|
|
The Baptist And Reflector is having some difficulty in reconciling Paul's statement that
the gospel is the power of God unto salvation with its own theory of the direct operation of
the Holy Spirit in conversion. An editorial along that line is, to my way of thinking, more
befuddling than enlightening. Evidently Editor Taylor thinks Paul's statement needs considerable
doctoring. A theory that of conversion which requires such tampering with a plain text is wrong.
The editor says,
Paul says "the gospel" is "the power of God unto salvation." Editor Taylor says it is only part of the power. Paul says not a word about this extra "supernatural power" in conversion the editor talks so glibly about. "There is His prior and larger power accompanying His word without which it would be ineffective to accomplish His purposes," Editor Taylor tells us. Paul rebukes this idea. "Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down)...But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach" (Rom. 10:6-8). This "word of faith" is "the gospel" and has "power" to produce faith in the heart, and men are saved by faith. Where is that "larger power accompanying His word without which it would be ineffective?" Paul knows nothing of it, and rebukes those who imagine they need it. It is the exhibition of their lack of confidence in the power of the word to accomplish what God says it has the power to do. The editor's explanations betray the weakness of his position. Of the gospel, he says, "It lends itself as the instrument of the Spirit because it sets forth the truth on the basis of which and through which sinners are convicted and converted. But what about the ability of men to appropriate this truth?" There you have it! A headlong plunge into rank Calvinism! Even if "the truth" is presented to the sinner, he is helpless to do anything about it without this direct, supernatural, enabling power of the Spirit! God either could not or would not reveal a gospel with enough power to convict and convert sinners! The theory limits the power of God in an inexcusable fashion. It is a matter of plain Bible teaching that in the revelation of the gospel the Spirit exercised a supernatural power over the first preachers of it, not on the hearts of sinners to whom it was preached. "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves" (2 Cor. 4:7 ASV). These Spirit-inspired preachers offered "this treasure" to sinners, and it is both absurd and unscriptural to contend that the Spirit also had to work a miracle on sinners to enable them to accept it. The editor's "idea is" that it is not enough for the Spirit to cause the light to shine in revealing the gospel. He must also, by power outside the gospel, create eyes in the sinner so he can see the light. The shedding forth of the light implies eyes to see it. Some texts of Scripture are rudely manhandled in the effort to establish this unscriptural theory of direct operation in conversion. It is necessary to prove the inability of the sinner "to appropriate this truth" even after it has been divinely revealed and preached. The editor says, "Well, 'the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor. 2:14). The man unaided from above may intellectually and mechanically react to the gospel, but he cannot savingly do it. Of Lydia, it is said, 'Whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things which were spoken of [by] Paul' (Acts 16:14 ASV). Here, we find the word, plus divine enablement to receive it." The sinner is not "unaided from above." Is it no "aid" to a sinner that God has revealed His love, the healing power of the blood, and the easy conditions of pardon? The editor thinks this is not sufficient "aid." Paul says it is God's "power unto salvation." Paul is right and Editor Taylor is wrong. The "natural man," being unable to receive the things of the Spirit of God, offers no support whatever to the direct operation theory in conversion. Such a thing was not even in Paul's mind. It is wicked to thus pervert the Scriptures. "The idea is that" man cannot by his natural faculties learn the will of God without a direct, divine revelation. It amounts to about the same thing as, "For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor. 1:21). The editor thinks they cannot even know God through the revelation of the gospel without an additional supernatural operation of the Spirit on the heart. Such is rank perversion of Paul's teaching. Paul's "natural man" cannot even "mechanically and intellectually react to the gospel," because he has nothing to do with it. He is seeking God not through revelation, but through the wisdom of the world. As for Lydia, the Lord opened her heart by the power of the gospel Paul preached to her. Her heart was not opened until she heard the preaching. Surely I am not going to have to put Editor Taylor in the primer class and teach him that the heart as scripturally used performs the functions of intellect, emotions, and will. Lydia was saved by faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). The editor says, "Finally, we are told that he whose professed salvation has not involved a quickening, creative spiritual miracle in the 'inward man' has salvation in profession only. He has not yet experienced the gospel as the power of God unto salvation." A sufficient reply to this is that the gospel is "quickening, creative, and spiritual." "It is the power of God unto salvation." It is the "seed" of faith and is planted in the "inward man." Even if Editor Taylor does not have full confidence in it, the sinner who believes and obeys it has "experienced the gospel as the power of God unto salvation." It is as much better than a Baptist "experience of grace" as the promises of God are more reliable than human feeling. |