Articles
On The Holy Spirit
The
following two articles were written on the Holy Spirit some years ago. We hope
you find them helpful:
"The
Mission And Medium Of The Holy Spirit
A Needed
Book for Today
by Tom
Wacaster
After having
re-read brother Wallace's excellent treatise, The Medium and Mission of the
Holy Spirit, I was astonished at the relevance of the subject matter, and the
simplicity with which brother Wallace set forth a defense of the correct means
and medium of the work of the Holy Spirit upon the spirit of man. Thirty years
ago the church faced a wave of emotionalism which swept across the brotherhood
like a wildfire. Before it had completed its ruinous campaign, a number of
congregations had been swept into Pentecostalism and lost to the cause of Christ
altogether. The residual effects of that movement are still felt today, and I
fear that we have not finished the battle on this front even yet. Assessing the
problem, brother Wallace wrote: "It is argued that this special activity
of the Holy Spirit in the form of direct impression 'illuminates' the
scriptures and helps the preacher to understand 'the written word.'" The
problem with that position, both then and now, is seen in the consequences of
the doctrine itself. Brother Wallace stated it well: "It has been declared
with dramatics that this indwelling of the Holy Spirit apart from the Word is
in fact mystical but that it does not imply that the Word is incomplete and
insufficient - but it does imply just that, from it no other inference can be
drawn - and the two statements are contradictory and irreconcilable ... The
conclusion of the whole matter is that no one claiming the personal indwelling
or illumination of the Holy Spirit can express a truth, or a true thought or
sentiment, on the subject of spiritual influence not already revealed in the
written word." The unfortunate aspect of this "not-so-new"
movement among our brethren is the reliance upon personal experience and/or
gentle "leadings" or "nudgings" that accompany us along
life's journey. Brother Wallace made this astute observation: "In the
nature of things it is impossible for spirit to contact spirit without medium,
except through miraculous process, as upon the prophets of God and the apostles
of Christ, and to assert it now is to assume inspiration. The influence of the
Holy Spirit is either by direct entrance into the heart or it is mediated by
the truth - there is no third method thinkable or possible - nor can it be
both. The appeal must be made to the Word of God itself, as the source of
revealed truth, on this and all other questions." Herein, we think, lies
the great challenge to those who would espouse a direct operation of the Holy
Spirit upon the spirit of man. There are only two ways by which the Holy Spirit
can influence men. One of these is what we might call the immediate. By
immediate, we mean there is no intermediary, no medium. The other is the
mediate, or through some intervening medium or agent. That being the case,
those who would argue for some direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon man
must, by necessity, concede to a direct expression and guidance as well. If not
why not? No, my friends, the Holy Spirit does not operate upon you, or anyone
else, directly. His medium is the word. It does no good to argue that the Word is
the medium for information, and then some direct operation upon the spirit of
man in an immediate way for strength or wisdom. If that were the case, then
once I had a knowledge of God's will in my life, the direct operation of the
Holy Spirit on my spirit in supplying strength and wisdom would be perfect and
absolute. In the final analysis, whose fault would it be if I had the
information, but not sufficient strength and wisdom to resist temptation? Would
not the fault lie at the feet of the Holy Spirit? Can you not see the danger of
such a position? We happen to think brother Wallace is right on target. He
concludes: "The personal inhabitation of the Holy Spirit would mean
personal Holy Spirit guidance in thoughts, words, and deeds, the logical consequence
of which would necessarily prohibit and prevent apostasy, making it impossible
for one so possessed to fall from grace.... If it is not true the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit would be of no aid or help in the time of temptation but would
abandon one at the time of his fall to re-enter him after his recovery - in him
and out of him, entering and re-entering him. Else the personal Holy Spirit
possession is ineffectual in that he fails the indwelling subject in the hour
of need.”
What Is
The Gift Of The Holy Spirit?
by Tom
Wacaster
In the
previous article we examined the medium by which the Holy Spirit operates. He
does not, in my estimation, operate directly upon the spirit of man, whether
that man is a Christian or a non-Christian. It seems to me that if the Holy
Spirit operates only through the word for the non-Christian, but supplements
His operation on the non-Christian with some "extra -literary"
operation, then the Word of God is more powerful for the non-Christian than for
the Christian. If not, why not? We have taught for years that the word of God
is all sufficient. I want now to give some consideration to the gift of the
Holy Spirit, as noted in Acts 2:38 wherein Peter states, "Repent and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of
sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Brethren have
held differing positions on the precise meaning of the phrase without causing
division in the body. This was possible because we generally recognized and taught
the all sufficiency of the word. Still, the question remains as to the meaning
of the words presently before us, and perhaps one more article on the subject
cannot hurt. I do not happen to believe that the promise here was some personal
indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The phrase, "of the Holy Spirit" is
the possessive case. The word "of" makes it possessive. When we speak
of the "house of Mr. Smith," we do not mean the house that IS Mr.
Smith. The language in Acts 2:38 is equivalent to saying, "The Holy Spirit's
gift." The same kind of language is used in John 4:10, "If thou
knewest the gift of God...thou wouldst have asked him, and he would have given
thee living water." Is the gift of God there God Himself, or the
"living water"? Again, in Ephesians 4:7 Paul said, "But unto
each of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of
Christ." But none would argue that Paul, in that passage, was arguing that
Jesus is the gift. The passages just quoted are identical in structure with
"the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38. Brother Foy E. Wallace
was correct when he pointed out, "The 'dorea of God' [gift of God, TW] in
John 4:10 was that which proceeded from God... The dorea of Christ [gift of
Christ, TW] was that which proceeded from Christ...On precisely the same
premise the dorea of the Holy Spirit [gift of the Holy Spirit, TW] was that
which proceeded from the Holy Spirit. Those who argue that "the gift of
the Holy Spirit" is in the objective genitive, and therefore refer to the
Holy Spirit Himself as the gift, have not, in my estimation, proven their case.
A. T. Robertson, respected Greek scholar, pointed out that the
"genitive" is the simple possessive. By "genitive" we mean
a NOUN functioning as an ADJECTIVE! If we say, "That is Tom's
office," the word "Tom" [a noun] is serving as an adjective.
"The gospel of John," has "John" serving as an adjective to
modify the gospel. The "accusative" in any language denotes the goal
toward which the action of the verb is directed. In the phrase "gift of
the Holy Spirit," the accusative is "gift." that is the object -
that thing which they would receive. "Holy Spirit" is the possessive
or genitive, modifying the "gift." Grammatically, in the verse under
consideration, "receive" is the verb, "gift" is the objective,
and "Holy Spirit" is the possessive modifier. Brother Wallace has
correctly pointed out that "it is outside the range of grammatical
structure to have the verb 'receive' governing both the accusative noun 'gift'
and the possessive genitive noun of 'Spirit.'" The "gift of God"
in John 4:10, being in the possessive genitive cannot mean that God Himself is
the gift. The "gift of Christ" in Ephesians 4:7 cannot mean Christ
Himself for the same reason. Why then, do we think that the "gift of the
Holy Spirit," which has precisely the same construction as both of our
examples, means that it refers to the Holy Spirit Himself? One position is that
the “gift” in Acts 2:38 is synonymous with the “promise” in Acts 2:39. Since
the “promise” has to do with salvation, it is concluded that the gift of the
Holy Spirit is the gift of salvation which the Holy Spirit bestows upon those
who are obedient. While I do not happen to agree with him , the late brother
Foy Wallace, Sr. presented and defended this position in his book, The Mission
and Medium of the Holy Spirit.
Another
position holds that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is the miraculous element
promised to the early church. This, I believe, to be the correct position. It
must be remembered that the promise by Peter unto that audience was given in
the 1st Century, not the 21st. In addition, that promise was given in the
framework of the miraculous. Holy Spirit baptism was in evidence, as well as
tongue speaking. The audience was witnessing the exercise of the miraculous
even at the time the promise was given. With that in mind, please consider the
following reasons for holding this position. First, consider the word
“receive.” This same word is used throughout the NT where the miraculous
activity of the Holy Spirit was evident. This word is used in John 7:39, a
passage that is quite obviously a promise of the miraculous operation of the
Spirit. It is used in John 20:22, where Jesus promises the apostles the reception
of the HS. It is used in Acts 8:15-17 in which Peter and John went to Samaria
to impart the miraculous gifts to the new converts there. It is used in Acts 19
where Paul inquired as to whether or not those brethren had “received” the Holy
Spirit. John, in 1 John 2:27, referred to his audience’s “anointing" which
they had “received,” a passage that obviously refers to the spiritual gifts.
Since Peter, in Acts 2:38, promises them that they shall “receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit,” it would seem that we could learn the meaning of his words by
comparing them with those passages mentioned above. Admittedly the more
difficult passage of all of these is Acts 2:38, as evidenced from the different
positions that brethren have held through the years. By giving consideration to
those passages that quite obviously speak of the miraculous work of the Holy
Spirit, and using them to help us interpret the more difficult passage, in this
instance Acts 2:38, it would seem that the only logical conclusion would be
that Acts 2:38 speaks of the same measure of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the
miraculous. We conclude, therefore, that the promise in Acts 2:38 has a
reference to the miraculous element promised to the early church. Second, the
precise expression “gift of the Holy Spirit” occurs only twice in the Bible:
here in Acts 2:38 and again in Acts 10:45, at the household of Cornelius. The
second passage is without doubt the miraculous reception of the Holy Spirit,
experienced by Cornelius and his household. Using the clear and unmistakable
passage in which the “gift of the Holy Spirit” refers to the miraculous, we
then use that to determine the meaning of the same phrase in the more difficult
passage, Acts 2:38. Third, there is the word “gift.” It is interesting that
this word gift (dorean) is used in Acts 8:20 to refer to the miraculous
workings of the HS. Then, in Acts 10:45, it is used to refer to that which came
upon the household of Cornelius. In Ephesians 3:7 Paul speaks of the “working
of his power” granted unto him “according to the gift of that grace of
God.” Was Paul simply referring there to some “ordinary personal
indwelling”? We think not. In Ephesians 4:7 Paul uses the same Greek word
“gift” to refer to the miraculous measure of the HS. If the “gift” in other passages
refers to the miraculous, why not in Acts 2:38?
Someone
might respond, “Well, if that promise in Acts 2:38 is the miraculous, then we
ought to have miraculous powers today?” But in Mark 16:17-20 our Lord promised
that certain “signs would follow them that believe.” We have recognized that
this promise was limited to the first century church. It was not a universal,
on-going promise. Why can we not see, therefore, that the same limitations that
apply to Mark 16:17-20 also apply to Acts 2:38? The miraculous gifts were
bestowed through the laying-on-of-hands of the apostles (Acts 8:18). On
Pentecost, the apostles were present, ready to distribute to the church that
“gift” which would enable them to powerfully preach and teach the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. The setting, the use of the words “receive” and “gift,” along
with the very purpose of miracles themselves, leads me to the conclusion that
this “gift of the Holy Spirit.”