‘Did Luther get it Wrong?’ Stuart Olyott on Word and Spirit
In the December issue of The Banner of Truth magazine Stuart Olyott wrote an article entitled ‘Where Luther got it wrong – and why we need to know about it’. In it he quoted Luther’s well-known words, which I think come from his Table Talk: ‘I opposed indulgences and all papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word: otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, or drank
From this Stuart deduces Luther fell into the error that he calls ‘mediate regeneration’, a view which he believes has done and is doing enormous damage and if we do not take heed ‘gospel work in this country will be ruined’. He describes the view like this: ‘The work of the Spirit is so intimately connected to his instrument (i.e. the Word, the Holy Scriptures), that we can say that the Word of God actually contains the converting power of the Holy Spirit. If you let the Word loose, you are letting the Holy Spirit loose.’ Although he does not say so, what he is criticizing is the view associated with the Proclamation Trust and the Evangelical Ministry Assembly. Quite some years ago I was on a theological committee that tried to arrange a meeting with some of those associated with the Proclamation Trust to discuss this very point, so there has been a long-standing concern on this particular issue. Not surprisingly, Stuart’s article has stirred up a debate resulting in feedback which appears in the Banner magazine for January and various contributions among the bloggers.
It seems to me, without prejudging the issue at this stage, that this raises one of the most important issues for pastors, perhaps particularly in our present situation. It is surely a fact that, by and large, preaching today is not having the effect on congregations that we would like to see and which we know has been the case in days gone by, and indeed, in other parts of the world at present. Moreover, although this might seem to be a rather abstruse question, the whole relationship between the Bible and the work of the Spirit is surely a vital matter. If we are wrong here this may be having serious effects, it may explain the lack of conversions, the lack of power in preaching and many other weaknesses in our churches today. If Stuart is right, and ruination follows if we get this wrong, we must give urgent, prayerful attention to the subject.
The questions that need answering
As I see it there are a large number of questions that coalesce around this issue which need consideration and answers; though I do not intend to try and answer them all on this occasion. They are:
1 Is the Word/Spirit distinction that we often make a useful one, or even a biblical one? And as a subsidiary question to this, what do we make of the letter/Spirit distinction, e.g. in 2 Corinthians 3?
2 How are we to understand the relationship between our preaching and the written Word?
3 What are we actually to rely on when we come to preach?
4 What is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the preacher?
5 What is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the hearer/congregation?
6 Should we make a distinction between the usual work of the Spirit and the special work of the Spirit?
The material used
For today’s purposes I am using three articles or chapters.
The first of these is obviously Stuart’s article.
The second is an essay by John Woodhouse in When God’s voice is heard: Essays on preaching presented to Dick Lucas (IVP, 1995). This essay is entitled ‘The Preacher and the living Word: Preaching and the Holy Spirit’ and sets out, I think, the view that Stuart so objects to.
Thirdly, I have also turned back to Dr Lloyd-Jones’ book, Preaching and Preachers, and the last chapter, ‘Demonstration of the Spirit and Power’.
There are many other books which could be used, I am sure. For example, there are two books which explore Dr Lloyd-Jones’ teaching on the Spirit; firstly, Baptism with the Spirit; The teaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, by Michael Eaton (IVP, 1985), secondly, The Sacred Anointing: The Preaching of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, by Tony Sargent (Hodder and Stoughton,1994). These both benefit and suffer from being based on academic theses. Mentor Books have published two books which are also on the general theme but I haven’t had time to refer back to them. Firstly, Power Preaching for Church Growth: The role of preaching in growing churches by David Eby (1996), and secondly Spirit Empowered Preaching: Involving the Holy Spirit in Your Ministry by Arturo G. Azurdia lll (1998).
Where Luther got it wrong
Personally, I think it a pity that Stuart started off with the quotation from Luther because I am not sure that Luther was actually saying what Stuart says he was. In the first place Luther is contrasting ‘force’ with the ‘Word’. He could have started trouble, he says, perhaps by rousing the passions of many ordinary people, but in fact he did nothing of the sort: ‘I left it to the Word’. His contrast is not Word and Spirit but Word and force, so the question is: what did he mean by Word? Did he actually mean anything more than, ‘God did it by the preaching of his Word’ leaving open the relationship between the activity of God by his Spirit and the preaching of the Bible? Here is a quotation from Dr Skevington Wood which I think demonstrates that Luther’s view of the Word was not simply that which Stuart credits him with, though perhaps it needs further elucidation:
‘In describing Luther as essentially a biblical preacher, we must not overlook his broader conception of the Word. He did not equate the Word of God with the Bible, although he accepted the Bible as the Word of God. For Luther the Word of God was not static, but active. It could never be imprisoned in a book – not even in God’s book. The Word is God speaking. It is God confronting man in personal encounter… Now this meeting between man and God can take place – indeed must take place – through the medium of Scripture. But it is in no passive sense that the Bible is the Word of God, according to Luther. It is as the Spirit who inspired it breathes upon it afresh, and applies it to the reader, that God speaks again through the Scriptures, as he spoke when they were first set down. But for Luther, it is supremely in preaching that the Word of God in the Scriptures is made alive in the present. The living Word of God, once spoken through the prophets and apostles, now recorded in the Scriptures, speaks again through his servants who are called to preach’ (Captive to the Word, Martin Luther: Doctor of Sacred Scripture, Paternoster Press, 1969; pp.89,90).
Stuart, however, is not really concerned with Luther; he is concerned with a present teaching. One way he explains that teaching is this: ‘the Spirit, or the principle of new life, is shut up in the Word, just as the life-giving germ is shut up in the dry seed. Just sow the seed and people will get converted!’ He maintains ‘that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Word… normally his operation accompanies the Word… The Word and the Spirit work together.’ Or, to explain it in another way, ‘A person hears the gospel proclaimed to them from the Bible. While this is happening, God works directly in their soul.’ So it seems to me he is saying, the Word comes from without, and the Spirit works within. This seems to involve a complete disjunction between the Word and the Spirit. There are two distinct acts; the Word comes to the mind and the Spirit works in the will, and if the Spirit does not work in the will nothing can be accomplished by the Word.
There are a number of verses quoted in support of this, but in particular he says: ‘The Bible’s teaching on this subject is encapsulated in Acts 16:14. In Greek this verse reads like this: “And a certain woman named
Stuart is adamant that this is not simply arguing over words. From the two positions develop two different mind-sets. The first goes like this: ‘As long as we sow the Word, concentrating on making its meaning clear, spiritual work will get done. God’s call will provoke a response in those who listen to us, except among those who persistently resist that call. It’s enough to get the Word out. As long as we do that well, what more can we do?’ It because of this mind-set, he maintains, that contemporary Christians do not regularly attend prayer-meetings, plead with God for conversions or pray for revival. On the other hand a ‘biblical mind-set’ means believers who will strive and agonise and prevail in prayer because ‘they understand too well that no spiritual work will get done anywhere, however much sowing takes place, unless the Lord himself changes rebellious hearts and gives them spiritual life and appetite.’
Resisting any temptation to comment further we turn to John Woodhouse.
The preacher and the living Word; Preaching and the Holy Spirit
This essay is headed by two Scripture quotations, one of which we have already met: ‘For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God… And this is the word that was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:23,25) We have also had the gospel preached to us… the word of God is living and active… (Hebrews 4:2,12).’
I think we have to note that this essay is not directly addressing the question of the relationship between the Word and the Spirit in the way that Stuart is, rather its background is that of the charismatic movement. Woodhouse says that the problem is not one of telling evangelicals to put more emphasis on the Spirit and telling charismatics to put more emphasis on the Word, rather it is to examine the biblical integration of the Word and the Spirit: ‘A biblical doctrine of the Word of God must necessarily be integrated with the doctrine of the Spirit of God, and, conversely, a biblical understanding of the Spirit of God is inseparable from the concept of God’s Word. The Word is the Spirit’s implement, and the Spirit is the breath of God by which God speaks.’
He starts by considering God and his Word at the very beginning, creation: ‘As he brings the world into being, God’s “point of contact” with his creation is his Word. God is not found in creation itself. Neither is God so removed from creation that there is no link. His Word is the link, the point of contact.’ This seems to me a very profound insight: ‘At the very point at which God is least like us – as creator distinct from his creatures, as the upholder in contrast to the upheld – it is the Word of God that bridges the gap. He brings into being by speaking, he shapes and forms by speaking, he upholds it all by speaking. This is no impersonal “force”, or the transcendent “other”, or one who is found by inner contemplation. It is the speaking of God which is fundamental to his creation.’
He then moves to consider
Up to this point he has said virtually nothing about the Holy Spirit so he next moves to consider the relationship between Word and Spirit. In approaching this subject he acknowledges that ‘there have been times when we evangelicals have fallen into the error of studying the words of the Bible for their own sake. The words must not be separated from the Speaker and given autonomy. The words of the Bible matter, precisely because they are the words of God… We need to give proper, humble, receptive attention to the living God who addresses his Word to us.’ So far, so good; but then he says: ‘Where there is the Word of God there is always the Spirit of God.’ What does he mean by this, and isn’t this just the sort of thing Stuart is objecting to?
Woodhouse begins by reminding us that in both Hebrew and Greek the word translated as ‘spirit’ can also mean ‘breath’ and ‘wind’. He says that ‘in biblical thought the Spirit of God is as closely connected to the Word of God as breath is connected to speech’. For example, Psalm 33:6 says: ‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and their starry host by the breath of his mouth.’ Amongst other verses he quotes the words of Jesus in John 6:63: ‘The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’ On 2 Timothy 3:16 he says: ‘When Paul writes, “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” he is referring more directly to the present function of Scripture than to its origin… the context suggests that Scripture is the Word which God “breathes out” today…. Precisely for this reason Scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness: it is the Word that God himself speaks out today.’ Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 1:4,5: ‘our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction’ he says: ‘The gospel is never just words.’
I conclude this section with his final paragraph: ‘The call that Dick Lucas has consistently issued, and the immense help that he has given, to preachers to expound the Scriptures faithfully is nothing less than a summons to preach the living Word. This calls for humility and confidence: humility in prayer and study because it is God who breathes his Word to men and women as the Scriptures are expounded; confidence in the task, because his Word will accomplish his purpose (Isaiah 55:11).’ He does not quote this verse but you will remember that it reads as follows: ‘so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty; but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.’
So now to Dr Lloyd-Jones:
‘Demonstration of the Spirit and of the Power’
I do not intend to do more than refer briefly to his final chapter in Preachers and Preaching. His concern in this chapter is with what he calls the unction and anointing of the Holy Spirit. He asks: ‘What is this?’ And replies: ‘It is the Holy Spirit falling upon the preacher in a special manner. It is an access of power. It is God giving power, and enabling, through the Spirit, to the preacher in order that he may do this work in a manner that lifts it up beyond the efforts and endeavours of man to a position in which the preacher is being used by the Spirit and becomes the channel through whom the Spirit works. This is seen very plainly and clearly in the Scriptures.’ He then illustrates this from many passages of Scripture before moving on to church history to demonstrate the same thing.
He ends his chapter in characteristic fashion: ‘What then are we to do about this? There is only one obvious conclusion. Seek him! Seek him! What can we do without him? Seek him always. But go beyond seeking him; expect him… Seek this power, expect this power, yearn for this power; and when the power comes, yield to him. Do not resist… Let him loose you, let him manifest his power in you and through you. I am certain, as I have said several times before, that nothing but a return of this power of the Spirit on our preaching is going to avail us anything. This makes true preaching, and it is the greatest need of all today – never more so… He is still able to do “exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think.”’
It is a great, passionate conclusion to a wonderful book, but I have two comments or questions that arise in my mind. The first is this; is there too much emphasis on the preacher himself in this, does power in preaching have to come in and through the preacher? The second is this; is this anointing an ordinary experience or an extraordinary one? Loyd-Jones quotes the example of David Morgan, who said, ‘I went to bed that night just David Morgan as usual. I woke up next morning feeling like a lion, feeling that I was filled with the power of the Holy Ghost.’ But two years later he went to bed still feeling like a lion, but woke up in the morning and found that he had become David Morgan again. He lived for another fifteen years during which he exercised a most ordinary ministry. There is something of a conundrum here, but we mustn’t overlook the two years of grace and power; some of us would be glad for two Sundays like that!
Let me try and set out some sort of response to what we have seen so far:
1. The Word of God
I think that it is essential for us to consider the different ways in which the phrase the Word of God is used, both in the Bible and in theology and Christian conversation. I believe we have to recognize that while the Bible is the Word of God, the Word of God is not just the Bible. The Word of God, or the Word, is a bigger and more dynamic concept than simply the words on the pages of the Bible. In biblical usage the Word is primarily God speaking, and not just speaking but acting by speaking. We should probably, if we want to consider this theologically, understand it in Trinitarian terms, but for the moment I will simply put it in this way. When God brings to pass his purposes he does so by his Word and that means his Word has effective power and that power is the power of the Holy Spirit. So, to bring in the second person of the Trinity at this point, when we read, ‘he upholds all things by the word of his power’ that means that the Son fulfils the Father’s purpose in keeping the universe in being by the power of the Spirit. This, I think, is the basic, fundamental, biblical meaning of Word and we must never overlook this.
Several points could be made following from this. Firstly, I have little doubt that it was in this sense that Luther was using Word in the quotation we have considered earlier. ‘Word’ in that quotation was not equivalent to ‘Bible’; it was equivalent to God’s speech/act by the Spirit. Secondly, the way in which we so often divide and contrast Word and Spirit inhibits our understanding. Speech and Spirit belong together and together they constitute Word. Thirdly, this obviously raises the question of how we relate this usage of Word to the Bible itself, and I think it is here that the difficulties arise and misunderstandings and errors easily rear their heads.
2. The efficacy of the Word of God
It is of the Word of God in the sense outlined above that the Bible is speaking of when it emphasizes the efficacy of the Word. The verses are well-known; I have already quoted Isaiah 55:11 and Hebrews 4:12. Jeremiah 23:29 says: ‘Is not my word like a fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?’ Isaiah 9:8: ‘The Lord has sent a word against Jacob, and it will fall on
It is very interesting to consider Jeremiah’s call as recorded in the first chapter of his book. In v.3 God says to him: ‘I appointed you a prophet to the nations’, and a little later: ‘Behold, I have put my words into your mouth. See, I have set you this day over nations and kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant’ (vv.8,10). Jeremiah was not, of course, going to set out either to pull down or to build up anything with his hands or any other implement. He was going to deliver God’s message and that would accomplish the pulling down and the building up.
It is, of course, easy to understand the efficacy of the Word when it comes to creation, or even to its fulfilment in breaking down and building up, but it is more difficult when we come to God’s words to people. Promises, warnings, commandments, pleadings and encouragements are all real and addressed to responsible agents and all call for responses, and this immediately raises the old problem of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. However, in the last analysis if we are to be biblical we must say that regeneration is a sovereign work of God, and to that we now turn our attention.
3. The Word and regeneration
At this point I think that Stuart is mistaken. It does not seem to me that it is so important to say, as he does: ‘The truth is that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Word… Normally… his operation accompanies the Word.’ To my mind this is not the salient point. I find it strange to consider that while God’s Word is addressing a sinner it is necessary for the Holy Spirit, as it were, to come quite separately from the Word and give spiritual life to enable that Word to be received. Why can’t the Holy Spirit bring the Word into the heart with winning, saving power? The Word appears to be reduced to a dead letter; it can do nothing of itself, it is not a fire, or a hammer, or a seed, it cannot do anything.
Perhaps that is putting it a bit strongly, and certainly it expresses the point negatively. Positively, I think there is much in the Bible to suggest that regeneration is by the Word, that is, by speech plus Spirit. I think that is the most natural interpretation of 1 Peter 1:23. I think other verses support it: Psalm 19:7; ‘The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul’, older versions have ‘converting the soul’, but the idea is surely of imparting life. Psalm 119:130; ‘The unfolding (or entrance) or your words gives light.’ 1 Thessalonians 1:5; ‘our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.’ Acts 14:1: ‘Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed.’ (See also 2 Corinthians 10:4-6). I also think that this best fits with the whole New Testament emphasis on effectual calling. What is effectual calling if it is not calling? Surely the very words suggest the gospel call coming with saving, transforming efficacy.
4. The relationship between Word and Bible
As I see it the real problem is trying to understand the relationship between the Word – God’s speech living and active by the Spirit – and its inscripturated form in the Bible (though the same problem arises when God’s speech is unmediated or comes orally through a prophet). Human beings can and do resist the words of God and are fully responsible – and the Bible makes this quite clear – yet salvation is solely by the grace of God who calls all his elect out of darkness and into his marvellous light. This means that while people resist his Word (we can think of Stephen’s words: ‘… you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you’), yet God does not allow his elect to continue to do that but at some point the Word breaks into their lives in saving grace and power. So I would see things like this. The Bible is the Word of God, both by virtue of its original inspiration, but also because it continues to be God speaking by his Spirit (cf. Hebrews 3:7; 9:8; 10:15) and through it God fulfils his saving purposes (I pass over possible exceptions to this such as those who die in infancy). But there is nothing automatic about this – simply preach the Bible and conversions are bound to follow. Nevertheless, in the end the Word always fulfils God’s purpose, whether that purpose is judgment or salvation: ‘For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death to death, and to the other the aroma of life to life’ (2 Corinthians 2:15,16). And regeneration is always an immediate act of the Word, that is, of God speaking by his Spirit with saving power through the gospel.
John Woodhouse may be justified in saying: ‘Where there is the Word of God there is always the Spirit of God’, but he would not be justified in understanding this to mean that the Spirit is always there with saving power. So his words are open to serious misunderstanding, but as I think can be shown, they do indicate possibility, expectation and hope.
5. Practical conclusions
The basic thrust of Stuart’s article still stands; to lay all the emphasis on clear, accurate, contemporary preaching of the Bible is a serious error, and to lay too much emphasis there is a mistake which probably is having consequences already, as he says. At the same time I have to say that from my own limited experience I doubt whether all the ministers and churches influenced by teaching along the John Woodhouse and presumably Dick Lucas line seriously overlook the importance of prayer and on the whole such ministries and churches appear to be more ‘successful’ than many Reformed churches which perhaps take Stuart’s line. I may be wrong, but to me this appears to be a fact.
Just as it is wrong to lay all the emphasis on our preaching, so it would be wrong to lay all the emphasis on our praying – it can regrettably be ‘much speaking’. There is another problem here too, and that is that we desperately need the Spirit as ‘the Spirit of grace and supplications’. Our prayer meetings can be painfully ordinary, dull and dry. Moreover, real prayer is not a matter of multiplying words. I remember a very godly man years ago whose life and ministry impressed me greatly, though I doubt if any but a very few would know his name. He once prayed in a prayer meeting with such a sense of reality, with spiritual insight and power, that once he finished no-one felt there was anything more that could be added and the prayer meeting ended there and then. I was also with him just before he was due to preach and asked if he would like us to pray together. He just smiled and said, ‘No, I’ve already prayed and committed it all to the Lord’. We certainly need the presence and blessing of the Holy Spirit in all that we do, but perhaps we need to ask him to begin with our own prayer lives.
I can well understand Dr Lloyd-Jones’ emphasis on the ‘anointing’ of the Spirit, following, of course, the pattern of Christ himself: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor…’ (Luke 4:18,19). Every Christian is dependent on the Holy Spirit for holiness of life and for all Christian service of whatever kind. This is vitally true for gospel ministers because of the nature of their ministry. It is also certainly true that a preacher can be filled with the Spirit and a sense of liberty and power and can preach well beyond himself. Yet however much it is important for gospel ministers to pray for the working of the Spirit I am a little uneasy on tying that in too much with the preacher himself. Preachers are at best ‘jars of clay’ and the surpassing glory belongs to God. I wonder whether we pray enough for the hearers; that the Spirit would do his work of convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment – I’m thinking now of unconverted hearers, though perhaps we need also to pray that many believers will be awakened and stirred up as well. We might feel a little miffed if in our prayer meetings anyone prayed that God would empower his Word and use it in spite of the pastor, but if we are honest we know that that is what happens. I would prefer a greater emphasis on God the Holy Spirit himself, the Word, and those who need it, and not too much on the human instrument.
To move on to another point, though it is important to look for areas that are overlooked or out of balance, or plain wrong, we also need to make sure that our approach to our ministries is an integrated one. We must prepare our sermons well; we must seek to be faithful to Scripture, to capture attention and to use easily understood and contemporary language. But equally we must pray; for ourselves, for the hearers, for the glory of God. Moreover we must be pastors, shepherds who know and care wisely for the sheep; the aim is always, as far as possible with our own limited gifts, an all-round ministry.
Then there is the question of what is usual and what is special – or, if you like, what is ordinary and what is extraordinary. Without question Dr Lloyd-Jones often focussed on the extraordinary; he recognized it as such, but also believed that when God works in a special way much is accomplished in a short time. He did not despise the ordinary, but wanted ministers to be alive to what God was able to do, and what he has done, sometimes in very unpromising circumstances. Trying to look at this matter from a biblical perspective we can see, for example, that Paul had very varied results on his missionary journeys; there was a great difference between what happened in
Finally, I think there is a danger of a crisis of hope. Gary Benfold’s blog spoke recently of ‘depressed Calvinists’. That ought to be a contradiction in terms. By that I don’t mean that Calvinists will never feel depressed, nor that, being frail human vessels, they may not sometimes become clinically depressed. Rather, that in general terms Calvinism always gives hope; it is God who saves and he can save the most unlikely of people. And it is God who completes the work that he has begun; whatever the odds, whatever the pressures, whatever the sad falls that sometimes occur, where God has truly begun a work of grace he always brings it to completion; so in spite of human inadequacy and, indeed, failure, God’s work will always go on. The prevailing attitude that Calvinism engenders ought to be one of joy, thankfulness and hope. The fact that we preach from God’s book, the Bible, should give us hope. Of course we must pray; of course we must not simply assume that preaching the Bible will automatically ensure conversions, but we know that God does speak loud and clear through the Bible, he does use the preaching of inadequate men, and that should give hope and arouse expectation. The ordinary can seem very ordinary, and breaking up fallow ground and sowing without rain or the apparent promise of it can be morale-sapping, but God can do special things, and sowing leads to reaping some day and those who go out weeping, bearing the seed for sowing – depressed Calvinists perhaps! – shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing their sheaves with them. So we can say with Paul, ‘therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart’ (2 Corinthians 4:1).
Thanks Paul , this is by far the best explanation of this prickly issue which Stuart raises in his book and BOT Articles.
ReplyDelete