The basic issue under discussion is, “Does the Holy Spirit work directly in the 21st century, or does He only work indirectly through His Word and through providence?” Jonathan Jones of Maryville, Tennessee, at the 2014 Freed-Hardeman University lectures, affirmed that there is a third way that the Spirit works. Although he believes that the Holy Spirit operates through the Word, he also stated: “There is a dynamic, spiritual force at work behind the words that works through the Word to ‘pierce between soul and spirit’ and convict our hearts.” As we asked in the previous article: “What is the Holy Spirit doing behind the Word that does not involve the use of the Word?”
Although we could all agree that the Holy Spirit “works through the Word,” Jones is trying to get to something more than that. He asks the question: “Could the Holy Spirit work apart from the Word in a way that is more direct?” In his effort to answer this question he takes the long way around the barn; thus, we will follow his circuitous route.
Calvinism Answers Yes
“Many in the evangelical Christian world are quick to answer the question in the affirmative,” says Jones, and he is correct in this assessment, as well as his description of Calvinistic theology. He rightly denies that the Bible teaches that atonement is only offered to a few and that Holy Spirit conviction is irresistible. Citing Acts 7:51, he emphasizes that the teaching and influence of the Holy Spirit is not irresistible—which is also true.
The next three words of the speech, however, indicate a switch in direction—“Having said that….” If the reader did not have another clue, what do these words indicate—if not that he is going to try to lift a tenet out of Calvinism and attempt to justify it, while rejecting the major body of doctrine called Calvinism?
Having said that, in many ways the Stone-Camp-bell Movement has been a theological resistance movement—especially when it comes to Calvinism.
First of all, many brethren, including this author, are offended by attempts to pigeonhole today’s (or previous) Christians as part of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Does anyone call the Reformation the Luther-Calvin Movement? This is the language of those with liberal leanings. In fact, it was Leroy Garrett who wrote The Stone-Campbell Movement in 1981. Many of us objected to the designation then, and we have not changed since, although apparently some have.
Most of us do not, and never have, believed many of the things that either Stone or Campbell believed, but they were correct in their efforts to want to do away with denominational terminology, along with denominational doctrines and traditions. It is the principle of trying to restore New Testament Christianity that we still champion, and we follow that principle—not the men who advocated it. They were mere human beings and fallible, like the rest of us. Their goal, and ours, is to determine what the Bible teaches, which is the reason that we are not post-millennialists, as Campbell was, nor do we reject the Deity of Christ, as Stone did.
The main thing we received from Stone, Campbell, and several other men like them, was the idea that we restore New Testament Christianity as God gave it and as it is presented in the New Testament. This idea is a Biblical one, and we see restorations in the time of Hezekiah and the days of Josiah. They restored the kingdom which had introduced idolatry and practices that God had not authorized. They destroyed images and made an effort to go back to the teachings of the Law of Moses. Those in the Reformation and Restoration eras also attempted to clear out the denominational clutter and return to New Testament doctrine.
In the course of the lecture, Jones quoted from Jack Cottrell, whom he identifies as a member of the Independent Christian Church but further describes as “a part of the Restoration Movement.” Many of us do not consider such individuals as part of the Restoration Movement. They long ago gave up that ideology when they adopted the use of instrumental music. As brethren are fond of saying, “You cannot restore what was never there in the first place.” They know full well that the use of musical accompaniment is not found in the New Testament and that history confirms the absence of instrumental music for centuries after the establishment of the church, but they are determined to use it anyway. Thus they have sold their birthright for a mess of instrumental pottage and cannot seriously be listed as those who are trying to “restore” New Testament Christianity.
A Theological Resistance Movement
What kind of verbiage is this? When Josiah called the Israelites back to the Law of Moses, could it have been termed “a theological resistance movement to idolatry”? After the captivity, did Ezra lead “a theological resistance movement” against unauthorized divorce and remarriage? Are we not always supposed to resist sin and error in all its various forms? But consider the quote from Cottrell:
As Restoration leaders battled Calvinism, the only kind of direct work of the Holy Spirit that they could envision was Calvinism’s irresistible grace. The result was the development of a reactionary theology that has happened among us where any possibility of the Holy Spirit working on the heart of a human being is rejected wholesale as Calvinistic doctrine (218).
Is not Cottrell (and therefore Jones) saying that the Holy Spirit works directly on the heart, although not in a Calvinistic way? Is the point not that we overreacted to Calvinism and thus eliminated all possibilities that the Holy Spirit would work directly on the human heart in some other way? Surely, we might consider that possibility, but what would be the purpose of the Holy Spirit operating directly on the heart? And if the Holy Spirit chose to operate directly on some human hearts and not others, would that not make Him a respecter of persons—especially prior to conversion?
Next was a quote from Jimmy Jividen’s book, Alive in the Spirit, published by the Gospel Advocate (1990):
Some people reacted to this direct operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion and went to the other extreme, denying that the Holy Spirit had any work in the world at all…. In some writings of that time the reader would think the Holy Spirit should be put in a box and shipped back to the first century where He belonged. In other writings of the time, you would think that the Holy Spirit was imprisoned in the Bible and forbidden to have free course in the world (113).
The context of Jividen’s statement is uncertain. He may have simply been arguing for the Spirit to work providentially. But if not, this kind of argumentation is the same used by Pentecostals when brethren show from the Scriptures that spiritual gifts were only temporary and are no longer in existence (1 Cor. 13). They taunt, “Oh, you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit has anything to do today.” This is bad reasoning. Just because the Holy Spirit had changed His technique or His methods does not mean that He retired. Likewise, just because Jesus is no longer walking upon the earth, teaching and performing miracles, does not mean He has been shipped back to the first century, either. He is still Head over the church, His body, and greatly concerned about what is happening in it.
Regardless of the relevance of Jividen’s quote, Jones continues with another one by Cottrell—this one from his book, Power from on High: What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit, page 200:
The problem with Calvinism is not a direct operation of the Holy Spirit as such, but a specific kind of direct operation (emph. his), one that is the spawn of total depravity…. Calvinism’s brand of direct operation of the Holy Spirit that is selective and irresistible and proceeds [sic, it should be precedes, gws] faith and repentance must be rejected.
Again, the question must be asked: “Of what does the non-Calvinistic brand of direct operation of the Spirit consist?” Whatever Cottrell means, Jones, after the quotation, said, “I agree with that.” He added that al-though we must reject Calvinism, “that does not necessarily require a wholesale abandonment of the concept of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit entirely.” Again we ask, “What is the Holy Spirit doing directly and non-Calvinistically?”
2 Timothy 3:5
Perhaps not surprisingly, Jones does two things that Mac Deaver did at this point. He says: 1) that different views on this topic should not be a matter of fellowship; and 2) If you don’t agree with his position, you are probably a deist.
It is my judgment—and you can have your own judgment (and we can extend grace and love to-ward one another)—it is my judgment that when we reject the possibility of any direct action of God in our lives today, we get dangerously close to a deistic view of God that leaves us in a place where we view God as being far-removed from our world and has left us with nothing but the Bible. To deny an eminent presence of God’s work in our world today leaves us spiritually like a valley of dry bones. Scripture warns us against this tendency that would happen in the later days.
He then cited 2 Timothy 3:5 and applied it to those who would disagree with him. They are those who have a form of godliness but deny its power. He omitted the last part of the verse which says, “And from such turn away,” which certainly indicates that if what he is saying is true, it is most definitely a matter of fellowship, and he should not be fellowshiping anyone who disagrees with him!
It is not valid to apply 2 Timothy 3:5 in the way he did. First of all, Pentecostals would throw the same passage back at him because he does not speak in tongues. Second, denying a direct operation of the Holy Spirit is not the context of 2 Timothy 3. It would be rather silly, in a day when the Spirit was actually working directly with the miraculous gifts, to deny that the Holy Spirit worked directly. Paul is describing those who professed Christianity but did not live it. They had a form of godliness but denied the power of a godly life.
Winford Claiborne has spoken a number of years on the Freed-Hardeman lectureship program. He was assigned this passage for the Annual Denton Lectures on 1-2 Timothy and Titus. He wrote:
During the last days—that is, during the entire Christian era—there will be many who will have a “form of godliness,” but who deny “the power thereof; from such turn away.” The men and women Paul described in these verses may pretend to be devoted to the church of our Lord, but in reality they have only a “form of godliness.” They either do not understand the meaning of true Christianity, or they prefer to determine on their own what they will do in the work and the worship of the church. They may not deny with their mouths the Lord Jesus Christ, but they deny Him by their actions. Paul demanded that faithful saints turn away from such people. We cannot fellowship those who are unfaithful to the gospel (296).
Jonathan Jones, the speaker in the lecture under review, is also an adjunct professor in what once was called the East Tennessee School of Preaching and Missions. For their 12th lectureship, that school did Studies in Timothy and Titus. William Woodson, who also spoke on the Freed-Hardeman lectures for several years, wrote the following on 2 Timothy 3:5:
(19) There was for them an outward show, form, semblance of having a genuine sense of submission to God, but the power and impact of genuine devotion (emph. GWS) they did not know and in fact refused to acknowledge (vs. 5).
Paul’s impressive command, expressed in the middle imperative, instructed Timothy and those Timothy could influence with true [sic, it should be truth] to turn away from such teachers, to avoid, to shun these unsavory pretenders and to continue to do so (vs. 5) (207).
Clearly, Jones does not apply the verse correctly.
Deism
Jones believes that the Holy Spirit operates on the non-Christian and the Christian directly in a non-Cal-vinistic way. Christians who do not agree are denying the power of God. That interpretation is erroneous, but if it were correct, how could the speaker fellowship those of us who disagree? Furthermore, he accused us of being dangerously close to a Deistic view. But why would that be? We believe that the Holy Spirit still works through His providence, that Christ is the involved Head of His church, and that the Father will answer our prayers. These are not the beliefs of Deists. The speaker is just trying to coerce the audience to accept his position.
Jim Cymbala
Jones quotes from Jim Cymbala, and one wonders why. Most brethren have never heard of him, but he “pastors” the Brooklyn Chapel, a megachurch of about 16,000 people. From his own Website come the beliefs of this group. Concerning the Holy Spirit and His indwelling, they say:
We believe the Holy Spirit is the Promise of the Father, the Comforter who indwells and places every believer in the Body of Christ, bestows spiritual gifts upon the Church and convicts the world of sin and the judgment to come.
While all believers are indwelt by the Spirit of God (Romans 8), we believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a definite endowment of power for service and is separate from conversion.
So, Cymbala is a charismatic who believes in the baptism of the Holy Spirit today, along with all the spiritual gifts. And we should listen to his views—why? Nevertheless, he is quoted:
If I were Satan and my ultimate goal was to thwart God’s kingdom and purposes, one of my main strategies would be to get church goers to ignore the Holy Spirit…but when believers live in the power of the Spirit, the evidence in their lives is supernatural.
Jones, then emphatically announced: “I agree with that statement.” What does it mean? Since Cymbala is a charismatic, we might assume that he is referring to a Christian possessing a spiritual gift. What else would he mean by living “in the power of the Spirit”? If Christians were to say such a thing, we would probably infer that such a brother had studied diligently and was living by the Word that was inspired of the Holy Spirit, but Cymbala surely does not mean that.
But which of us would say that the evidence of God in our lives is supernatural? Would this assertion not lead us to conclude that God is doing something to us, directly, and therefore whatever He has done would serve as a subjective evidence of His existence? Where is Jones going with this idea?
o