How Important Is The Holy Spirit Controversy?
Kerry Duke
God told Abraham that his son Isaac would have many descendants (Gen. 17:19-20). But before Isaac had any children, God told Abraham to offer him for a burnt offering (Gen. 22:2). This fact was clear to Abraham: Isaac would live and have children. But how could he have children if Abraham killed him? Abraham thought of an answer. He believed God would raise Isaac from the dead after he had offered him (Heb. 11:17-19). This is why he told the young men, "I and the lad will go yonder and worship and come again to you" (Gen. 22:5). Abraham was right in believing that Isaac would live to have children. This is what God said. But Abraham was wrong about how God would accomplish this. God had not revealed to him how he would do this. Though Abraham was mistaken in his belief, he did not sin in believing wrongly because he neither denied nor violated anything God had said.
Does the devil work in the world? Does he tempt people? Of course he does. How does he work in the world? How does he tempt us? Does he speak to us today as he did to Eve? I know of no one among us who says that he so speaks. Some say he tempts us "through the world." They generally do not go farther and try to explain the meaning of "through the world" if there is a clear meaning. But they do believe that temptation is real. This view is a representative view of the devil’s working. Others say the devil acts on the world in the same way God acts on the world providentially – in an unseen, not a miraculous, manner. This view says the devil does affect the physical world in some limited way. This view is a mediated view of the devil’s work today. Others say he stirs rebellion in our minds in a non-miraculous, non-physical manner. They agree with Albert Barnes that there are "furious suggestions of evil, and excitements to sin, which he may throw into the mind like fiery darts" (Notes on Ephesians, p.131). This is a personal view of temptation. Neither of these views says that Satan speaks to people directly today. Neither of them says that devils possess people today. Neither of them attributes any miraculous activity to the devil today.
Can these three groups fellowship each other? Should they? Should this issue be a cause of contention? Should brethren spend hours debating the issue of how the devil works? Does it matter what we believe about how the devil tempts us as long as we believe that he does and as long as we devote our lives to resisting temptation? As long as our belief about how he tempts does not damn our soul, what difference does it make? Why would we argue and divide over this issue when the world is covered with sin and the church is attacked by it on every side?
The Bible says Satan "put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him" (John 13:2). Luke says "Then entered Satan into Judas" (Luke 22:3). Satan "filled" the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3). Satan "provoked" or "moved" David to number Israel (I Chron. 21:1; II Sam. 24:1). Jesus said to Peter, "Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat" (Luke 22:31). Satan had "bound" one poor woman with a crippling ailment for eighteen years (Luke 13:16). His messenger buffeted Paul (II Cor. 12:7). What do these statements mean? How are we to interpret them? How did the devil move David and sift Peter like wheat? As long as we do not have views that deny human free will, the cessation of miraculous revelation, or some other biblical teaching, should we brand each other has heretics because we have different views or use different words to say the same thing? If our differences will not send us to hell, does it make sense to spend half of our time arguing about this question? We believe that the devil tempts us – that’s the important part. If we spend a lot of time arguing about how he tempts us, how are we going to have time to build ourselves up for when he does tempt us? Why would brethren draw lines of fellowship on this matter? Though the subject is intriguing and though having opinions is alright, who can we justify dividing over this issue? Wouldn’t this be shameful and ridiculous? Even if a brother’s reasoning about how the devil works is inconsistent in some points, why would we call him a heretic as long as he believes the fact that the devil does tempt us? And even though statements of Scripture about the devil’s workings are truth and all truth is of God, who would argue that a man’s conclusions about the details of how the devil tempts man are as important as his convictions about resisting temptation? Which is more important, being right about the intricate aspects of how the devil tempts us or resisting temptation when it comes our way?
Does one’s view of how the devil tempts us make him one whit stronger in resisting temptation? Does any one of the views of temptation we have mentioned safeguard a person against temptation any better than the others? In the end, when he is feeling the pressure of temptation, does a person’s theory about how the devil tempts him make him any less likely to sin? Was Peter thinking about how the devil was going to cause him to be sifted when the devil did sift him like wheat? When Peter denied the Lord, he was not thinking about theories of how the devil causes temptation. He didn’t even realize he was being sifted when he was sifted!
Who would think of creating camps of division over this issue? Who would think of branding a brother as a heretic over this question and calling on him to repent? Who can justify taking valuable time away from fighting a tidal wave of religious apostasy and moral decay to argue about things we can’t even see and certainly don’t comprehend? If resisting temptation is the critical part, and we all agree that it is, then shouldn’t we put the emphasis there and leave it there?
Brethren can and should fellowship each other though they disagree on this topic. A brother who goes on a campaign to push his view of this, feeling that he has come to the kingdom for such a time as this, has things entirely out of proportion. A brother who thinks he is a champion of the faith because he has convinced others that a view of the subject that differs from his is a damnable doctrine doesn’t even know what a damnable doctrine is. A brother that jumps into a fight without understanding it is a fool and a brother who follows his friends and supporters instead of facing the real issues is a coward.
Dividing over how the unseen hand of Satan works is no more ludicrous than dividing over how the unseen hand of God works. To be consistent, if we’re going to press the one to the point of division, then we must press the other. Consider the work of angels. The Bible says they are ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14); on this point we agree. But what do they do? How do they minister? In what ways do they intervene in the course of human affairs? How did the angel "fight with the prince of Persia" (Dan. 10:20)? We agree that they do not work miraculously. They do not reveal themselves today as they did in Bible times; they do not deliver verbal revelation today. As long as we do not attribute miraculous, revelatory activity to them today, and as long as our theories do not deny the Scriptures in some other point, what difference does it make to our salvation what we believe about their work? What purpose would be served by being dogmatic to the point of drawing lines of fellowship over this issue? Consider the broader subject of God’s special providence. Do we comprehend how it works? Do we even begin to understand how God answers prayer and intervenes in the world without removing man’s free will? Do we know how God protects us when he pray, "Lord, please keep us safe as we travel"? Do we understand how God answers a brother’s prayer like "Lord, please help the speaker to remember what he has prepared to say"? Anyone who thinks he has the answers to these questions is unaware of his own ignorance. And a pat answer like "Well, God does these things through natural law" is a hollow response. If God actually works through the physical environment to accomplish His providential purposes, then He must act upon that environment, that is, He must do something to it. Brethren are often imprecise and incorrect in their choice of words on this topic. They sometimes make statements about providence without realizing, much less believing, the implications of what they have said; and yes, it is good to clarify the nature of providence because of this misunderstanding. But if they believe in providence in the end, why should they be labeled as heretics? If they pray, teach others to pray, and believe God answers prayer, then why should we withdraw fellowship from them? As long as brethren do not affirm a miraculous view of God’s work in the world today, why should we quarrel about our differences and divide over this issue while liberalism is killing the church? What is the difference between providence and miracles? The essential difference is that miracles can be verified by the senses, while providence cannot. Why then would brethren divide over what they cannot see and understand?
If dividing over how the devil tempts us is unjustified, then so is dividing over how God the Holy Spirit helps us. We agree that He does not work miracles or impart revelation today. We agree that the strengthening of Ephesians 3:16 is non-miraculous. We agree that it does not violate man’s free will. We agree on the nature and limits of this strengthening, and yet brethren quarrel endlessly and refuse to fellowship each other over the question of the unseen hand of God in this matter! How can brethren justify this when their fierce debating amounts to this: arguing over theories of divine providence! If brethren are going to divide over this issue, then why don’t they divide over theories of temptation? Why don’t they divide over speculations about the work of angels? And why stop there? Why don’t we divide over how our spirit dwells in us and how it leaves the body? What difference does it make how the strength comes as long as we reject the miraculous idea of giving it? One brother says the Spirit acts providentially on the physical realm to affect the Christian’s spirit. Another brother says the Spirit affects the Christian’s spirit in a spiritual way without the link of the physical medium. But the effect is the same. The result is non-miraculous and non-revelatory. In either case, God is acting. The theories differ, but the basic beliefs and the end result are the same. So why on earth are brethren acting as if this difference in theory is a weightier matter of the law and the greatest doctrinal challenge to the church of the Lord in this century?
Tossing around words like deism and Calvinism without understanding what these words mean only bogs the controversy down even more. Most deists believed in providence. It was the miraculous, and more particularly special revelation, that they denied, and that for political more than theological reasons. Calvin was not a Pentecostal, and his idea of illumination was not the same as the belief that the Spirit directly strengthens the spirit of Christians in a non-miraculous way. Calvin’s doctrine of illumination was that the Spirit imparts understanding and grace by removing the blindfold of original sin.
Brethren have been debating how the Spirit dwells in the Christian and what he does non-miraculously for decades. Brethren who are now severing fellowship over the question of the Spirit strengthening the Christian’s spirit have said for years that we should not divide over how the Spirit indwells the Christian. Some believe the Spirit dwells in a representative sense in the Christian through the Word. Others believe the Spirit dwells in the Christian in a personal, literal, but non-miraculous sense. The representative camp maintains that the personal view is wrong. Some even say it is preposterous. Some in the representative camp make the ridiculous argument. "If you say the Holy Spirit dwells in you literally and personally, that makes you Deity." Yet they have not made this difference a test of fellowship. They say we can disagree on this issue without marking each other as false teachers. But why didn’t brethren make this a test of fellowship years ago? Why don’t these brethren make this a matter of fellowship? I am not saying that we should. I don’t believe we should. But if the brethren who are making the current controversy over the Holy Spirit a test of fellowship would spend more time with this question, the whole controversy might diminish. The standard reply, "Well, we don’t make the indwelling question a matter of fellowship because it doesn’t affect anything in the doctrine and practice of the Christian life" is not even examined by those who use it. What is meant by "it doesn’t affect anything in the doctrine and practice of the Christian life"? Why can’t brethren see that if this statement applies to the indwelling issue, it applies to any question about the non-miraculous work of the Spirit.
Brethren have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to these questions while apostasy has taken much of the church. Are you proud of your part in this?