Biblical Notes

Giving New Life To Old Error

Posted on August 18, 2014September 24, 2020 by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

The Bales-Deaver Debate on marriage, divorce, and remarriage was published by the Firm Foundation Publishing House in 1988. That is twenty six years ago now, and a lot has changed in our world and in the brotherhood since that time including the continuing demise of morality in our country. Many who are young adults now were at the time of the great controversy in the church over marriage and divorce unaware as to what all was being said and done regarding the discussion of the proper application of the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 19:9.

On April 19, 1977 Roy Deaver and James Bales met on the campus of Harding College (now University) to discuss the issue of the application of Matthew 19:9. Later Thomas B. Warren hoped that he and brother Bales could debate the issue orally. Bales declined, for health reasons, but proposed a written debate between the two. Warren turned down that offer, and finally an agreement was reached between Bales and Roy Deaver for a written discussion. It lasted about five years. Bales, Deaver, and Warren were all friends and each respected the ability of the others. Bales had the year before moderated for Warren in Warren’s debate with the atheist, Antony Flew. Deaver also had assisted Warren in that momentous discussion held in September of 1976. When Bales learned that I was to teach a course on Acts in Tennessee Bible College in the early 1980s, he mailed me a thick notebook full of his own notes. It was a most generous gesture. He had a great mind and had done a tremendous amount of good through his teaching and his writing. He had been a great force for good. But now his talents had come to be employed in the defense of a position on Matthew 19:9 that was “new ground” for the brotherhood. The question was whether or not the novel position was scriptural.

In his own personal study, Bales had concluded that the church as a whole had misunderstood the application of the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 19:9. He had decided that Matthew 19:9 applied only to marriages that were composed of a Christian married to another Christian. The passage did not, according to him, apply to a non-Christian married to another non-Christian or to a Christian married to a non-Christian. This novel approach to the passage he attempted to defend in his time consuming written debate with my father. The reader can still purchase that written account and study it carefully. I cannot here go over everything or even most of what was said between the two participants. Very few things from the debate will be discussed.

In completion of my work at Tennessee Bible College for the terminal degree in Christian Apologetics, I presented to the faculty of the graduate school there my dissertation in January of 1991. It was entitled “Moral Law, The Law Of Christ, And The Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage Issue.” In that paper I discussed the existence and nature of moral law, the moral law and positive law, some implications of denying the existence of moral law, and moral law in some recent discussions on the marriage-divorce-remarriage issue. That last part entailed a critical analysis of the (1) Warren-Fuqua Debate, (2) McClish-Billingsly Debate, and the (3) Bales-Deaver Debate. It was clear to me then, and it is clear to me now that the effort to deny the universal application of Matthew 19:9 to all marriages was completely without evidential support.

It came to pass in time that I debated Dan Billingsly in January of 1995 in Arlington, Texas (Dallas-Fort Worth area). He affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that Matthew 19:9 is not New Testament doctrine.” The following September I debated Olan Hicks on the marriage-divorce issue in Robertson County, Tennessee. Brother Hicks affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that God approves marriage for every person, including all who have divorced or have been divorced by a mate, regardless of cause.” The reader can still obtain a written copy of that debate and study carefully what was said. Then in April of 2004, I engaged Dan Billingsly in a second debate in Bedford (Fort Worth area). He affirmed that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all a part of the Old Testament. Of course, if he could have proven that (which he could not and which was exposed as false), he could have gotten rid of the “troublesome” passage (Matthew 19:9). The position taken by Billingsly in this debate showed the extent to which some of us were willing to go to get rid of the “bothersome” passage. The morality of the country was degenerating, and Christian families were certainly involved. Surely, there had to be a way to get around the restriction of Matthew 19:9.

At the end of my doctoral dissertation, at the end of my polemic encounters with Billingsly and Hicks, I was convinced that the application of Matthew 19:9 is today for all men, both Christians and non-Christians. I never faced a sound argument that proved the contradiction, and I presented many sound arguments in the discussions to verify that for which I was contending. It was and remains clear to me that fornication is the one and only reason for a divorce that allows the innocent (other) party to scripturally remarry.

Now, why do I at this time bring all this back up to view. I do it because recently a book has been published by Weldon Langfield entitled The Truth About Divorce And Remarriage. It claims to be “A Politically Incorrect View of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in Today’s Church.” The purpose of the book is to resurrect the idea that 1 Corinthians 7:15 does, in fact, supply the Christian with a reason for divorce and remarriage other than fornication (as provided by the Lord in Matthew 19:9).

All through the book, Langfield refers to preachers who hold that Matthew 19:9 is of universal application and gives us the only scriptural basis for a divorce and a remarriage as “politically correct” preachers. He calls them “PC” preachers. Thus, in informing us that 1 Corinthians does give us an additional reason for divorce and remarriage, he is providing the “politically incorrect” view by which, of course, he attempts to endear his position to our brethren (who generally despise “political correctness”). On page 88 he concludes, “A critical examination of the PC position shows it to be without support.” Again, on page 153 near the end of the book he writes, “Two-thirds of denominational scholarship and many distinguished brotherhood preachers and scholars are correct in their understanding that 1 Corinthians 7:15 provides grounds for remarriage.”

If the reader hopes to find conclusive proof for this position, he will be disappointed. If he searches for a sound argument to prove it true, he will search in vain. He will find many gospel preachers of the past quoted to lend support to his position, but he will not find where a sound argument is ever provided by these quoted preachers to prove the contention true. And this is the very thing that Langfield needs: a sound argument (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Romans 12:2). We all should know that we prove nothing about the alleged accuracy of a conclusion by citing an approving quotation from someone who also believed it to be true. If the quoted party provided the “proof,” then provide his proof. Langfield couldn’t do this because there was no “proof” from anyone that he quoted to show that 1 Corinthians 7:15 provided an additional basis for divorce and remarriage in addition to what the Lord had provided in Matthew 19:9.

Langfield refers to many preachers on both sides of the issue. He refers to brother Bales several times in the book, but only mentions my father twice in the text, once in connection with his brief debate with Gus Nichols in their 1973 encounter at the Harding Graduate School in Memphis (p. 69) and the second reference (p. 126) is by means of a quotation taken from the July, 1980 Spiritual Sword periodical, the quotation being a description given by my father of the devastating nature of brother Bales’ position to the gospel. However, Langfield never refers to the Bales-Deaver Debate at all, a debate in which my father exposed Bales’ contention that 1 Corinthians 7:15 does provide, after all, an additional basis for divorce and remarriage other than that provided by the Lord in Matthew 19:9.

And this is the very position to which Langfield attempts to lend support in his new book. Brother Bales believed that Matthew 19:9 only applied to Christians married to Christians and that 1 Corinthians 7:15 applied to Christians married to non-Christians and to non-Christians married to other non-Christians. If the reader has not read that debate, I would suggest that he do so. It is indeed interesting and somewhat curious that Langfield, while referring to many books regarding the marriage-divorce controversy, never quotes from this pivotal debate in which Bales himself tried to prove the position to which Langfield in his new book attempts to lend support. Again, I remind the reader that Langfield refers to Bales several times, but he never quotes from Bales or from my father in their debate which was a discussion of the very issue that concerns Langfield in his recently published book.

Bales took the position that the Lord had addressed one group of married people in Matthew 19:9 and that Paul was addressing another group of married people in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. The Lord had only the “covenant people” in mind (Christians only), and Paul had in mind non-covenant people (non-Christians) and especially Christians married to them, so that Matthew 19:9 did not even apply to the group that Paul was now addressing. It is clear to me that my father exposed this contention conclusively and in several ways. However, among the many things that he taught in the debate, in my judgment, if he had only said one thing that he did to Bales, it was absolutely devastating. And it is something that either Langfield does not know or chose not to notice in his new book. Langfield shows familiarity with some of the crucial material written during the controversy, but for some reason, he never quotes my father (nor James Bales) in the Bales Deaver Debate.

In my father’s second affirmative, he presented his argument on the tense of a crucial verb in 1 Corinthians 7:15. He wrote, “The word ‘bondage’ is the translation of the Greek dedoulotai which is perfect passive indicative, third person singular of the root word douloo. The perfect tense is significant. The force of the perfect tense here is: the deserted believer is not now and in fact never has been under the kind of bondage signified by the word douloo—the kind of bondage which would compel the Christian to give up his or her Christianity in order to preserve the marriage” (p. 61). Bales wasn’t impressed and called for proof that this was the meaning of the tense (p. 90). Of course, all Bales had to do was consult a Greek Grammar and think about the description of the perfect tense (for example, Essentials of New Testament Greek by Ray Summers).

Summers points out that the perfect tense “…indicates completed action with a resulting state of being. The primary emphasis is on the resulting state of being…The real nature of the Greek perfect is seen in the passive voice better than in the active” (p. 103). The verb (“under bondage”) in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is in the passive voice. Summers points out that there are three ideas involved in the perfect tense: “an action in progress, its coming to a point of culmination, its existing as a completed result” (p. 103). He illustrates the force of the tense by appealing to the verb gegraptai (“it is written”). [The reader can consult Matthew 4:1-11 and see where the Lord three times uses a perfect tense verb when he says, “it is written”]. According to Summers the meaning is that “it has been written and stands written” (p. 103). If this had been a negative remark (as we have in 1 Corinthians 7:15), it would have meant: “it has not been written and it stands not written.”

Therefore, the meaning of the verb (“under bondage” with the negative word “not”) is that the brother or sister “has not been and is not under bondage.” The force of the tense means that the brother or sister in the case being described has never been in the bondage to which reference is made! That is one way that my father knew that it could not be referring to the “marriage bond.” The brother or sister had been in that bondage (the marriage bond) if they had been joined in marriage by God (Matthew 19:6; Romans 7:2). But the bondage to which Paul refers is one that had never entailed them at all. It is a kind of bondage different from what the marriage bond is. The marriage bond never entails the “slavery” involved in the word used for “bondage” in verse 15!

My father knew that the verb for “under bondage” in verse 15 could not possibly refer to the marriage bond. Furthermore, he knew that in verse 27, we find another perfect tense verb referring to a “bondage” which in the passage is undoubtedly the “marriage bond.” The words “Art thou bound unto a wife” certainly refer to the marriage bond. But, it is a different Greek word! The word in verse 15 is doulao and the verb in verse 27 is deo! Therefore, in verse 15 Paul had said that a believer married to a non-believer had never been, and was not at the time he was writing, in slavery that would compel the believer to pursue the marriage at the expense of his soul. In verse 27 he said that if anyone was married he had been and now remained in that same condition (perfect tense) in a state of “bondage,” but he clearly used a different word for this “marriage bond”!

But, even if we knew nothing about Greek tense, shouldn’t Paul’s last words in verse 15 (“but God has called us in peace”) and the words following in verses 16-24 show us what he had meant in verse 15? If the non-believer has left the believer (“let him depart”), the believer is to remain in peace, and not feel compelled to go after the non-believer with the hope of converting him/her. Paul is anticipating the thinking of the deserted believer. “If I can only find him, I can surely convert him and bring him home.” Paul says that you do not know that you can convert him (v. 16), and you are not (given the fact that he has departed) to feel obligated to go after him.

And please notice that Paul then declares that no one has the right to use his conversion as an excuse to alter a non-sinful state. It was not sinful for a Christian to be married to a non-Christian (see verses 12-14). And it does not matter whether one is converted while he is in the condition of circumcision or non-circumcision (v. 18-19), or as a slave or a free man (v. 21-23). But please notice that each condition is an illustration of a non-sinful state. Paul does not say that it is all right to remain in any sinful condition, including adultery! Repentance precedes baptism.

But now, let me make one more basic point in addition to all that has been said in the past to falsify the contention that 1 Corinthians 7:15 provides an additional reason for divorce and remarriage. My father took the position that Matthew 19:9 was universal teaching covering all marriages today. Brother Bales took the position that it applied only to Christians married to Christians. He took it that when Paul said “to the rest” (v. 12) he was referring to those other than Christians married to Christians, and he took it that “not under bondage” (v. 15) gave the deserted believer the right to remarry without fornication being committed against him/her per Matthew 19:9.

Notice, please, that the passage says that if the non-believer departs from the believer that then “the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases” (v. 15). But the question arises, “What if the non-believer chooses not to depart but to remain with the believer?” If Matthew 19:9 applies only to Christians married to Christians, then (1) what is the relationship of the Christian to his non-Christian mate who chooses to remain with him/her and (2) what is that Christian’s relationship to the marriage bond? Notice that Paul did not say that the brother or sister was “not under bondage” in the case where the non-believer chooses to remain with the believer. If anyone today were to take the position that brother Bales did on verse 15, claiming that it was the marriage bond as such, then he would need to face these questions.

Paul said, “Yet if the unbeliever departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage is such cases” (v.15). But what is the Christian’s obligation and what are his rights if the unbeliever remains (does not depart)? Now, if we were to allow Bales to assume that the marriage bond is being referenced in verse 15 (although we have already shown it is not), then Bales would face the following problem. Notice what Paul would be and would not be saying:

Paul would not be saying that a Christian married to a non-Christian is “not under bondage.”

Paul would be saying that a Christian married to a non-Christian is “not under bondage” if the non-Christian departs.

And remember, that Bales believed that Matthew 19:9 did not apply to the case of the believer married to the unbeliever at all, period. Then that would mean that (1) if the unbeliever chose not to depart but to remain with the believer and (2) if Matthew 19:9 never applied to the case of the believer married to the unbeliever, then we would have to face the following facts:

If the unbeliever who remained with the believer later committed fornication against the believer, the believer would have no right based on Matthew 19:9 to put away the unfaithful mate for his fornication and innocently remarry another (since Matthew 19:9 didn’t apply to him/her, according to Bales).

The believer living with a non-believer who chose not to depart was under bondage to that non-believer.

Since, per Bales, Matthew 19:9 had never applied to a mixed married couple, then we learn that Paul is saying for the first time in the New Testament that a believer is bound to an unbeliever if that unbeliever chose not to depart.

Since Paul is telling us, per Bales, that Matthew 19:9 never applied to a believer married to an unbeliever, it would mean that Jesus in Matthew 19:6 was only talking about believers married to believers as well when he said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” [My father made this very point to Bales (Bales-Deaver Debate, p. 133)].

Then if the unbeliever can depart and thus give the believer and himself the right to remarry (per Bales according to 1 Corinthians 7:15), then Matthew 19:6 never applied to unbelievers married to believers and believers married to unbelievers either.

If Matthew 19:6 never applied to anyone in a “mixed marriage” (believer to unbeliever), and if it never applied to a marriage involving unbeliever to unbeliever (per Bales), then the only people whom God has joined in marriage are Christians married to Christians! All other “married” couples are not married at all!

But this conclusion contradicts the position implied at point #2!

When my father engaged Bales in their encounter at Harding in 1977, he referred to a letter that he had recently received from a man in Africa desiring to become a Christian but who was living with several wives. What was he to do? My father asked brother Bales his counsel. Bales responded that the man would need to put away all the wives but the first! But this was completely contradictory to the position that he was taking on the world’s non-amenability to the Lord’s law on marriage and divorce. If God had, in fact, joined the man to these women in marriage (and polygamy has never been against moral law as such), then how could anyone suggest that an alien sinner separate from the wives to whom he has been joined by God?

Brother Bales was no adulterer, but he unintentionally took a position that sanctioned some cases of adultery. I think it is very sad and so unfortunate that we had to go through such a time in the church when there seemed to be so much uncertainty with regard to marriage and divorce.

Years ago, my father and mother were living with my wife and me in Wellington, Texas. I was preaching for the church there, and Daddy was still engaged in his Biblical Notes writing work. Not long before brother Bales passed away, he called the house. I answered the phone. Brother Bales was evidently satisfied to talk with me for he never asked to speak to my father. But he told me that he wanted us to know that he loved us. In the light of that call, I take it that in light of the tremendous battle over marriage, divorce, and remarriage in which we had all been engaged, he wanted us to know that there was no anger or bitterness involved at all. He wanted things to be right between us. He was calling to tell us that he loved us.

I’m sorry brother Bales made this doctrinal mistake. I know he meant well. He was a good and brilliant man. But all of us are responsible to God for our own lives and decisions. None of us can excuse himself for adultery (if he finds himself in that state) because of Bales’ unintentionally sanctioning some cases of it. Each of us must search the Scriptures for himself (Acts 17:11). I once heard brother Warren express himself as he reflected on brother Bales’ situation. He said, “There’s got to be some room for grace.” I hope he found it, too.

The ungodliness in American culture helped to create the situation in the church where we began to think that we needed some relief from the stricture of Matthew 19:9. May God help us never again to allow any cultural condition to weaken our resolve to stand with proven truth (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 15:58). And may God give us the wisdom to reject any current effort at giving new life to old error.

Announcements

Lectures of Mac Deaver

Posted on August 7, 2014 by Weylan Deaver

We’ve just added a new page of previous lectures delivered by Mac Deaver in recent years, including titles such as “Instrumental Music–The Tip of the Iceberg,” “Liberalism Enters the Church: 1970-2006,” “Remembering Roy C. Deaver,” and several others. Simply go to the top menu and click the audio tab, then drop down in the menu to “Mac Deaver Lectures.” Also, we continue to post his weekly sermons on the site, and will be adding additional audio from past debates and sermons. So, please check back often, enter your email address to get automatic notices when new articles are posted, and share links on Facebook and Twitter of articles or pages you find helpful, and tell others about the site. Thanks!

Church History

A Study of Crucifixion

Posted on August 5, 2014 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Christians today see the cross as a symbol of salvation by divine grace. So did the earliest Christians two millennia ago. Paul would write, “But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:14). Crucifixion was anything but rare in the ancient world. After defeating Tyre, Alexander the Great crucified 2,000 along the Mediterranean shore. Alexander Jannaeus, king of Judea about 80 years before Jesus was born, is said to have crucified 800 Pharisees who rebelled against him.

Rome perfected crucifixion to a science, if not an art form. In 71 B.C., along the Appian Way, 6,000 followers of Spartacus were crucified in a victory celebration. When the Roman General Titus laid siege to Jerusalem (about 40 years after Jesus’ death), he was crucifying Jews at the staggering rate of 500 or more per day. Jewish historian Josephus writes, incredibly, that the Romans nailed the Jews on crosses in various positions “by way of jest.” It went on to the point they ran out of space for crosses, and ran out of crosses for new victims.

That Jesus should die by crucifixion was not unique, but the early church’s perspective on crucifixion was absolutely unique. It related, of course, not to just any cross, but to one in particular. The idea that anyone could love or glory in a cross would have been anathema prior to the gospel. Then again, the gospel changed a lot of thinking.

Before Christ, crucifixion had a gruesome history associated with nothing pleasant, much less with forgiveness of sins. It was the summa supplicium (Latin for “supreme penalty”), reserved for the worst offenders. A later Roman jurist, Julius Paulus, writing around the beginning of the third century, indicated there were three supreme penalties: beheading, burning, and crucifixion (the latter being the most terrible of all).

Being nailed to a cross and left to hang until death was such a horrific means of execution that, as a general rule, Roman citizens were exempt from facing it. Such a humiliating and agonizing demise was reserved for those guilty of murder, banditry, treason, desertion, sedition, and the like. According to Cicero, the statesman who died about 40 years before Jesus was born, “Far be the very name of a cross, not only from the body, but even from the thought, the eyes, the ears of Roman citizens.” Thus, a Roman cross, now cherished by millions, was, at one time, not a subject fit for polite Roman conversation.

Josephus, witness to many a crucifixion, called it “the most wretched of deaths.” And Seneca, born about the same time as Jesus, offered this insight: “Is anyone found who, after being fastened to that accursed wood, already weakened, already deformed, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and chest, with many reasons for dying even before getting to the cross, would wish to prolong a life-breath that is about to experience so many torments?” To top it all, the law of God, given through Moses, itself placed a curse on anyone put to death by hanging on a tree (Deut. 21:22-23).

In a world where life could be cheap and death came in many varieties, why was crucifixion so despised? It robbed whatever dignity one had left, forcing the naked victim to endure pulsing pain in a public venue as an object lesson, often with ridicule and verbal abuse thrown in for good measure. By design, it was a lingering death. Some lived on a cross for days, exposed to humiliation, the elements, insects, and birds before finally expiring. After a brutal beating, Jesus lasted several hours on the cross (cf. Mark 15:25, 44; Luke 23:44-46). “Excruciating” is an English word for intense suffering. It comes from the Latin word excruciates, which literally means “out of the cross.” It was not just any death that Jesus endured, and we should be in awe that “being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8).

The concept of crucifixion was so odious to first-century sensibilities that people refused to believe a Savior could have been subjected to it. “The Old Rugged Cross,” so often preached and sung about, was a huge obstacle in the thinking of many. A victim of crucifixion did not fit the mold of the Messiah most Jews were looking for. And Gentiles of the Roman world found it difficult to embrace as a risen Savior someone who had died so despicably.

Opponents of Christianity even pointed to the cross as evidence Jesus was not divine. Minucius Felix, an early Latin writer, accused Christians of worshiping “a criminal and his cross.” No wonder Paul would state that “we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23-24).

Before there could be Christ’s resurrection, there had to be his crucifixion. We can scarcely imagine the initial misery of the act, and the subsequent difficulty of explanation in convincing the masses of what had just happened, in light of an ingrained prejudice against anything associated with a cross. “For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).

Paul, who had been “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27), so identified with Jesus that he could say “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20). Who but God could turn a hated means of death into a beloved symbol of everlasting life?

Doctrine

Joel’s Prophecy and Events Surrounding the Day of Pentecost (And Our Misunderstandings)

Posted on August 4, 2014August 6, 2014 by lmkilpatrick1

By Marlin Kilpatrick

I am not so naive as to think I know all that can be known about the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32. I am certain there are others who know more than I, but it seems to me there are some things which all of us can know and understand about the events that occurred on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), as well as other events which surrounded that memorable day. But first, we need to get a picture in our minds of the context of the events which Luke, the inspired penman, paints for us.

Jesus gives his final instructions to his apostles and then ascends into heaven (Acts 1:1-11). Among his instructions, Jesus promised his apostles they would be baptized in the Holy Spirit in just a few days (cf. 1:4, 5). Following his ascension, the apostles returned to Jerusalem as they had been instructed (vss. 4, 12). The apostles joined a group of disciples who were in an upper room, including several women, their number being “about 120,” and from this group Matthias was selected to take Judas Iscariot’s apostleship (vss. 15-26). The kingdom of God, our Lord’s church, was about to come into existence, and not a better group of men and women to comprise that kingdom could be found; for they were “all with one accord.” What a picture of unity! Most likely, the Lord’s church has never been as united as it was when it began on the day of Pentecost (Acts2)!

The day of Pentecost arrived and the Holy Spirit descended from heaven and it is here that we begin to divide, with almost every gospel preacher having his own “interpretation” of what happened, to whom it happened, and why it happened, etc. We are so divided over the issue of the Holy Spirit that we ought to be ashamed. The “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38) is thought by some to be miraculous and given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, while others think the “gift” is our salvation. We have some who hold there are only two occurrences (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-46) of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and, some cannot even agree that Cornelius was baptized in the Spirit. Recently, I was talking with a fellow gospel preacher about some of these matters and to my utter amazement he said, “I don’t believe the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Spirit, and I don’t believe Cornelius was baptized in the Spirit, either.” Well, whether he believes or does not believe, Peter said Cornelius, his household and near friends received “the like gift” as did the apostles (Acts 11:17). The Greek word which is translated “like” means an equal gift (Vine’s, p. 342). So, whatever the apostles received, Cornelius, his household and near friends, received the same or equal gift.

When the day of Pentecost was fully come, there came a sound from heaven like that of a “rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:1-4) and “tongues like as of fire” sat upon each of them. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, he used the wind as an illustration and said, “so is everyone that is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). One brother says, “Only the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost” (Acts 2). Question: How does he know that? Answer: Most likely he read something written by J. W. McGarvey; or, possibly, he either read or heard the late brother Guy N. Woods say so. But, one thing for sure: he didn’t get it out of the scriptures. Someone may ask, “But wasn’t Jesus talking only to his apostles when he promised them they would be baptized in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence” (Acts 1:5)? Yes, and they were! But that doesn’t prove that only the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). As far as the apostles are concerned, the only thing that is proven is that Jesus kept his promise! In the gospel of John, chapters 14-16, Jesus was speaking to only his apostles, but some of what he told them applied to more than just the apostles. For example, he promised his apostles he would not leave them as orphans (John 14:18), but are the apostles the only members of the church who are not orphans? Certainly not! If God is your heavenly father, you’re not an orphan! Too, when Peter defended, at Jerusalem, his preaching to the Gentiles (Cornelius’ household) he remembered the words of Jesus, “John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:16) and he applied Jesus’ words to more than just the apostles; he included both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 11:17, 18).

According to the apostle Peter, the events which were taking place on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) were the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. In response to the people’s thinking that the apostles were drunk, Peter said, “For these are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day, but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:15, 16). Joel’s prophecy reveals that both men and women would experience the pouring out of God’s Spirit (cf. Joel 2:28, 29). Since none of the apostles were women, but God, through the prophet Joel, said both men and women would be affected by his pouring out of his Spirit (Acts 2:17, 18), which is a quotation by the apostle Peter of Joel’s prophecy, then I know that more than the apostles were baptized in the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). This conclusion should come as no surprise, for John the Baptist had said that the one coming after him (Christ) would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (cf. Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16).

It is admitted by some that God did pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, but the claim is made that he began pouring out his Spirit on the day of Pentecost and completed pouring out his Spirit upon “all flesh” in Acts 10, when the Gentiles (Cornelius and his household and near friends) entered the kingdom. If that is true, then when did Philip’s four virgin daughters enter the kingdom (Acts 21:9)? And, furthermore, since there are no “measures” of the Spirit (John 3:34), these four virgin daughters were baptized in the Spirit, just like everyone who enters the kingdom (cf. John 3:5). I imagine someone will say, “But, born of the Spirit is not the same as being baptized in the Spirit.” My response is: If one is in compliance with Jesus’ words “born of water” when he is baptized in water, then how does he comply with Jesus’ words “(born, implied MK) of the Spirit?” If “born of water” requires a baptism in water, why doesn’t “and of the Spirit” (John 3:5) require a baptism in the Spirit? After all, both phrases are joined by the conjunction “and.” There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the context of John 3:3-5 to suggest that Jesus meant one must be instructed by the Spirit (which is the usual explanation of our Lord’s words). The new birth has two elements: water and Spirit.

It’s conceivable that someone might ask, “How do we know the women received the same baptismal measure of the Spirit as did the apostles on the day of Pentecost?” I’m glad you asked! We know the women received the same as did the apostles because, as stated earlier, there is no such thing as “measures” of the Spirit; hence, there is no “baptismal measure” of the Spirit. The scripture says, “for God giveth not the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34). The words “unto him” (KJV) were supplied by the translators. The ASV eliminates these words, as do most all other major translations. Since there are no “measures” of the Spirit given, then, in apostolic times, beginning at Pentecost (Acts 2), one either was/was not baptized in the Spirit. If one had the Spirit it was because Christ had immersed his human spirit in Holy Spirit (cf. Tit. 3:5, 6).

Finally, I would suggest that the question concerning what Jesus meant when he said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), can be easily answered by observing what happened on Pentecost (Acts 2). The Spirit came. How did the disciples, including the apostles, enter the kingdom? They did enter, didn’t they?

The disciples of John (about 120), including the apostles, entered the kingdom when the Spirit descended from heaven (Acts 2:1-4); this was their baptism in the Spirit. All of John’s disciples had already been baptized in water and for the remission of their sins (John 3:23; Mark 1:4). All they needed, in order to enter the kingdom, was to be “born of the Spirit.” When the Spirit came from heaven, they were baptized, or born, of the Spirit (Acts 2:1-4). They had experienced one birth, the new birth, and, consequently, they constituted the kingdom of which the prophet Daniel foretold (Dan. 2:44). Think about it.

Precious people, it’s still the same today. To enter the kingdom of God, the church of Christ, one must be born again, born of water and of the Spirit (cf. John 3:5).

Announcements, Debates

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, Evolution

The Scientific Method: Two Problems

Posted on July 28, 2014September 24, 2020 by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

I want to mention two problems with what has been termed the “scientific method.” But before identifying the problems let me assure the reader that I am well aware of the fact that the “method” has over many years resulted in much benefit to the human family. It is the method of trial and error. The scientist will imagine a working hypothesis or theory that he wants to test to see whether or not it can be identified as the given cause of a certain effect. He says to himself that if x is the case (my theory is correct as the cause of this certain effect), then y will follow. He runs his experiment and finds that y is, after all, certainly present. He then concludes that x is to be presently accepted as the cause of y.

Now, the first problem is a problem for atheistic scientists who view the so-called “scientific method” as the completely encompassing route to truth. There are those among us who decry the very concept of the metaphysical or spiritual reality. They claim that there is nothing but matter. For example, Sam Harris in his book, The Moral Landscape, even denies any spiritual person. There is no mind, according to Sam, distinguishable from a brain. Man is at most a brain without any spiritual or metaphysical agent to operate the brain. Matter is all that there is and so matter is all that matters!

And since science is the discipline that explores matter, then science is the vehicle whereby truth (all truth) is known if known at all. In other words, given this radical evaluation of reality, there is no truth accessible to man via any route other than science, and the method by which science discovers truth is the so-called “scientific method.” There is no domain outside the purview of this method since it is believed by atheistic scientists that there is nothing to be explored except matter itself.

But the first difficulty we raise has to do with the selection, identification, and application of this method. Just how is it that scientists have selected this method as “the” method for the discovery of any and all truth that is accessible to mankind? In the first place, if it is a method whose application is to matter only, then the method selected presupposes a metaphysical position with regard to the exhaustive scope of matter. For a scientist to affirm that “matter is all that there is” is not a materialistic declaration. It is an attempted description allegedly of all reality to be sure, and it is a claim that there is nothing besides matter, but the explanation itself is a purely metaphysical explanation. Rocks don’t talk. Monkeys can’t lecture. The very nature of rational explanation implies rationality (not merely a brain) and rationality simply cannot coherently be reduced to matter.

So, for one to say that “matter is all that there is” is to assert something in contradiction to the nature of the assertion. It is like saying, “I am not here.” It is a metaphysical attempt at denying the metaphysical. It is an explanation (whether correct or not), and the nature of explanation is such that it is not reducible to mere matter. A description of matter and an explanation of matter can never be matter itself. Matter cannot explain itself either by content or attempted rational explanation. A brain cannot explain itself. Brains don’t study brains. Minds can study both brains and other minds. Brains can be used by minds in offering explanations (and must be), but brains alone offer nothing by way of explanation any more than kidneys do.

In the second place, when atheistic scientists choose to employ the “scientific method” as their one and only tool for truth discovery, we must point out that their selection of this all-encompassing vehicle of discovery was not made by utilization of the method itself. That is, when they identified the “scientific method” as the alleged one route to all truth, they did not make the selection based on the use of that method at all. They did not use the “scientific method” in order to arrive at the conclusion that the “scientific method” is the route to all truth. And since they used some other means to arrive at that method, they have already implied by the selection of the method for use in science that there is some means of getting at some “truth” other than the method itself, since they used some other means to select the “scientific method” as the only way to find truth! Furthermore since they used some other means of arriving at the “scientific method” (other than the method itself) as the method of choice in truth discovery, that means that whatever it is that they used in order to select the “scientific method” is surely a more fundamental route and a far more encompassing route to the discovery of truth than the “scientific method” could ever by itself be.

The selection of the “scientific method” as the method of choice for science is a reasoned or rational selection made without the use of that method in the selection process. The “scientific method” was simply not employed in order to select the “scientific method” as the one and only method of truth discovery. And even for those scientists who are not atheistic, still it is true that their employment of the method is not based on the use of that method in the selection of that method.

The situation that I am referring to is very unlike the use of reason. We simply cannot identify and describe reason without employing it. We must in every attempt at the recognition and identification of the “laws of thought” always be utilizing them. However, it is not so with the so-called “scientific method.” And even though atheists want to claim that their method of discovery is the only means of discovery, yet their method was not discovered by means of the method! The selection of a trial and error method of truth discovery was not itself made based on any trial and error test for that method. Since the method itself is a metaphysical construct, it could not in and of itself be placed in a materialistic format for analysis. For someone to suggest that “if a is true, then y will follow, and y did follow; therefore, a must be true,” is an exercise in reason (be it right or wrong), and not simply an exercise in matter exploration by other matter. Consider the following points:

Either the atheistic scientist has decided to use the so-called “scientific method” as the exhaustive approach to all truth by means of the “scientific method” or by some other means.
The atheistic scientist did not use the “scientific method” to locate the method nor to elevate it to its alleged exhaustive role in truth discovery.
So, the atheistic scientist decided to use the “scientific method” and prescribe the use of it for all truth discovery on some basis other than the method itself.
This means that the atheistic scientist implies that the so-called “scientific method” is not the only way to discover truth!

The very idea of using the “scientific method” as “the” avenue to all truth is itself not discernible via the method. The method itself cannot possibly prove the non-existence of something outside the purview of that method of discovery. Materialism can never by a materialistic means prove the non-existence of the non-empirical (the metaphysical). In other words, the atheistic scientist who limits the discovery of truth to the “scientific method” has himself used some other criteria for giving that method its lofty and all-encompassing status. He has so elevated it but not by virtue of its all-encompassing nature, but because of his atheism!

The bottom line is that no scientist can defend the “scientific method” without reason. And when he does so, he admits that reason is superior to matter and very necessary in any explanation attempt. And when atheists attempt to claim that the “scientific method” is the one and only justifiable route to truth, they do so ignorantly and in self-contradiction since the employment by them of that route is because of a reasoned choice and not by means of some empirical trial and error vindication of the method itself. In fact, there can be no reasoned justification for the method itself, given the way that it is constructed. And that brings us to the second problem with the method.

The second problem with the “scientific method” has to do with the logical form of it. Consider the following illustration. Let us say that a couple decides to visit some nearby friends but without notifying their friends first. They get into the car and begin to drive. The husband says to his wife, “I hope they are home.” She responds, “We’ll know when we see the yard, for if they are home the yard will be mowed.” Then they get to the house and they see that the yard is mowed, and conclude. “They are home.”

Now, let us analyze what happened and put it into a strict logical form so that we can easily determine what was said and whether or not it was logical and conclusive. Let us use x for “if they are home.” And let us use y for “the yard will be mowed.” If we affirm x (they are home), then we could conclude y (the yard will be mowed). But the couple didn’t do this. They affirmed y (the yard is mowed) because they saw the mowed yard when they drove up to the house, and then they reached the conclusion that x (they are home). Now, let us suppose that they found no one at home. Even though they realized that their friends always kept up their yard work when at home (so that they had a right to say to themselves if x [they are home], then y [the yard will be mowed]), they were not counting on any explanation for a mowed yard other than the presence at home by their friends. But they found y (the yard is mowed) and yet they found non-x (the friends were not at home). Later, let us suppose, they found out that their friends had gone on vacation and had hired some yard workers to attend the yard while they were gone.

You see, the would-be visitors drew a conclusion not warranted by the evidence. They arranged their reasoning in this way: “If they are home, then the yard will be mowed. The yard is mowed. Therefore, they are home.” But then they found out that even though the yard was mowed, their friends were not at home. The argument—or, syllogism—looks like this:

If x then y (if they are home, then the yard will be mowed).
y (the yard is mowed).
Therefore, x (they are home).

And this is an illogical form. It is invalid. The conclusion is not established by the premises. And yet, this is the very form that is characteristic of the “scientific method.” Note this carefully. The “scientific method” entails an illogical or invalid form. And this means that the conclusion reached by using this form is not established! It is not proven! In a hypothetical syllogism (an “if-then” syllogism), we can either affirm the antecedent (what follows the “if”) or we can deny the consequent (what follows the “then”). The first form is called modus ponens; the second is called modus tollens. These are both logical or valid forms. But to deny the antecedent or to affirm the consequent is to construct an invalid form (see Lionel Ruby’s Logic—An Introduction, pp. 272-276). The couple in our illustration constructed an invalid form. They said: if x (antecedent) then y (consequent). That is, if they are home, the yard will be mowed. But then they affirmed the y (the yard is mowed), and concluded x (they are home). And this is an invalid form. They affirmed the consequent.

If a scientist tests his hypothesis and says if x is correct (if they are home) then y will follow (the yard will be mowed), and then he runs his test and finds that y is, after all, present (the yard is mowed), he concludes then that x is established at least as a theoretical cause (they are home) of y. But since the form is invalid, he has no right to reach a conclusion that is absolutely true. The whole process of his trial and error method is logically flawed. For y (the yard is mowed) may be caused by something other than x (their being home). There could well be another explanation for y (the yard’s being mowed).

It is sometimes reassuring that some scientists recognize the tentative nature of scientific claims and admit that they have not proven a position but only identified a possibility. Their conclusions they hold tentatively. However, some bold atheists and obsessed evolutionists overreach their findings and draw conclusions from their method that they deem beyond reproach. It is enough here for us to realize that no conclusion whatever reached via the “scientific method” can by that method be established as absolutely true.

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.

Expository, New Testament

The Superiority of Love

Posted on July 14, 2014September 24, 2020 by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

Have you ever wondered why Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13 said that love is greater than faith and hope? In this article I want us to explore at least a few reasons why that is true. We know that no one can be saved without faith (Heb. 11:6; John 8:24), and we know that a person in his becoming a Christian is expressing his hope (Rom. 8:24-25). There is a sense in which hope is surely the anchor of the soul (Heb. 6:17-20), and faith is absolutely essential to a person’s pleasing God (Heb. 11:6), and yet in some way love surpasses these two essentials. In context, Paul is showing in 1 Corinthians 13 that while the miraculous gifts characteristic of the early church would in time pass away, the characteristics of faith, hope, and love would be the permanent characteristics of the faithful church for all time. And yet in the abiding permanent characteristics of faith and hope and love, somehow love would always be the superior trait. How could that be? Let me identify a few of the reasons.

The first reason why love is superior to faith and hope is that nothing a man does that is not motivated by love is of any value to himself at all. In fact, this is the point that Paul is making in the context of the 1 Corinthians 13:13 passage. This is the message of verses 1-7. Others may receive benefits from things done by unloving people, but the people who do things without love are not in any way improved or benefited by the deed. There are various awful reasons (perhaps pride or guilt or even spite) why on a given occasion, a person might do something that is of benefit to others, but love is the necessary element to self-benefit in all things, including eloquence (v. 1), in revealing information or in the demonstration of the power of faith (v. 2), and even in benevolence (v. 3).

The second reason for love’s superiority over faith and hope is that love must be present before faith can obey and before hope has a basis for its existence. Love is ontologically prior to the existence of faith and to the reason for hope. A man must love God first before he can obey God. There is no such thing in scripture as divinely accepted faith that is founded on non-love for God. Even faith that works is not acceptable if the work done is not motivated by love (1 Cor. 13:1-3). No man can be saved without loving God since God is fundamentally love and light (1 John 4:8; 1:5). In Gentile-ism (under moral law—Rom. 2:14-15), Gentiles had to love God (cf. Isaiah 17), and in Judaism the Jews had to love God (Deut. 6:5). And in Christianity we must love God, too (Matt. 22:37-40). It is worthy of emphasis that no man ever went to Paradise following life on earth who did not love God. Love for God is essential to the implementation of any other obligation that we have toward God and neighbor. Consider 1 John 4:20 thoughtfully, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen.” We are to love the brotherhood (1 Pet. 2:17), most of whom we will never see. The incapacity to see cannot cancel the obligation to love.

We love God because God first loved us (1 John 4:10, 19). One cannot now be saved without having faith in God’s word (Rom. 10:17; Heb. 11:6), but faith in truth can exist without love for that truth, and without love for truth no man can be saved by truth even if it is believed (2 Thess. 2:10).

Remember Jonah. After being deposited back on land by the big fish, Jonah finally went to Nineveh (Jonah 2:10-3:3). But he still didn’t want the people of Nineveh to be forgiven by God, and he was afraid that his preaching would bring them to repentance. He had plenty of trust in God and absolutely no love for the people to whom he was being sent. His preaching did the Ninevites good but, according to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, it was of no value to Jonah whatever. So, we can say that Jonah finally “obeyed” God only in the sense that he carried out his overt assignment, but his “obedience” was not complete and, thus, not acceptable because of his terrible attitude. The overt act of going and preaching did not negate the sinfulness of his attitude. He did not fully comply with God’s will in the assignment. In fact, he got very angry following the successful results of his preaching. He even asked God to kill him (Jonah 4:1-3). Later, God tried to get him to see how bad his attitude was (Jonah 4:4-11).

If a person objects and affirms that faith can in some cases precede love, for faith when it arrives produces love, we respond by saying that surely faith can produce more love, and people of faith are under obligation to grow in love (2 Pet. 1:5-7), but any faith whatever not already grounded in love is unacceptable to God and is in no position to comply with the will of God. In the Warren-Ballard Debate, Warren called upon Ballard to give the order of things in his concept of the plan of salvation (p. 17). We usually give it as faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. But in answer to Warren’s question, where in the order do we find love? As Warren showed Ballard, it is not always mentioned in texts where other obligations are specifically given, including passages requiring faith.

I ask the reader just here: Is it possible that the faith that leads to other acts of obedience first exists in hearts that have no love for God? If we say, yes, we are saying that the other acts are not being fully or completely or adequately performed since they are not based on love. Again, remember Jonah. Repentance is certainly acceptable before baptism (Acts 2:38), and confession of faith is certainly acceptable following faith and before baptism (Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Tim. 6:12; Acts 8:37 in KJV). But is faith acceptable before love? Not according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 13. Did Jonah please God simply by going to Nineveh and preaching? No. The overt act was not based on love for those to whom he was sent. Love for the people was absent. Therefore, his action was not complete compliance with God’s will.

Third, love’s superiority to faith and hope is seen in the fact that since obedience must always follow faith, and faith must follow love, then obedience must follow love, too. No one can come to faith or any other act of obedience and that act be pleasing to God without those acts growing out of or being produced by a heart of love. Obedience never precedes love. If all that a Christian does is to be done in love (1 Cor. 16:14), and if all that anyone does is to be done in love (1 Cor. 13:1-3), then all that is done by men is to be done in love. No act of seeming “obedience” is actually obedience unless love is present. Conversion becomes coercion without love. If a person attempts to become a Christian while not loving God, he does so for some unauthorized reason. He may be trying to escape hell, but without love, he cannot become a Christian. He is not converted; he is intimidated! It is a contradiction of concepts to think that one can become a child of God without loving God. Every act of compliance with God’s will, including coming to faith, is an act of compliance by virtue of the fact that it is prompted by love for God. Faith without love is without value to the one with the love-less faith just as faith without works is without value to the one who has life-less faith (Jas. 2:14-26). Sampson had great faith (Heb. 11:32), but the writer of Judges never attributes to him any love for God or even any regard for morality (cf. Jud. 16:1-3).

Fourth, the superiority of love over faith and hope is seen in the ease with which love for God can grow. Read Luke 7:36-50 very slowly and carefully, and be staggered by the lesson that the Lord is attempting to get the Pharisee to understand. The Pharisee had asked Jesus to come and eat with him, so Jesus went. Since Jews ate in a reclining position, Jesus’ feet were behind him. He reclined at the table. A woman approaches the Lord from behind with a cruse of ointment and, at first, she stands there crying, and her tears fall on the Lord’s feet. She then bends down and wipes his feet with her hair and kisses his feet and anoints them with the ointment. The woman has a reputation for much wickedness, and the Pharisee thinks to himself that if Jesus were a real prophet, he would know what kind of woman it is that is touching him and would certainly then disallow such activity. Jesus, knowing both the woman and the Pharisee, then presents to the Pharisee, Simon, the story of the two debtors. In the story one debtor owed five hundred shillings and the other fifty. Neither could pay, so the lender forgave both men of their debts. The Lord then asks, “Which of them therefore will love him most?” Simon correctly responds: “He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most.”

Jesus then compares the absence of any loving attention from Simon with the great care extended by the woman from the moment she arrived. And then in verse 47 we read, “Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” Now, dear reader, be careful. Notice what Jesus is and is not saying about the woman. The illustration of the two debtors teaches that the one who is forgiven most loves most because he was forgiven most. The forgiveness precedes the love and produces it. He does not say that because she already loved most, that she was then forgiven most. That point does not fit the illustration. The illustration teaches that forgiveness produces love. If the Lord had wanted to emphasize the fact that God forgives most someone who already loves him most, he could have done so. However, it is not always true that the one who already loves most is forgiven most because the one who loves most in most cases needs less forgiveness!

The illustration of the two debtors teaches that forgiveness can produce love. And much forgiveness can produce much love. The second crucial point in understanding the force of the whole scene is given in verse 47 when Jesus says, “Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” And that verb translated “are forgiven” is a perfect tense verb which indicates completed action with a resulting state of being. In verse 48 we come to the words that Jesus now speaks to the woman, “Thy sins are forgiven.” Do you see the picture? The woman had followed the Lord into Simon’s house because he had already (perfect tense verb—v. 47) promised her forgiveness for her many sins! She was loving much because he had already promised much forgiveness! And then in Simon’s presence, he repeats his promise to the woman (v. 48), “Thy sins are forgiven.” It was her faith which made possible her forgiveness (v. 50). It was her much forgiveness that produced her much love!

Now let me make my point regarding why love is superior to faith and hope in the light of this passage. Love for God grows partially in proportion to the forgiveness that God grants! As God continually forgives us of our sins, he doesn’t give up on us and we do not have to despair. We love God more as we are forgiven of more. This means that this aspect of love grows proportionately to sins forgiven. So, our perpetual weakness (Matt. 26:41) with its resultant perpetual lapses (1 John 1:6-10) cannot destroy us since the forgiveness of the sins committed because of that weakness can and should produce in our hearts more love for God. That is absolutely incredible! It reminds us of Paul’s point in 2 Corinthians 12:9. Just as divine power is perfected in human weakness, just so love for God continually grows and is being completed in the hearts of those whose momentary sins are continually being forgiven!

Fifth, love’s superiority to faith and hope is seen in the fact that faith can trust that God will keep his word even in cases where the person of faith does not love God and does not want God to keep his word. If a demon can believe and tremble, then certainly a man can tremble at the thought of his own eternal prospects if he believes scripture but has no desire to obey scripture (Jas. 2:19; cf. Heb. 5:8-9). We read of some Jews who believed Jesus but would not confess him (John 12:42-43). It is certainly possible today for a person to be brought to faith and yet not be brought to repentance. But how can a man love God without trying to please God? It is impossible. This is why Jesus could say, “If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Jesus came to do the Father’s will (John 6:38). And since God is love and since Jesus is God, Jesus is love. Before the Word became flesh, the Word as God was love. And in the incarnation, Jesus as the son of God continued by his divine essence that maintenance of love characteristic of divinity. He learned obedience by the things he suffered (Heb. 5:8-9). He didn’t learn love; he was love. Going back to Jonah, we see that he knew that God was “a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil” (Jonah 4:2). But he did not want that mercy extended to Nineveh. His confidence in God that God would not destroy Nineveh if she turned from her evil was well placed, but extension of that mercy to the Ninevites was not something that Jonah desired.

Sixth, love’s superiority over faith and hope is seen in the fact that love is basically what makes us most like God. God is never described, and for good reason, as “faith” or as “hope” or even as “obedience.” But he is described as “love” (1 John 4:8). This is not the only infinite characteristic of God, but it is one on which God wants man to focus as he thinks of his own duty to God and other men (Matt. 22:37-40). It is a trait of God to be implemented always even to the point of including our enemies. If we would intend to be like God, we must love all men (Matt. 5:44-48; Rom. 12:20-21). We are not under obligation to trust all men or to place any hope in all men, but we are to love them. God is also described as “light” (1 John 1:5). In this case, light stands for purity and knowledge. There is no impurity and no ignorance in God just as there is no weakness (Psa. 147:5; 1 Cor. 1:25). God’s own personal love infinitely coexists with his knowledge and his moral goodness. A man’s love cannot be expressed through impurity or ignorance. A man’s finite knowledge is not worthy to be compared to God’s omniscience (and it is knowledge that gives rise to faith and, thus, to hope), but when a man has love that encompasses even his enemies, the degree of that love and the quality of that love makes him like his Father (Matt. 5:44-48; Gal. 5:22).

Seventh, love’s superiority over faith and hope is seen in the fact that coming to faith in God and obeying God (which gives us hope) are expressions of our love for God. Obedience is the expression of love just as work or some kind of effort is the demonstration of faith (1 John 5:3; Jas. 2:14ff). As actual existent characteristics, love is ontologically prior to its actual overt expression just as faith is ontologically prior to its demonstration. Obedience is the proof of already existent love and an effort or work is the demonstration of the already existent faith. But love without expression cannot save any more than faith without work can.

Let me note in passing that there is great danger in attempting to “read” people at the expense of “reading” scripture. Alexander Campbell found it almost impossible to deny that a man was a Christian even if the man had not been immersed for remission of sins, as long as the man’s life seemed to be morally and religiously in harmony with the character that is demanded in scripture. Listen to him. This quotation comes from an article entitled “Any Christians Among The Sects?” which was published in the 1837 volume of the Millennial Harbinger on pages 561-567:

The case is this: When I see a person who would die for Christ; whose brotherly kindness, sympathy, and active benevolence know no bounds but his circumstances; whose seat in the Christian assembly is never empty; whose inward piety and devotion are attested by punctual obedience to every known duty; whose family is educated in the fear of the Lord; whose constant companion is the Bible: I say, when I see such a one ranked amongst the heathen men and publicans, because he never happened to inquire, but always took it for granted that he had been scripturally baptized; and that, too, by one greatly destitute of all these public and private virtues, whose chief or exclusive recommendation is that he has been immersed, and that he holds a scriptural theory of the gospel: I feel no disposition to flatter such a one; but rather to disabuse him of his error. And while I would not lead the most excellent professor in any sect to disparage the least of all the commandments of Jesus, I would say to my immersed brother as Paul said to his Jewish brother who gloried in a system which he did not adorn: “Sir, will not his uncircumcision, or unbaptism, be counted to him for baptism? And will he not condemn you, who, though having the literal and true baptism, yet dost transgress or neglect the statutes of your King? ( p. 565).

I say that Campbell’s position just made is absolutely false! Furthermore, he has distorted good scripture in wrong application. There is great danger in taking the position that one can read a person more clearly than he can read a divine proposition! I warn us all that it is easier to understand the proposition of scripture than it is to “read” correctly the character of some religious people. God who knows the hearts of all men (Acts 1:24) wrote scripture in the light of his own “human heart knowledge.” And God knows exactly what genuine love and genuine obedience are. We cannot afford to dismiss plain scripture in order to credit human claims. We evaluate men in the light of God’s word; we do not evaluate God’s word in the light of any human claim. We must “let God be found true” in all cases of human evaluation (Rom. 3:4).

We must be content with the conclusion that truth reveals to us: genuine love leads to obedience (John 14:15; 1 John 5:3). The seeming moral harmony that exists at times in the lives of some religious people with the commands of scripture cannot at all be taken as justification for a claim of their alleged attachment to Christ. Only Christians can produce Holy Spirit fruit (Rom. 6:20-23; Gal. 5:22-24). Moral “likenesses” must not mislead us into devaluating plain and obvious scripture while elevating alleged claimants to the status of real Christians. It is true that we can know people by their fruits (Matt. 7:16), but there are times when what we think are genuine fruits are but imitations. We remember that Paul tells us that if we have great faith but no love we are nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). Love that believes and obeys is something, however. John said it like this: “Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:2-3). Obedience is the way that we express our love for God. There is no other way to express it! Neither is there another way to demonstrate our faith in God other than through our actions (Jas. 2:18). Love can be merely claimed by the lips, but it is shown in the life. John wrote, “My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth” (1 John 3:18).

Eighth, love’s superiority to faith and hope is seen in the description of love as “the bond of perfectness.” Paul wrote, “Put on therefore, as God’s elect, holy and beloved, a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving each other, if any man have a complaint against any; even as the Lord forgave you, so also do you: and above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfectness” (Col. 3:12-14). The word for “bond” is sundesmos and means, “that which binds together; a ligature (Col. 2:19); a band of union (Eph. 4:3; Col. 3:14); a bundle, or, bond (Acts 8:23)” (Harper’s Lexicon, p. 387). The word for “perfectness” is teleiotatos from teleiotas which means, “completeness, perfectness (Col. 3:14): ripeness of knowledge or practice (Heb. 6:1),” (Harper’s Lexicon, p. 401). It is love, then, that bundles everything together in one unified and complete package of Christian character that makes it all acceptable to God.

Ninth, love is superior to faith and hope because it is love that finally is able to cast out all fear from the Christian’s heart and make his hope complete. With his eye on the judgment, John writes, “Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he is, even so are we in this world. There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love” (1 John 4:17-18). And the Hebrews writer having already assured the brethren that God is well aware of their work and love, then says to them, “And we desire that each one of you may show the same diligence unto the fullness of hope (ASV footnote: full assurance of hope) even to the end: that he be not sluggish, but imitators of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:11-12).

The immature young heart of the one obeying the gospel and the immature heart of the saint are partially (and rightfully) motivated by fear of punishment and hope of reward. N. B. Hardeman said in his great sermon entitled “Repentance,” that “Men are moved by motives. The fear of punishment, on the one hand, and the hope of reward, on the other, are the strongest incentives to our action in the more serious concerns of life” (Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. I, p. 199). And as he well pointed out, in the scriptures we have divine threats meant to move us to repentance as well as, according to Paul in Romans 2:4, the goodness of God. But we add just here that John assures us that in mature love, the fear of punishment once characteristic of the Christian’s heart becomes history.

Let me conclude this article with this argument:

The Fear and Love of God

If (1) fearing God and keeping his commandments constitutes the whole of man, and if (2) keeping the commandments of God expresses one’s love for God, and if (3) perfect love casts out the fear of punishment, then the proper abiding fear of God is respect (or reverence) which entails the love of God.
(1) Fearing God and keeping his commandments constitutes the whole of man (Ecc. 12:13-14), and (2) keeping the commandments of God expresses one’s love for God (1 John 5:3), and (3) perfect love casts out the fear of punishment (1 John 4:18).
Then, the proper abiding fear of God is respect (or reverence) which entails the love of God.

“But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.”

Doctrine

Blinders To Biblical Learning

Posted on July 7, 2014August 6, 2014 by lmkilpatrick1

By Marlin Kilpatrick

I do not gamble on horse races, but I do enjoy watching on television the Triple Crown of the sport. At times certain horses are equipped with blinders. These blinders are to help keep the horse from being distracted. A distraction at a critical time in the race can mean the difference between winning and losing. Occasionally, blinders may be an asset, but sometimes they may be a liability.

The apostle Peter told his readers to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18). But such growth can be hindered by the “blinders” we often wear. No one will ever fully benefit from studying his Bible unless he is willing to “take off his blinders.” No doubt we have all worn “blinders” of which we were unaware, until someone helped us see more clearly the teaching of God’s word. The “give and take” of an honest and sincere discussion is invaluable, and will help us remove these “blinders.”

Some of the preaching we have heard over many years can cause us to put on spiritual blinders. All of my life I have heard preachers speak of the three “measures” of the Holy Spirit. And, because certain well known and highly respected preachers taught these “measures” of the Spirit, I, like most everyone, just accepted what was taught without ever questioning the teaching. I assumed I was hearing the truth, but such an assumption can become a “blinder” in the study of the Bible. The scripture says that God does not give the Spirit by measure (John 3:34). The words “unto him” (KJV) were supplied by the translators and are no part of the New Testament Greek. But all of my life I have heard this passage quoted as proof that the Spirit was given by measure. The ASV correctly omits the words “unto him.” By taking off my “blinders” and really looking at what the scripture actually says, I can see how, in apostolic times, one either had the Spirit or he did not have the Spirit. In reality, there has never been a “measure” of the Spirit given, to say nothing about three measures of the Spirit! This fact will help us immeasurably in understanding that when the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, received the Spirit by baptism, so did all who became Christians (Acts 2:1-4). And this also helps us understand what Jesus meant when he told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). There is a baptism in the Spirit, but there is no “baptismal measure” nor any other “measure” of the Spirit.

Another “blinder” in my study of the Holy Spirit issue was that only the apostles were baptized in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). This “blinder” was coupled with another “blinder” concerning Cornelius, his household and near friends being baptized in the Spirit (Acts 10). Supposedly, Acts 2 and Acts 10 were the only occasions of Holy Spirit baptism recorded in the New Testament. In earlier years, when a discussion of the Holy Spirit came up in a Bible class or in a sermon, we were always assured that no one but the apostles and Cornelius, along with his household and near friends, were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Somehow we managed to leave out the apostle Paul! This teaching was accepted by most everyone. But when we take off our “blinders” we will see such is not the case.

The events of Pentecost (Acts 2) are a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28-32). In his prophecy Joel foretold how God would “pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). The “pouring out” of God’s Spirit would affect both men and women (vss. 28, 29). So when Peter says, “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16), we see how the baptism in the Spirit on Pentecost involved more than just the apostles. The “blinder” most of us have worn kept us from seeing that the pronoun “they” (Acts 2:1) is not limited to the apostles. Surely, more than just the apostles were “in one accord,” and, since men and women are involved in Joel’s prophecy, we must go back and take into account the about 120 disciples (Acts 1:14ff), which included the apostles. Now if anyone questions the foregoing, and claims only the apostles were baptized in the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), then this question: How many apostles were women? That’s not a silly question; it cuts right to the heart of our problem. If only the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), then Peter and Joel lied. The truth is, when Peter referred to the events which were then occurring on Pentecost, he said, “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16), and Joel said the Spirit would be poured out on both men and women (Joel 2:28, 29). Brethren, my seeing this did not come easily. But how can we hope to go to heaven if we’re not honest with ourselves and finally admit we have been honestly mistaken, all these years?

Brethren, if I know my heart as I believe I do, I hold no malice or unkind feelings towards anyone, including several gospel preachers who have taken me to task in several publications. Truth is not ascertained by emotion, but, rather, by logical argument (1 Thess. 5:21; Rom. 12:2). Brother Mac Deaver has met four capable opponents in public debate on the Holy Spirit issue. His arguments have yet to be falsified. My prayer is that we will all study our Bibles and come to the point in our studies that we will no longer put off admitting we have been mistaken, and this will only happen when we “take off our blinders” and prove our love for the truth. Think about it.