June 24, 1947. Kenneth Arnold, an experienced pilot, spotted nine high-speed objects skipping through the air as a saucer would across a pond. He saw them with Mt. Ranier, Washington as a backdrop. Thus, at least the terminology of flying saucers was born, although many insist that such phenomena existed far earlier. Since that time, many stories have filtered down into the populace, including one about dead aliens being kept secret.
Hollywood eventually got into the genre of science fiction with Buck Rogers in 1939 and Flash Gordon in the 1940s. The radio version of War of the Worlds convinced many that earth was under attack. Dozens of movies were made throughout the 40s and 50s—a few of them were well done: The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), When Worlds Collide (1951), Forbidden Planet (1954), World Without End (1956). Star Trek was on television in the 1960s, and the original Star Wars became very popular in 1977 with a whole galaxy of space movies to follow, including E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Some have been reporting that they were abducted by aliens for decades now. Scores of books have been written on the subject that rate from looney to plausible. Many folks believe in UFOs and beings from outer space. Scientifically, however, what is the evidence? Is it possible to fly faster than the speed of light? Some scientists are debating it, but no demonstration has been made as yet. Without warp speed, it will be difficult to reach all of those other stars with planets just the right distance away that would theoretically support life (and should, according to evolutionists).
So far, mankind is long on imagination but short on a mechanism to travel through space. But amidst all of the speculation, there is one bit of scientific evidence that cannot be ignored—the results of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (December 26, 2014), SETI was “launched in the 1960s” with the hope of receiving radio signals from various parts of the universe (A11). Thus far, in years of researching, no intelligent messages have been received. We would settle for any reasonable communication; the newspaper article stated the results:
But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing (A11).
But there’s even worse news. As scientists search for possible life-supporting planets and what it would take to sustain that life, the vast number of such planets thought to exist has dwindled considerably. In fact, the precise conditions needed are causing the possibility to approach zero. Just one necessary factor will serve as an example.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would have hit the earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing (A11).
It’s beginning to look as though WE ARE ALONE in this universe. But we are not really all by ourselves; our Creator is still around—and will be even after the elements of the universe have melted with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10-13). He created this world to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18). And He has created a better, more wondrous place for those who obey Him to dwell in later. We will all be extraterrestrials then.
On November 19, 2014, the magazine, Rolling Stone, published an article with an alarming title: “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.” The female victim in the story claimed to have been assaulted by seven men at a fraternity party, which, of course, would be outrageous and worthy of the severest punishment allowed under the law—if it were true. However, the details provided by the victim have not managed to check out. In fact, Rolling Stone, who published her story, had to admit that they had no reason to doubt the woman’s credibility when they published the story, but now they do. Now they say they are not sure what happened but will continue to investigate. In the meantime, they “apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.” One wonders if the University of Virginia feels better now.
If the story proves to be false, it will not be the first time false charges of this nature have been brought to bear. In November of 1987, Tawana Brawley accused three men—one of whom was a police officer—of the same crime. The only problem was that no indication of sexual assault was in evidence. The grand jury noticed discrepancies between the facts and details given by the alleged victim and after 6,000 pages of testimony, declined to indict anyone. According to Wikipedia, “the New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.”
Then, on April 11, 2007, came the charges against certain members of the Duke Lacrosse team, who were accused and found guilty by the media before the facts were even known. Those charges proved to be bogus, also. Probably, no one knows why such serious charges are leveled against certain men when nothing has occurred, but it tends to undermine the credibility of real victims, which ought not to happen. Sexual assault is a serious crime that should result in a severe penalty.
Reaction to False Testimony
These are some of the more high profile cases that have occurred over the past twenty years; less publicized cases have also taken place in which charges were invariably dropped, or the evidence was not compelling. And in some instances, people just do not know because the evidence is insufficient to determine which party is telling the truth—especially if some level of consensuality is admitted.
It ought to be remembered that the alleged victim’s story might yet be true; it is still under investigation. But what is disturbing is the reaction of some to Rolling Stone’s acknowledgement that they reported this story too hastily—that is, before sufficient evidence was established that would warrant the conclusion that this particular crime happened as reported.
On December 6, 2014, Julia Horowitz wrote an article titled, “Why We Believed Jackie’s Rape Story”; it was published in Politico. Julia is an assistant managing editor at The Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia’s student newspaper. She wrote some disturbing things:
1. “Only eight to nine percent of sexual assault reports, at most, are later determined false.” Only? If this assessment is accurate, it is disastrous for both men and women: 1) that so many men would be falsely accused; and 2) that actual female victims of the crime may have their testimonies discounted.
2. Her main thesis was that Jackie’s story was believable because it squares with the facts that people on campus allegedly know.
3. “Ultimately, though, from where I sit in Charlottesville, to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”
What? Don’t check the facts because the problem exists even if this instance is not true? Such an attitude is unacceptable. If, in fact, sexual assaults occur all the time on the University of Virginia or on any other campus, then why not present a real case with real evidence with a real trial and a real verdict that sends a real message that such behavior will not be tolerated?
This is not a female issue; men have wives and daughters they do not want attacked. They pay for their daughter’s educations on these campuses and would be the first to be outraged if such an event occurred. If such alleged occurrences are so commonplace, then put a stop to it, but don’t say that fact checking should not define the narrative; truth is what is desperately needed.
A male friend of “Jackie” made this comment: “But if anything, the takeaway from all this is that I still don’t really care if what’s presented in this article is true or not because I think it’s far more important that people focus on the issue of sexual assault as a whole.”
Uh, well, we focused on it with Tawana Brawley and with the Duke Lacrosse case—even though nothing was proven either time. We should focus on the offense whenever it legitimately occurs, but how can we say we don’t care if what is published is true or not?
A Prevailing Attitude?
Is this the attitude that people have with respect to Christianity? It seems obvious that many have given up fact-checking and caring whether something is true or not. Truth is critical, crucial, and essential. Without a love of the truth, no one can be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). First and foremost, people must seek the truth with respect to salvation, to worship, and to Christian doctrine. But it also should be prized in every aspect of life.
Article by Roelf L. Ruffner
“Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment” (Ex. 23:1-2).
Granted the above passage deals primarily with lying in legal proceedings, but the phrase, Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil, is quite relevant to my concern in this article. That concern is the rise of the old nemesis of personal freedom—Communism.
For several months our country has been embroiled in a deepening turmoil concerning the shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, MO by a policeman and lately the death of an unarmed black man in New York City as he was being arrested by the police. Protests and looting have ensued all over the United States. But increasingly I see among the banners of these protestors the old red “hammer & sickle” of Communism. Being a student of the Bible and of history, I recoil at this banner. They might as well put up a swastika or the banner of the Islamic State. It is sickening and revolting to hear them chant, “What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!” Many of these are professional agitators and anarchists giving the clenched fist salute of Communism. They don’t really want “justice”; they want mayhem and revolution.
At one time preachers of the gospel would preach sermons against Communism. The late brother Roy C. Deaver had a series of sermons on this topic. Brother George S. Benson, former President of Harding College and Chancellor of Oklahoma Christian University, spoke fervently against Communism. He had been a missionary in China for twelve years but was forced out by the Red Chinese in 1936. They and others saw the malevolent evil in this ideology as a threat to Christianity.
A concrete fact of history is that Communism has been responsible for the slaughter of multiplied millions of human beings through persecution, forced migration, starvation, and execution. We often think of the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Adolph Hitler as the worst mass murderer in human history; and they were horrible. But Hitler’s crimes pale in comparison to the devilish deeds of the Communists dictators Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao Tse-tung (often referred to as Mao Zedong, gws). From the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the Castro brothers’ executions in Cuba, the history of communism is one of the shedding of blood. One of the happiest moments of my life was to see the tearing down of the old Berlin wall in 1989 which symbolized what many thought was the utter defeat of this decrepit ideology and the liberation of the oppressed peoples of Communist Eastern Europe.
Communism at its roots is atheistic and materialistic. It does not hold to God as the author of all things (Dan. 2:44) but rather avers that man evolved from slime and is still evolving. Their “god” is their ideology. There is no Judgment Day and no Heaven or Hell in their twisted mind. In fact, dialectic materialism (Communism or Marxism) sees human society as evolving into a perfect “workers’ state.” The Bible teaches that man is made in God’s image but is now a fallen creature because of his own sin.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Psa.14:1-3).
Human society is only a means God has provided to know Him and maintain order (Acts 17:26-27); it will never be perfect. For the Communist this world is a struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots” or the “proletariat” (working class) versus the capitalist system (owners of wealth). They envision a future “workers’ state” in which all of society’s ills will be corrected, and the world will be ruled by a “dictatorship of the proletariat” or mob tyranny. But the Bible teaches we should love one another, especially our enemies whether worker or owner (Mat. 5:44; 1 Cor. 13:1-7).
Because of their Godless, humanistic bent the Communist sees the Collective (The State) as everything and the individual as nothing. This is the reason why they can kill with impunity, whether it is one person or a million. For them we are all animals, some more “evolved” than others. To kill another human being is no different than swatting a fly. This is why the dedicated Communist will give his life for “the cause.” They will burn church buildings and execute Christians. Whatever stands in the way of societal “progress” must be eliminated. This is why dictators like Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung could oversee the slaughter of whole communities without losing a night’s sleep.
But the Son of Man came and offered Himself on the cross for me as an individual as well as the billions of other souls in this sin-sick world. Our goal should not be to make this world into a materialistic paradise but rather the restoration of one soul to God at a time. “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily” (Col. 1:28-29).
Communism is attractive not only to the unemployed and the hopeless but to the educated and affluent as well. The latter are often spoiled children who are angry at society. They have an emptiness in their lives that only God can fill. But rather than turning humbly to their Creator, they seek fulfillment/salvation in utopian ideas and “class struggle.” Yet Communism does not lead to personal satisfaction but only unrest and violent revolution. “Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy” (Prov. 6:14-15).
As a Christian I should teach others that true fulfillment and salvation comes only by the gospel of Jesus Christ. The way of Christ is an inner revolution or change of oneself by the grace of God. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Their guidance should not be found in following the Communist Manifesto but in obeying God’s word. “I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one” (1 John 2:14b).
Are we challenging our young people, especially those in college, to run from Communism? I have read that brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., once said, “There are no ‘isms’ in Christianity!” How true this is! We need to preach sermons and teach Bible classes against Communism and pointing souls to Christ (John 14:6). Our goal in life as Christians should not be to overthrow the government but to overthrow Satan. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Rom.13:1-2).
It is ironic that all too often God gets no credit for the good that He accomplishes. He continues to provide our daily bread, and salvation remains available. If, however, there is a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or other natural disaster, many quickly blame Him; He also gets credit for bizarre behavior. On December 18th, 2014 a story appeared in the Orlando Sentinel.
Mother: Holy Spirit Was With Me
When I Drove Into Ocean (B2)
Yes, the woman testified in court that she was not aware of her three screaming children in the car with her. “I remember thinking that my children and me needed to be cleansed.” She claimed to have been struggling “with demonic visions” which doctors claimed resulted from “a psychotic break fueled by hormones from pregnancy” (B2). Now she says that she knows there were no angels or demons involved, and she claims to know right from wrong.
She pleaded not guilty of the attempted murder of her three children by reason of insanity. According to the story, she will be sent to a mental hospital or be required to have therapy. Disturbingly, she experienced a similar episode in 2005 in New York. She was diagnosed back then as suffering from postpartum psychosis after giving birth.
She sounds dangerous and perhaps not to be trusted alone with children. Although she now is thinking along saner lines, it is amazing what people attribute to the Holy Spirit. First of all, the Holy Spirit is not speaking to anyone today because He already revealed to mankind all that He desired to communicate. He gave everything we need to know that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). Probably we cannot find a way to impress upon people sufficiently this truth, but the great need is for all to know that the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels, and demons are not speaking to anyone today. The voices that some think they hear are coming from their own minds—perhaps, their subconsciouses. Sometimes, medication or a lack of it can bring about these events, but they are not of God but from ourselves. God should be praised for what He actually does—not blamed for people’s strange and anti-Biblical behavior.
As the new year begins, I’m all for optimism—and always have been. When Scott McKenzie recorded John Phillips’ (of the Mamas and the Papas) song about wearing flowers in your hair when going to San Francisco, I was all for it. There was going to be peace and love in San Francisco with gentle people wearing flowers in their hair. What could be better? But I was newly married, had a job, and was trying to graduate from college. So I didn’t make it, but the idealism was attractive.
All across the nation,
such a strange vibration.
People in motion.
There’s a whole generation
with a new explanation.
People in motion, people in motion.
Unfortunately, the ideal seldom lives up to the expectations people have in it. Not only was there not much of a “new” explanation—the explanation that was offered was shallow and ineffective. Just a few months later, the Bee Gees released a response to “San Francisco” which was titled, “Massachusetts.” The lyrics include the following:
Feel I’m goin’ back to Massachusetts,
Something’s telling me I must go home.
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
The day I left her standing on her own.
Tried to hitch a ride to San Francisco,
Gotta do the things I wanna do.
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
They brought me back to see my way with you.
Talk about the life in Massachusetts,
Speak about the people I have seen,
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
And Massachusetts is one place I have seen.
The lights going out referred to the fact that everyone was leaving for San Francisco and the idealism it represented, but it was time to return to reality. [Incidentally, this song was their first number one hit in Australia and the United Kingdom (although only hitting number 11 in America). According to Wikipedia, it became one of the best-selling singles of all time, selling more than 5 million copies worldwide (it was also number one in Canada, Japan, and South Africa).]
That same year (1967) the Youngbloods released “Get Together,” but it rose no higher than #67 on Billboard’s Hot 100. Two years later, it was re-released and managed to get in the Top Five. The opening verse gains one’s attention.
Love is but a song we sing;
fear’s the way we die.
You can make the mountains ring,
or make the angels cry.
Though the bird is on the wing,
and you may not know why.
Come on people now;
smile on your brother;
Everybody get together
and try to love one another right now.
Now there’s a Biblical concept in a popular song. Jesus called it the second greatest commandment. Part of the second verse is also remarkable. It refers to the time “when the one that left us here returns for us at last,” and adds, “We are but a moment’s sunlight fading in the grass,” which is reminiscent of 1 Peter 1:24-25 and James 4:1. Once again, the optimism is appealing, and if everyone would just follow the advice of the song, the world would be a marvelous place. The reality is, however, that many are not interested in love, peace, or unity—as valuable as they are.
Good Morning, Viet Nam
The movie, Good Morning, Viet Nam (released in January, 1988), starring Robin Williams, revitalized the song, “What a Wonderful World,” by Louis Armstrong, which was originally released in 1967. It never made it to the Hot 100, but in the United Kingdom it reached the top of the pop chart. When the movie came out, the song this time went up the Billboard chart to # 32. Written by Bob Thiele and George David Weiss, it’s a simple song containing a simple truth.
I see trees of green, red roses, too.
I see them bloom, for me and you
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world.
I see skies of blue, and clouds of white,
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world.
The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky,
Are also on the faces of people going by.
I see friends shaking hands, sayin’, “How do you do?”
They’re really sayin’, “I love you.”
I hear babies cryin’. I watch them grow.
They’ll learn much more than I’ll ever know,
And I think to myself,
What a wonderful world.
Yes, I think to myself,
What a wonderful world.
However, in the movie they played the song while showing evidence of the war. One might see, intermingled with scenes of happiness children experiencing fear or bombs being dropped. The viewer might be surprised and even offended by this juxtaposition, but what is being mixed together is optimism and reality.
The World As It Is
The kind of world good-hearted people want is the one described in the song—peace and good will towards others. Too often the world we get is the one at war. It may be that from “a distance you look like my friend”; the problem is that we see too many close-ups. There are at least three worlds. There is the world the way that God wants it to be when He created it perfectly. Second is the world the way most people would like it to be. Third is the world the way some have made it to be.
Countries must have a strong military because a few are never willing to live and let live. Some always have the, “We will conquer you,” mentality—as expressed by Nikita Khrushchev when he said, “We will bury you.” We were doing our best to stay out of World War II when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Did we invent Adolph Hitler? Some choose to be aggressors no matter how they are treated.
Therefore, it was disconcerting to hear a man call in a talk show recently and try to encourage, in effect, being “nicer” to various nations. He vainly thought if we would just treat the Taliban in a friendlier manner, the two cultures would get along better, and the world would be a better place. Mark Stein, the guest host, told him (accurately) that if his philosophy were implemented, the world would be strewn with corpses!
The man apparently could not distinguish idealism from realism. A significant portion of the Muslim world absolutely hates and despises America; it does not matter how friendly anyone is—nor how kind. They have turned their backs on Jesus’ message of love toward others, and they only desire to kill Christians whenever they get the chance. America was nothing but kind and hospitable to the two brothers who, apparently, without any qualms whatsoever, bombed the Boston Marathon. Satan has so perverted and twisted the thinking of some that you could do them a great service on one day, and they would still kill you the next. They are not unlike what Al Wilson sang about in “The Snake.” A woman finds a snake gravely injured and nurses him back to health. When he needed saving, his plea was:
“Take me in, oh, tender woman;
Take me in, for heaven’s sake;
Take me in, oh, tender woman, ” sighed the snake.
When the snake recovered sufficiently, “instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite.” The conversation after that went thus:
“I saved you,” cried that woman,
“And you’ve bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous,
and now I’m going to die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman.”
said the reptile with a grin,
“You knew [full] well I was a snake
before you took me in.”
[The original word in the song I replaced by the one in brackets—GWS.] The point of the song is that you should not be surprised that a snake acts consistently with his character. When people are taught from kindergarten up to hate, period (no matter the object of their hatred), we can scarcely be surprised if they become terrorists.
Prior to the Flood, the world, which God had created, had mostly forgotten Him. The result was that “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). Likewise, the true and living God is not part of Islam; therefore, many of them choose to perform acts of violence in the name of the false god Allah. No amount of love will stop such extremists—any more than it will White Supremacists (and some still exist) who are taught to hate anyone different from themselves. One is currently serving a 40-year prison term for hiring someone to kill a judge.
Destroying the World
So why did God destroy the world with a Flood? The answer seems to be that there was no hope of reformation. Is such a condition possible? 1 Timothy 4:2 speaks of those who speak lies in hypocrisy, which is also difficult for most of us to understand. How could they do that? The answer is that they have “their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” Can not the same thing be done with respect to terrorism? How can any sane, sentient being explode a bomb to kill or maim healthy individuals who are innocent of any wrongdoing? A person must sear his conscience, or he would not be able to do it. It is one thing for the guilty to be judged and made to pay for their crimes, but why kill the blameless?
“But if we just tried to understand them….” If you could understand insanity, what would that make you? “If only they were shown love….” Did God not love those who lived before the Flood? Did Noah not preach for a hundred years? Some people are just immovable and implacable, no matter what. Did Jezebel ever change? People like her do not just wake up one day and say, “I think I’ll be nice now instead of a wicked witch.”
Mystery writer Agatha Christie believed in what many choose not to—evil. At least she agreed with the Scriptures on that point; the naive do not. Many reason, “Because I would not harm others without cause, nobody else would, either.” That’s one of our problems. We do not understand that terrorists do not think the way we do. They have no respect for the lives of non-Muslims; in fact, they don’t have much respect for the lives of other Muslims, either. They kill each other when they think the situation calls for it. The fact that they do not value even their own lives—thus volunteering to be suicide bombers, etc.—shows how deeply-seated their hatred is. Life has no value for them, period. How can one kill his own daughter and term it an “honor killing” unless he has become perverted by his religion?
God knows that evil exists; for that reason He will exclude it from heaven. One thing that evil does is grow and multiply, as it did both before and after the Flood (Rom. 1:21-32). If mankind has learned one thing, it is that wickedness proliferates, given a foothold anywhere. In heaven, not even a smidgeon will be in evidence. Those who love and practice evil shall be destroyed in eternal fire. At that point, all who have been invited to enter in can rightly be optimists.
Futility?
Does that mean that no one can change here on earth? No. Just because some never will does not mean that no one ever will. Anyone who is a Christian has changed from what he once was. We have all chosen to sin (Rom. 3:23). God, however, gave us an opportunity to reverse our initial decision and live righteously instead.
In the history outlined in the Bible we see examples of entire civilizations who refused to repent. After the Flood, the citizens of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim became wicked, thoroughly saturated by the grievous sin of homosexuality (Gen. 18:20; 19:4-5). They were destroyed. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to repent, but they chose to continue in their iniquitites and were destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites after Jehovah taught a lesson to Pharaoh on obedience.
Furthermore, all the world kingdoms—Babylon, Me-do-Persia, Greece, and Rome—that were so mighty and thought to be invincible were destroyed. Why? God has more power than the devil. He allows Satan’s kingdoms to stand for a time but destroys them when they refuse to repent. Most nations become lifted up with pride, depending on their own greatness, but a nation filled with rottenness and corruption is headed for a fall (Pr. 14:34; 16:18).
On the other hand, there was the remarkable repentance of the Assyrians who believed the message of Jonah. Christianity also changed the world for the better, but Rome did not repent of its sins—just of persecuting Christianity. Though the empire did not change its ways, many of those in it did, for the gospel was preached into the entire world (Col. 1:6, 23). In the beginning, the number of Christians grew and multiplied, and thousands are yet being converted, but few nations have become righteous, and if they have, it has not been for a long period of time.
The Best Opportunity
If the history of the world is any indication, whole nations are probably not going to be converted. The best opportunity we have is still with individuals, bringing them to Christ one by one. Early Christians were often persecuted and put to death for their convictions, but it did not stop or even hinder much the growth of the church. As Tertullian observed, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” (Apologeticus, chapter 50). Since heavy-handed treatment of Christians could not prevail, it was eventually abandoned—then, by and large, embraced.
Individual Christians do not know how many or precisely whose hearts will accept the truth. We must think evangelistically toward all. Persecution did not eradicate Christianity, but a failure on our part to act will. Materialism—a pursuit of things rather than righteousness will cause churches to decline. An idolization of “stars” who possess no morality will not aid us. Jesus was the only truly righteous man who ever lived; both the world and God’s own people crucified Him. He alone is worthy to be a genuine hero to all mankind.
Do we wish this was a perfect world where love prevailed? Optimistically, yes. But realistically, it never will be. So, though we desire peace, we arm ourselves for war. Are we, then, pessimistic? No, the world we desire will exist—but not on this planet, which shall be burned up. We look for the righteous world to come (2 Peter 3).
Why doesn’t Jesus tell any who is in heaven speaking with Him that denominationalism is sinful and that He only established one church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23)? Why don’t people return from the dead with an evangelistic fervor and an emphasis upon truth? Why is there no passion to spread the Gospel when Jesus taught the urgency of such before He ascended into Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20)? These are things worthy of thinking about when evaluating what sincere people are telling us. When studying with someone who has had such an experience, these are appropriate things to have them contemplate.
The following article was submitted without documentation. The name of the newspaper in which it appeared is not given, nor is the date of publication provided. The above title is given under the heading of “View from the Pew,” and the writer was LeRoy Yount. After quoting the text of 1 Peter 3:20-21 from the King James Version, Mr. Yount then comments:
How anyone can get immersion out of this statement is strange indeed. The antediluvians (wicked people) were the ones drowned or immersed. The “eight souls were saved” by keeping out of the water. If they got any water on them at all it must have rained on them. The world was wicked and defiled, and steeped in sin. The antediluvians would not obey the Lord and were drowned. Noah and his family came into the ark and were saved (had a clear conscience).
Apparently, Mr. Yount’s objection is that baptism means immersion–not that baptism is necessary. The fact that “baptism doth also now save us” cannot be disputed, and the writer does not try. Would he agree, then, that baptism is essential to salvation, that one cannot be saved without being baptized? We would really like to hear a reply on that point.
If he seeks to remove the concept of immersion from baptism, he fails on four counts. First of all, the word translated “baptism” literally means “immersion.” Any Greek lexicon will so define the word. No one who champions sprinkling even challenges this fact any more. Second, the Bible gives us an example of baptism, and the one being baptized is immersed. Both Philip and the eunuch go down into the water; Philip baptizes him; both Philip and the eunuch come up out of the water (Acts 8:35-39). There is no example of either sprinkling or pouring water on somebody’s forehead in the Scriptures. Third, baptism is described as a burial in water (Rom. 6:3-5). When people die, they are completely covered–perhaps in a tomb or vault or under the ground. No one, however, just sprinkles dirt on a loved one and then walks away, leaving the body exposed. In immersion one is buried and raised up.
Mr. Yount is correct in observing that those under the water were killed and those who remained dry were saved. But he apparently does not understand the words type and antitype. The words translated “like figure” are from the Greek word antitupos. The flood is the “type”; baptism is the “antitype.” These are mirror images. They are the same, yet opposites. The type on a press is backwards, but when it is printed, it is legible. In the flood those under the water were drowned; in baptism those under the water are saved. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who chose to describe both events as being saved by water.
Every way the subject can possibly be examined, without exception, baptism is by immersion. John did not need “much water” to sprinkle people (John 3:23). Historically, it was more than 200 years after the establishment of the church that anyone tried something other than immersion for baptism. The writer continues:
If we repent and do like Noah and his family–come into the ark–the Holy Ghost gives witness to a clear conscience that we are saved.
Certainly, we all need to follow Noah’s example. Genesis 6:22 tells us: “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.” Has Mr. Yount been immersed for the remission of his sins, as the inspired apostle Peter commanded on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38)? No, he seeks to get out from under the command for reasons known best to him.
Those three thousand who were immersed (Acts 2:41) entered into the ark; Acts 2:47 says that “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” Being in the body of Christ, the church (Eph. 1:22-23) certainly can be described as a place as safe as the ark (John 10:27:29). [The writer might explain whether he is a member of the Lord’s church or a man-made institution.]
Mr. Yount sees the word conscience in 1 Peter 3:21 and finds the word sprinkled along with it in Hebrews 10:22 and thinks he has found proof that baptism is sprinkling. Yet the verse says our hearts are sprinkled “and our bodies are washed with pure water.” Water is not sprinkled on anyone’s heart; the writer is using a metaphor. The body, however, is washed with water when a person is baptized.
In his final paragraph, Mr. Yount primarily repeats what he has already said. He affirms that the phrase, were saved by water, means that Noah and his family were saved “by means of an ark being built that floated on water.” Well, of course we all know that these eight souls were saved by being inside the ark and out of the water, but the writer would do well to ask himself why the Holy Spirit chose to word it the way He did.
He could have said it the way Mr. Yount did, but then the point expressed in the antitype would be lost. It is only when God says that both Noah’s family and those baptized are “saved by water” that we can fully understand the type and antitype involved. Otherwise we see no correspondence between the two in this figure of speech. Certainly, sprinkling or pouring water on someone cannot correspond to the flood; only immersion can. If we truly love God, we ought to obey him readily and heartily–without quibble.
The pope has reinforced the ecumenical leanings of Vatican II and moved away a little from the recent Vatican document, Dominus Iesus (see our article of September 17, 2000). What is the latest position?
“The gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes–the poor in spirit, the pure of heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life–will enter God’s kingdom,” John Paul said (The Dallas Morning News December 9th, 5H).
His application is somewhat skewed. A truly humble person will obey the gospel when he hears it. There are many people who are humble, however, in all aspects of their life–except when it comes to the truth. How often have we been shocked to hear, “My mother and father were _________, and I will not go against them” or “I was born a __________, and I will die a __________”? How many times have we begun a study with someone who seemed genuinely humble, only to be told, “I don’t think we should study any more; I don’t know the Bible as well as you do, and I can’t prove that you are wrong, but I know what I believe”? A truly humble person will search the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11). The characteristics described in the Beatitudes should lead one to become a Christian, but these are not presented as steps in becoming a child of God.
“All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this kingdom.”
What? Exactly where is this idea found in the Scriptures? Jesus taught precisely the opposite:
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'” (Matt. 7:21-23).
These people sound sincere. They call on Jesus; they recognize that He has all authority. They were sincere enough to accompany their profession with good works. Sincerity, even accompanied by good works, is not enough, let alone sincerity by itself. One must know what pleases God–and do all that He requires. Partial obedience (allegiance) is not sufficient.
The pope is bowing to the ecumenical spirit of this age and headed toward the doctrine of universalism, which is the equivalent of saying, “There is no accountability, no judgment, and certainly no damnation.” Yet these things shall occur (2 Cor. 5:10; John 5:27; Rev. 20:12-15). We must know the Word (John 12:48)!
“How does the Holy Spirit accomplish His work?” is a question that many brethren are confused over today. Some have actually been persuaded away from the teaching of the Bible concerning this matter by a number of people, both liberals and conservatives. It is time to refresh our collective memories relative to the work and the methods of operation of the Holy Spirit.
During the time of the ministry of Jesus and the apostles the Holy Spirit worked directly and miraculously to bring about His will. Anyone can take a concordance and write down every reference to the Spirit in the New Testament. Z. T. Sweeney did so in his book, The Spirit and the Word, published by the Gospel Advocate Company many years ago. The student who examines each of the texts mentioning the Holy Spirit will be impressed with the high percentage of passages in which there is a clear reference to the direct, miraculous work of the Spirit.
Most of the instances refer either to inspiration or to the working of miracles which establish the fact that someone is inspired (and therefore should be heeded). The Holy Spirit was active in the New Testament church. The question many consider is, “Is He active in the church and in the lives of Christians today?” Of course, the answer must be in the affirmative. If the reply were in the negative, we would arrive at the unenviable position of saying that we are on our own and have no Divine help whatsoever, in which case it would be futile to pray or expect God to work on our behalf in a providential way. So the question is not, “Does God do anything?” The question is “How does He do it?”
In Ephesians 6:17 the Christian is admonished to take “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The Holy Spirit has a weapon, a “sword” that He uses to accomplish His purpose, to effect change in human beings. Does He work providentially? Yes, but events alone will not change anyone without words (correct instruction). The Word is His tool–His means of causing us to come to a knowledge of the Truth.
We are invited to share also in the use of this sword. With it we labor to teach others. On the positive side we use this sword to preach the gospel to the lost and to edify the church. On the negative side we defend against error and a multitude of false doctrines. The same Word that saves men souls (James 1:21) also is able to build them up and give them an inheritance among all them that are sanctified (Acts 20:32). The Word is sufficient to accomplish what God wants. He does not use the Word to reach those outside of Christ and then find it necessary to impact the Christian directly because the Word, which was powerful enough to save a soul and start him on his heavenly journey, has now become insufficient to complete the task.
Sweeney (and most other brethren) took issue with this philosophy years ago, showing that the Word (the sword of the Spirit) is sufficient to accomplish all of God’s purposes, thus eliminating the need for extra or special, direct help from God, which implies perfectionism and infallibility (see our article dated 12-17-00 for a further explanation). The following points come from Sweeney’s book. They will sometimes be paraphrased and edited; all the material comes from pages 122-27.
1. In a sense, the Spirit provides for us faith: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).
2. The Holy Spirit is active in our birth: “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). The water we understand as baptism, but how is the Spirit involved? “Having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, through the word of God, which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 2:23). The “seed is the word of God” (Luke 8:11). The non-Christian hears the Word of God, and if that Word produces faith, he repents of his sins and is baptized for their forgiveness. The Holy Spirit may have providentially arranged the opportunity for him to have heard that word, but it is still the message that converts.
3. The Holy Spirit provides light: “The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple” (Ps. 119:130).
4. The Holy Spirit gives us wisdom; we are even taught to pray for it (James 1:5). But how does God give us wisdom? Providence may be involved, but ultimately it is from the Word: “And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). Even under the old covenant God worked this way: “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Ps. 19:7b).
5. The same verse tells us of the impact that the Word has upon us: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” (Ps. 19:7a).
6. God’s Word (and therefore the Holy Spirit) enlightens us: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (Ps. 19:8b).
7. Through the Spirit’s efforts we get understanding: “Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way” (Ps. 119:104).
8. Does the Holy Spirit quicken us, or make us alive? He uses the Word to make that happen: “…for Your word has given me life” (Ps. 119:50).
9. The Holy Spirit uses His Word in order to save us: “…receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21).
10. The Spirit is involved in the work of sanctification, but again He uses a mediate or proximate cause upon us. Jesus prayed for His disciples in that connection: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17).
11. How are we purified? The apostle wrote: “Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart” (1 Peter 1:22).
12. The Word plays a part in cleansing us: “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you” (John 15:3).
13. God uses the Word as a means of delivering us from sin: “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And being set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18).
14. We also receive our divine nature through the Word: “By which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 1:4).
15. God sanctifies us through His Word and makes us fit for glory: “And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).
16. God even strengthened His people by means of the Word long before the New Testament took effect. “My soul melts from heaviness; strengthen me according to Your word” (Ps. 119:28).
Can anyone name anything that the Holy Spirit has accomplished in us that the Bible does not teach He can accomplish through His Word? What Sweeney observed concerning those who hold to the literal indwelling also holds true for those who posit a “direct” influence:
It is not claimed that a direct indwelling of the Spirit makes any new revelations, adds reasons or offers any new motives than are found in the word of God (125-26).
Therefore, if the Holy Spirit can use His sword, the Word of God, to accomplish all the things listed previously in an indirect manner, then upon what basis would He also need to act personally and directly? To thus argue implies that the Word is somehow insufficient–even though it is the means that the Spirit has chosen to act upon us. The Word says it is sufficient for all these things. Those who argue that we need special extra help further affirm that the direct influence of the Holy Spirit is not altogether sufficient to perfect us, either (for we still choose to sin). The truth is, however, that the sword of the Spirit is sufficient to prepare us for eternity (Acts 20:32).
Regardless of syllogisms, fountains of rhetoric, or the means by which God works through providence and prayer, the debate propositions reveal THE point at issue: Does the Holy Spirit work directly to sanctify the heart of the faithful Christian or indirectly through the medium of His Word? Some may find this topic to be still confusing. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to make the distinction as clear as possible.
We will discuss a few statements from Mac’s speeches in the debate. For brevity’s sake, we will designate each quotation by the day of the debate, followed by a colon and whether it was the first or second speech of the day.
Most brethren have contended through the years, whether or not they believed in the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit does things for us (on our behalf), but not to us. The Deavers now claim that the Holy Spirit does something personally and directly to the Christian’s spirit. This view is new and different to many of us, and Mac agrees with this assessment. He stated in his very first speech that those who hold his view “have been very quiet for the last thirty years…” (1:1).
He contends that God’s working proves his case: “If God can help me externally in some sort of direct way, and there are people here who believe that, then I’m saying He can also do it internally. There’s no way to stop that once you start that program” (2:2). “Bill Lockwood understands that if God can operate outside directly, he can also operate inside directly” (2:1).
God working outside has reference to God’s working through prayer and providence. God’s working inside refers to Spirit-on-spirit influence. The assertion is, therefore, that if God can work outside the Christian to accomplish His providence, then there is no way to deny that He can work directly internally on the Christian’s behalf.
But wait a minute. Can God work on behalf of the non-Christian externally? If someone is genuinely seeking the Lord, can God not work providentially (externally in some sort of direct way) on behalf of the non-Christian? Why, then, can He not work internally on him (Calvinism)? Consider God’s active, external work in the conversions of the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius.
The Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot” (Acts 8:29).
While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them” (Acts 10:19-20).
In these instances the Holy Spirit was really direct. Therefore, according to Mac’s own argument: If God helped them externally in some sort of direct way, then He could help them internally, also. Perhaps the Calvinists are correct when they say that God opened Lydia’s heart directly so that she might receive the Word (Acts 16:14). Readers should not misunderstand: the Deavers do not believe in Calvinistic doctrine, and Mac denied that the Spirit works directly on the sinner’s heart; but his argument, if valid, proves that He can.
How Much Help?
Mac affirms that the Spirit gives the Christian additional strength he would not otherwise have. He thinks the Scriptures prove his contention, and he cites Ephesians 3:16, in which Paul on behalf of the brethren prays to the Father “that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man.” Admittedly, one might infer, from a cursory reading of this verse alone, that perhaps the Christian is promised Spirit-on-spirit strength. That the inward person–man’s spirit–is to be strengthened with power by the Spirit of God cannot be denied.
But where did the verse say that the strength would come directly, through the Spirit exerting some kind of Spiritual pressure on our spirits? If God had chosen to impact us in a direct manner, none of us could possibly object, but such is not the teaching of the New Testament. In fact, in this same letter, Paul writes:
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand (Eph. 6:10-13).
Then Paul describes the Christian’s armor. If Mac’s interpretation of Ephesians 3:16 is correct, then why does Paul not write: “Therefore take up the whole armor of God, and don’t forget to rely upon the extra strength that comes to you directly through the Spirit”? Is it not our faith (rather than immediate help from the Spirit) that quenches all the fiery darts of the wicked one (Eph. 6:16)?
Furthermore, Mac is arguing for God’s help from the wrong angle. He thinks we are given extra strength to resist sin and live the Christian life. The Scriptures teach the opposite:
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it (1 Cor. 10:13).
In other words, God knows our limitations. He keeps us from sin, not by providing extra strength when we are tempted, but by keeping overpowering temptations from devouring us (which does not require a direct, Spirit-on-spirit operation). We just cannot see that the Spirit would provide the Word to completely furnish us, keep us from being overwhelmed, work providentially on our behalf, yet still need to provide extra strength.
Besides having extra strength for living the Christian life, Mac says that the Spirit directly supplies wisdom to the saint. We are taught to pray for wisdom, and we do so often. God promises to grant it to us, but He never says He will do so directly (James 1:5-6). Mac addressed this issue:
“When God helps me or you come to a better understanding of the Scripture, I do not know the time. I do not know the degree to which the help is supplied at that time. I do not know the degree it comes. Like asking, explain the mechanics of this. Who can, without being God? I do not know that, but I know that I’m in a situation. I’m part of a program that lends itself to my development in knowledge by God’s Spirit working in me so I can say ‘perhaps’ like Philemon 15” (3:2).
If a person does not know when, how, or to what degree that God imparts wisdom, is it possible that he might be mistaken that wisdom is granted directly in the first place? Mac kept insisting that we cannot explain the mechanics of miracles, either. While we do not know all of the particulars, of course, we do know one thing–WHEN. When Jesus walked on the water, raised Lazarus from the dead, healed the blind man, etc., we know that: 1) He exercised power on those individuals or over nature; and 2) we know WHEN He worked a miracle. In the case of turning the water into wine, few may have known the exact moment when it occurred, but they knew within a few minutes.
People knew when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So why cannot Mac say WHEN he is given this direct infusion of wisdom? He is arguing for something unobservable in any form and untestable by any objective means. Oh, we could possibly get together five brethren who believe as he does and give them a difficult passage of Scripture, let them earnestly pray, and then have each one explain the passage. But when the interpretations did not match, they could simply say we are putting time constraints on the Almighty and tempting Him (which would sound strangely like the Pentecostal quibble to the demand for objective evidence of a miracle).
We are left, then, with a doctrine, that teaches what cannot be proved conclusively or demonstrated. But even worse, we are told we cannot know how much strength or wisdom we are receiving. On the fourth day of the debate the following question was asked.
1. When the Spirit operates directly on our spirit, His Divine effort keeps us from (check the correct answer):
__ all sin;
__ an indeterminate amount of sins that we would otherwise have committed;
__ no sins that we would have otherwise committed.
Mac checked “an indeterminate amount.” Why? Obviously, none of us is kept from all sins, and he had already cited 1 John 1:8, 10 to refute that idea. Neither could he answer that with this Holy Spirit’s direct aid would we be no better off than we would be without it–or the “direct operation” doctrine would be useless. So he must say we are better off than with no direct help at all, but he cannot say how much better. Are we 5% improved? 10%? 25%? Perhaps 50%? Could it be as high as 75%? What about 99%? That figure still leaves room for human fallibility.
Mac adds the following note to the question: “However, this Divine effort is effective only as I am willing for it to be effective. It is a cooperative or combination effort. It is not a Holy Spirit ‘takeover.'” Okay, but then his answer to the second question on Thursday is puzzling.
2. Divine effort, as applied to our spirit is (check the correct answer):
__ completely sufficient for us to resist sin;
__ limited in its ability to enable us to resist sin;
__ of no power at all in enabling us to resist sin.
Mac checked the first choice. Obviously the third choice would conflict with his doctrine. The first two choices, however, pose a dilemma. No one would want to say that the Spirit is limited in His ability to help us (the second option above), but that means Divine effort, as it directly impacts us, is completely sufficient to enable us to resist sin. Yet we sin.
Now Mac would say, “So what? The Word of God is all-sufficient and we still sin.” True, but the Word provides indirect help, which means it must be filtered through our minds, our emotions, and our wills. Direct help circumvents all that by definition. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is suppling direct, Spirit-on-spirit help, how could we then fail? The third question on the final day of the debate was: “True – False. The Holy Spirit is all-sufficient for its purpose.” Mac answered true. So, 1) if a person asks sincerely and fervently for God’s help in overcoming sin or in obtaining wisdom, and 2) the Spirit is all-sufficient for His purpose, and 3) Divine effort, as applied to our spirits is completely sufficient for us to resist sin, and 4) God directly impacts our spirits, then we must have the ability to overcome sin and understand fully everything revealed to us in the Scriptures. If not, why not?
Are we saying that Mac agrees with this conclusion? No, but we are saying that he agrees with points 2, 3, and 4 (and cannot falsify number one without becoming judgmental). Therefore, the conclusion results from the related facts that lead up to it.
Call To Reason
These four points are almost in the form of a syllogism and probably could be put into one with but little effort–and perhaps used in another debate.
But what good is being accomplished here? To the minds of many, Mac has not proved his case of direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit. The other side of the coin leads to positions that are unsound and unsafe (not that he believes them). Is it really worth pressing a point that has not been substantiated through the Scriptures (and cannot be proved by any other means)? What is to be gained? Even if the doctrine were true, all that it means is that we have an indeterminate amount of additional help that we cannot know anything about. Is this view worth upholding to the point of division in the brotherhood?
And if it is not true, what harm has already been caused, and how much more may yet occur? Sterling reputations have become tarnished. The friendship and fellowship of co-workers has been utterly devastated. Many of us have been sidetracked from important matters on which we all agree–matters that affect the morals of this nation and the salvation of souls. In a manner of speaking, the barbarians are at the gates, and we are discussing how much extra power we may or may not be receiving directly from the Holy Spirit!
Concern about what may occur in the future was expressed well by brother Moffitt during the Questions and Answers on Wednesday:
I cannot for the life of me, and I think I speak for a lot of gospel preachers here, ever conceive of Roy Deaver or Mac Deaver ever going into the liberal mindset. However, I know what we believe eventually has an effect on our actions. And though I don’t believe it for them, those who imbibe their doctrine later on, I believe, are going to go pall mall straight into denominationalism where we came out of. Campbell recognized this as the most serious false doctrine. We ought to ask our question, “Why is it so readily accepted by our liberal brethren?” and see if this kind of material will contribute to a digression.
In other words, the Deavers (and those who agree with them) deny that this “direct” influence can be felt, that it makes one perfect or superior in wisdom to all others. But the door leading to those conclusions has, by the implications of the doctrine, been left ajar, and someone, perhaps followed by a multitude, will come charging through it. Even if the conclusion of this writer’s four-point “if-then” statement can be shown to be false or invalid, how many others will draw the same conclusion (but failed to be corrected for their “erroneous” logic)? If there is no compelling reason for this doctrine to be propagated, such as that it is crucial to salvation, then why insist upon it?
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.
