Many had looked forward to this debate for a long time with the expectation that certain issues relating to the Holy Spirit might be resolved. Although some things might have been clarified, it is doubtful that those attending the discussion now have a complete grasp of every issue raised. No one triumphed gloriously over his opponent; those who hear, watch, or read the debate will need to sort out the various points made.
On the one side was the Deaver family. Brother Roy’s contributions to the kingdom are well-known. It would be difficult to feel anything but admiration for this soldier and the battles he has fought. Mac is an excellent preacher and debater. His two sons, Weylan and Todd, are both talented and capable individuals.
The other disputant, Jerry Moffitt, has also made considerable contributions to the kingdom in previous debates and as an author and lectureship director. He has a delightful (and at times bizarre) sense of humor, which some of the audience occasionally did not know how to receive. Assisting him was Terry Hightower (who has also directed some outstanding lectureships) and Marion Fox, who had debated Mac on a related but different proposition in 1994.
This debate was not about the means by which the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian. That issue was the focus of attention in the Deaver-Fox Debate. Brethren have disagreed concerning this point for at least a century and probably longer.
About every second or third year in the Open Forum at the Freed-Hardeman annual lectureship Guy N. Woods and Gus Nichols would dispute whether the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian only through the Word of God or whether the indwelling is personal (Woods believed the former and Nichols the latter). Even though these views are in obvious disagreement, both sides maintained fellowship with each other; neither thought the opposing view was heretical. Harmony in the body of Christ prevailed. So, although the topic of this debate involved the personal indwelling, it remains a separate issue.
This debate was not about whether or not there are modern-day miracles or speaking in tongues. Some think the Deavers’ position might lead to or encourage such practices, but they staunchly deny that they hold such a view, and there is no reason to doubt them.
The propositions dealt with the role that the Holy Spirit plays in sanctifying the Christian. Brother Moffitt affirmed that the Spirit always operates indirectly on the human heart, using only the medium of His indwelling, abiding, and active Word. Brother Deaver advanced the position that, in addition to what the Word accomplishes, the Holy Spirit operates directly to sanctify the heart of the faithful Christian. Does the Holy Spirit operate directly upon the human spirit in the process of sanctification? This position is not one that sound brethren have usually taught; in his first speech Mac stated that those who agree with him “have been very quiet for the last thirty years on this important subject….”
No wonder we often say, “Silence is golden”! We would yet have peace but for the insistence that this doctrine be publicly promulgated.
There is no way to summarize adequately in a short space ten hours of information. Some of the material presented did not appear to be relevant; some points made by each side were not dealt with by the other disputant. The thirty-minute Question-and-Answer period at the end of each session was a positive feature–especially the last two days when each man was limited to two minutes. Both men conducted themselves well; there were no angry exchanges or personal attacks, although each man pressed his position vigorously. Both believe the other to be wrong but expressed genuine spiritual concern on each other’s behalf.
Monday–In his first affirmative speech Jerry presented six reasons why this topic is a fellowship issue. Then he defined the terms of his proposition and presented two arguments. The first one was based on 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and he asked the question, “Can you be completer than complete?” His second argument was that we have the ability to obey God’s commands without special help. He challenged Mac to explain “what is the circumstance, or what is the sin, or what command God gives us from His love that you just can’t do?”
Mac cited some quotes Jerry had made on previous occasions; Jerry never responded to these. Mac stated that he thought many of those opposed to the Deavers were overreacting “to neo-Pentecostalism and Calvinism.” He tried to remove the element of subjectivism from his position by saying that he relies on Scripture to make his case, rather than saying, “Well, I just got this answer straight from God. You ought to accept it.” The Question and Answer session was helpful in demonstrating the difference of the two positions.
Tuesday–The second day Jerry began with five questions, to which Mac which responded in his time slot, but he did not answer directly much else that was presented. In his second negative Mac charged that Jerry “never gave a syllogism.” A question concerning the use of logic came up in the Question and Answer session. Jerry offered a protest against formal logic. Mac covered his eyes with his hand as if embarrassed for Jerry, since Brother Warren and Mac’s father relied so effectively on the use of logic to make issues clear in their debates. Watching both men during this time period was worth the “price of admission.” Later Mac charged that Jerry had turned against reason because reason had turned against him. But Jerry reaffirmed his belief in logic. He agrees, however, with the Toulmin model rather than the formal logic system used by others. The third section of his chapter in the lectureship book explains his preference more fully (593-614).
Wednesday–Mac was now in the affirmative. He presented about twenty charts, many of which were True-False questions, and offered one logical argument (the one he used in the Lockwood Debate). Jerry did not attempt to answer all of these but instead tried to elicit from him the verse or combination of verses that would prove his case. Most of the rest of the afternoon was spent answering each other’s points.
Thursday–Mac spent much of his first speech trying to elicit support for his position from brethren Warren, Milligan, and N. B. Hardeman. His second speech was largely a defense against others who disagreed with him. Jerry set forth a series of charts on what Alexander Campbell (who had been a subject of repeated emphasis throughout the debate) taught on the Holy Spirit from November of 1859.
Two topics that emerged daily that could use some elaboration. The explanation presented below may not be readily apparent to those who have the tapes or read the book. Therefore the following clarification in chronological order is presented concerning leprechauns and Pearl Street.
Leprechauns–Some did not appreciate or understand the way Jerry illustrated Mac’s position, but all need to know that Jerry was not denigrating things that are invisible just because they are invisible, including the Holy Spirit. Below are some texts that will show how this controversy came about.
At the outset of his second speech on the first day of the debate Jerry said:
Later in this speech he embellished on the “imaginary” concept by responding to Mac’s claim that Jerry:
must prove that the Holy Spirit does not affect the saint’s heart through general or special providence. Mac, I want you to come up here, and we’ll settle this real quickly. Please come up here and prove there’s not an invisible bomb under your table, and it’s gonna go off–not to speak of a little green leprechaun sittin’ there right in front of Roy. Prove it.
How can I prove something doesn’t exist when it doesn’t exist?
Prove that [bomb, leprechaun, gws], and then I’ll prove there’s no such thing as a direct operation, or a touch of angels, or werewolves, or, I don’t know, I believe in the great pumpkin.
Mac responded in his next speech by commenting that Jerry “acts like, if something’s invisible, it doesn’t exist.” Apparently, he misunderstood Jerry’s point.
Mac also missed Jerry’s reference to “the touch of angels” and berated him for not believing in angels. He continued:
…and then to suggest that if something’s invisible, it’s not even real. Leprechauns. Invisible bombs. Does he really think that helps?
My, my. I tell you, it’s going to take more than making fun of concepts to get anything done in this debate. That’s just deplorable. I say it kindly, I say it nicely, but it’s awful when you start making fun of Divine concepts, and I’d say that gets pretty close to blasphemy.
The second day Jerry replied two times to what Mac said above:
He asked me to prove a negative of all things, an egregious logical blunder. I said, in return, “Prove there’s not a leprechaun sitting on there. Prove there is not one sitting there.” The problem is not that it is invisible. One. He does not exist, like the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. Two. He who asserts must prove. He needs to prove that there is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.
I was so alarmed yesterday. My children had to calm me down…. He actually, well, he came as close as a man can come (I’ve never had this happen before…) to accusing me of blasphemy–against a leprechaun. I did not blaspheme against that leprechaun. I did not blaspheme against a werewolf. I did not blaspheme against the tooth fairy, or a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, or any of those things that don’t exist; they’re mythical. But I’ll tell you what. I do not have one bit of respect for a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the human spirit, and I will be very rough with a false doctrine.
Mac affirms:
And I don’t really like it much when he likens the Holy Spirit and the work of the Spirit to leprechauns and things of that sort and the help I am saying the Bible teaches. And he likens it, he cheapens it, and he denigrates it, and I’d say that is blasphemous. I’m willing to say that now.
If Mac’s view were correct (i.e., the Bible teaches Spirit-on-spirit help), Jerry’s humorous expression would be blasphemous, but if Jerry’s proposition is true, then the so-called “direct operation” is imaginary. Regardless of how offensive such statements are to those who believe Mac’s position, one must realize that Jerry was not denying invisible spiritual realities.
Pearl Street–Our goal was to host the debate, not become part of it. From the beginning of his very first speech Mac began trumpeting Goebel Music’s recently published book on the Holy Spirit.
Brother Goebel Music has produced a resource and reference volume of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. For the last four years he has done research work on this book. You can buy it for $9.75 at his table in the display room, and you need to get it. We’ve been debating the issue for several years, but he was researching this on his own and seeing what we had said, seeing what the linguistic element and proof is, with regard to it, and seeing what our people had been saying over a course of years.
This congregation had absolutely no quarrel to pick with brother Music, although none of us had seen a copy. However, when Jerry questioned brother Music’s handling of Alexander Campbell, Mac again endorsed it:
It’s a wonderful resource and reference book; great research has been done. Goebel had no axe to grind. You get the book; you read it, and see if he properly represents N. B. Hardeman and brother Campbell and others.
That statement posed no problem, either, but the next day Mac somehow felt it necessary to involve this congregation in his debate with Jerry. He said that in the past few years men on our lectureship
…stood up here and criticized brother Warren’s position, daddy’s position, my position, Andrew Connally’s position. While they were doing that (brother Cates and brother Hightower), that research was going on by Goebel Music, under the authority of the elders of this congregation.
Perhaps it was not his intent to do so, but he presented an ironic statement. While men on our lectures condemned Mac’s position, Goebel (under the authority of our elders) was compiling this book. The implication is that brother Music’s book supports Mac’s position. We felt a clarification needed to be made, and we asked Jerry to read a statement composed by brother McClish and approved by Harry Ledbetter and me.
Since the relationship between the Pearl Street congregation and brother Goebel Music has been injected into the debate (in connection with his recently-published book on the Holy Spirit), Pearl Street brethren believe it is appropriate to state the following:
If one will read brother Music’s Foreword, one will discover all that there is to discover about information anyone at Pearl Street had about the contents of his book before it was published. If one will read the Newsletter inserted in the front of the book, brother Music plainly declares: “No one but the writer himself had read the manuscript as it appears in this volume.”
Therefore, our working relationship with brother Music should in no way be construed as a blanket endorsement or repudiation of the contents of his book. The impression that we somehow sponsored and encouraged the book in its final form is an inaccurate one.
This statement clearly shows that we did not know if the contents of the book either supported or rejected Mac’s thesis. We could have made this announcement ourselves, but then those reading, watching, or listening to the debate later would not have had access to the information.
Mac first objected that the statement was not signed but then said it did not matter, since he had only spoken the truth–that the book was compiled while brother Music worked under the authority of the elders here. These words are technically correct, but they miss the clarification set forth in the statement.
Even though Jerry made no more mention of brother Music’s book, Mac felt compelled to comment on it again on the final day of the debate:
And just because that statement was read yesterday by Jerry Moffitt, saying the Pearl Street church didn’t know what was in that book, and I really doubt if that statement came out of the men’s meeting of the Pearl Street church. I really doubt that.
Mac had 24 hours to ask, or to have one of his assistants ask. We would have been happy to tell him that the men of the congregation authorized three of us to make any decisions that were necessary during the course of the lectures. Why would someone speculate on a matter when the facts were readily available?
Besides, our statement was factual. We did not slander Mac or brother Music’s book. Why was he so upset about it? Brother Moffitt asked, “Mac, are you saying that Goebel Music himself wrote that book because he has your position? Yes or No.” Mac answered, “No.” Such is the only point we were trying to get across.