No less than fifteen times in the course of his debate with Jerry Moffitt, Mac Deaver asked the audience, “Can we not see that?” or “Isn’t that clear?” For a few speeches it looked like he was going to call Bill Lockwood his friend even more often, but that phrase only occurred eight times (an average of once a speech). Anyway, my answer to his question is, “No, I can’t see that,” and this article explains the reasons.
First, some preliminary observations will be noted. This article is not written to create an adversarial relationship with Mac or any members of his family. The purpose is to examine the doctrine he has set forth. There will be disagreement–but not animosity.
Second, this writer has no intention of answering 100 True – False questions or making a “formal” logical argument. This statement does not imply that those methods do not have value, but they also have weaknesses. As an example of the problem that sometimes exists with them, we will use a True – False question that Mac answered the final day of the debate.
The fourth of five questions was: “True – False. The people on Pentecost were led by the Spirit to become Christians.” Despite Mac’s continual criticism of Jerry during the debate for writing qualifying comments, Mac circled “false” and added, “Not in the sense of Romans 8:14. They were under the influence of His teaching (Ac. 7:51; 2:41).” Well, he is exactly correct, but he could not answer the True – False question without additional definition and clarification. Notice the problem that this question presented to him.
Had he merely circled “true,” then he has admitted that those who were not as yet baptized were led by the Spirit and consequently (according to his own argument) must already be Christians. To circle “false” would invite objections. By whom, then, were they led–Satan? Does the devil lead people to obey the gospel? By giving the answer that he did, Mac recognized that sometimes a word or phrase must be more precisely defined. Of course, they were led by the Spirit in the sense of being under the influence of the Spirit’s teaching through the apostle Peter–thus the qualifying statement. By Mac’s own admission, then, True – False statements can prove to be a predicament unless the terms are further defined or clarified.
This brief analysis also relates to Jerry’s preference for linguistic logic rather than formal, mathematical logic. Syllogisms have the same weakness with words (and their definitions) that True – False questions do. Some of these will be pointed out as we examine Mac’s main argument. He said in his second affirmative speech on the third day of the debate: “I’m willing to rest the whole case on this argument.” His argument is in the logical form of: If P is true, then Q is true. P is true; therefore Q is true. In logic this form of statement is called modus ponens. Some are confused by such things because the terms are not in their common vocabulary. All that it amounts to is saying something like the following: “If angle A is a right angle, then angle A contains 90 degrees. Angle A is a right angle; therefore, angle A contains 90 degrees.” This is a simple statement that is easy to see. The more complex the argument becomes, however, the greater the opportunity for error.
There must, for example, be a logical connection between the “if” and the “then.” “If this is Tuesday, then we must be in Belgium.” This may state a true consequence if a person is traveling through Europe and is scheduled to be in Belgium on Tuesday, if the plans have not in any way been altered from the original itinerary, and if it is, in fact, Tuesday. All those conditions would have to be met in order for the “then” to correlate to the “if.” Otherwise, most of the world was not in Belgium last Tuesday.
Mac has four parts to his “if” statement. He must prove not only that all four parts are true, but he must also show that the conclusion (“then”) is related to and actually follows the “if.” Below are comments on Mac’s proof of his four statements.
1. He affirms that “the Word of God can directly affect the human heart,” citing Psalm 119:11 and Acts 2:37 (his argument is set forth on pages 520-21 of this year’s lectureship book). First of all, he needs to define directly and explain what he means by the human heart. Do Scriptures literally leap off the page and imbed themselves into a physical organ? No, such would be preposterous. Surely, he is referring to the heart in the sense of the human mind–that which thinks and reasons. The psalmist has internalized the precepts taught in God’s Word so that he can call upon them during moments of temptation and be able to resist.
But we are still confused by the word directly. Is Mac saying that, when the Truth comes into our minds and perhaps affects our emotions, such is direct contact? If so, he contradicts himself. On the third day of “Questions and Answers” Mac affirmed, “By the way, to complete the analogy, you plant the seed in the good soil, but it’s not a Christian yet. The ‘Word only’ does not quicken the heart of anybody….”
Now he may have been speaking in a different context from what we are, but what he said is true in both contexts. The Word Peter preached did prick the hearts of men (Acts 2:37), and three thousand were baptized (Acts 2:41). However, not everyone that day (or on any other day) that heard the message obeyed the Gospel. Why not? The same Word of God was presented to all. Why did some obey and others reject it?
The reason is that there is another step involved. When the Word is preached, the hearer must evaluate what has been presented to him. On the day of Pentecost the three thousand considered the evidence Peter presented: the manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s outpouring upon the twelve, the explanation of the way the events surrounding the crucifixion fulfilled Scriptures, and the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ resurrection. They judged that the argument that Peter had made was true. They believed what he had said and willed to act in harmony with the facts.
Why did others, however, not obey? There are other factors that affect one’s thinking. They may have been so prejudiced by the Jewish rulers that they refused to hear or reason properly. They may have had some reservations about Peter’s message (some need more time than others to mull over the new information they receive). Some may have thought they would be forsaking Moses or the religion of their parents. Why did the generation that God delivered out of Egypt with a mighty hand die in the wilderness? “For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it” (Heb. 4:2).
The Word does not act directly upon the heart. It must be filtered through all the various things that affect our processing of information. If the word directly affected us, then all would obey God, and no one could deny Him. No, we are not saying that Mac believes such a notion; we are only explaining our confusion of his use of the word directly and the phrase human heart.
2. The second component of his argument is that “the Holy Spirit indwells a saint’s heart in conjunction with the Word (Acts 2:38; Eph. 5:17-19; Col. 3:16-17).” What does he mean by in conjunction with? Does he mean that the Spirit dwells within us, as the Bible teaches? In what sense are they both together? He spent a great deal of time in the debate showing that the Spirit is not identical to the Word, but then He does not seem to want the Spirit within someone unless the Word is also there. If the gift of the Spirit in Acts 2:38 is the Spirit Himself, then He comes by Himself to indwell us, not in conjunction with the Word, which would absurdly imply that He brought several Scriptures with Him when He came (or perhaps they just met there).
Furthermore, not one of these verses cited above mentions the Holy Spirit being in the human heart. It does not appear that brother Deaver has proved either his first or second points, either one of which would invalidate his argument. One cannot simply, as he himself put it in the debate, throw material out and assume that everyone will connect it properly.
3. “The Word alone in a heart cannot produce the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16-20; John 15:1ff; Rom. 8:9-11).” Once again, Mac assumes that these passages are related to one another and that the reader will see the connection. Just because fruit or fruits are mentioned in each passage does not prove they all refer to the same thing.
Matthew 7:16-20 tells us that we can discern a false prophet (or teacher) by his fruits. Apparently, Mac thinks these are identical to the fruit mentioned in John 15 and “the fruit of the Spirit” defined in Galatians 5:22-24. But more than one kind of fruit is described in the New Testament.
What, for example, is the fruit of Matthew 13:23? “But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.” Although it may be related to John 15, it does not fit Galatians 5:22-24. The fruitful Christian produces more Christians. In other words, this fruit carries with it evangelistic concepts and possibly good works. Consider the following verses:
“Do you not say, ‘There are still four months and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are white already unto harvest! And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together” (John 4:35-36).
Can Mac prove that John 15:2, 5 refers to the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians and not the fruit of harvesting souls or engaging in good works? Notice that verse 2 speaks of bringing forth more fruit and verse 5 says bearing much fruit. These descriptions are certainly harmonious with Matthew 13:23 and John 4:35-36. Paul also wrote that the gospel had gone into “all the world, and is bringing forth fruit” (Col. 1:6).
There are other senses in which the word fruit is also used. As Paul discussed the generous giving of the Philippians, he said, “Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account” (4:17). John the baptizer exhorted the Pharisees and the Sadducees: “Therefore bear fruit worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8). Paul told Agrippa that he preached to the Gentiles that they “should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.” These verses term the works of repentance as fruits. The point is that one cannot just assume that “fruit” in one passage refers to the same thing in another passage; he must clearly prove that the two are the same.
What about Matthew 7:15-20? Is it used in the same sense as John 15 or Galatians 5? Jesus’ point is not that you can tell a false teacher by his outward appearance. Even Satan can transform himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Wolves appear as sheep. False teachers almost always appear to have the fruit of the Spirit. They invariably talk about love, joy, and peace, and they are generally very kind and exercise self-control. All of his defenders argue that Max Lucado is the epitome of the spirit-filled person. How do we all prove otherwise? We cite his doctrine. Does he teach the Truth regarding salvation? No. Is he bearing fruit evangelistically? No, he is keeping people out of the kingdom of heaven. He is not bearing fruit (in that sense) but laying up for himself damnation. Furthermore, the false prophets are actually ravening wolves, which means they are greedy for gain. They are the kind of men who “devour widows’ houses” (Matt. 23:14).
The New Testament teaches that one cannot go by “appearances” in determining genuineness. Many in denominations have the appearance of the fruit of the Spirit. They have wrongly been convinced they have been saved, and many have worked diligently and sincerely at developing the characteristics taught in Galatians 5:22-24. We do not try to convince them they do not possess the fruit of the Spirit by observation; we demonstrate that they do not possess it because they are not in Christ–because they have never obeyed the gospel. In other words, we do not base our judgment upon subjective appearances but on the objective Word.
People can believe they are saved, follow the teachings of the Bible regarding character, and appear the same as those who really are Christians. We have all wondered if someone we have just met is a Christian because of the character and conduct of that individual. Suppose we are sent to a convention, along with nine other people we have never met before. All we know in advance is that some are members of the church and some are members of denominations. Further suppose that we spend five days with this group but never discuss the Bible. If Mac’s argument on the fruit of the Spirit is correct, he should at the end of the five days be able to determine precisely (on the basis of character and deportment of the group) which ones are Christians and which ones are not. A few dozen charts will not be able to solve this dilemma. Do all have the fruit of the Spirit? No, but they all appear to have it. We must find out which persons obeyed the Gospel to know which ones are actually Christians.
The Word of God itself is so powerful that, when people submit themselves to various portions of it (whether or not they have obeyed the Gospel and are in Christ), it is difficult for others to know by observation alone if they are in the vine or not–without further scrutiny. Jesus, however, always knows who are His.
4. Mac’s fourth point is that “the saint must produce the fruit of the Spirit.” This is the one point that is true without needing any revision or further clarification (Gal. 5:22-25).
We believe that we have at least set forth some weaknesses and have at best invalidated brother Deaver’s syllogism. If the whole case rests on this syllogism, and parts of this syllogism are ill-defined and unclear (not to mention unconnected), then he has not established his case sufficiently.
Readers should bear in mind that, in examining these matters, we have not accused him of possessing any wrong motives. We believe that he is as sincere as a man can be, and we pray that he is not so committed to this doctrine.