Weylan Deaver

Unreal Reality

Posted on June 16, 2015June 16, 2015 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

The fact of God is the ground of all truth. Reality is what it is because God made it. Truth is what corresponds to reality. Take away God and you take away the anchor for truth, morality, purpose, value, beauty and obligation. God’s book—the Bible—explains where we came from, why we are here, where we are all headed, and how to prepare for judgment. Reject the Bible, and you are left a life without substance. Early on, people “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25, ESV). That old bargain never gets better with time or technology. But it does explain where our culture is today, when anything goes and each person (or group) determines his own “truth,” as though human thought is the deciding factor for what is real. It explains why so many believe that humanity descended from lower life forms. It explains why so many think it is right to take the life of an unborn baby. It explains why so many now see nothing wrong in men sleeping with men, or two women who want to “marry” each other. It explains why so many applaud a man who decides he wants to be a woman. It explains why so many think all religions are equally valid (or, equally invalid). But, to embrace the unreal as real is to labor under a “strong delusion” and “believe what is false” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). Feeling good about a belief does not make it true, just as drinking grape-flavored poison does not make it safe. Fantasy is not made fact by wanting it badly enough, or thinking about it long enough, or getting enough people to agree with it. Lies cannot save. Jesus still says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Visit us at the church of Christ, “which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

Announcements, Books

Announcing: A New Commentary on Acts by Mac Deaver

Posted on May 26, 2015September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

I Will Pour Forth of My Spirit is a new commentary on Acts by Mac Deaver, published in May 2015. Its 246 pages cover each of the 28 chapters in Acts, with an outline, commentary, and study questions for each chapter. Two appendices offer discussion of the fulfilling of the Great Commission, and a helpful, explanatory outline of what was happening in Acts 2. The author’s preface states:

“I hope the reader finds his excursion through this little book both enjoyable and profitable and that he is encouraged in truth and comes to a better understanding of the New Testament book of Acts, which Luke so long ago by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote. And I sincerely hope that he comes to comprehend that all men who have ever entered the kingdom (the church) of our Lord in the first century as described by Luke in Acts have, with regard to the essentials mentioned by Jesus to Nicodemus in John 3, entered in the same way. Furthermore, it is very important that we all see that if anyone enters the kingdom today in the twenty-first century, then, if the words of Jesus to Nicodemus hold true regarding all men of our time as well, we enter just as did those whose entries are recorded for us by Luke in Acts, when they entered during the first century by birth of water and Spirit.”

Paperback copies can be ordered from CreateSpace or Amazon. A Kindle version will soon be available, as well.

Church History

Ignatius and the Bishop

Posted on May 14, 2015June 11, 2015 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Among other books, I’m currently reading The Apostolic Fathers, translated from the Greek by Michael W. Holmes. The so-called “apostolic fathers” are ancient authors who have left us the earliest uninspired Christian writings (from late first to mid-second century). One of them, Ignatius, may have been martyred early in the second century. His letter to the church in Ephesus (as well, his letters to other congregations) is disturbing for its seeming portrayal of congregational structure foreign to the New Testament pattern. For example, Ignatius wants the Ephesians to be “subject to the bishop and the council of presbyters” (To the Ephesians, 2:2). He writes that “it is proper for you to run together in harmony with the mind of the bishop, as you are in fact doing. For your council of presbyters, which is worthy of its name and worthy of God, is attuned to the bishop as strings to a lyre” (ibid., 4:1). Though the gospel knows nothing of a church bishop who is distinct from and superior to a “council of presbyters,” Ignatius goes so far as to say, “For everyone whom the Master of the house sends to manage his own house we must welcome as we would the one who sent him. It is obvious, therefore, that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself” (ibid., 6:1). That is quite a claim! Ignatius writes, “I dedicate myself to you Ephesians, a church that is famous forever” (ibid., 8:1).

Whether or not “famous forever,” the Ephesian church figures prominently in the New Testament. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to them in the mid first century. Paul also wrote to Timothy, telling him to “remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3, ESV). Evidently, “different doctrine” was a genuine threat to the church at Ephesus. Toward the late first century, Jesus himself sent to the church at Ephesus, “I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev. 2:4-5). Earlier, Paul, in a face to face meeting with the Ephesian church’s elders, told them that “after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30).

It is possible that, within a hundred years of the church’s beginning in Jerusalem, there were already departures in the leadership structure God put in place for congregational rule. But an error is not made right just because it is old. And, if “the bishop” in Ephesus is a scary thing to contemplate at such an early time in the church, we can take encouragement from the fact God had—through Paul—already warned the Ephesian elders years earlier that trouble would rise from themselves. Such warning is testimony to God’s omniscience, Paul’s inspiration, and the truth that Christians are never, whether back then or now, to veer from the gospel’s original design.

Christianity and Culture, Gender, LGBTQ

“Transgenderism” and the Bible

Posted on May 4, 2015September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

“For all intents and purposes, I’m a woman.” That’s what former Olympian, Bruce Jenner, told Diane Sawyer in a much-hyped two-hour interview aired April 24 on ABC’s “20/20”. Jenner is 65, has been married to three women, has six biological children and four stepchildren. He thinks he has crossed from manhood to womanhood. “Transgender” is identifying with a gender other than the one a person was born with. The first known use of the word dates to 1979. It seems American culture is eager to embrace the most outlandish claims, as long as biblical morality is eroded in the process. Instead of new categories of gender expression, what we need is divine instruction (cf. Mark 6:34). What Bible truths can be brought to bear on this subject?

First, gender cannot be changed verbally. A man’s claim to be a woman does not make it so. The idea that men have a feminine side (or, that women have a masculine side) is without foundation in the Bible. Likewise, the idea that a man could have a body with one gender, but a mind with the opposite gender. God is the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9), but not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Jesus highlighted human inability to do such a small thing as “make one hair white or black” (Matthew 5:36). If we cannot even alter hair color (without temporary, artificial means), surely we cannot change as fundamental a thing as the gender with which we were born.

Second, gender cannot be changed behaviorally. David “changed his behavior” on one occasion and pretended to be insane (1 Samuel 21:13). Acting insane did not make him insane. Nebuchadnezzar, for a while, lived outdoors “and ate grass like an ox” until his reason came back to him (Daniel 4:33-34; cf. Jude 10). He was not pretending. But, his behaving like an animal did not make him an animal. Behavior is not identity. A man who wears a dress does not become woman thereby. Moreover, he sins in so doing. “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5, ESV). The New Testament, as well, is plain on the distinction between men and women, and clear about their God-given roles.

Third, gender cannot be changed medically. No person is just a surgery away from becoming the opposite gender. “Sex reassignment surgery” (as it is called) is simply the severest form of playing make-believe. It is the drastic resort of desperation to be what one can never become, and thrives on the money of the mentally ill. Whatever surgeons may cut off or stitch on will never change a person’s DNA. Nor is genetic makeup changed by taking hormones. God asked, rhetorically, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23). Some things are not subject to surgery. Jesus did say, “there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12). On being taken captive, Daniel may well have been made a eunuch (cf. Daniel 1:7), but, if so, he was still a man. The Ethiopian officer baptized by Philip in Acts 8 was a eunuch, but he was still a man. Gender is more than anatomy and hormones, and surgically altering anatomy does not change gender.

As Jesus stated about the sexes, “he who created them from the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4). He did not say that God made them male, female, transgendered, confused, or undecided. Veering from Scripture is never the path to spiritual prosperity. “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done” (Romans 1:28). “Transgenderism” is a manmade concept, and those who respect the Bible ought lend it no endorsement.

Debates, Doctrine, Marriage

Roy Deaver-Gus Nichols Debate: Can the Guilty Party Remarry?

Posted on April 29, 2015September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

A preacher’s forum took place in November 1973 at the Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee between Roy C. Deaver and Gus Nichols. Each man respected the other. In fact, in the November 1972 issue of his paper, Biblical Notes (p. 73), Deaver wrote: “When brother Nichols preaches, it is obvious to the hearer that here is a man who is not just keeping an appointment. It is apparent that he knows the difference between having to say something and in having something to say.” But love for the gospel compelled Deaver to defend it, even if doing so meant opposing a friend. At the time, Deaver was in his prime (around age 51). The question at issue that day at Harding Graduate School was: “Can the guilty party, put away for fornication, scripturally remarry?” Gus Nichols said “yes” and Roy Deaver said “no.” Thomas B. Warren was in the audience and, when it came time for the Q&A session, he also held Nichols’ feet to the fire on this crucial doctrinal point. Listen to the two speeches and the Q&A session at the three links below.

1 Roy Deaver. Can the Guilty Party Remarry? (November 7, 1973 / Harding University Graduate School of Religion)

2 Gus Nichols. Can the Guilty Party Remarry? (November 7, 1973 / Harding University Graduate School of Religion)

3 Questions and Answers. Can the Guilty Party Remarry? Deaver vs Nichols (November 7, 1973 / HUGSR)

Christianity and Culture, Church History

“Hatred of the Human Race” (A Lesson from Nero Caesar)

Posted on April 23, 2015 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

An age that worships sin does not relate well to people who teach moral purity. The gospel of Christ demands godliness, as defined in the pages of his New Testament. The less the gospel is known and respected, the bolder sin becomes. That is how an ethically challenged culture can pit itself against God, who loved enough to send Jesus to die in our place: the supreme expression of divine love for humanity that, somehow, evokes derision, opposition, rejection. It explains how Christians who proclaim heaven’s ultimate message of love can be condemned as unloving, bigoted, intolerant, hateful just because they refuse to endorse homosexuality, Islam, skepticism, evolution, or other things contrary to the gospel. It explains how the Bible, whose principles once wove our national fabric, can now be considered “hate speech.” America is in a moral fog, wandering to the wrong side of reality. When Rome burned in July of the year 64 A.D., emperor Nero looked for someone to blame, pointing an accusing finger at the city’s Christians. In his Annals, Tacitus, the ancient historian, tells what happened. Christians “were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race.” Two millennia ago, a godless culture decided Christians were too “hateful” to put up with. In the interest of power, sometimes a government has to do hard things. So, those “hateful” Christians were slaughtered by the enlightened who, we assume, had only love for the human race. Tacitus notes that “derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed, were burned as lamps by night.” Many see today’s society as more open-minded than people used to be. Loud are the voices calling us to tolerate diversity of every stripe, assaulting the walls of long held prejudice. But, the gospel is not about diversity, and therein lies the insuperable difficulty, as today’s confused masses seem unable to respond peaceably to the fact. That is why Christians now can be so vilified by the spiritually myopic, not unlike in the days of the progressive minds of ancient Rome. And so, let Nero teach us this: the more things change, the more they really stay the same.

Christian Living

Good Is Not Good Enough

Posted on March 19, 2015March 19, 2015 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Many think they are going to heaven, who are not headed that direction at all. Such is not God’s wish, but does state the sad reality (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4; Matthew 7:13-14). Many think they can live a “good” life and that they will be saved on that basis, without having to be involved with the Lord’s church, and without having to be too wrapped up in things religious. They attempt to live life largely on their own terms, just trying to be decent and moral, and without feeling like God is intruding on their schedules on a daily basis. But, man’s “goodness” (however it be defined) cannot get any man to heaven because it is not really good. Jesus said, “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18, ESV). We are marred by the sins we do, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Being sinners, we deserve death (Romans 6:23). No one is going to heaven without a whole lot of help from God, and the help will be on God’s terms—not mine—as revealed by Jesus Christ (John 14:6). It will require lifelong commitment and willingness to put God before everything else in your life (Matthew 6:33). Becoming a Christian and living faithfully will be the hardest and also the most rewarding thing you ever do. The only alternative is eternally catastrophic. Hell is as real as heaven, and to be avoided at all cost (Matthew 25:46). Trying to be “good” is not good enough. I have to be born again by God’s power, by water and Spirit (John 3:3-5), as I am immersed into the death of Christ (Romans 6:3-4), baptized into his spiritual body (Galatians 3:27), which is the church that Jesus will save (Ephesians 5:23). Visit us at the church of Christ, where we worship an infinitely good God, who still saves those who obey his gospel (Hebrews 5:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:8).

Apologetics, Existence of God

We Can Know That God Exists

Posted on March 12, 2015September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Roy C. Deaver (1922-2007)

[Note: This piece by my grandfather was published in the July 1977 issue of Spiritual Sword (Thomas B. Warren, editor); at the time, he was serving as director of the Brown Trail Preacher Training School. —Weylan Deaver]

It is not unusual at all in our day to hear someone say, “Yes, but we cannot know that God exists. There is no way to prove that God exists. We are compelled to accept the idea of the existence of God by faith.” In response to special invitation I had taken the men of Brown Trail Preacher Training School to Abilene Christian College for the “Preachers’ Workshop.” One of the “buzz sessions” was on “Christian Apologetics.” Of the twenty-five men present in that session twenty-two of them were students at Brown Trail. I had the opportunity of making a few remarks about the meaning and nature of faith, the meaning and nature of knowledge, and the importance of being able to prove that God is, and that the Bible is the word of God. A member of the ACC faculty responded by saying, “There is no way we can prove the existence of God.”

Then again, just this past year, I went with our students to the workshop. The first lecture of the program dealt with the problem of knowledge and its relationship to the existence of God. The speaker—a highly educated, highly trained, exceptionally capable man—emphasized over and over that there is no way to be sure; there is no way to KNOW; there is no way to PROVE the existence of God. He made brief reference to the various arguments frequently used in efforts to prove the existence of God, but he stressed that these arguments were not adequate. He repeatedly declared that “These arguments take you down to this point but from there on you have to proceed on the basis of faith.” He said that this is the case because “There is no way to really know. ”

Immediately following this presentation there was a question session. I raised my hand, was recognized, and spoke as follows: “I would like to ask the speaker one question: Are you sure about that?” He recognized immediately the force of the question, stepped slowly to the microphone, and said: “No.” This admission, of course, destroyed his entire speech. But, his answer was really the only one he could give. If he had said “yes,” he would thereby have admitted that there is some process by which one can arrive at certainty with regard to at least some points. And, if he could follow that process and arrive at certainty with regard to that point, it just might be possible that I could follow that process and arrive at certainty with regard to other points.

Too, it should be pointed out that the brother who made the speech was misusing the word “faith.” That is, he was not using the word “faith” in harmony with the New Testament usage of the word “faith.” When this brother said, “These arguments take you down to this point but from there on you have to proceed on the basis of faith” he was stressing the idea that evidence will take one just so far, and from there on he must proceed upon the basis of accepting something with regard to which there is no evidence. And, to use the word “faith” in the sense of proceeding where there is no evidence is to use the word out of harmony with and contrary to the Bible usage of this word.

Others also are guilty of misusing the word “faith.” One brother, in insisting that we cannot know but that we can establish strong probability, declares that the man of faith behaves “as if” he knew. We would be inclined to ask the question: if the man of faith acts as if he knows, when in reality he knows that he does not know, why is not the man of faith a hypocrite? Further, why is not the man of faith an agnostic? The following quotations are from men whom I love and respect—men of marvelous educational background, men who love the Lord and His word, men who are personal friends of this writer. I am listing here their statements—not to embarrass them, but to try to drive home the point that many are using the word “faith” in a sense out of harmony with the Scriptures. Note carefully: “As indicated earlier, there is not enough evidence anywhere to absolutely prove God, but there is adequate evidence to justify the assumption or the faith that God exists.” “This choice or commitment is into the realm of the subjective, to be sure, since it transcends the objective and what can be clearly proved, and thus it is a leap of faith,” “Hence, it is more reasonable to take the short leap of faith required in Christian belief than it is to take the long leap of faith that is required in atheism. Absolute, dogmatic, unequivocable, complete evidence is often not possible, but a strong presumption is demonstrable.” “The evolutionist has a faith and I have a faith. I happen to believe that my faith is the more reasonable faith.”

What is the meaning of “faith” in the Bible? How is this word used? Does “faith” (in the Bible sense) mean strong probability? Is it identical with assumption? Does it exist only in the absence of evidence? “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain,…” (Heb. 11:4). “By faith Noah…prepared an ark to the saving of his house” (Heb. 11:7). “By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance…” (Heb. 11:8). What does “by faith” mean in these statements? Were Abel, Noah, and Abraham guessing? Were they responding upon the basis of assumption? strong probability? acting where there was no evidence? The Bible declares: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Rom. 10:17). Therefore, Biblical faith inherently involves; (1) the fact of the existence of God; (2) the fact of the existence of man; (3) the revealing ability of God to man; (4) the response-ability of man; (5) the testimony of God to man; (6) man’s proper response to that testimony. Faith—in the Bible sense—means taking God at His word. It means doing just what God said do, just because God said to do it. There is no Biblical faith where there is no testimony of God.

Faith does not mean absence of evidence. In fact, Biblically approved faith requires evidence. Where there is no evidence there can be no faith. God expects us to be concerned about evidence. The very existence of the Bible presupposes the need for evidence. John said, “…but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye may have life in his name” (John 20:31). We are not inclined in the least to criticize the attitude of Thomas. Rather, we have great respect and admiration for his attitude. His attitude was: “Without evidence I will not believe. Give me the evidence, and I will believe.” The Lord gave him the evidence. When Thomas saw the evidence, he declared: “My Lord and my God.”

Faith does not in all cases mean the absence of literal sight. Sometimes faith is clearly contrasted with sight (as in 2 Cor. 5:7), but there can be faith where there is sight. The Lord said to Thomas: “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed.” Many more of the Samaritans believed on the Lord because of His word (John 4:41). The fact of their seeing Him did not preclude their believing on Him. There can be faith where there is no sight. The Lord said to Thomas: “…blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed.”

Neither does faith mean the absence of knowledge. It should be shouted from the housetops that Biblically approved faith does not rule out knowing. Paul said, “being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord…” (2 Cor. 5:6). How did Paul know? “For we walk by faith, not by sight,” (2 Cor. 5:7). Here is knowledge which is the product of faith. Many of Samaria who believed on the Lord said to the woman: “Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42). These said, “We believe” and “We know.” Faith does not preclude knowledge, and knowledge does not preclude faith. Peter said to the Lord, “And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God” (John 6:69). Paul said, “…for I know him whom I have believed…” (2 Tim. 1:12).

Can we know that God exists? The basic question underlying this question is: Can we know anything at all? For, if it is possible to know anything, then it is possible to know that God exists. Can one know anything? Is a normal human being capable of really knowing anything? To answer this question we must come to a knowledge of what “knowing” means. (Interesting sidelight: Is it possible for one to come to a knowledge of what knowing is? Would it be possible for one to know that it is impossible for one to know?)

The answer to this question (Can we know anything?) involves the whole field of study called epistemology. Epistemology is that field of study which deals with the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge. The human being, in two basic ways, comes to have knowledge. We come to know (learn) by experience, and we come to know (learn) by contemplation. Knowledge which comes by means of actual experience is placed under the heading of SCIENCE. Knowledge which comes by means of contemplation is placed under the heading of PHILOSOPHY. The knowledge which comes by experience may be: mathematical, physical, biological, or social. If the contemplation is about the universe it comes within the realm of metaphysics. If the contemplation is about conduct, it comes within the realm of ethics. If the contemplation is about the beautiful, it comes within the realm of aesthetics. If the contemplation is about correct reasoning (the principles of valid reasoning), it comes within the realm of logic. This reasoning involves two kinds: inductive and deductive.

The Empirical philosophers insist that only real knowledge is that which comes by means of the physical senses. The Existential philosophers insist that there is no way that one can really know anything. We are insisting at this point that though it is certainly true that there is knowledge which comes by means of the physical senses, it is also true that there is knowledge which comes by means of contemplation. We are insisting that it is possible for one to know and to know that he knows by working (in thought) according to the demands of the principles of correct reasoning.

It is generally recognized that 7 x 7 gives 49. The “49” represents a conclusion arrived at by contemplation. But it is possible for us to know (and to know that we know) that 7 x 7 gives 49. Likewise, if one places a dime in an envelope, and then places the envelope in a trunk—we can know where the dime is. We can know that the dime is in the trunk. And, this knowledge we have by contemplation, rather than by sense perception. If it is the case that all men are mortal beings, and if it is the case that Socrates was a man, then we know that it is the case that Socrates was a mortal being. I recently said to my students: “If it is the case that the accute accent can stand on either of the last three syllables of a Greek word, and if it is the case that the circumflex accent can stand only on either of the last two syllables of a Greek word, and if it is the case that the grave accent can stand only on the last syllable of a Greek word—then it is the case that if the third (the antepenult) syllable of a Greek word is accented that accent will have to be the accute. And, you can know this, and you can know that you know it.”

The “law of rationality” holds that “We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence.” Adequate evidence absolutely demands certain conclusions. We are not talking about assumptions. We are not talking about guesses, or speculations. We are speaking of that conclusion which is absolutely demanded by the evidence at hand. And that conclusion which is demanded by the evidence is a matter of knowledge. It is “knowledge” just as much as is the case with regard to sense perception. It is evidence at hand. And that conclusion which is demanded by the evidence is a matter of knowledge. It is “knowledge” just as much as is the case with regard to sense perceptions. It is this kind of knowledge in particular that we have in mind when we emphasize that we can KNOW that God exists. It is this kind of knowledge which is compelled by consideration of the facts: there can be no effect without an adequate cause; there can be no law without a lawgiver; there can be no picture without a painter, no poem without a poet, no design without a designer, no thought without a thinker, no engineering without an engineer, no chemistry without a chemist, and no mathematics without a mathematician.

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss in detail how we can know that God exists, but rather to declare emphatically that it is a fact that we can know that God exists.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that so far as concerns those who love, believe and respect the Bible there should be no problem on this point. For, the Bible frequently and emphatically declares that we CAN and that we MUST know God. The Lord said, “And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ” (John 17:3). John said, “I have written unto you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning” (I John 2:13, 14). In fact, in the book of First John the writer uses the word “know” (in some form) twenty-four times. Those who insist that we cannot “know” would do well to study carefully John’s writings.

Announcements, Books

Deaver-Till Debate (on the alleged moral atrocities of the Bible)

Posted on February 4, 2015September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

On March 25-28, 1991 Mac Deaver debated the skeptic, Ferrel Till, on the campus of what is now Texas State University in San Marcos. Propositions centered on alleged moral atrocities in the Bible, whether they are real, and whether they disprove the Bible’s inspiration. The transcription has recently been reprinted by Christian Researcher Publications as a paperback book, including the four nights of speeches and charts. Copies can be ordered here.

Doctrine

The Fog Is Lifting

Posted on January 13, 2015January 13, 2015 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Start with John 3:34, which teaches that God “gives the Spirit without measure” (ESV, cf. ASV, NASB, NKJV, etc.). Here is one verse where the venerable King James Version disappoints by adding the words “unto him” in italics at the end (italics, because “unto him” is not in the Greek, and so does not belong in the text). An accurate translation makes the simple point that the Holy Spirit is given “without measure.” That is significant.

The church of Christ in America in the twentieth century largely accepted, and even insisted, that the Holy Spirit is given “by measure” (not “without measure”). In other words, we taught ourselves to believe the very thing John 3:34 denies. We taught ourselves that there are measures of the Spirit, including a “baptismal measure,” a “laying on of hands measure,” and an “ordinary measure.” We thought this helped fend off claims of modern day miracles because we insisted that miracles were always connected with the first two measures, and that those measures are not available today. But, our artificial construct was fatally flawed because it denies what John 3:34 says. Our humanly devised “measures” gave us peace of mind and we thought we were being true to Scripture. All the while, the doctrine of measures of the Spirit ensured we were enveloped in a theologic fog which could never lift, so long as the artificial categories we created remained entrenched.

To some degree, immeasurable by us, the church was crippled. Two camps opposed each other (based on their views of whether the Spirit’s indwelling was literal or figurative), but both managed to get along—more or less—because both groups bought into the doctrine that there are measures of the Spirit. Not surprisingly, the issue of the Holy Spirit’s presence and role in the church never got conclusively settled in the brotherhood. How could it, when the opposing sides both began from the same flawed premise? In fact, it got so bad that the flawed premise, itself, became vaunted to such status that anyone veering from it risked losing fellowship with those clinging tenaciously to it.

Yet, we could see that the New Testament described the Lord’s church from various angles. We knew it was called the church, but also referred to as a kingdom. Nobody insisted that the church and kingdom must be separate entities. We knew that the church was called the body of Christ, but also his bride, and even God’s house. And no one claimed that the body must be something other than the bride, or that the body cannot be the church, or that God’s house cannot be his kingdom, etc. We all understood these various terms were descriptive of the same institution. The church was the kingdom and also the body and also the bride and also the house of God. They were all the same thing, despite different terminology. We welcomed the assortment of descriptions as giving us insights on the nature of the church.

However, when we found different words used about the Holy Spirit’s connection to saved people, we completely missed the point we were so clear on regarding different portrayals of the church. We somehow concluded that, if the Holy Spirit “fell on,” or was “poured out,” that must be something different from being a “gift” to be “received” by all. We knew the Bible said we are “in” the Spirit, and we are to be “filled” with the Spirit, but we vehemently denied that we could be “baptized” with the Holy Spirit. Our coherent approach to passages on the church became a muddled effort on passages about the Spirit. It needlessly complicated the simple gospel. It made key passages harder to explain, rather than easier. John said the Holy Spirit is given “without measure,” and we said the Holy Spirit is given “by measure,” but never perceived the discrepancy. Without any Scriptures using the terminology, we went ahead and crafted what we called a “baptismal measure of the Spirit,” and a “laying on of hands measure of the Spirit,” and a so-called “ordinary measure of the Spirit.”

Such a mistake could not but hurt. We labored under weight of a blunder which kept facts hidden, given our presupposition. Of course, it never prevented our being dogmatic about our position. In fact, for many, our insistence that we were right was exceeded only by our ignorance which made us wrong. We forfeited “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” and opted for disunity on the Spirit and an uneasy peace (if not outright conflict). God’s Spirit was supposed to give life, foster love, unite the church and prevent its fervor chilling to lukewarmness. Instead, we turned him into a battleground for an ill-advised doctrinal Cold War which flared up now and again, but never seemed to bring more than a tension-filled “unity.”

The Holy Spirit is “the gift of God” (John 4:10 cf. 7:38-39; Acts 2:38; 5:32; 8:20; Luke 11:13; etc.). When God gives a gift, we ought to pay attention. Our appreciation of the gift is connected to our comprehension of the gift. If we do not understand it, we will not value it, and will be unable to exploit it for our good. Imagine you are given a short stack of papers as a gift. You do not recognize their nature. They are covered with tiny print expressing what appears to be much technical, financial, and legal jargon which you are not interested in trying to decipher. A friend sees them and, not knowing what they are, suggests to you that they look important. But neither of you is motivated to do the research required to precisely identify the gift. Ignorant of their worth, you stick the papers in a desk drawer and move on to other matters. Someone finds them years later, after your demise, and cashes in. What you failed to recognize was that the papers were bearer bonds with coupons attached which, if redeemed, would pay $2,000,000 to the bearer. Whereas perception would have led to profit, instead blindness leads to blight.

When it comes to the “gift of the Holy Spirit,” we have too often undervalued the gift while overestimating our knowledge of it. And, when our flawed approach to the topic blinds us to Bible facts, it robs us of the full blessing God intended. Many brethren think the subject is murky, at best. Some think it is to be mostly avoided. It is as though they stick it in an envelope labeled “controversial,” put the envelope in a dark drawer and move on to other matters.

The church does not grow when we shrink from Bible subjects. And, if the Holy Spirit is “controversial,” maybe it is because we have made it so. All that can be known about the Spirit is what the Bible teaches, and God did not write it to confuse us (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33). He wrote it to help us by producing understanding in us, which leads to our appreciation of what he is giving to us.

So, start with John 3:34. There is no “baptismal measure.” There is no “laying on of hands measure.” There is no “ordinary measure.” There are no measures. When we see that truth, new vistas of understanding open and the fog can begin to evaporate. As long as we insist there are measures of the Spirit, we will never be able to fit the relevant passages together. Our manmade theology of different Holy Spirit measures is a ponderous chain, to the detriment of all who choose to carry it.

Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman about “the gift of God,” which he referred to as “living water” (John 4:10). Nearby context is clear that “living water” describes “the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive.” And, “the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:38-39). So, the gift is the Spirit, who could not arrive till Jesus had ascended.

After his resurrection, Jesus told the apostles to “wait for the promise,” which was granted when they were “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:4-5). John the Baptizer could immerse people in water, but only Jesus could baptize with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). Thus, in his inaugural sermon, Peter states that Jesus had been “exalted at the right hand of God,” after which he “received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,” which “he poured out” on Pentecost (Acts 2:33). So, we learn that the Holy Spirit is “the promise” and the promise was “poured out” by an exalted Jesus. This is the same promise in Acts 1:4-5, which was identified by Jesus as baptism with the Holy Spirit. This baptism took place when the Spirit was poured out by Jesus in fulfillment of God’s promise.

Furthermore, the promise was a matter of prophecy, which is why Peter quotes from Joel 2, claiming that “in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh” (Acts 2:17). Traditionally, we claimed that “all flesh” meant only a handful of Jewish men (i.e. the apostles) and a handful of Gentile folk (i.e. Cornelius’ household). We were satisfied with such anemic analysis because it fit the paradigm created by our presupposition (that there are measures of the Spirit). Our simplistic interpretation never did justice to the language used by God, Joel and Peter. Think of it. There is no way that “all flesh” can be accurately taken to apply exclusively to a tiny group of first-century people who would all fit in a single room. The Spirit was poured out by Jesus in Acts 2 as a promise from God which had been prophesied in Joel 2. The promise was for “all flesh,” and it began to be fulfilled when people began to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

In fact, in the same sermon, Peter calls on hearers to repent and be baptized so they can receive “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). There is absolutely no reason to conclude that this gift is other than the promise being poured out in Acts 2. Moreover, in the very next verse Peter is emphatic that “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:39). This promise (Acts 2:39) is the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38), which was poured out by Jesus (Acts 2:33), which Jesus equated with the baptism in the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), which stems from a prophecy in Joel 2 that applies to all flesh (Acts 2:17).

This fits perfectly the fact that the Holy Spirit is “given to those who obey him” (Acts 5:32). Paul writes of “the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 3:5-6). The “us” refers to all Christians. It cannot be limited to apostles, just as the “all flesh” of Acts 2:17 cannot be limited to apostles (or, apostles plus a few Gentiles). Remember, when God gives the Spirit, it is “without measure” (John 3:34).

When Peter preached to Cornelius, “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44). The same phenomenon is then called “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” which was “poured out” (Acts 10:45). Thus, they could be said to “have received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:47). Later, retelling the events, Peter says that when the Spirit “fell on them just as on us” (Acts 11:15), he remembered that Jesus had promised Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:16). Then, Peter calls the Holy Spirit baptism of Cornelius “the same gift…he gave to us when we believed” (Acts 11:17). There are no measures of the Spirit, and the Spirit is “given to those who obey him” (Acts 5:32).

What happened to Cornelius is what happens to us today. He had to be “born of water and the Spirit” in order to “enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). In his case, the Spirit baptism preceded the water baptism because Cornelius was already “a devout man who feared God with all his household” (Acts 10:2), living faithfully under the divine law he had. His right religion was being replaced by its successor: Christianity. With the gospel spreading the message of accountability to Christ, Cornelius needed to enter the kingdom to be saved. Jesus poured out the Spirit on his household, resulting in their being baptized in Spirit. Miraculous tongue speaking followed as a sign to the Jewish witnesses that the Spirit had actually been given to the Gentiles exactly as it had been given to them. That sparked Peter’s question, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47). Thus born of water and the Spirit, Cornelius and company entered the kingdom. They entered it the same way the apostles entered, the same way we enter, the same way everyone enters.

By this time, some will undoubtedly be claiming that we are opening the door (either directly or, at least, implicitly) to miracles today. That is not at all the case. But it brings us to another signal fact we have too long overlooked. The Holy Spirit was never given by measure, but miraculous abilities from the Spirit were always given by measure! Speaking of miraculous gifts, Paul said, “All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:11). When miracles were extant, it was always God—not the apostles—who decided and distributed the miracle-performing abilities as he chose.

Miracles were never promised to every Christian, but the Holy Spirit was promised to every Christian (Acts 2:38-39; 5:32). Throughout history, most saints have lived and died without ever seeing—much less performing—a single miracle. Just as a book is not equivalent to its author, so miracles are not the Spirit. And, miracles need not accompany the Spirit in every case. Historically, in fact, in most cases miracles have not (and do not) accompany the presence of God’s Spirit. God said, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke” (Joel 2:28-30). Notice that “all flesh” can easily be broader than the specified groups who would prophesy and see visions. We are part of “all flesh,” but we do not perform miracles. Notice verse 30 references “wonders in the heavens and on the earth.” Today, we inhabit the same earth, but we behold no wonders being performed. Just so, no one is prophesying, etc. today, even though the same Spirit is still being “poured out” on all who call on the Lord’s name (Titus 3:6).

The miraculous power was a temporary allowance from the Spirit, but it was never identical with the Spirit. Jesus told the apostles they would “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). The power would be outward, observable evidence of the Spirit’s internal presence. Likewise, Jesus said the kingdom would “come with power” (Mark 9:1). The non-occurrence of miracles today has nothing to do with there being measures of the Spirit. There are no measures of the Spirit. But there are passages that teach the temporary nature and cessation of miracles. To say it again, miraculous gifts were always given by measure; the Holy Spirit is never given by measure. The measured out miraculous gifts are no longer with us, but the Holy Spirit is.

He has been poured out on us (Titus 3:6), just like he was poured out on Pentecost (Acts 2:33), just like he was poured out on Cornelius (Acts 10:45). He was a gift to Cornelius (Acts 11:17), just like he is a gift to us (Acts 2:38). The promise the apostles were told to wait for was the baptism with the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), and “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:39).

Long ago the Jews could not see what their Old Testament was teaching because they refused to see Christ in it, so a veil was over their hearts (2 Cor. 3:14ff.). Too long we have not seen what the New Testament teaches about the Spirit, at least in part because we clung to the artificial distinctions of manmade categories created by our wrong idea of measures of the Spirit. A fog descended which remains dense, though a ray of light is beginning to pierce it here and there. Eyes are starting to open. We owe it to God to know his “gift.” Surely, greater understanding will foster better days ahead for the kingdom, “that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:20).

The Holy Spirit’s presence in the church is both literary and literal; he informs us with his pen and he indwells us with his person. We do disservice to the word of God if we deny what it says about the Writer. And, the Writer says, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), that we are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly” (Titus 3:5-6), that this is “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), “given to those who obey” (Acts 5:32), that this “promise of the Father” was rehearsed to the apostles as the reason they must wait in Jerusalem since “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:4-5), that this “promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off” (Acts 2:39), which had been prophesied when Joel recorded that “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh” (Acts 2:17), that this had to come from Jesus, “exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this” (Acts 2:33) because, as John had always said, “I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8), “for he gives the Spirit without measure” (John 3:34) in order that, “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).