Weylan Deaver

Deaver-Preston Debate

Posted on July 30, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

Mac Deaver debated Don Preston on March 13-15, 2008, as part of the Second Annual Carlsbad Eschatology Conference in Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Preston affirmed: “The Bible teaches that the Second (i.e. final) coming of Christ occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” Deaver denied.

Deaver affirmed: “The Bible teaches that the Second (i.e. final) coming of Christ will occur at the end of the Christian age.” Preston denied.

The entire debate is now online. At BiblicalNotes.com, click on the “audio” tab on the menu to listen.

Apologetics, Existence of God

Made To Seek God

Posted on July 23, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

If you are reading this, then you were made to seek God. That is what the apostle Paul affirmed in Acts 17:27. It is an extension of the fact that humans are created in God’s own image (Genesis 1:27). Consider that humanity has such dignified status that we can be described as being “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:7). The Biblical worldview and the secular worldview could not stand in greater contrast. The Bible says we are a little beneath the angels. Evolution says we are a little above the apes. One or the other is a lie, no matter our personal feeling or preference. It comes down to facts and evidence, of which evolution has neither. Nothing comes from nothing, and everything came from something. Despite a plethora of hopeful guesses, skeptics will never be able to prove the cosmos began on its own, or that matter can explain itself without mind. Thoughtful people should be able to see the absurdity involved in the concept that we, with intelligence, can reflect on a universe that somehow is here by no intelligence whatsoever. The existence of a grain of sand implies God; how much more so, then, the existence of such an incredibly complex, moral being as man is. If God made me, and if God made me to seek after (and find) him, then this conclusion follows: To fail to seek and find God is to be false to my own human nature. God is not absent and is, in fact, “not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).

General, Restoration History

Reflections on a Handwritten Letter

Posted on July 16, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

When God wanted a message sent to Belshazzar, he did not type on the king’s Facebook wall. Rather, “the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace” (Dan. 5:5, ESV). It was a post to be remembered! And, surely the “writing tablet” Zechariah reached for to let people know his son’s “name is John” (Luke 1:63) did not have a keypad or lithium battery—contrary to how we now think of a “tablet.” Every book in the Bible began as a handwritten document. “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand” (1 Cor. 16:21).

Long before I was born my grandfather, Roy Deaver, penned a handwritten letter in 1947 to his wife and sons back home, while he was away preaching a gospel meeting. I would not see the letter until 2014—seven years after his death. It existed all the while, just not in view. So, to read it for the first time recently was almost to hold a piece of his life in my hand:

“We had five preachers present Monday night—a Nazarene preacher last night. I took a swat at him on modern miracles—Don’t know if he’ll be back or not…I had lunch on the Bennet ranch yesterday. I rode a Big Black stallion yesterday afternoon—chased a rabbit, started to stop the horse, broke a rein, he got excited and took off. Not having any way to stop him, I jumped off. Got scratched up a bit and I’m still getting thorns out. He has a white stallion that has never been saddled. I would like to ride him, but my insurance isn’t paid up.”

He was 24 years old, with courage in both pulpit and pasture. Since we do not often send or receive them anymore, perhaps it is useful to reflect on the significance of a letter handwritten.

Handwritten letters get read. We throw away junk mail in a heartbeat. We delete spam messages in bulk. If email from a friend is lengthy, we might skim for the gist of it. But, if that same friend sent the same words on paper in his own hand, we would read it in its entirety. The content is identical, but the delivery very different. In a day when there is too much information on our screens to absorb, and we become adept skimmers surfing from site to site for a useful morsel, our attention span suffers. Reading someone’s handwriting forces you to slow down. The words are not perfectly formed in Times New Roman. Some may even take a minute to figure out. Personality shines through, without the need for emoticons. You realize every letter’s curve and every imperfection are there because, at a particular moment, someone’s hand was on that piece of paper.

Handwritten letters get saved. Granted, not everyone who might send a letter is someone whose words you treasure, but a written note is more likely to be put away and read again than an email. A typed letter might get saved, depending on whom it is from, but it still lacks a quality in handwriting. Writing by hand tells the recipient he is worth taking time to address in your own unique script, even if it is more time consuming than typing. It takes longer to grow corn than to pop corn. An email is something to get out of your virtual inbox as soon as possible. Reply. Delete. But a letter in an envelope, that is something to slip in your jacket pocket for later reading in a quiet hour. Text messages do not get handed down to the next generation.

Handwritten letters arrive with their own special aura. Grabbing a stack of mail out of the box, you immediately notice that lone envelope that is addressed by hand. Even from a stranger, you will read it because it was addressed to you by hand. As you unfold a page filled with carefully crafted words, it already has the appearance of eloquence—justified or not—simply because it is so unusual. Handwritten words weigh more than the paper on which they rest. They can weigh more than digital words. In a day when most written communication starts as a computer generated font, handwriting stands out from the ordinary. Handwriting forces you to use real English, and that is a good thing. Emails and texts are conducive to abbreviation and carelessness—a thinly veiled effort to strangle proper grammar. Write with ink and suddenly an “LOL” or “TTYL” seems out of place, undignified, unnecessary. Good English opens new vistas for self-expression that go unexplored now. You might even come to frown on the ubiquitous smiley face.

Writing this kind of letter is a lost art, an art stolen by the nimble fingers of technology. So, if you want your words to stand out from what people are used to seeing all day every day, try long hand. You can convey a message in pixels on a screen. But, put ink to paper and you have something personal and tangible. Something that just might find its way to kinfolk years after you have gone, leaving in their hands the small trace of a life worth knowing.

Church and State, Church History

“Compelle Intrare”

Posted on July 1, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

In Jesus’ banquet parable (Luke 14:12-24), the master sent his servant to gather up guests for the feast. His instructions were, “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” (v. 23, ESV).

In Latin, “compel people to come in” is written, “compelle intrare.” From early centuries of church history through medieval times and beyond, the Roman Catholic Church leaned on a grotesquely twisted interpretation of “compelle intrare” in Luke 14:23, concluding that governmental authorities had the right to coerce people into the church. In a perverse marriage, Catholicism and the state were so tied together that the former could dictate the latter use deadly force against the church’s enemies. And, the church’s enemies included whatever men and doctrines were not in lock step with what the Catholic Church taught. Forced conformity to Catholicism was the glue holding society together. Naturally, if people were allowed to study the Bible for themselves, voluntarily practice what they believed from their own study, and freely preach their views, it would be a fundamental threat to the church’s power (and the crumbling of society, as they knew it).

Reformers such as Martin Luther are often hailed for their courage in confronting the status quo in religion (i.e. Catholicism). Yet, what they created in the Reformation was simply another state religion like Catholicism—only with certain different doctrines. In other words, while Luther opposed the Catholic Church, he very much endorsed the idea that the Reformed church could use force against its own enemies.

While the reformers (such as Luther, John Calvin, etc.) were battling Catholicism, there were others insisting that both sides were wrong in their concept of a church which forced itself on everyone in a given locale. The view of these objectors was that the church of Christ consisted of voluntary believers, and that it had no connection to the state; nor was it biblical to use force in spreading the gospel. They studied their Bibles and clung to their convictions. They also found themselves mercilessly persecuted by both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers.

Martin Luther commissioned his friend, Urbanus Rhegius, to fight those who were calling for a church formed only of voluntary believers. Rhegius said:

“The truth leaves you no choice; you must agree that the magistracy has the authority to coerce his subjects to the Gospel. And if you say, ‘Yes, but with admonition and well-chosen words but not by force’ then I answer that to get people to the services with fine words and admonitions is the preacher’s duty, but to keep them there with recourse to force if need be and to frighten them away from error is the proper function of the rulers….What do you suppose ‘Compelle intrare’ means?” (quoted in Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, p. 74).

Those who thought the church and state were separate, that the state should not interfere with the church, and that the church should be organized along New Testament lines, were considered radicals and hated as enemies. One of them was Felix Manz, of Zurich, Switzerland. His goal was “to bring together those who were willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His footsteps, to unite with these by baptism, and to leave the rest in their present conviction” (ibid.). In other words, Manz was opposed to coercion and held that the church should consist of true believers—those who wanted to accept and obey the gospel.

For his “heretical” ideas, Felix Manz had his hands tied around his bent knees, with a big stick shoved between his elbows and knees so that he could not move his arms. He was put in a boat and rowed into the Limmat River, where he was thrown into the frigid water to drown. The date was January 5, 1527.

Over the recent centuries, both Catholicism and Protestantism have had to back off of “compelle intrare,” but neither the former nor the denominations that sprang from the latter have gone all the way back to the primitive church’s organization and practice. Therein lies their insuperable problem.

If we, in the church of Christ, had lived back then, we would have been hunted like dogs by both Catholics and the Reformers. We are still at spiritual war with their religious descendants, but, thanks be, at least they cannot come after us today with a death warrant.

Announcements, Books

BACK IN PRINT: The Holy Spirit (Center of Controversy – Basis of Unity)

Posted on June 30, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

Originally published in 2007, Mac Deaver’s book, The Holy Spirit (Center of Controversy – Basis of Unity), had sold out and become unavailable (unless you could find a used copy). We are very pleased to say that, thanks to the great work of our friend, Stephen Bradd, the book is available again. It is a slightly updated edition, but essentially the same in content. However, the two formats are new: paperback and Kindle. Paperback copies can be ordered at this link. And, the Kindle Edition can be ordered here. This is the first Biblical Notes book to be offered in digital format, and we hope to make others available in the future.

This book gives historical background to the controversial issue of the Holy Spirit in the church of Christ in the last half of the twentieth century to the present. Deaver’s follow-up book, Except One Be Born From Above, came out in 2013 as a much more thorough study of the question of what it means to be born of water and Spirit. He is currently writing a study guide to the book of Acts, which should be published in 2015. Refer to BiblicalNotes.com for details as they become available, and please encourage your friends to subscribe (free) to the website.

Doctrine, Instrumental Music, Worship

The Instrumental Music Question, From Another Angle

Posted on June 4, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

More and more, members of the Lord’s church in various places are beginning to advocate the use of mechanical musical instruments in worshiping God. This, in spite of all the hard won battles of days gone by, where ground was gained and minds were converted to the truth when we once powerfully proclaimed that every belief and practice must have a “thus saith the Lord” in back of it.

Often, the justification for instruments in modern worship is based, at least in part, on an appeal to the Old Testament. Perhaps the one making such appeal does not comprehend the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. Or, perhaps he believes that any practice that was once right in God’s eyes will always be right in God’s eyes. Thus, if Israel used instruments under the law of Moses, there is no way instruments could be wrong now.

In replying to that argument, we have often held up examples of other Old Testament practices, such as animal sacrifices and burning incense, neither of which we use in our worship now. N. B. Hardeman rightly argued along those lines in his classic 1923 debate with Ira Boswell. That which proves too much, proves nothing. If instrumental music is alright now because it was alright once, then we should also be able to offer goats in worship, and even practice polygamy.

But, let us approach the subject from a different angle (which I have not seen done before). If it is right to justify instruments today because Israel used them at one time, then ponder what that means. If an Old Testament practice could never be wrong in the New Testament, then would it not also follow that every right practice in the New Testament would also have to be a right practice in the Old Testament? Said another way, if “once right, always right” is true, then it should follow that what is right under the gospel should not have been sinful under Moses. In other words, the principle (if correct) should work both ways, right?

Consider that there are numerous Old Testament prophecies about the church, and that “all peoples, nations, and languages” would serve the Messiah (e.g. Daniel 7:13-14). What if a forward looking Israelite decided to ignore the distinction God made under Moses between Jew and Gentile? After all, the gospel makes clear that such a distinction exists no more (see, especially, Ephesians 2:11-22). Jesus brought Jew and Gentile together in himself, having torn down the “dividing wall of hostility” that had been put there by divine legislation. Now, did any Jew in Old Testament days have the right to ignore that “dividing wall” God built? No. It was good that it existed under the Old Testament. But, it is sinful for anyone under the New Testament to perpetuate what was abolished with Jesus’ death. If someone today says that every Christian doctrine would have been right to practice in the Old Testament, that is simply false. And the converse is false, as well. It is wrong to say that every Old Testament religious practice must be acceptable to God now. It is wrong to justify any practice solely on its being right under a divine law that has now been abolished.

Moses did not baptize for remission of sins, and it would have been sinful for him to start the practice. Likewise, we do not approach God through Levitical priests serving in a tabernacle containing the Ark of the Covenant. We would sin in trying to re-establish that expired practice.

The gospel brought radical change to the status quo of two millennia ago. It is wrong today to kill a goat as an animal sacrifice to God—not because it has always been wrong, but because it is not authorized in the gospel. It is wrong today for a man to have two (or more) wives—not because it has always been wrong, but because it is not sanctioned in the gospel. It is wrong today to enforce Jewish dietary laws (cf. Mark 7:19)—not because they were wrong under Moses, but, rather, because they have not been re-instituted under the gospel of Christ. Think of the law of Moses as having been issued with a sunset provision. Moses’ law was nailed to the cross, but, unlike Christ, it was never resurrected (cf. Hebrews 10:9; Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:15).

Our task is not to imitate what God once allowed under a now-abolished law, but, rather, to learn what his new law demands. To justify present practice by relying on the law of Moses is like going to the store to make a purchase with a stack of Confederate money. It would have worked (in the South) in the early 1860’s, but nowhere today. “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13, ESV). True, the Jews had musical instruments in worship, but their entire God-given system turned obsolete and vanished, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross by God himself. The Old Testament has much to offer (cf. Romans 15:4), but it is not normative for worship in the Lord’s church. No one has the right to appeal to the Old Testament in justifying a practice he cannot find in the New Testament!

In a nutshell, the old covenant was abolished. The new superseded it. The new covenant does not say anything about the Lord’s people using mechanical musical instruments to worship God, but it does mandate singing to worship God. Hence, the church of Christ’s historic opposition to anything other than acapella music in worship. Those who would give up that position must prove that instruments are acceptable in worship today, but on what basis? If they do not prove it by Scripture, they are disobeying 1 Thessalonians 5:21. They cannot justify it based on the Old Testament. The only remaining option is to justify the practice by New Testament proof. Where is that?

God can—and has—changed his law in going from Moses to Christ (cf. Hebrews 7:12-14). Those who would take a superseded, abolished law from Moses to sanction worship that Christ never authorized, are playing with fire.

Restoration History

Thomas Campbell’s Desk

Posted on May 22, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Solomon told it right when he said, “Of making many books there is no end” (Ecclesiastes 12:12). The number of books extant today would dwarf any library Solomon ever saw or imagined. As a preacher, my religious library has grown with time, including hundreds of volumes of greater and lesser value (though it is still small compared to many). Some I would hate to part with. Others just occupy shelf space. In younger days, I was driven to build up a library, thinking that more books translated into more advantage to a preacher. These days, it is only occasionally that a book is added to the collection and I am more motivated to actually read what is on the shelf, rather than be on the lookout for something new to place on the shelf.

Good books can aid immeasurably in Bible study, depending on the caliber of their content, and assuming they are read with a discerning eye, educated in the Scriptures. Though an advocate of helpful books, I was, nevertheless, struck by an observation that Alexander Campbell made about his father:

“In my boyhood, when entering into his study, in which he had a large and well-assorted library, I was wont to wonder on seeing, with a very few exceptions, only his Bible and Concordance on the table, with a simple outfit of pen, ink, and paper. Whether he had read all these volumes, and cared nothing more for them, or whether he regarded them as wholly useless, I presumed not to inquire, and dared not to decide. But such was the fact” (Memoirs of Elder Thomas Campbell, p. 271).

Isn’t that what it ought to come down to? For all that can be said in favor of things like commentaries (bad examples of which can do much harm), there is nothing to take the place of a man alone with his Bible. It is easy for our perceptions to be colored by something read elsewhere, and we may end up missing what the Bible actually says because we have been helped into a misunderstanding by an unhelpful book (or article, preacher, etc.). Whatever benefit we reap from other sources, we will always need open Bibles, prayerful hearts, and minds keen to learn exactly what God wrote. And, perhaps, the church would be in better shape if, along with having his honesty of heart, more of our preachers had desks like Thomas Campbell’s.

Christian Living

Summer Is Near

Posted on May 21, 2014May 27, 2014 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Jesus observed that, when the fig tree puts out leaves, “you know that summer is near” (Matt. 24:32). In Texas, the mercury in the thermometer is rising, kids are almost out of school, trees are in bloom, thoughts of travel steal into our minds. Let’s remember some things this vacation season.

First, God does not go on vacation. The God who created summers (cf. Psalm 74:17) expects to be our God during the summer. He does not take leave from maintaining the universe, from blessing us, or from listening to our prayers. Nor should we try to take a vacation from God. On Mount Carmel, Elijah poked fun at the false god of the Baal worshipers, suggesting that Baal wasn’t answering his followers because he had gone away on a trip (1 Kings 18:27). Thankfully, the true God is constant and dependable. Are we?

Second, watch what you wear (others surely will). Since the world is not trying to please God, shouldn’t it raise a red flag if we find ourselves dressing (or, undressing) like the world? One of the “works of the flesh” listed in Galatians 5:19 is the Greek word aselgeia, which is translated as “sensuality” (ESV, NASB), or “lasciviousness” (ASV, KJV), or “lewdness” (NKJV). Aselgeia has to do with an attitude that ignores spiritual purity and, instead, emphasizes the flesh, without respecting holiness or the impression made on other people. We kid ourselves if we say, “no one cares or pays attention to what I wear.” We ought to be covered—at a minimum—to the knees. If we can show half our skin (or more) to strangers and not be embarrassed, something is wrong (cf. Jer. 6:15). Being at a pool or the beach does not excuse “sensuality” in attire. Neither does a hot day.

Third, if you travel this summer, find the faithful. Hebrews 10:25 is part of God’s word, even during June, July and August. The obligation to assemble with the saints to worship the Lord does not go away just because we do. Besides, it is easier to plan ahead and find the Lord’s people today than it ever has been. You can look up churches on the internet, check their websites, map it online. If all else fails and you find yourself separated from brethren on the Lord’s day, have a worship service with your own family. The point is not to neglect God, even if the brethren back home will never know.

Fourth, upgrade your understanding this summer. Unlike software, apps, or cell phones, our minds are the only thing we can upgrade and still take with us into eternity. The Bible calls on us to be making continual spiritual progress (cf. 1 Tim. 4:15). Summer is no time to slack off from growing in the faith. Why not find a good commentary to read on a particular book in the Bible? Take your studying to a new level. How about a biography of a gospel preacher of days gone by, such as Alexander Campbell, Barton Warren Stone, Raccoon John Smith, or a dozen others? Read or watch a helpful religious debate. Study some ancient church history written in the early centuries after the New Testament. Of course, there’s no substitute for reading the Bible itself. At the rate of three chapters a day, you could read the entire New Testament this summer. With summer approaching, let’s purpose to be better servants of God before summer is over.

Apologetics, Christianity and Culture, Evolution

Aliens and Evolution (What Happens When Imaginary Green Men Get Credit for God’s Work)

Posted on April 30, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

The year 1898 saw publication of H. G. Wells’ novel, War of the Worlds, which helped pioneer the concept of aliens (and aliens versus man). It was adapted in a 1938 radio broadcast which frightened many into believing aliens were invading America. H. G. Wells was an adoring student of Thomas Huxley, who was known as “Darwin’s bulldog” due to his staunch defense of Charles Darwin’s theory of human origins.

If aliens are defined as physical creatures inhabiting other planets or galaxies, then they have no place in a worldview informed by the Bible. Angels and demons are treated as matter-of-fact realities in the Bible, but not as living in space. Stars are created by God (Gen. 1:16) and, though sophisticated instruments will only allow scientists to guess at their number, God knows the precise number of stars and has already named every one of them (Psalm 147:4). One thing the Bible never hints at is intelligent life in outer space.

However, aliens do go hand in glove with evolutionary theory. In his 2008 documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein chronicles extreme prejudice in academia against belief in intelligent design in the universe. At the movie’s end, Stein interviews Richard Dawkins, one of today’s leading advocates of atheism. Asked about the possibility of the world’s being intelligently designed, Dawkins replies:

“Well… it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved… by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto…perhaps this… this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail…details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”

In other words, even an atheist like Dawkins feels the pressure to admit the possibility of what to so many of us is painfully obvious: we are surrounded by intentional, intelligent design. So, with straight face, he posits as a serious suggestion that unidentified aliens, at an untold time, from undisclosed location, by an unknown method, “seeded” on earth a “form of life” they “designed.” Dawkins’ desperation is palpable, and a grasping at cosmic straws.

The debate may be shifting. Whereas atheists used to deny intelligent design in nature, at least some now seem willing to admit it, as long as the designer is anyone but God. What but an entrenched anti-God bias would produce a baseless assertion, such as Dawkins’ theory of intelligent design by aliens? Yet, some will doubtless view it as scientifically credible, since Dawkins said it, even though there is nothing scientific about it.

Scripture affirms the existence of Adam and angels, but not aliens. Rational, thinking beings that we are, there is no excuse for confusion about where we came from. Noting the inescapable evidence for God all around us, the apostle Paul writes that “the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

Christian Living

“You’re First” and “You’re First, Too”

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

In the aftermath of the recent severe hailstorm in Denton, there has been no shortage of roofing companies pounding the pavement, hoping to get to pound on our housetops. It seems common practice for them to stick a sign in their customers’ yards when an agreement is reached. Thus, my neighborhood is dotted with a multitude of signs from a plethora of roofers, one of which is called the “You’re First” roofing company. Now, I know nothing about them and have nothing against them, and give them the benefit of the doubt they are a good business. But, I just found it funny, as I drove down my street, to pass a house with a sign in the yard saying “You’re First,” then to pass the house right next door with a sign in its yard also saying “You’re First.” How can both homes be first to that company? It brought to mind a more important point. We often want to think of ourselves as serving God, but our actions betray that we also want to pursue our own interests at God’s expense. In other words, we’re telling God, “you’re first,” while at the same time saying to self, “you’re first, too!” In reality, it cannot work that way. “But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37). We can put ourselves first, or we can put God first, but we cannot do both at the same time. Come investigate the church of Christ. We do not promise visitors that they are first, but that we will strive to offer an atmosphere where God and his truth are.