It is declared by “progressives” associated with the churches of Christ that they are true to the Restoration Movement in purpose, beliefs, and practices. The words of Restoration leaders often contradict them. These “progressives” affirm that the Holy Spirit operates outside of the Word of God upon people today, and they label those who believe that the Spirit operates upon Christians only by His revealing of truth in the Scriptures as “word only” and ignorant. For the record, the operation of the Holy Spirit is great even in the creation of the world. It is not the operation of the Holy Spirit that is questioned since He makes intercession for us outside of the word of God. It is not that the Holy Spirit operates outside of the Word, but He does not operates upon man outside of the Word of God.
In reading volume one (1830) of the Millennial Harbinger by Alexander Campbell, Campbell soundly refutes the thinking of “progressives” and defends by the Spirit’s revelation of Scripture that the Scriptures are the all-sufficient source of the Spirit’s revelation. I have put in bold key statements of Brother Campbell, and due to the length of the article you may want to go straight to these bold texts. Campbell’s title is “The Voice of God and the Word of God: The Gospel No the Word of God”, and He writes,
“IT is very instructive to examine, with great accuracy, the various uses and applications of important words and phrases in the sacred writings. By so doing we form an acquaintance with the language which those holy men used as they spoke by the Holy Spirit; and from such an acquaintance with their language, we obtain the same ideas which they entertained of the great objects of christian faith and hope. Words and phrases which, in the Jewish writings, were used in a more general sense, are, in the New Institution, used in an appropriated sense. Thus while the term Christ was generally applied to all the anointed ones in the Jewish Age, it is in the apostolic writings exclusively appropriated to the Saviour. The phrase ‘the Word of God,‘ is used in a like restricted sense in the apostolic writings. From the ascension of Jesus it is appropriated to denote the glad tidings concerning Jesus. This is its current acceptation; so that out of thirty-four times which it occurs, from Pentecost to the end of the volume, it thirty times obviously refers to the gospel. On three occasions it is applied to the literal voice of God at the Creation and the Deluge, and once to him who is in his own person the Word of God. But what I wish to note here, is, that it is never applied to any writing or speech from the day of Pentecost, but to the gospel or proclamation of mercy to the human race. The previous writings given to the Jews are not called the word of God now, because this phrase has in it the idea of the present command and will of God.
‘A word of God,’ or ‘a word of the Lord,’ or ‘a message from the Lord,’ are phrases which frequently occur in the Jewish scriptures, and always refer to the immediate communication made by some messenger and addressed to some particular occasion. It did not mean what was before written or spoken, but what was spoken at that particular time, and by that particular person. For example, ‘a word of God came to Nathan;’ ‘a word of God came to John in the wilderness.’ Some particular message is always intended, implying a command with promises or with threatenings accompanying. Now this is the word which as glad tidings, says Peter, has been announced to you. This is now the will of God that we should obey him whom he has commissioned.
If it were necessary to establish this by proofs and arguments, it were easy to adduce many. But I shall only add, as a very strong evidence of the justice of this discrimination, the following fact:–Multitudes who received the Jewish scriptures as containing revelations from God–the former communications and messages of God, are, by the penmen of the New Testament, said to receive the word of God only when they obeyed the gospel. Acts iv. 31. ‘They spoke the word of God with boldness;’ ‘the word of God increased in Jerusalem.’ viii. 14. ‘They heard that Samaria had received the word of God.‘ xiii. 44. ‘The whole city came to hear the word of God.‘ 46. ‘It was necessary that the word of God should have been first spoken to you Jews.‘
The same remarks apply to the phrase ‘the word,‘ without any discriminating epithet, such as ‘the word which God sent to Israel’–by John. ‘Labor in the word and teaching.’ ‘If any one obey not the word.‘ ‘They received the word with all readiness of mind.’ And so in every passage in the Epistles where there is no peculiar direction given to it from accompanying explanations.
Having so far traced the exact import of the phrase ‘the word of God,‘ and ‘the word,‘ in the apostolic writings, I proceed to notice the various epithets which are used to designate the peculiar character of the word of God, or the gospel.
It is called ‘the word of reconciliation; the word of life; the word of his favor; the word of faith; the word of truth; the word of righteousness; the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.’ Such are the titles and descriptive epithets by which the word of God is commended to us by its author. It is the word which reconciles man to the divine character, will, and government. It is the word through which life is communicated to man, and by which he comes into the enjoyment of life. It is the word of faith, the subject matter of the christian’s belief, and the means by which we have confidence in God. It is the word of truth, or the truth emphatically, which delivers us from error and darkness, and imparts to the mind certainty in things unseen and future relative to the divine purposes. It is the word of righteousness by which we are accounted righteous in the sight of God, and by which alone we are qualified to live righteously. It is the implanted word, the word established by the Apostles in the world, which is able to save the soul. In a word, it is the word of God’s grace, or favor, by which alone we do enjoy the favor of God here, and are prepared to enjoy it forever.
The attributes of this word are strikingly displayed in the apostolic writings. It is called the living word, the sword of the Spirit. In one period Paul gives us a full description of it. Heb. iv. 12. ‘The word of God is living and effectual, and more cutting than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the parting of both soul and spirit, and of the joints also and marrows, and is a discerner of the desires and purposes of the heart?’
By it we are said to be purified, sanctified, begotten again, enlightened, saved. Nothing is so much extolled; no instrument so powerful, energetic, and effectual; so well adapted to its end, as the word of God. Every great moral change in man is ascribed to it; and it is uniformly presented to us as the great instrument of God’s almighty power. It is the voice of the Almighty. By his voice all his great works have been accomplished. God commanded light to shine out of darkness, and the only instrument which he is said to have employed in the original creation was his word. In the new creation he has not changed his plan, or employed a new instrument. Of his own will he has impregnated us by the word of truth, and has made his word the very principle of renovation. Hearing is imparted to man by his word; for faith comes by hearing, and hearing itself comes by the word of God.
To hear many of the moderns, who profess to preach the word, talk of it as they do, and represent it as a dead and inefficient letter, is enough to provoke the meekness of a Moses, or to awaken the indignation of a Paul. The voice of God spoke the universe into being from the womb of nothing. The same voice recreates the soul of man, and the same voice will awaken the dead at the last day. His voice, heard or read, is equally adapted to the ends proposed. Some look for another call, a more powerful call than the written gospel presents. They talk of an inward call, of hearing the voice of God in their souls. But what greater power can the voice of God in the soul have, or what greater power can this inward call have, than the outward call, or the voice of God, echoed by the Apostles? God’s voice is only heard now in the gospel. The gospel is now the only word of God, or will of God–the only proclamation and command addressed to the human race. ‘Tis in this word of God his Spirit operates upon men, and not out of it. Were the Spirit to lay it aside, and adopt any other instrument, it would be the greatest disparagement of the word of God, ‘which is the wisdom and power of God,’ ‘the word of life,’ and able ‘to save the soul;’ it would be to dishonor that word as men do who prefer other means for converting men to the gospel of Christ.
But let me ask, and seriously ask these inward called saints, who have heard some other voice of God than the word of God, What did that voice say? Any thing different from that which is written? If so, how did you judge it? To what standard did you refer it? If it said any thing to you different from what is written, you dare not hearken to it: for the written gospel, Jesus declared, will judge you at the last day. If it said nothing different from the written gospel, it must have repeated the same, and what was the meaning of repeating it? Does the word of God derive power from a mere repetition of it; or must God, like men, use frequent repetitions to supply the lack of power? Can the voice of God have more power in one language than another–at one time than another–in one place than in another? You cannot answer, Yes. What do you mean by an inward call? If there be a word spoken it must be what is written or what is not written. And you must see that either hypothesis issues in that which is inadmissible–in that which is absurd.
Do you mean, with Andrew Fuller, that the Spirit which first gives you life, quickens you without the word? Then I ask you two questions: First, Does it use any means? If you say, No: then you contradict universal analogy as well as the oracle of God: for the Spirit was to speak of Christ in doing its work. If you say it uses any means to quicken you, then those means are the principle of life. But then I ask, Have you not, in supposing life infused without the gospel by any other means, deprived the gospel of its character as the word of life–as the living word–as living, and powerful, and effectual–as the incorruptible seed?
But if you have heard a voice simply telling you, by name, that you are welcome, remember, I pray you, that that particular call or invitation to you destroys the veracity of God, and makes what is written of no value whatever. For if the general invitation is insincere, if it cannot be relied on, if there must be a particular assurance that you are welcome, that assurance given to you, implies that, without it, you had no assurance before; which would be directly to impeach the veracity of God; yes, his promise, though signed by his name and sealed by his hand. The special call, then, is either a lie or it makes the general call a lie. This is where your system ends. And let him who has an ear to hear hearken.
The voice of God, and the only voice of God which you will hear till he calls you home, is his written gospel. This is now the only word of God, the only command and the only promise addressed to all men; proclaimed by his authority to every creature. The gospel is the power of God to salvation, to every one who obeys it. ‘Tis in it the Spirit of God exhibits his energy, and he who thinks that the Spirit operates in any other way than clothed in the word of God in convincing and converting the world, feeds upon a fancy of his own, or of some other distempered mind.
I have never yet heard a person attentive to the apostolic writings, never heard a student and practitioner of them, complain of any want of power or energy in them. I have seen and felt their power to be that of the Spirit which endited them, an omnipotent moral instrument in his hand exactly adapted to man. Not physically omnipotent, as in creating something out of nothing; but so morally omnipotent that he who regards them not, could not be persuaded though angels, and spirits, and the dead revived, did appear and speak to them in a language never before heard. It is a mistake, a gross mistake, in my judgment, of the means necessary to restore man–a mistake of the nature of the government of God over man, of the actual condition of man, to imagine that any other than moral means, than the well attested developement of the love of God in the mission and sacrifice of his Son, is necessary to renew the heart of man, to reconcile him to God, and to prepare him for the enjoyment of the friendship and favor of God forever. But this only by the way. They who talk of a resistible and irresistible voice of God–who talk of a gospel grace common and special, have found a new Bible and a new gospel which I have not seen, nor read, and of course do not understand. The book, commonly called the New Testament, (rather the sacred writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ,) is that from which I have derived my views of christianity, and to which alone I subscribe as the infallible arbiter of all questions touching the word of God, and the salvation of Jesus Christ. The voice of God has, in it, bid me welcome, and my ability to come I find in the welcome which he has given. ‘The Spirit and the church say, Come: every one who hears, says, Come; and Jesus says, Let him who is thirsty, come; and WHOSOEVER will, let him come and take of the water of life freely.’ In this WHATSOEVER, I have found every letter of my name, and have had as special a welcome as if Gabriel had paid me a visit from heaven” (PG. 124-128).
Peter, who delivered the terms of remission offered by God to man, made two promises–” the remission of sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” “For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.” (Acts 2: 39.) The two promises—” the remission of sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit “–are closely and inseparably connected together. They are connected by the same word that connects “repent, and be baptized,” in the preceding clause. One grows out of the other. If to understand one is essential, I cannot see why it is not equally necessary to understand the other.
I think you and others are wrong and you fear this will open the doors for denominational folk – I mean, God forbid we let a Baptist into “our” flock, even if he trust Jesus to save him. May God have mercy on us Scott, for we have caused more damage to His church than we even know.
It would distress me much to think my acceptance with God depended upon my understanding the promise of the Holy Spirit. Maybe that’s why we don’t stress this part of the verse. I think I understand it; but so many good and honest men, my equals in all the elements of my so-called scriptural intelligence, differ with me in this point that it would distress me to think my salvation depended upon my understanding being correct, lest I be mistaken..
“Whatever extra-Biblical legalism there is that is causing decline in “churches of Christ” is good. May all Christians decline from man-made legalism and illegalism. May we all be liberal in love and conservative in doctrine.”
-I agree, we should be liberal in love and conservative in doctrine, but there are disagreements as to what is doctrine. You obviously make music and frequency of the Lords Supper doctrine, where others do not. Plus, there are many others issues some declare as doctrine, and others do not. This is what causes divison.
I still hold that Acts 2:38 must be understood as those in Acts 2 did understand it. They must also have enough teaching to believe in Christ, confess Him, and repent from sins.
-How did those in Acts 2:38 understand “and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?” If we are to understand “for the reemission of sins” in order to make God work in salvation, then logic and consistency declares we do the same with rest of the verse“ and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?” You know we don’t stress this part of the verse though…and we have different views on what Peter meant by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The Lord’s Supper should be understood before being taken.
-Yes. As to what it represents. That should be our focus, but sadly some demand frequency as doctrine.
Whatever extra-Biblical legalism there is that is causing decline in “churches of Christ” is good. May all Christians decline from man-made legalism and illegalism. May we all be liberal in love and conservative in doctrine.
I still hold that Acts 2:38 must be understood as those in Acts 2 did understand it. They must also have enough teaching to believe in Christ, confess Him, and repent from sins. The Lord’s Supper should be understood before being taken.
I don’t really know anything about Lee, Truth, and WIL to even judge their understanding. May God bless them.
I don’t mean to throw you in any bag with any particular sect. I was just saying that the ultra-conservative church of Christ in my area would consider those who teach “indwelling of the Spirit” as false teachers. My real point is that there is opinions on many issues within the churches of Christ.
We all are accepted by Jesus with very little knowledge of scripture and very little understanding of doctrines – sorry, but I will follow that pattern of Jesus and accept those who trust in Him. BTW, this includes Lee, Truth, Walkinglove, and others who believe upon Jesus Christ to redeem them.
If Lee, Truth, or Walkinginlove went to a tent meeting on Saturday night, believed and was baptized, then came to service Sunday morning, knowing nothing about doctrine, would you allow them/him to partake in the Lords Supper, seeing he has no understanding of doctrine? What if they failed to grasp Acts 2:38 ( and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit ) We always make part of the verse something one must understand fully before it makes God act, so maybe we should be consistent as demand this for the remaining of the verse. We seem to make our own rules, don’t we? What if this same person heard you preach about the Lords Supper, but couldn’t quite understand your position, far as frequency… would you still accept him? How long would you allow this person that Jesus saved, to reach your level of understanding? One week? One month? One year? What if he died before understanding the frequency of the Lords Supper, would he be saved? This kind of legalistic thinking is what is causing decline in our churches – no wonder the young people leave. Even if someone NEVER came to understand frequency of the Lords Supper, I still accept them as my brother….after all….Jesus did. BTW: Not all conservatives are this way.
You can’t make such general statements about the churches of Christ. We can discuss MI somewhere else.
When did false teachers become member’s a Christ’s Church? You’ll have to explain yourself better.
So now, Woods, Nichols, and myself are not “ultra-conservative”? I can’t figure what made up “sect” that everyone wants to place me in. I’ll just stay a Christian.
meant it shouldnt be a fellowship issue….
The ulra conservatives will call the supernatural indwelling a false teaching. and they will not fellowship with those who hold this. Matter of fact, the preachers here have done shows speaking against this – calling it false teaching. I agree with you – it should be a fellowship issue, but I take this view on other things where you will not. I will not make IM in worship a fellowship issue. Who makes these rules where we divide and split when we feel like….each church does this Scott….we bend the rules for some, while disfellowshiping others. This is some of what Todd is exposing within the churches of Christ, in hopes that he can bridge the gap and stop all of this nonsene. There are other besides Gus and Guy who have done this…we all do this and condemn the denominations for the same thing….sad
I do too, but I doubt Stone would differ. I’ll look into it. What about Thomas Campbell? I wouldn’t be surprised if Thomas disagreed with his son.
I think most churches of Christ do, but it should never be a hard line or line of fellowship between those who believe in the supernatural indwelling and those who believe word only as Gus Nichols and Guy Woods were in complete fellowship but also debated this. In fact, I think these are the same being that the words of Christ are spirit (John 6:63). Why can’t it be word only and supernatural?
A. Campbell is speaking against the idea of God’s sovereignty over man’s will. Even today, many believe that from the hearing of the Word the Spirit moves one to repent, and that repentance leads to faith, which is the point of salvation. Their “plan of salvation” is hear, Spirit moves, repent, and believe. This is the error that leads into more errors.
So I wonder what Barton W. Stone would have said to this idea?
Also, I wonder how many in Churches of Christ today still hold this idea?