual exercise alone…. The Holy Spirit’s power is working behind the Spirit’s Word. The power of God and the Holy Spirit works beyond mere human words to bring about faith.
Can someone explain what Jonathan Jones means by these words? In the first place, when Peter spoke on Pentecost or Paul reasoned in the synagogue, there were no words on a page. Were they cold words from chilly lips? In fairness to the lecturer, he cited Hebrews 4:12 elsewhere and believes in the power of the Word, but why then does he seem to denigrate the Scriptures at other times—this being one of them.
The Holy Spirit’s power is working behind the Holy Spirit’s Word? The Spirit works through His Word—not behind it, beside it, or apart from it. Using the word cold to apply to the words one reads in the Bible seems an insult to the Author. How does the Spirit work beyond human words (and providence)? At this juncture, Jones quotes from a Puritan named William Law:
Read whatever chapter of Scripture you will, and be ever so delighted with it—yet it will leave you as poor, as empty and unchanged as it found you unless it has turned you wholly and solely to the Spirit of God and brought you into full union with and dependence upon Him.
The speaker later on defines Calvinism and repudiates its major tenets; so why does he quote a Puritan who was a Calvinist? Is Law not saying, essentially, that the Bible is a dead letter and that the cold words on the page will not do anyone any good unless the Spirit energizes it or illuminates it? If Law is not saying that, what does he mean? Both he and Jones are advocating that the Spirit does something more than just having inspired the Scriptures. Both are wrong. An atheist could open the Bible and profit from it if he followed what it said.
Jones adds: “The Holy Spirit of God is working in the human heart to bring conviction and conversion.” Notice that his statement eliminates any possibility of him talking about the Holy Spirit’s role in providence. He stated unequivocally that the Holy Spirit is working in the human heart to bring conviction and conversion. He does not say that this work is accomplished through the Word (in this section).
He keeps talking about other options:
The Holy Spirit’s power is working behind the Spirit’s Word. The power of God and the Holy Spirit works beyond mere human words to bring about faith.
What is the Spirit doing, pray tell, behind His Word?
The speaker then quotes from H. Leo Boles, as if Boles would agree with him.
Let it be understood now that since the church was established, there has never been a genuine case of conversion that was not begun, carried on, and consummated by the Holy Spirit (The Holy Spirit (195).
Unlike Jones, Boles is speaking of the Holy Spirit as being responsible for all conversions, but in his explanation of HOW the Holy Spirit operates in conversion, Boles wrote the following:
One of the functions of the Holy Spirit is to convert sinners. How does he [sic] do this? It has been observed that the Holy Spirit in the redemption of man uses the truth of God. The Holy Spirit and the word of God are never separate in conversion and sanctification (emphasis GWS). The instrumentality of truth in conversion is a fact abundantly substantiated in the New Testament. The instrumentality of truth in conversion is invariable; the same truth is used in every conversion by the Holy Spirit. This is the same that all are converted by the Holy Spirit with the same instrumentality of truth, and the same truth used by the Holy Spirit in every conversion. While there is no conversion without the Holy Spirit, there is no operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion independent of God’s word (197-98).
Does brother Boles sound like a preacher who would agree with Jones when he alleges: “The Holy Spirit’s power is working behind the Holy Spirit’s Word”? Would he have agreed that “the Holy Spirit works beyond mere human words to bring about faith”? To ask the question in light of Bole’s own words is to answer it.
Jones seems to want something more than the Word (those cold words on a page) and more than providence. As he said just before getting to his explanation of 1 Thessalonians 1:5,
Paul came to the city of Thessalonica, preaching a powerful message. And there was Divine power behind [emph. GWS] those words—a Divine power that worked in the hearts of people to bring about spiritual transformation.
What is this Divine power that convicts hearts in conjunction with but in addition to the words that are spoken? How are we to understand what the Holy Spirit does that is separate from the Word? Perhaps those who have such confidence in brother Jones at Freed-Hardeman should ask him for further clarification.
We understand that the Holy Spirit operates through providence and through His Word, but we do not understand how He acts behind His Word—unless it involves some kind of direct operation of the Holy Spirit, which would open the door to Pentecostalism. If this lecture is not opening that door, what door is it opening?