Views: 3<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.\u201d So read the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:9. It is likely thus concerning all the errors discussed in this lecture series, but without question, Solomon\u2019s observation is true concerning the fatal error addressed in this manuscript. The doctrine that there must be\/is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the sinner in addition to and\/or in conjunction with the Word before he can be convicted of sin and converted to Christ is not a newcomer in the realm of theology. However, it is a relative newcomer among faithful saints. This study includes an examination of the roots of the modern manifestations of this error and an examination of its iteration by a contemporary brother.<\/span><\/p>\n Tracing the Roots of the Error<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Just as Luther and his disciples in sixteenth-century Germany did not swallow all of Calvin\u2019s doctrinal system as set forth in his Institutes, <\/em>neither did Jacob\/Jacobus\/James Arminius in Germany\u2019s neighboring Netherlands. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century a great religious conflict involving Calvin\u2019s theology raged in Holland. It had, along with some other Western European nations, recognized the \u201cReformed\u201d (i.e., Calvinistic) Church as the state church. By the time of Arminius\u2019 death in 1609, he had gathered a substantial following that agreed with his rejections of most of Calvinism. The next year his followers (dubbed \u201cArminians\u201d) summarized the principal points of his theology in five statements, each of which, with one slight exception, was a direct contradiction of the principal points of Calvin\u2019s theology. The signatories of this document (labeled \u201cThe Remonstrance\u201d) petitioned the church\/state authorities in Holland to revise the totally Calvinistic Confession of the Dutch Church (which constituted both their civil and religious law) to conform to their understanding of Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n After a decade of futile attempts at settlement, a national Synod was called in the city of Dordt, which had its first session on November 13, 1618. The Synod of Dordt, composed of eighty-four religious delegates and eighteen civil authorities, met in 154 sessions of debate, over a period of six months (McClintock and Strong<\/em>).<\/span><\/p>\n The Calvinistic composition and bias of the Synod predestined, shall we say, the outcome before it began. The Dutch delegates thoroughly denounced the Arminian Remonstrance and vigorously denied the petitions of the plaintiffs. Further, the Synod excommunicated them as a whole and employed the civil authorities to execute fines, banishments, and imprisonments for various ones of them. The literary response by the Synod of Dordt to the five points of the Remonstrance was the distillation of Calvin\u2019s theology a century after he died. Thus the nation universally famous for its fragrant tulips became the seedbed for the well-known TULIP <\/em><\/strong>acrostic that summarizes Calvinistic theology.<\/span><\/p>\n The Remonstrance correctly countered the Calvinistic errors of personal election\/pre-destination, irresistible grace, perseverance, and the limited atonement, to which denials we utter a hearty, \u201cAmen.\u201d However, article 3 of the 5 articles stated the following:<\/span><\/p>\n That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he,<\/span> This third plank of the Arminian platform implies a semi-free-will <\/em>doctrine and a semi-inherited-sin <\/em>doctrine. The Arminian position on man\u2019s free will denied Calvin\u2019s irresistible-grace <\/em>and election <\/em>follies. While Arminius rejected the extreme version of the Augustinian\/Calvinistic total-hereditary-depravity <\/em>heresy, <\/em>he could not free himself completely from it. He taught that the sinner does not inherit Adam\u2019s sin, but he nevertheless is helpless to approach God\u2014to think, will, or do anything good apart from the Holy Spirit\u2019s direct enablement<\/strong>. The Gospel by itself was not sufficient. <\/strong>Arminius placed the new birth\u2014by means of the Holy Spirit\u2019s direct action\u2014prior to believing in and obeying Christ. He, therefore, contrary to the Lord\u2019s statement in John 3:5, distinguished between the new birth and conversion that brings salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n Clearly, Arminius did not believe the sinner could simply respond in faith and obedience to the Gospel unto salvation without some additional, supra-literary help. He has therefore been credited with being the fountainhead of all those who aver that the Holy Spirit must do or at least does some work directly upon and\/or in the sinner for his salvation\u2014in addition to or in conjunction with the Gospel. The fullest embodiment of Arminianism in our time is found in the doctrines of the Methodist, Nazarene, and Pentecostal denominations. Only in the past two decades have these errors gained any currency among the Lord\u2019s people, principally through the efforts of brother Mac Deaver and a few associates. It is apparent, however, that the author of the manuscript under review in my remarks is of the same persuasion\u2014and perhaps has been influenced by one or more of these men. Whatever may be the variations of this basic premise, whether five centuries ago or currently, they all have the consequent of discrediting the all-sufficiency and power of the Gospel to save, which the Lord and the inspired writers consistently attribute to it (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:36\u201347; 20:32; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18, 21; 15:1\u20132; et al.).<\/span><\/p>\n A Current Iteration of Arminius\u2019 Third Article<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Background of the Document Under Review <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n On February 3, 2014, Jonathan Jones II, at the invitation of the Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship Committee, expounded upon the subject, \u201cHow Does the Holy Spirit Convict Today?\u201d Brother Jones is the \u201cpulpit preacher\u201d at the Maryville, Tennessee, Church of Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n I have some history with this school. No fewer than fourteen of my kindred, either by birth or by marriage and spanning four generations, have sat\/sit in its classrooms over the past sixty-five years. Some of my most treasured memories involve events of my student years at Freed-Hardeman College (now University) involving the years of 1954 through 1957. Those precious memories include meeting, wooing, and winning my beloved Lavonne. Those good memories extend several years thereafter as I returned to the campus many times from the 1960s into the late 1980s. The late Guy N. Woods was responsible for and assisted with my enrollment there to begin my preparation to preach the Gospel. I sat at the feet of such teachers as H.A. Dixon, Frank Van Dyke, W. Claude Hall, G.K. Wallace, and Earl West, and for years the lectureships annually brought to the campus such stalwarts as Guy N. Woods, Gus Nichols, B.C. Goodpasture, Franklin Camp, and, long after he no longer taught there, G.K. Wallace.<\/span><\/p>\n Those great and godly men would not know where they were could they be resurrected to attend a lectureship on that campus over the past several years\u2014and not merely because of unfamiliarity with the new buildings. In October 2015, F-HU featured the denominational <\/strong>author\/scholar, Norman Geisler, for lectures to the graduate theology students. Brother Woods confided to me in 1986, while preaching in a Gospel meeting with the old Pearl Street church in Denton, Texas, that he had serious reservations about making contributions, either of his vast library or of his financial resources to the school. I ceased attending all school functions in 1989 because of this evolution\u2014and because I wanted to maintain my normal blood pressure.<\/span><\/p>\n The material to which I turn the reader\u2019s attention well illustrates the drastic changes in direction and emphasis of this school that for many years enjoyed an almost unquestioned reputation for the doctrinal soundness of its administration and faculty. It was evident that Brother Jones knew he was not on adversarial ground in delivering his material, not only from his invitation, but also from his introduction. Clyde Woods, a long-time F-HU faculty member (and an F-HC classmate, known by all then as \u201cWoody\u201d) introduced him as \u201ca good friend, brother, and former student.\u201d1 Brother Jones\u2019 blog states that he is an alumnus of the school, earning a Bachelor\u2019s and two Master\u2019s degrees therefrom. The biographical material that accompanies his chapter in the lectureship book states that he also is an \u201cadjunct faculty member\u201d of the Southeast Institute of Biblical Studies in Knoxville, Tennessee (formerly, East Tennessee School of Preaching)\u2014which means that this brother is passing along his errors to preacher students.<\/span><\/p>\n The lectureship planners of earlier years would not have considered assigning the subject of this critique to anyone, except for the purpose of refuting it. Should one have attempted to advocate brother Jones\u2019 contentions in the Open Forum, he would have been vigorously challenged and his error soundly exposed on the spot. Brethren would likely have pled with him to repent. I was present at the 1972 lectureship when Max R. King introduced his \u201cRealized Eschatology\u201d heresy and announced the publication of his book advocating it. I well remember the godly Gus Nichols publicly\u2014and tearfully\u2014begging brother King to repent of his error and cease circulation of his book. Gary Summers well wrote concerning the Jones material: \u201cOnce the doctrine taught in this lecture is examined, it will be apparent that this is not your father\u2019s and especially not your grandfather\u2019s Freed-Hardeman Lectures.\u201d To this I would only add that the annual lectureship has ever been an accurate reflection of the doctrinal direction of every university operated by brethren, including F-HU.<\/span><\/p>\n Unmistakable Overriding Emphases <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n One comes away after reading or hearing the Jones treatise convinced of two things, apart from agreeing or disagreeing with its content: Its author believes that (1) the Holy Spirit operates directly\u2014in addition to His work through providence and through the agency of His Word\u2014to convict and convert sinners and that (2) the Word alone is unable and insufficient to convict and convert the sinner.<\/span><\/p>\n All but the last three of the quotations below relate to the Spirit\u2019s alleged direct work of convicting and converting alien sinners. Those three relate to His alleged direct work in sanctifying Christians and helping them live righteously, which the material under review also advocates. However, all of these statements are proof of the two claims above concerning the author\u2019s insistent emphasis\u2014the direct activity of the Holy Spirit on individual hearts. I gleaned the following phrases from the extensive outline from which the writer spoke (all emphasis his):<\/span><\/p>\n In his oral delivery brother Jones used nudge, nudging, <\/em>and prod <\/em>a total of five times to indicate his view of the Spirit\u2019s action on both sinner and saint. He employed direct operation <\/em>five times to explain his idea of the Spirit\u2019s activity regarding sinner and saint. Additionally, he used action <\/em>one time and work <\/em>eleven times in the context of the Holy Spirit\u2019s direct activity in addition to His work through His Word.<\/span><\/p>\n At the beginning of his lecture, brother Jones invited listeners to evaluate what he would say in light of the Bible, which I now plan to do. I fully concur with his following statement: \u201cThere is much misunderstanding on this topic in Christendom and even among us.\u201d Ironically, the Jones speech is a prime example of said misunderstanding. His \u201carguments\u201d contain nothing new; they are merely the regurgitation of old Wesleyan and Pentecostal positions that faithful brethren in our nation have met and soundly refuted in innumerable debates over the past century and a half or longer.<\/span><\/p>\n Key Passage Misapplied<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Jones was specifically assigned to base his lecture on 1 Thessalonians 1:5, which reads as follows (his Scripture quotations throughout are from the English Standard Version): \u201cBecause our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Brother Jones averred after quoting this passage: \u201cThis verse explicitly states that it was <\/em>not simply the words spoken <\/strong>that were instrumental in their conversions, but two other things were at work: (1) power and (2) the Holy Spirit\u2019s conviction\u201d [his emph.]. By this latter phrase he meant the conviction in the Thessalonians, which he alleged the Holy Spirit produced; he based his conclusion on a single commentator\u2019s opinion to that effect. Jones thereupon asserted: \u201cThe full conviction that these people experienced was the result of the work of the Holy Spirit upon them.\u201d He thus blatantly assumed what he needed to prove and then based his assertion upon his assumption. He then asked, \u201cAnd how does the Holy Spirit do his [sic] work of bringing people to conviction today?\u201d Ah, yes; that is the important question. While fully agreeing that the Holy Spirit stirs conviction in the sinner\u2019s heart, this passage says nothing of the way He does so<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n But was Paul referring to the \u201cfull conviction\u201d (\u201cmuch assurance,\u201d ASV) in the hearers or to such in Paul and his companions who powerfully delivered the Gospel to them? Contrary to the Jones assumption based upon the one commentator Jones cited, numerous able Greek authorities and\/or commentators aver it to be the latter:<\/span><\/p>\n Assurance. <\/strong>Assured persuasion of the preacher <\/strong>that the message was divine (Vincent, 17, his emph.).<\/span><\/p>\n As the kathos <\/em>clause [you know what manner of men we proved to be among you for your sake<\/em>] indicates, pleroph <\/em>[i.e., full conviction<\/em>], here must denote personal conviction and unfaltering confidence on the part of the preachers <\/strong>[emph. DM] (Nicoll, 24).<\/span><\/p>\n In 1 Thess. 1:5 it [i.e., plerophoria <\/em>[i.e., full conviction<\/em>] describes the willingness and freedom of spirit enjoyed by those who brought the gospel <\/strong>to Thessalonica\u201d [emph. DM] (Vine, 43 [NT section]).<\/span><\/p>\n The presence of the Holy Spirit gave them [i.e., the preachers] much assurance, and they preached with a conscious conviction of the truth <\/strong>of their message [emph. DM] (Lipscomb, 18).<\/span><\/p>\n And so go the comments of A.T. Robertson (11), William Hendriksen (51), William Neil (33\u201334), and Charles R. Eerdman (35).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now note: F-HU faculty members asked <\/strong>brother Jones to speak\u2014and he spoke\u2014on a subject <\/strong>based on a passage<\/strong>, the two of which apparently are not even related. The assigned passage does not even refer to the \u201cconviction\u201d of those who believed and obeyed the Gospel\u2014the theme of his topic. Even if the New Testament taught (which it does not) that the Holy Spirit directly, immediately produces conviction in the hearts of unbelievers, 1 Thessalonians 1:5 is worse than a poor choice for a \u201cprimary text,\u201d as brother Jones described it. The lectureship committee that assigned this text and linked it to conviction in sinners should be red-faced. They should be all the more embarrassed if it ever dawns upon them that the recipient of the assignment has three earned degrees from F-HU<\/strong>, and that he, as did they, failed to see the disconnect between passage and topic\u2014to say nothing of the error of his doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n The situation is ludicrous. Brother Jones first misapplied Paul\u2019s words regarding who are convicted and then proceeded boldly to assume that the Holy Spirit did something besides what the Gospel did in bringing them to Christ. One is almost made to feel sorry for him and for those who gave him this topic.<\/span><\/p>\n Reviewing Some Other Cited Passages<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n To be fair, Jones made some good statements relative to the Spirit\u2019s working through His Word in the conviction\/conversion process: \u201cThe message stirs belief (John 20:31), creates faith (Rom. 10:17), and is the well-spring of salvation (Rom. 1:16) …. The word of God is the Holy Spirit\u2019s sword that he uses to convict our hearts (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12) ….\u201d Those who have a grasp of the Truth concur with every word of the above statements. Amazingly, however, after these Scriptural affirmations, brother Jones then almost immediately stated:<\/span><\/p>\n This passage [i.e., John 16:8\u201311, DM] speaks of the Holy Spirit [sic] convicting unbelievers of \u201csin, righteousness and judgment\u201d because they do not believe in Jesus. In context, we again see the primary way <\/strong>this occurs is through the message of truth that the Spirit revealed to the apostles (John 16:12\u201313) (emph. DM).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n By saying that the Gospel is the \u201cprimary way<\/strong>\u201d the Holy Spirit convicts sinners, he thereby left himself \u201cwiggle\u201d room to insist that the Word is insufficient <\/strong>of itself to convict and convert. Further, he seemed completely oblivious to his clear self-contradiction. Which is it, brother Jones? Is the message sufficient to stir belief, create faith, and serve as the well-spring of salvation as the Spirit\u2019s agent to convict hearers OR <\/strong>is the written\/spoken Word of God merely the \u201cprimary way\u201d <\/strong>the Spirit convicts and creates faith in sinners? Both positions cannot be true.<\/span><\/p>\n He cited and\/or quoted numerous passages in which he remarkably \u201cfound\u201d his direct-operation <\/em>error. All a passage need do is mention the Holy Spirit in any remote connection with a sinner\u2019s belief in and\/or conversion to Christ, and\u2014voila!\u2014there must be a direct operation involved. In fact, a passage does not even have to mention the Holy Spirit for Jones to \u201cfind\u201d Him there. Even as he (and his former university professors) misapplied his \u201cprimary passage,\u201d so he misapplied numerous others. While space limitations forbid noticing all of the passages he referenced, the following, with his comments on them are representative of others. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The fact is that the text states the medium, or the how, that the Holy Spirit opened Lydia\u2019s heart, the medium, or the how, was \u201cthe things which were spoken (past tense) by the apostle Paul.\u201d The medium of operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart of Lydia was the teaching which the inspired apostle had spoken. Lydia gave heed, or attended unto, the things which were spoken by Paul (112).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jones\u2019 View of the Restorers and Their Efforts<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n From several of his statements it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jonathan Jones at least borders on holding a denominational view of the Lord\u2019s church. A major necessary effort of the restorers of the first half of the 19th century was to expose the errors of Calvinism, which then gripped, as it still grips the majority of religious people in our fledgling nation. They thus attacked the claim that the Holy Spirit must directly impact the alleged totally depraved sinner\u2019s heart before he could be convicted and converted. The efforts of these spiritual pioneers in combatting this heinous error and in emphasizing the correct division between the Testaments were among their major accomplishments in making the restoration of primitive Christianity a reality. Jones expressed agreement with a member of the ultra-liberal Disciples of Christ denomination who described the restorers\u2019 work of opposing the Spirit\u2019s direct operation as a \u201ctheological resistance movement.\u201d Jones\u2019 termed their work in this regard \u201creactionary theology.\u201d \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n While admitting that the restoration stalwarts rightly opposed Calvin\u2019s errors concerning the Holy Spirit\u2019s work, Jones then asserted that the work of these men resulted in almost universal opposition among brethren to any <\/strong>direct operation of the Spirit apart from the Word. He argued that this was a mistake. Jones\u2019 mistake, however, is in advocating any direct <\/strong>work of the Spirit on the human heart\/spirit. He quoted Jack Cottrell, the Christian church preacher frequently in an effort to justify his position (so frequently, in fact, that his MS would have been two or three pages shorter without these quotes). Jones identified Cottrell as a member of \u201cthe Independent Christian Church, a part of the Restoration Movement.\u201d Further, he referred to the \u201cStone-Campbell movement\u201d and then said, \u201cof which we are heirs.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Consider the following observations on the foregoing material:<\/span><\/p>\n The hyper-liberal Disciples of Christ sect wears that name dishonestly. If they were honest, they would change their name to \u201cDisciples of Campbell,\u201d for they claim Alexander Campbell as their founder\u2014the true \u201cCampbellites.\u201d Restorers such as Campbell and Stone never intended to, nor did they begin a new church; their efforts were bent on calling all men back to the original church, which had been all but lost to history through centuries of apostasy.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Implications, Consequences, Confusions, Assumptions, and Denials<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n All who require a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart of the sinner imply <\/strong>that the Spirit\u2019s Word is insufficient and impotent to convict and convert. Yet it was the unaided spoken Word on Pentecost that caused sinners to be \u201cpricked in their heart\u201d and to ask, \u201cwhat shall we do?\u201d (i.e., to be converted, forgiven, saved [Acts 2:37]). Luke noted the same phenomenon shortly afterward among Jerusalem Jews: \u201cBut many of them that heard the word believed…\u201d (4:4a). The same thing occurred in Samaria: \u201cBut when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women\u201d (8:12). Likewise, as earlier noted, \u201c…many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized\u201d (18:8). The Gospel was sufficient to convict and convert.<\/span><\/p>\n It is sheer assumption <\/strong>to say that the Holy Spirit directly impacted the hearts of those who heard\u2014and today impacts the hearts of those who hear\u2014the Gospel, \u201cnudging\u201d them to respond. Such assumptions come about only when one is so wedded to a position that he is willing to engage in the most extreme form of eisegesis\u2014reading into the text what is not there, but what one wishes and preconceives were there. The foregoing examples\u2014plus many others\u2014constitute the pattern of conviction and conversion: sinners heard the Gospel, by which means those with honest hearts were convicted and converted, and so it continues to be.<\/span><\/p>\n To hold that there is\/must be a direct action of the Holy Spirit for the sinner to be convicted and converted not only implies the insufficiency of the Word, but it also constitutes an outright denial <\/strong>of the Word\u2019s power in this regard. Paul declared, \u201cFor I am not ashamed of the Gospel: for it [not it and<\/strong> the Spirit\u2019s direct impact on the sinner] is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek\u201d (Rom. 1:16). Jones and his cohorts should rewrite Romans 10:17 to read: \u201cSo then belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ\u2014plus some direct help from the Holy Spirit.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Jones confused <\/strong>\u201cprovidence\u201d with his direct operation <\/em>credo, suggesting that the Holy Spirit \u201cnudges\u201d people to \u201cstart having a conviction toward belief and repentance.\u201d However, the very nature of providence is that it is invisible, in \u201cthe background,\u201d and imperceptible through the senses. It is an occurrence that always involves \u201cwho knows if\u201d or \u201cperhaps\u201d this or that was the providential work of God (Est. 4:14; Phi. 15). If Jones and others of his persuasion were merely advocating the employment of God\u2019s providential activity, there would be no alarm. However, the one is indirect <\/strong>activity, while that which Jones asserted is direct <\/strong>activity on the part of the Holy Spirit. The former is Scriptural and safe, but the latter is unscriptural and spiritually fatal.<\/span><\/p>\n Jones\u2019 failure to distinguish between God\u2019s providential work behind-the-scenes and the contention that the Spirit directly impacts the hearts of sinners leads him to erect the straw man of Deism (echoing the contentions of Mac Deaver). He evinced his confusion <\/strong>as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s work in our world today leaves us spiritually like a valley of dry bones.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This \u201clogic\u201d is similar to that of Pentecostals who assert that if one denies the presence of miracles today, he thereby implies that God is incapable of performing them. No, brother Jones, it is not an either\/or matter concerning the Spirit\u2019s working directly or not at all in the lives of men today. The fallacy of this reasoning completely omits the presence\/activity of God through providence. Incidentally, note the Bible-bashing conclusion that, if the Spirit is not directly affecting human behavior, God \u201chas left us nothing but the Bible,\u201d which produces a spiritual \u201cvalley of dry bones.\u201d Nothing but the Bible, indeed! Such a low view of Scripture is unworthy of anyone professing to be a child of God, much less one who is supposed to be preaching it.<\/span><\/p>\n One effective way to accentuate the falseness of a doctrine is to recognize its unscriptural and ungodly consequences<\/strong>. Consider the following deadly consequences of the contention that the Holy Spirit directly operates upon the hearts of sinners to convict and convert them:<\/span><\/p>\n
\nin the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: “Without me ye can do nothing” (Schaff-Herzog<\/em>).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n