Posted in Church and State, Church History

“Compelle Intrare”

Posted on 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.

Posted in Announcements, Books

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

Posted on 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.

Posted in Apologetics, Epistemology, Evolution, Metaphysics

The Illusion of the Unattended Brain

Posted on by Mac Deaver

In an effort to ground morality in science, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, wrote a book published in 2010 entitled The Moral Landscape with the accompanying cover description: “How Science Can Determine Human Values.” Also on the front cover, Sam Harris is touted as “New York Times bestselling author of The End of Faith.” Sam Harris is not shy about either attacking religion or about extending the traditional role of science. Having plodded through the book, in keeping with the way that Sam explains his nature and condition as well as that of the rest of the human species, I can now say that Sam is a bold brain, but I can’t say anything else if I remain within the confines of Sam’s own description of himself and the rest of us. If you have read the book or if you follow along in this paper, you should soon see what I mean.

Sam Harris attempts to build a case for ethics based completely on the physical nature of man as an evolved species on this earth. Without evolution as theoretical background and the all encompassing presupposition as the explanation for the existence of mankind, Sam’s argumentation for scientific ethics has nothing to offer, but with it, he thinks that he can argue rationally for an ethical approach to life based simply on a greater understanding of the human brain and its relationship to events in the world. But can he?

Interestingly, a reader does not get far into the text before he realizes that Harris tries, in one sense, to “distance” himself from evolution. He writes, “As with mathematics, science, art, and almost everything else that interests us, our modern concerns about meaning and morality have flown the perch built by evolution” (14). But just what in the world does that mean? How have we humans “flown the perch” that evolution built? Sam doesn’t tell us. But given the fact that he says such a thing impresses me that there is something incongruent about the concept of evolution and the concept of meaning and morality that Sam Harris recognizes. And it is a problem for him throughout his effort to base morality on physicality. Look at the situation like this. When Sam says that we humans have “flown the perch built by evolution” I submit to the reader that since he surely is trying to say something meaningful, that he is either saying:

  • (1) Evolution is false, so we need to distance mankind from it in making the case for evolutionary ethics; or
  • (2) Evolution is irrelevant to the discussion of evolutionary ethics; or
  • (3) Evolution is inadequate as a justification of any evolutionary ethical theory.

I know he not claiming (1) evolution is false, because to the end of the book he stays attached to the claim of its scientific accuracy. I know he is not claiming (2) evolution is irrelevant because throughout the book he constantly employs the concept to bolster his thesis. I conclude that he is conceding, without intending to, that there is something awfully incoherent about conceptually connecting the concept of morality to mere apes. And if the reader thinks that I am being too hard on Sam for referring to people as “apes,” simply read the book and see how many times he uses the word or some synonym or similar expression to describe the human family. His is simply another sad effort at building a case with a missing link. Somehow and in some way (isn’t it strange), Sam thinks that human concern with meaning and morality go beyond the purview of evolution (the expression “flown the perch” has to have some application), and yet throughout the book he writes as though there is perfect harmony between the concept of organic evolution including the evolving of apes to men and the concept of human morality.

Harris chides fellow scientists for claiming that science has nothing to say about morality, and he claims that he has found the explanation as to why science can say something about it after all. It is his contention that facts cannot be separated from value. We all know that scientific work is in the field of empirical discovery. Science attempts to tell us about facts. But, Harris claims, that values are attached to facts, so that if science can tell us what the facts are, it can tell us something about what the values are. And if we know the correct values regarding facts, we can more adequately choose correctly in making our moral decisions.

Of course, Harris’ thesis is that since we cannot separate facts from value and since science is in the business of discovering and reporting the facts, that science then is equally in the business of being able to tell us what the value of the facts are. But, it must not go unsaid, that Harris’ whole case is based on his unproven and unprovable notion that all “facts” are physical ones. This is necessary to the proving of his thesis, but he never does, and he never can prove that only empirically derivable conclusions reached in a scientific laboratory qualify as “facts.” This is what he assumes but cannot prove, and in his book he never seriously tries to do so. He simply writes his book while granting that most Americans still do not believe the theory of evolution, as if they should. He never attempts to prove the theory at all, but takes it as a scientifically established fact. But, here Harris is very wrong. The fact is, that evolution as an explanation for the arrival of the human species has never been proven. Furthermore, given the nature of science and the nature of origins (including the origin of man), such a discussion of the origin of man and the morality of man is outside the scope of science anyway.

On the first night of the four night public debate in 1976 between Thomas B. Warren (theist) and Antony G. N. Flew (at the time a world renowned atheist, but who later disavowed atheism), Warren gave Flew the following True-False question:

  • T/F Value did not exist before the first human being.

Flew answered the question “True” and wrote on the paper that value was a function of the human mind (Warren-Flew Debate, p. 15 and APPENDIX). In his first speech on Monday, Warren pointed out that Flew’s answer to the question meant that since Flew was claiming that value did not exist before the first human did, then value itself was simply a function of the human mind. And that meant that the concept of “value” then is reduced to the subjective likes and dislikes of a person. Warren likened it to “liking or not liking spinach” (Warren-Flew, p. 15). This means that according to Flew’s answer, he was unfortunately taking the position that when men approve of something or disapprove of something, that in saying it is “right” or “wrong” they are simply expressing their likes and dislikes. In Philosophy, that view is described as “the emotive theory” of ethics.

Of course, since Sam Harris is here either by creation or evolution, and since he asserts that he (as well as the rest of us) is here via evolution, he has no basis upon which to dignify the concept of “value” or “morality” that gives it the objective meaning or status that he wants it so desperately in his book to entail. He wants so badly to argue for some kind of “objective” ethics based on some things that humans have in common which tend toward general human well-being. But all of his argumentation amounts to nothing when one considers that “value” is simply an invention of the human mind per evolutionary theory. And that means that “morality” is a merely human invention, too. So regardless what Sam Harris’ thesis is as to how to go about establishing a good evolutionary ethic, it all amounts to the fact that Sam Harris is simply providing us via his book with his own personal wish for the world as he would like it to be. But that is as high a standing in “value” as his thesis can acquire. It represents Sam’s effort at getting his way because the world as he envisions it is the world he wants. It is made up of things he likes. And it is true that a lot of what he likes, others like, too. But that is no basis of morality. And Harris even admits that a view is not established as true by its numerical support. Hear him:

“Does a lone psychotic become sane merely by attracting a crowd of devotees? If we are measuring sanity in terms of sheer numbers of subscribers, then atheists and agnostics in the United States must be delusional: a diagnosis which would impugn 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences” (Landscape, 157, 158).

So, while on the one hand Harris recognizes that any particular viewpoint is not established as actually true simply by counting the number of people who support it, yet on the other hand he does argue for a theory of ethics which is based on the overall well-being of or happiness of “the greatest number of people” (Landscape, 28 ). So, regarding ethical theory, numbers do count after all! This is just one of many incoherencies in the development of his thesis.

Thus, basing ethics on the well-being of the greatest number, Harris is ethically a “utilitarian.” Regarding the question of God’s existence, he is an atheist. In fact, he is an atheistic neuroscientist whose view is that science and religion are antagonistic (158-176). They cannot be reconciled. Regarding politics, he says he is a liberal (90), and concerning his origin and nature, he is a self proclaimed ape (2, 114). I am not making this up! He does have a doctoral degree, however, but how impressive should that be among apes? So, the book is the product of an atheistic ape who is attempting to tell the rest of us apes how science, a discipline invented by apes, can help apes live happier lives. Are you following this?

Now, let us get back to the massive wall over which Harris attempts to climb in his effort to establish a science of morality. He does not accept the conclusion of the famous Scottish skeptic, David Hume, who pointed out many years ago that no one can get “ought” from “is.” And to attempt to do so is to commit what has come to be called the “naturalistic fallacy.” Harris thinks that Hume was simply wrong (38). He contends that there is a way for science (which describes to us what our world is) to tell us something of how we ought to act in it. But, we respond, it is just not possible!

Several years before he met Warren in public debate, the then atheist Antony G. N. Flew wrote a little book entitled Evolutionary Ethics. It was published in 1967, and he debated Warren in 1976. In his book, Flew affirmed that one simply could not get from “is” to “ought” in an evolutionary world. He sided with Hume. Flew quoted from Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature:

“In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with I have always remarked that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence….” (Evolutionary, 38).

According to Flew, Hume took the position that “value” was a projection of the human mind onto the things that are being valued. Rather than value existing in the thing itself, value was the position or status granted it by the mind. Mind gave value to the thing rather than the thing’s having a value that presented itself to the mind. This, of course, meant that “value” was not objective. Value was not a characteristic of the thing but rather a propulsion of the mind onto the thing. Mind created value. Flew described Hume’s view as being,

“that values are not any sort of property of things in themselves, but that they are in some way a projection out on to the things around us of human needs and human desires. (One resulting problem, more obvious perhaps to us than to Hume, is that of explaining how values can be in some such fundamental way dependent on, and some sort of function of, human needs and human desires, without its thereby becoming the case that some purely descriptive statements about what people do want or would want must entail consequences about what ought to be” (Evolutionary, 39).

And let it be noted that between 1967 and 1976, Flew had not found the answer to that problem! He recognized a great philosophical difficulty for evolutionary theory and ethics. And he never reconciled the two. He saw the problem; he had no answer.

In his third affirmative speech on Monday night of his debate with Warren, Flew said with regard to value: “I can not give a complete account of the nature of value and particularly of moral value, which I regard as even halfway satisfactory…The general line I want to take, as I think all humanists do, is that value is somehow—somehow—a function of human desires, human wishes, and so on…” (Warren-Flew, 43).

Flew went on to suggest that moral value was somewhat like the market value of a 1974 Volkswagen Beetle, and he maintained the likeness throughout the discussion (43, 184, 201). Flew maintained this likeness because he thought it illustrated to him how that moral value (1) was on the one hand a product of human desire—someone’s interest in buying a Volkswagen, and yet (2) on the other hand, the price was not determined simply by any one person’s desire. A man couldn’t buy a 1974 Volkswagen for a price that his desire set or determined. The market price decided what the man must pay.

But in is fourth affirmative on Thursday night, Warren responded:

“But I have a question for Dr. Flew along that line: if the Volkswagen is worth $500.00 at one place and $1,000.00 at another place, how is the actual or real value of the car to be decided? Or, does it have any real value? Now, if your illustration is worth anything at all, it will have to have some real value, or else you will have to say that no human being has any real value, and you will have joined the Nazis in a thorough-going way to say that the Jewish people did not have any real value (only a market value that might fluctuate up and down and therefore would be worth nothing under the regime of the Nazis). Dr. Flew, you ought to think those illustrations through before you give them” (Warren-Flew, 186, 187).

Flew responded in his fourth negative that night, “I hope that I did not confuse people about this. Of course I do not think that moral value is in all respects like market value. One terribly important dissimilarity is precisely that market value does vary very freely with a place and time” (Warren-Flew, 201). Flew simply reiterated his point that at least the illustration presented a situation in which value was the product of human desire and yet one man’s desire did not determine what the value of the car would be. However, he was stuck with an illustration that, if like moral value, allowed for a relativistic view of ethics.

The sad thing is that Sam Harris concedes the whole point that, granted evolutionary theory as the accurate explanation for the arrival of the human species, we are stuck with evolutionary value. That is, we are in a situation such that moral values can change! So, on the one hand Harris says that “morality can be linked directly to facts about the happiness and suffering of conscious creations” (Landscape, 64); on the other hand he grants that what makes conscious creatures happy will not necessarily remain the same (84). And, of course, he has no way of countering Flew’s contention that science alone cannot tell us that what humans do, in fact, currently desire is what they ought to desire.

So, it is clear that, given evolution, there can be no such thing as “objective” ethics or, to put it another way, there can be no such thing as an act that is intrinsically good (that is, good in and of itself) or an act that is intrinsically evil. And yet Harris, while admitting this, continues to attempt to establish an evolutionary ethic. In fact, Harris concedes that, given evolutionary theory, it is possible that the science of morality may eventuate into perhaps a contradictory kind of morality so that what is now seen as good could be later viewed otherwise. Listen to Harris:

“But what if advances in neuroscience eventually allow us to change the way every brain responds to morally relevant experiences? What if we could program the entire species to hate fairness, to admire cheating, to love cruelty, to despise compassion, etc. Would this be morally good? Again, the devil is in the details. Is this really a world of equivalent and genuine well- being, where the concept of ‘well-being’ is susceptible to ongoing examination and refinements as it is in our world? If so, so be it. What could be more important than genuine well-being?” (Landscape, 84).

Wow! Per Harris, if it turns out that current good is eventual evil and that current evil is eventual good, so be it! Of course, whether current or eventual, his ethical utilitarian theory is that if most people gain happiness by an act, that act is “good.” So, even now (much less later), if a majority of people would gain overall well-being and happiness from an act that gets rid of the minority, such would be good! Flew had no way of overcoming this objection to his concept of ethics; Harris has no answer either. Harris says that if the brain can be changed to look at ethics differently, that is the way that it will be. “The devil is in the details,” he says. No, the devil is behind the very idea of trying to justify ethics without God!

Of course, Harris goes on to express the view that a radical change in the way that we currently look at ethics is not likely to happen, but the fact that he allows for this is a tremendous insight into his theory of ethics. He is advocating “relative” ethics rather than “absolute” ethics, and by his imagination, he has treated us to his view that that is the nature of ethics. And that means that there is no such thing as an absolutely good act or an absolutely bad act! Consider the following:

  • T/F 1. An act is intrinsically good or evil in and of itself (Sam Harris says “False” because an act is only “good” if it contributes to the overall well-being of the majority of the people).
  • T/F 2. The Nazi killing of the Jews in World War II was an intrinsically evil act. (Sam Harris would have to say “False” since no act to him is an intrinsically evil act. And there are conceivably circumstances in which the annihilation of the Jews would contribute to the happiness or over all well-being of a majority of people in a nation or in the world).

Consider that Harris in a footnote bemoans the current standing of atheists in American society. He claims that “atheists are the most stigmatized minority in the United States—beyond homosexuals, African Americans, Jews, Muslims, Asians, or any other group” (Landscape, 234, 235). Then, I humbly ask, is it conceivable that we could reach a moment in our history in which the killing of atheists (on the grounds that they are atheists) would be acceptable ethical practice if the majority of Americans and/or the majority of all men deemed that the happiness of most men would be enhanced? According to the basis of Harris’ concept of ethics, neither he nor any other man would be able to pronounce such killing at such time as intrinsic evil! In fact, according to “utilitarian” ethics, such killing would be the right thing to do!

But now, consider the following statement from Harris: “I believe that we will increasingly understand good and evil, right and wrong, in scientific terms, because moral concerns translate into facts about how our thoughts and behaviors affect the well-being of conscious creatures like ourselves” (Landscape, 62). Now, regarding the quotation please notice the following:

  • Sam expects more of us in the future to accept the concept of good and evil as a scientific matter.
  • There are no moral concerns outside the realm of facts (which to Sam must be empirical).
  • Our thoughts and behaviors are determined by empirical facts only.
  • We are conscious creatures.
  • Sam believes this.

Now, dear reader, what you need to see at this point is that the above affirmations are reducible to the last one: Sam said, “I believe that….” We could give attention to each part of the quotation, but such is not necessary because of the relationship that Sam Harris has to the claims. Who believes the assertions? Sam Harris says that he does. Well, who is Sam Harris? And amazingly throughout the book he writes (1) as though a real person named Sam Harris exists who is, in some way, ontologically distinguishable from mere matter while all the time (2) attempting to convince us that neither Sam Harris nor any of the readers actually exists! Do you think that I have simply misread Sam Harris? Follow closely.

To assert that men are simply instances of conscious matter is incredibly self-contradictory. “Consciousness” is not a material property! It is not simply an empirical characteristic of anything. And consciousness has never been found in science (or anywhere else) capable of expressing itself without rationality. Apes have feelings, but apes cannot articulate those feelings in language. And language requires thought. Consciousness cannot express itself without thought. Animal life can express itself by mere animation (movement). But consciousness to express itself beyond movement requires thinking.

But, Sam Harris claims that all thoughts are merely and exhaustively empirically driven or produced. In other words, Sam attributes human thought completely to the human brain! And the brain is simply conscious matter. There is no “real” person attending the brain. The brain, according to Sam Harris, is an unattended physical organ that produces the “mind” with its thoughts and intentions! Furthermore, he (Sam Harris) as a neuroscientist studies the brain, and having studied the brain a lot (to the reception of a doctoral degree), he is now in position to tell us that there is no real Sam Harris! Furthermore, anyone reading his book needs to read it while recognizing that not only is Sam Harris nonexistent, but that the reader is equally ontologically unavailable! And all the while this conceptual and linguistic joke is carried on as though it has real scientific merit. Listen to Sam:

“Your ‘self’ seems to stand at the intersection of these lines of input and output. From this point of view, you tend to feel that you are the source of your own thoughts and actions. You decide what to do and not to do. You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. As we will see, however, this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain” (Landscape, 102).

Again, “All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion” (Landscape, 103). Again, “From the perspective of your conscious mind, you are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world” (Landscape, 104). Sam claims that “thoughts arise (what else could they do?) unauthored and yet author to our actions” (Landscape, 105).

Dear reader, can you (and I mean the real YOU) believe it? You may ask, “Well, if no one is responsible for his own thoughts, then who is doing the thinking? Sam would have “us” to believe that the brain is the thinker! Per Sam Harris, the brain produces what “we” think of as the mind and its thoughts. “Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc. are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world” (Landscape, 105).

So, there you have it. It is not simply true that the real, personal, spiritual, metaphysical, ontologically distinguishable, Sam Harris has disappeared, but that, according to Sam Harris (whoever that is), there has never been a Sam Harris. But still, “we” have to account for Sam’s thoughts. Well, that is attributed to “Sam’s” brain. Sam is claiming that he is brain. He is conscious matter. But the conscious matter is not personally attended. It is still matter only that somehow in evolution reached a level of consciousness. And now at that level of consciousness, the brain all alone and unattended produces thoughts which express themselves at times in actions.

Dear reader, can you believe such? Of course, it never dawned on Sam that as he was writing his book and trying to inform us all that “we” do not exist but rather that our “brains” are the existent empirical entities that alone are responsible for our thoughts, that he was at cross purposes with himself. First consider the following:

  • T/F 1. I, Sam Harris, am a person ontologically (in the nature of being) distinguishable from my material body (Sam says “False). Per Harris, there is no immortal soul (Landscape, 110).
  • T/F 2. I, Sam Harris, am my brain and body, and my brain is physically distinguishable from the rest of my body (Sam would say True).
  • T/F 3. While I, Sam Harris, am composed of brain and body, it is “my” brain that is responsible for all my thoughts and intentions. (Sam says True).

Now, dear reader, please look at #3 again. The word “my” is placed in quotations because the sentence is written as though Sam somehow exists apart from body and brain, but according to Sam, he clearly does not. Furthermore, he writes this way throughout his book. He writes as though he has a real metaphysical status and that his readers have an actual metaphysical status while all the time attacking the very concept of anyone’s having real metaphysical status.

Please consider the difficulties that one faces when attempting to deny himself (that he actually has a metaphysical existence). Consider the following statement:

I, Sam Harris, deny myself.

The sentence makes sense in that it is pieced together with words each of which has meaning, and the whole of the arrangement seems to be stating a complete thought. However, the sentence does not make sense conceptually. For example, when we consider what is being affirmed and what is being denied, we must face the fact that either (1) the “I” (whoever it is) has to exist in order to make the denial of oneself, or (2) the “myself” has to exist in some sense in order to be denied. So the “I” must be here as denier or the “myself” must be here as the one to be denied. If one says, well, the answer is that the “myself” is not here for it is the very thing being denied, so far so good, it would seem. However, the denial itself must be attached to the “I” in order for the denial to be made. The brute fact is that there is no denial being made at all if someone is not making the denial and neither is someone being denied.

Furthermore, since Harris denies that he exists as an “immortal soul,” then let us consider a further difficulty. When he says that he does not exist, we then face the following possibilities. It is either the case that:

(1) a soul is denying itself; or

(2) a soul is denying its body (including brain); or

(3) a brain is denying its soul; or

(4) a brain is denying its body (including itself).

Since Harris denies having a soul, obviously then he cannot be meaning either (1) or (2). A soul cannot be doing anything since it simply is not there. So he cannot possibly be meaning that a soul is either the “one” (a metaphysical being) denying self or denying its body. So (1) and (2) are out of the issue. If it is then suggested that Sam means (3), that would mean then that a brain would be denying its soul. But since, per Harris, a brain has no soul, how could and why would a brain do that? How can a merely physical organ deny an ontological attachment to a metaphysical entity? A gall bladder can’t do that, nor a liver, nor a lung, nor a physical heart, etc. How is it possible for a merely physical organ, derived from an evolutionary background to go into the negative in describing its own nature? Can an empirical entity create the metaphysical category only to deny that it has any occupancy? And by the way, how would a mere brain know that anyone had ever accused it of having any attachment to a metaphysical entity in the first place? Such would be absolutely absurd!

Either a brain is not a purely physical organ (this, Sam as an evolutionist would deny), or it must be in some way connected to a metaphysical entity that is utilizing it in denying whatever it is that is being denied!

Harris has a personally unattended brain saying that it has no association with or connection to a soul. And, per Harris, the brain’s thoughts are not metaphysical constructs but rather are physiologically driven. Thoughts are the products of the mind which is the product of the brain. Thoughts, anyway, are simply like gas that has escaped the brain. We might say that his view more or less means that a brain merely “erupts” into thoughts. There is no purpose to them nor design for them. They are random secretions for which no person whatever is responsible!

Remember, he has told that “the conscious mind cannot be the source of its own thought and intentions” (Landscape, 216). And furthermore, he says, “Am I free to change my mind? Of course not. It can only change me” (Landscape, 104).

And that leaves us with (4): a brain is denying its body (including itself). When Sam Harris claims that he does not exist, he must be telling us that he as a brain is denying that the brain is there (with its body or that the body is there with its brain). But we know that Sam can’t mean to be suggesting (4) because that would mean that the brain is denying itself. And Sam in the book is quite insistent to claim that it is only the brain (with accompanying physical body) that does exist, and that the brain alone is “responsible” for thinking! Each of the four theoretical possibilities is thus eliminated from what Sam could actually be meaningfully saying. Regardless what with his incongruent combination of language and concepts he is attempting to do, the elimination of each possibility shows us that no one can rationally deny himself! And yet the ethic proposal that Sam proposes in his book is grounded in this irrational attempt!

But all the way through his book, Sam is taking the brain as being there and the metaphysical soul as not. He writes, “It seems to be that few concepts have offered greater scope for human cruelty than the idea of an immortal soul that stands independent of all material influences, ranging from genes to economic systems” (Landscape, 110). First, let it be said that without that immortal soul Sam can’t be rationally calling in question the existence of anything, much less himself! Dirt can’t deny the existence of dirt! Apes can’t deny the existence of apes, and they can’t even try.

Only metaphysical entities attached to empirical substance or form or bodies can have the capacity on this earth to deny one or the other of their conceptually distinguishable natures (physical or metaphysical). A purely physical entity has no ontological capacity to deny anything. Only a metaphysical entity has capacity to affirm and deny. Second, Sam is critical of the existence of any independent immortal soul that is not under the influence of “material influences.” But let it be said just here that we theists recognize that the mind or soul currently utilizes the brain. And any damage to the brain certainly can have a significant effect on the mind and its capacity to think. If the brain is the organ that the mind uses (as opposed to the liver, gall bladder, etc.), then any damage to the brain can certainly affect what the mind can or cannot currently accomplish. No one denies this that I know. But that is certainly not the same thing as to claim that there is no metaphysical mind as is proven by the fact that brain study has determined that a damaged brain affects thinking.

Sam Harris has studied the human brain a lot. But Sam has drawn some conclusions regarding human nature, the nature of truth, and the nature of morality that simply cannot be rightly deduced from that study. His denial of himself cannot “square” with his empirical investigation of the human brain. Someone is doing that study. But according to Sam it is merely one brain looking at another brain, and when thoughts are produced, they are unauthored by a person and no person is responsible for them. Notice the following:

  • T/F 1. Sam Harris as a metaphysical soul within a physical body is responsible for his book. (Sam says False).
  • T/F 2. Each reader of Sam’s book is a metaphysical soul within a physical body who is responsible for what he does with Sam’s book (Sam says False).
  • T/F 3. Sam Harris’ brain is alone responsible for Sam’s thoughts which in an “unauthored” way has provided us with Sam’s book (Sam tries to justify this as True though it is a self-contradictory affirmation).
  • T/F 4. Some unidentified brain produced the mind which produced the thoughts which produced the book called The Moral Landscape, attributed to Sam Harris as author (According to Harris’ argumentation as to the nature of man [he is a completely physical entity], this would be True).
  • T/F 5. The “people” who “read” Sam’s book are actually (according to Sam’s view of human nature) only other unidentified brains that produce minds which produce thoughts which produce action, so that only unidentified brains are “responsible” for minds allegedly produced by them (True, if Sam Harris’ view of human nature is correct).

A conscious mind cannot be held responsible, Sam tells us (Landscape, 216). Furthermore, he says that our thoughts are not even “authored.” Remember, he has told us that “…thoughts simply arise (what else could they do?) unauthored and yet author to our actions (Landscape, 105). On the cover of The Moral Landscape we find these words describing Sam Harris: “New York Times bestselling author of The End of Faith.” Therefore, even though Sam Harris is an “author” of books, he assures us that his thoughts have no author other than a personally unattended brain. Believe it who can! How can such drivel be allowed such publication and distribution for public consumption? It is as though Sam is telling us and trying to convince us that our situation is comparable to one computer communicating with other computers, telling them how they ought to act. And there is no “one” in the picture except computers. There is no “mind” behind the brain which uses the brain. There is no Maker of the mind but Sam knows that there can only be a computer and correspondence carried on between computers if someone made the computers and if someone uses the computers. But irrationally, Sam contends the situation is otherwise for the, according to him, evolutionarily developed human species!

Curiously, and without any evidence to support his theory, Harris attributes all thought to a physical organ that is metaphysically unattended, and Sam Harris intellectually attacks any concept of personal moral responsibility! Somehow our moral world is going to be improved when we all face up to what this neuroscientist is telling us: No real person is responsible for anything. Only a brain is! Remember, Harris contends that a “person” is no more responsible for his thoughts and actions than he is for being born into this world (Landscape, 104). As it turns out, given the explanation of the human situation according to Sam Harris, ethics has nothing whatever to do with personal responsibility! Now, there is your ape morality! And mixing such absolute fiction with some sort of “moral guidance” direction for the further development of the human species cannot save it from its on self-destruction.

There are many more very serious mistakes made in the book, The Moral Landscape. But we will not go into the exposure of every wrong turn that Sam took in arriving at his current confusion and explanation regarding morality. Once we see how the foundation for the theory (that science can determine human values) is based on such ontological self-contradiction, we see that everything else to be discussed is peripheral and secondary.

The very idea of a self-styled ape trying to convince other alleged apes how to live is laughable. And while I do sympathize with Sam in his horror over evil done in the name of religion, I cannot sympathize with him in a solution that embodies such incoherence and self-contradiction. And who among us can accurately apprise the misery caused in this nation already over the pseudo-scientific advocacy of organic evolution in its expression of current immorality? Sam incoherently warns us against self-deception (Landscape, 163, 176), all the while assuring us that there is no actual ontological “self” to be deceived! Such confusion is no help in trying to contribute to a better world.

It Is Only My Brain Talking

He said to me that he is not here.
“Who is not here?” I replied.
“Me,” he said as if unaware
That his denial had just been denied!

“If you are not here,” my inquiry began,
“To whom shall I make my reply?”
Someone responded (and I’m not really sure who),
“Me,” without blinking an eye.

“But how can I talk to you when you’re not here?”
“It is merely my brain,” he said with a smile.
“But how can that be?” I asked in response.
He said, “It’s been that way all the while.”

“Your brain? I asked with a skeptical look.
How can that possibly be?
The brain cannot be ‘your’ brain at all
For you just told me that the brain had no ‘me!’”

“There is no ‘my’ brain,” I tried to point out,
Not sure that he at all apprehended.
“If you are not here, the brain is not ‘yours.’
Indeed, the brain is completely unattended.”

Posted in Baptism, Doctrine

A Brief Response To Massive Confusion

Posted on by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

The reader may be aware that not long ago I wrote a lengthy article exposing an unsound syllogism that had been written, the writer of which was trying to falsify our contention regarding what happens when a sinner is baptized into Christ. The article was entitled, “Who Is Added To the Church—Saint or Sinner?” The syllogism had been written by Daniel Denham whose name I did not call in the article. However, now he has placed a brief statement on Facebook which I have been sent. According to Denham, my whole article “can be falsified with one simple question. Mac Deaver, when an accountable person receives the remission of sins in baptism is he at that point saved or lost?” Then he goes on and refers to the law of excluded middle, showing that the man is either saved or lost, one or the other. My response: of course!

Denham’s confusion is apparent. He thinks that my article indicates that I would have trouble answering the question. Hardly! In baptism, when a person’s sins are forgiven, he is at that moment saved from those sins! But the problem is that Denham assumes (without proof) that the remission of sins is the same thing as entry into the kingdom. And this is where he is wrong!

Remission of sins is one thing; entry into the kingdom is another. And according to the Lord, entry demands not only immersion in water for remission of sins, but immersion in Spirit as well (John 3:3-5). So, again I raise the question, “Who does the Lord add to the church?” Denham is already on record as implying that the Lord adds a sinner to the church so that the sinner can now “in Christ” receive the spiritual blessing of the remission of his sins! In other words, Denham has taken the position that requires the sinner to bring sins into the kingdom so that while in the kingdom he can receive the remission of those sins! And he incredibly thinks that his one question somehow destroys the force of my article. Amazing! Consider:

  • T/F 1. The Lord adds a sinner to the church (False). It is false because one has to be forgiven in order to be added to the church (cf. Acts 2:47). Denham is already on record as declaring that one must be in Christ in order for his sins to be remitted. He implies that a sinner must bring his sins into the kingdom, and then while being in the kingdom, he receives the spiritual blessing of forgiveness per his wrong understanding of Ephesians 1:3, 7. So, Denham has the Lord adding sinners to the church in order to be make saints out of them after they have been added to the church! Why must they bring their sins with them into the church? Because forgiveness is a spiritual blessing, and it is only granted to those who are members of the church (according to Denham’s wrong view of Ephesians 1:3, 7).
  • T/F 2. The Lord adds a saint to the church (True). Only the saved are added to the rest of the saved (Acts 2:47). Sinners must become saints before they can enter. They must be born of both water and Spirit, and not just water (John 3:3-5). Kingdom entry entails being born of both water and the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). Water only is not enough.
  • T/F 3. The Lord adds both saints and sinners to the church (False). Obvious! If sinners could enter the church as sinners, then there would be no point in their becoming saints. God is in the church and the devil is in the world, and the world cannot enter the church while still existing as the world (1 John 4:4; 5:19; Acts 2:47)!
  • T/F 4. The Lord adds neither saints nor sinners to the church (False). Since a church exists, somebody has entered it.

Denham’s confusion centers on his assumption that forgiveness equals entry. And his assumption is false. If his assumption were true that all cases of forgiveness granted in association with water baptism and based on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ equaled kingdom entry at that moment, then that would imply that all of John’s disciples including the apostles would have entered the kingdom ten days before Pentecost of Acts 2. Why would the implication follow? It would follow because all of those disciples were baptized in water for the remission of their sins (Mark 1:4; Matt. 3:11), and the Lord died for them, was buried for them, and was raised for them, and remained on the earth 40 days following his resurrection. The forgiveness of their sins was granted ten days prior to Pentecost! And yet they did not enter the kingdom until they were immersed in the Holy Spirit ten days following the Lord’s ascension (Acts 2:1-4). But, if Denham’s assumption that forgiveness equals kingdom entry is accurate, then these disciples entered the kingdom ten days prior to Pentecost! The fact is that the kingdom’s actual coming was identified by the empirical miraculous power that verified the presence of the Holy Spirit (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8).

According to Paul in Romans 6:3-4, a person is baptized into Christ Jesus. He is not baptized in Christ. If he were baptized in Christ that would mean that his baptism took place while the man was already in Christ. And this is the Baptist position on baptism! Paul does not teach that, but Denham by implication does. Given his confusion on Ephesians 1:3, we face the following:

  • T/F 1. Every spiritual blessing is in the church of Christ (True per Denham).
  • T/F 2. Initial forgiveness of sins is a spiritual blessing (True per Denham).
  • T/F 3. Initial forgiveness of sins is found only in the church of Christ (True per Denham).
  • T/F 4. One must be in the church of Christ in order to receive this remission of sins (True per Denham).
  • T/F 5. One then must be in the church of Christ prior to the remission of his sins (True per Denham).
  • T/F 6. Remission of sins is granted only to those who are already in the church of Christ (True per Denham).

Does the reader detect a problem? Unlike Denham, Paul teaches that through baptism one is forgiven first and then the forgiven party is regenerated and indwelled by the Spirit so that the party can arise to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4). It is certainly true that by means of baptism one enters Christ. But the problem for Denham is that he can’t see that the sinner cannot be added to the church while a sinner; rather, the forgiven party must then be regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit, and recognized as a son (Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 4:6). Then, based on this recognition as a child of God, God moves the Holy Spirit to within the heart of that child (Gal. 4:6). Only his children are added to the church. So again, which is it, Denham? Does God add sinner or saint to the church? All of us ought to know that we cannot enter Christ (the spiritual body of Christ, or, the church of Christ) as sinners. But we also need to know that forgiveness does not by itself equal kingdom entry. Kingdom entry requires not only the water of forgiveness but the regeneration of the Holy Spirit so that we become partakers of the divine nature (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:5-6; 2 Pet. 1:4)! In baptism the Holy Spirit enters the body of the forgiven party, regenerates the human Spirit, and moves into that spirit (or, heart) to indwell (Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 4:6).

The man who is baptized into the death of Christ is the sinner who needs forgiveness for his sins by means of the Lord’s death (Rev. 1:5). The man who arises to walk in newness of life is the saint who, because of his forgiveness and regeneration is now a child of God. The saint is the one who now arises to walk in newness of life with the Holy Spirit in his heart as God’s own pledge of heaven to come (Eph. 1:13-14). The sinner was forgiven and the saved man was then added to the church! Consider:

  • T/F 1. The sinner is baptized into the death of Christ in order to receive remission of his sins (True).
  • T/F 2. The saint is baptized into the death of Christ in order to receive remission of his sins (False).

If #1 were false then no sinner can be saved by water baptism. If #2 were true, it would mean that saints (those persons already forgiven) would have no sins to be forgiven.

  • T/F 1. The sinner arises to walk in newness of life (False).
  • T/F 2. The saint arises to walk in newness of life (True).

If #1 were true, then forgiveness is not granted in water baptism (and that would mean that water baptism is not for the remission of sins!) and the sinner arises still in his sins. If #2 were false, then the sinner does arise to walk in newness of life while still in his sins. So, just as the Bible teaches, while under the water the sinner is forgiven of his sins. The forgiven party (Acts 2:38) is then regenerated (Titus 3:5-6 —being made partaker of the divine nature— 2 Pet. 1:4), recognized by God as a son, then indwelled by the Spirit who moves to within his heart (Gal. 4:6). The child of God then arises to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4). Denham cannot answer correctly the question, “Who does the Lord add to the church—sinner or saint?” without contradicting his position on Ephesians 1:3!

Posted in Doctrine, Instrumental Music, Worship

The Instrumental Music Question, From Another Angle

Posted on 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.

Posted in Doctrine, Salvation

Who Is Added To the Church–Saint or Sinner?

Posted on by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

For several years we have maintained that in order for a person to enter the church, several things must occur. Most of us are very familiar with the plan of salvation or the steps of obedience, so that we are clear on the fact that one must move from personal faith to repentance to confession of his faith and then to baptism. We have believed and taught this developmental procedure for years and years. And we have been correct.

But there is another procedural point that is not at times rightly comprehended because insufficient thought has been given to it, and that is that sinners must become saints before they can enter the kingdom. Now why is this so? It is so because it is either the case that (1) the Lord adds sinners to the church or (2) the Lord adds saints to the church. And to get the matter straight in our heads, we have got to comprehend when forgiveness transpires. Furthermore, we need to know just who it is that God forgives in the act of conversion. God either forgives (1) the sinner, or he forgives (2) the saint. Whom does he forgive?

I have explained both in book and in public debate that in the process of conversion, a person is forgiven of his sins (Acts 2:38), then he is regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5, 6), and then he is indwelled by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 4:6), and then he arises to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3, 4). This is the chronologically correct conceptual order and actual event order. Now, to be sure, the forgiveness, regeneration, and indwelling, all take place within the blink of an eye. And they all take place while the human body is under the water! Following these conceptually distinctive events, the baptized person is then lifted up. He breaks the surface of the water, but by that time, he is already a forgiven, regenerated, indwelled Christian. He arises to walk in newness of life. This is the essential conceptual and actual event order in the process of conversion as it entails the momentary transition from sinner status to saint status. Scripture makes it plain that this order cannot be gainsaid. When one attempts to change the sequence of events in the process, he faces doctrinal implications that are incoherent regarding the nature of salvation.

Let us make this inquiry as simple as we can. Let us, then, imagine an alien sinner responding to the gospel invitation, stating his desire to become a Christian. Based on his repentance and now on his having-been-taken confession of faith, he withdraws to the dressing room, from which he then enters the baptistery. Who walks into the baptistery? A sinner or a saint? Unlike most denominationalists, we in the churches of Christ have for years correctly defended the view that a sinner enters the water (Acts 22:16)! Faith alone cannot save (John 1:11, 12); faith with repentance alone cannot save (Acts 2:37, 38), and the confession must be followed by baptism in order for it to contribute to salvation (Rom. 10:9, 10; 1 Tim. 6:12; Rom. 6:3, 4).

Now, the baptizer and the alien sinner stand in the water before the audience. The sinner is then lowered (immersed) in the water. What happens while he is under the water? The first thing that happens is that God forgives the man, and that forgiveness takes place in the mind of God. God no longer counts the man a sinner! Since he has done everything that the New Testament requires of him to become a child of God, God now grants that much desired forgiveness (Acts 2:38; 22:16). The human spirit is now clean (Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22). Second, God regenerates that human spirit since it is now forgiven of all sin. This means that the Holy Spirit actually and personally and directly contacts the human spirit and changes its nature! The human spirit is revitalized; it is given spiritual life (Tit. 3:5, 6). Its nature is now altered (2 Pet. 1:4). Now, why must regeneration follow forgiveness? It must follow instead of precede because if the alien sinner were still in his sins, then God would be giving spiritual life to one who remained guilty of his sins. Any sinner must be forgiven before he can be granted spiritual life! If someone objects to the Holy Spirit’s being placed within the body of the baptized person in order to regenerate the spirit of that person, he must remember that the Holy Spirit is being given to a forgiven person! At this point of the process, the Spirit is within the body but outside the spirit of the person. He works from the outside of the human spirit or heart to regenerate it. Why? Because the nature of the forgiven person must be changed before the Spirit can take up his permanent abode! But if someone objects and says: “Yes, but Mac is saying that the Holy Spirit is within the body of a person not yet in the kingdom,” my response would be that (1) certainly he is within the body of a person not yet in the kingdom, but (2) he is in the body of the person who is about to enter the kingdom and who is under the water, and (3) he is in the body of the person who stands already forgiven!

Then, following the forgiveness and regeneration, the Holy Spirit moves to within the spirit or heart of the person who is immersed in water. How do we know that this act takes place at this time? We know it because Paul tells us. “And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6). Paul doesn’t simply state that the Spirit moved to within our bodies, but into our hearts. And he cannot take up his abode in an unholy place. His “abiding” in this permanent location is the indwelling of the Spirit, which takes up his abode for holy purposes (Rom. 8:9-11; cf. 1 Thess. 4:1-8; Gal. 5:22-24; Eph. 1:13, 14; 1 Cor. 6:12-20).

Now, as proven in our book, Except One Be Born From Above, the water in baptism is for the remission of sins. John’s baptism was water baptism, and it was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). But water baptism alone could not and did not ever put one into the kingdom. This is what Jesus was telling Nicodemus. It is likely that Nicodemus himself had already received John’s baptism, but whether he had or had not, the Lord made it clear that water baptism alone could not secure entry into the kingdom (John 3:3-5). But another point that we have often overlooked is that the continuation of the fact that water alone as continued under the “great commission” assignment could not provide entry into the kingdom any more than it could during the days of John’s ministry. As I explained in tedious detail in our book, this is what Luke is telling us in Acts 8:12-17 and in Acts 19:1-7. Water alone never put anyone into the kingdom even under the “great commission” assignment given the apostles! Water, in the story of redemption, has always been for the remission of sins (of course, in the sense of a stipulated requirement). But it has never been by itself a way into the kingdom. It has been a requirement of the gospel because only forgiven people can enter the kingdom!

Now, let us seriously consider Acts 2:47. “…And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved.” The KJV has “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Actually the word “church” is not in the Greek text. But clearly, somebody was being added to something or to somebody else. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Marshall puts it, “And the Lord added the [ones] being saved from day to day together.” The words “being saved” come from an accusative, plural, masculine, present, passive participle. The word “added” is a 3rd person, singular, imperfect, active verb. So, the verb indicates that at the time that Luke was recording the account, God had been adding together or placing together (and Luke says it was on a day by day basis) some people. Now who exactly were being placed together? The “being saved” ones. So, as sinners were being saved, they were being added to the rest of the saved. But the question with which we are now most interested is, “Were these people sinners or saints at the time that they were on a day by day basis being added together by the Lord?” Precisely, the question entails the following theoretical possibilities: That is (1) the Lord was adding together all saved people, or (2) he was adding together all lost people, or (3) he was adding together some lost people to already saved people, or (4) he was adding some saved people to already lost people. Now, dear reader, which is it? To a Bible student, the answer is obvious! The tense of the Greek verb by itself cannot answer this question. Dana and Mantey inform us that “…in dealing with the present tense we must consider not only the fundamental force of the tense, but also the meaning of the verb root, and the significance of the context” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p.181).

Now, we know that those referenced by Luke in Acts 2:47 were not being added to the church or to the rest of the saved prior to their own conversion. If the saved constituted the group to which others were added, obviously then those being added could only be more people who were being saved without destroying the nature of the group. This much should be certainly clear. But the point of controversy is the point at which the being-converted ones or the being-saved ones are precisely being added to the rest of the already-saved. We know that it happens while the person being baptized is still in the water. But we are attempting to point out that there is even more explanatory precision that is provided for us in the New Testament. Our concern just now is to locate the exact point at which the being-converted ones are being added to the rest of the saved. So, let us consider, in the light of Acts 2:47, some True-False questions:

  • T/F 1. God added forgiven sinners as sinners to the church. (False)
  • T/F 2. God added saved men as saved men to the church. (True)
  • T/F 3. God added neither sinners nor saved men to the church. (False)
  • T/F 4. God added both saved men and sinners to the church. (False)

The reader should have absolutely no trouble whatever in coming up with the correct answer to the above. So, now let us move on.

  • T/F 5. God added forgiven men who were not yet regenerated to the church. (False)
  • T/F 6. God added only regenerated men to the church. (True)
  • T/F 7. God added neither regenerated nor non-regenerated men to the church. (False)
  • T/F 8. God added both regenerated and non-regenerated men to the church. (False)

Is this hard? Surely, any member of the church ought to be able to answer all of the above with ease. If someone is not clear on the last set of questions, he should realize that to regenerate is to give life to, to make alive, to revitalize. It is not the same thing as forgiveness. That is why we know that regeneration follows (rather than precedes) forgiveness. If it preceded forgiveness, then we would face the absurd situation of a sinner’s being made spiritually alive while still in his sins! Most members of the church understand that in some situations there is the necessity of conceptual order (for example, faith must precede repentance, and repentance must precede baptism).

But just here and before proceeding with what happens while a person is in the water of baptism, let us go back for a moment and revisit the concept of a necessary sequential order in the plan of salvation before one enters the baptistery. And we see that it is not simply a conceptual order but it is a chronological order as well. That is, just as there is a conceptual order to the topics of faith, repentance, confession, and immersion in the life of any man who becomes a Christian, just so there is a time sequence in which each item must exist. I am reminded that years ago I received a phone call from a Baptist preacher whom I was about to engage in public debate. He assured me on the phone that when he said that we are saved by “faith only,” that he was including repentance! My, my! How convenient, but it is ludicrous. “Faith only” is not only faith if repentance is added to faith. Language cannot cover such misguided conceptual confusion. My opponent’s definition of his expression contradicted the words of the expression. If I were to claim that “baptism only” saves us but then added that by “baptism only” I mean to include faith and repentance, “baptism only” is not only baptism.

In his second negative of the Warren-Ballard Debate, brother Warren said regarding Ballard, “He said repentance and faith are joined together. Where is the Scripture that says it? Where is the Scripture that says repentance and faith are joined together?” (p. 44). Of course, there is none! The steps in the plan of salvation are not simultaneous steps. That is, since one can come to faith without yet repenting, we know that faith must come before repentance can occur (Acts 2:37, 38). And since one can arrive at faith and yet refuse to confess his faith, and since we know that one cannot rightly confess what he does not believe, we know that confession of faith follows the initiation of faith (John 12:42, 43). And since baptism transfers a person into Christ (Gal. 3:26, 27), we know that faith, repentance, and confession must precede baptism.

Now, let us get back to the baptistery and again focus on the conceptual distinctions and the chronological order of the sequence of events that transpires while the person being baptized is in the water. We have already determined that prior to the sinner’s entering the baptistery, (1) he has come to faith, (2) he has repented of his sins, and (3) he has confessed his faith. Now he steps down into the water, and someone (usually the preacher) then immerses him in that water. Now, regarding the most serious topic of salvation and kingdom entry, what is the order of spiritual events that transpires while the person being baptized is yet under the water (immersed in or submerged in that water)?

Is water baptism for or unto the remission of sins? Yes (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38). Can God regenerate or make spiritually alive a person who is yet dead in his sins while he is still in his sins and yet to be forgiven? No. Then, regeneration must follow forgiveness (Tit. 3:5, 6). So now we have the chronological order of (1) forgiveness of sins and then (2) regeneration. Now, notice that regeneration is changing the nature of the dead human spirit into a live human spirit by virtue of its having its nature changed. This is 2 Peter 1:4. While in the water, the baptized person’s nature is changed, so that now he is considered not only forgiven, but regenerated or revitalized by God’s Holy Spirit so that he is now at a higher level of association with God than his being in sin allowed him to be (See the discussion of this vital point in chapter 13 of our book, Except One Be Born From Above—especially look at the “Scale Of Connection” on page 218). Now, understand that it is the regeneration (which is what being born from above means) that makes one finally fit for the kingdom. It is the “regeneration” that belongs to the washing, that now causes God to consider this forgiven person as now finally his child! Forgiveness alone doesn’t make him a member of the church; it does not transfer him to the kingdom. It takes both the water of forgiveness and the regeneration of the human spirit by the Holy Spirit to make one fit for the kingdom! Read Titus 3:5-6 very carefully along with John 3:3-5.

In talking with Nicodemus, Jesus said that a person cannot enter the kingdom unless he is born of water and Spirit. If to be born of water is to be baptized in water, then it cannot be successfully gainsaid that to be born of Spirit is to be baptized in Spirit (See our book, pages 109-117, for a more thorough discussion of this point and for refutation of the suggestion that to be born of Spirit simply means to be baptized in harmony with the teaching of the Holy Spirit). And for the elaborated proof that water-only baptism has always been baptism into the name of Jesus only (and not into the names of the Father and Holy Spirit), see our book, chapter 1 (as well as pages 61-68).

Follow this carefully. It is at the point when a person (still being under the water) is not only forgiven but now has been regenerated in his spirit by the Holy Spirit of God, that God now sees that person as a spiritual child of his! That is the time at which God then, because he now recognizes him as no longer guilty and no longer dead, sees him as a son! Notice that Paul tells us specifically that God sends the Holy Spirit into the hearts of those whom he considers his children (Gal. 4:6). Please observe that God does not send the Holy Spirit into the hearts of (1) those not yet sons, (2) those not yet sons in order to make them sons, and not even (3) those not yet sons who are already forgiven! It is when a forgiven person is completely regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God (and, of course, while the person is still in the water), that God moves the Spirit from the outside of the heart to the inside of the heart as well. Now, not only does the Spirit enclose the heart, but it indwells the heart. I discuss this point in detail in our book to show why the idea that we are “in” Spirit is equally accurate to the expression the Spirit is “in” us. This is what makes it possible for the person under the water to arise to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3, 4; 2 Cor. 5:17)!

If someone objects to the foregoing and says that there is no detailed chronological order to the events that transpire while the person is under the water, he must face the numerous logical contradictions that his suggestion necessarily entails. If someone says that what we claim is false because we have a “forgiven” party not yet “regenerated,” and we have a “regenerated” party not yet in the kingdom, the first thing that we need say is that the not-yet-in the-kingdom-party is still in the water. And we are, after all, discussing the transition from sinner status to saint status! And secondly, we must remember that Jesus told us that the birth of water and Spirit was required in order for any man to enter the kingdom (John 3:3-5). Unless we are born both of water and Spirit, we cannot enter the kingdom! We can only enter by virtue of our being baptized in both water and Spirit. Read John 3:3-5 very, very carefully.

Now, we see the person being baptized in the baptistery. And we know that while his body is submerged in the water, that God forgives him. And we know that forgiveness alone is not enough to catapult him into the kingdom. But we do know that birth of water along with birth of Spirit can do that very thing. Thus, today when the believing penitent who has confessed his faith now has (1) a body under the water, and (2) a human spirit or heart regenerated by the Holy Spirit himself, having been dispatched to that person from Jesus Christ (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16), he satisfies the twofold requirement that the Lord gave Nicodemus. He is now born of water and Spirit, and just as the person’s body immersion is a baptism in water, just so his spirit or heart immersion is a baptism in Spirit!

If someone objects to the order of events as here described as occurring while a having-confessed, penitent believer is being baptized in water, and claims rather that everything happens simultaneously (forgiveness, regeneration, indwelling), then (1) he faces not only the logical contradictions that his denial implies, but (2) he contradicts the very notion of the essentiality of sequential events as described in Scripture.

Now let us consider one final point. One is either in the kingdom or out of the kingdom. Our discussion of what happens while a baptized person is under the water, helps us to see where the line is crossed from being outside the kingdom to being inside the kingdom. According to the Bible, since God can only add the saved to the rest of the saved (the church), a person has to be not only forgiven but regenerated. And today in every occurrence of kingdom entry, it is always at the point of regeneration that one is added to the church. [I have to say “today” because in the cases involving initial entry of the three major ethnic groups (Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles) into the kingdom in the first century era, there was a time lapse that occurred (1) between the time that some entered the water and the time in which they received the Spirit or (2) between the time in which they received the Spirit and the time in which they entered the water (see Mark 1:4 with Acts 2:1-4; Acts 8:12-17; Acts 10:44-48)]. Today every person who enters the kingdom enters the water first before he can receive the Spirit.

Following regeneration, the person is now a son into whose heart the Spirit then goes. So, notice the following conceptual stages: (1) forgiven, (2) regenerated by Holy Spirit, (3) identified as spiritual kinfolk (sons and daughters of God), so that we are then (4) indwelled by Holy Spirit. Since point (2) is the point at which our nature is changed, that is where we become the sons and daughters of God. Because we are his children, then, he sends the Spirit to abide in our hearts (Gal. 4:6).

So again, if objections come which claim that this makes no sense because we then face the fact that (1) a forgiven person is not yet in the kingdom, and (2) a regenerated person is not yet indwelled, and that (3) a son of God is recognized as a son without his having the indwelling Spirit within his heart, remember that all of these events take place in the blink of an eye while the baptized person’s body is under the water as he is being changed from sinner to saint. And the process is not over until each stage is reached. And the complete process is ever so quickly completed while one is still under the water! But conceptual distinctions must absolutely be observed. If we deny them, we wind up in conflict with the doctrine of salvation as explained in Scripture and have to face the logical contradictions that are by the denial implied.

To clarify, let us say again that (1) we are not added to the kingdom at the point of forgiveness because we have not yet at that point been immersed in Spirit. (2) We are then regenerated by the Holy Spirit, which regeneration constitutes the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (3) We are not yet added to the kingdom at the point of regeneration, but we have by this point been born of water and Spirit. The body is immersed in water and the human spirit is immersed in Holy Spirit. (4) Now we are added to the kingdom because as recognized children of God, God sends his Spirit into our hearts per Galatians 4:6. This encompassing Holy Spirit (surrounding my human spirit in regeneration) now moves to the inside of my heart. His now being within my heart constitutes the indwelling. It is now true that (1) a person is then “in Christ” and that (2) Christ is “in him” or, to say it differently but equally truthfully, that (1) a person is now “in Spirit” and (2) the Spirit is “in him.” And when a person is in Spirit and has the Spirit within him, he is in the kingdom (Rom. 8:9-11; Luke 17:20, 21). God only adds his spiritual children to the kingdom. He only adds saints (and not sinners) to the church!

If one attempts to deny the “process” of salvation (whether before the water or while one is under the water), he faces great difficulty. We have historically known about (1) the difficulties that denominationalists have faced when attempting to dismantle the logical steps in the plan of salvation or by combining concepts that cannot be joined (cf. Warren-Ballard Debate again). But what about (2) the difficulties that we face as brethren if we attempt to deny the process and the distinctions that the Bible makes as to the sequence of events that transpire while the baptized person is under the water? What if someone claims that there is no process so that everything takes place at once? What if all that occurs, occurs simultaneously? Well, let’s consider that.

If it is true that, while a person is being baptized in water, “everything takes place at once,” it either takes place inside the kingdom or outside the kingdom. Which is it? We know that the sinner entered the baptistery. Now if, while he is under the water, “everything takes place at once,” then let’s consider the first option. Let us say that he is forgiven, regenerated, recognized as a child of God, indwelled by God’s Spirit while he is still outside the kingdom. Is this possible? Is it possible for a forgiven, regenerated, recognized, and indwelled child of God to be outside the kingdom? NO! Why not? In the first place, it is “no” because only those who are in the kingdom (or church) can finally enter heaven, and the indwelling Spirit is the earnest of that inheritance (Eph. 1:13, 14), and in the second place, when a person is indwelled by the Spirit, that means that since the Spirit of Christ is now “in” him, the kingdom is “within” him (Luke 17:20, 21). Consider the chart:

While Under The Water
Remission of sins → Regeneration → Recognition → Residence

It is at the point of “Residence” that the Spirit resides within the heart of the forgiven, regenerated, and now recognized person! At the point of “Residence” we have (1) the person’s heart residing within the Holy Spirit, and (2) the Holy Spirit residing within the heart of that person. This is why Jesus could say that “the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20, 21), and Paul could say, “But ye are not in flesh but in Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9). On the chart the transition of the forgiven, regenerated, recognized party takes place as the person moves from “Recognition” to “Residence.” One is not in the kingdom until he reaches the point where he resides in Christ by residing in the Spirit of Christ and where Christ by his Spirit resides in that person!

Let’s try the second option. The person in the water, let us say, is forgiven, regenerated, recognized as a child of God, and indwelled by God’s Spirit, and all of this while he is inside the kingdom. But we all surely know that if a person is forgiven and regenerated while he is inside the kingdom, we are saying that he enters the kingdom before he receives such forgiveness and regeneration. In other words, this position implies that one must enter the kingdom in order to receive forgiveness and regeneration! So, as it turns out, the claim that all that occurs while one is in the water occurs at the same time actually implies an impossible chronological process of its own! The view implies, if one takes the second option, that one must (1) enter the kingdom, or church, in order (2) to receive forgiveness and regeneration!

Now, if someone suggests that Paul did claim in Ephesians 1:3 that all spiritual blessings are “in” Christ rather than outside of Christ to bolster the claim that initial forgiveness of sins must be then found “in” Christ, we examine the claim first by asking, “What did Paul mean?” Consider the following argument that recently appeared in print:

Major Premise: If the Mac Deaver doctrine of present day Holy Spirit baptism is true, then the doctrine that alien sinners receive the remission of sins before and without entering the spiritual body of Christ is true.

Minor Premise: The doctrine that alien sinners receive the remission of sins before and without entering the spiritual body of Christ is not true (Eph. 1:3, 7).

Conclusion: Therefore, the Mac Deaver doctrine of present day Holy Spirit baptism is not true.

This is a valid argument form called modus tollens. However, it is not a sound or dependable argument because a sound argument is not only valid, but its premises are true as well. In this argument the minor premise is false. That means that the argument is not sound!

If the expression “all spiritual blessings” includes initial forgiveness and regeneration, and if the expression “in Christ,” means “the church of Christ,” then it is clear that one must enter the church of Christ before he can receive initial forgiveness and regeneration! That is, the sinner must enter the church as sinner, and then he must after being admitted to the church as sinner, receive forgiveness and regeneration, which means then that at first he is a sinner in Christ but afterward he is a saint in Christ! But we know that this is not so. The saved are added to the rest of the saved, as we have previously proven. So, this implication is false. It is simply false doctrine to contend that “initial forgiveness of alien sins” is found “in Christ,” taking that expression to mean in “the church of Christ.” That will not work! So, we have to determine what spiritual blessings are being contemplated in the passage and/or we have to more carefully define what “in Christ” in the passage means.

Look at it like this: Is the Bible a spiritual blessing? If we answer “yes,” then we can see that either (1) the Bible is being excluded from the category of spiritual blessings as contemplated by Paul in Ephesians 1:3 [so that only spiritual blessings that only Christians actually have access to are being included] or (2) the Bible is being included in the category of “spiritual blessings” being referenced by Paul, but if it is, then the expression “in Christ” must refer not to the church of Christ but rather to the person of Christ since many people outside the church of Christ have access to the Bible.

If we answer the question (“Is the Bible a spiritual blessing?”) with a “no,” we find ourselves having to face the implication that then it is either not spiritual or not a blessing. And since it is the most spiritual book we can have, being produced by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12, 13; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21), we wouldn’t say it is not spiritual. And we certainly would not deny that it is a blessing!

So, the answer to the question (“Is the Bible a spiritual blessing?”) must be “yes.” But that means we have to face the implications that then (1) it is excluded from Paul’s comments in Ephesians 1:3 or it is being included. I do not think that the context will allow for its exclusion, but if someone suggested that it must be excluded because the expression “in Christ” can only refer to the church of Christ, then I would suggest that then on equal grounds, the concepts of forgiveness of sin and regeneration can be equally excluded from the expression as found in the passage, so that Ephesians 1:3 lends no support whatever to the view that “forgiveness and regeneration” take place “in Christ” meaning “the church of Christ.”

But, since there is no way to exclude the Bible from the category of spiritual blessings, the expression “in Christ” must mean, not the church of Christ, but the person of Christ himself! Paul elsewhere clearly does make the distinction between the Lord’s spiritual body (the church) and himself. In fact, later in the book of Ephesians, he does this very thing, distinguishing between glory being “in the church and in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:21). Furthermore, in the letter to the saints at Colossae, Paul claims that “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are hidden in Christ (Col. 2:2, 3). This is claiming that it is by reason of the person of Christ (not the church of Christ) that this wisdom and knowledge are available! And this lends support to what we have said about Ephesians 1:3 not excluding the Bible from the category of spiritual blessings. It is by means of the Spirit of Christ that we have the Bible (1 Pet. 1:10, 11; 1 Cor. 2:12, 13), but people outside the church of Christ have access to it. It would be absurd to claim that Paul was excluding the Bible from the category of spiritual blessings to be found “in Christ” when writing to the saints at Ephesus, and yet locate all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge “in Christ” when he writes to the Colossian brethren (2:2, 3)!

So again, I reiterate: Anyone who says that since all spiritual blessings are in Christ (meaning the church of Christ), and since initial forgiveness of sins is a spiritual blessing to be found in Christ (meaning the church of Christ), is taking the Baptist position that one must get into Christ before he is baptized!

Finally, the reader by now should be able to answer the following True-False questions without difficulty.

Before One Enters The Water

  • T/F 1. Before the sinner is immersed in water, all that he does he does outside the kingdom. (True)
  • T/F 2. Before the sinner is immersed in water, all that he does he does inside the kingdom. (False)
  • T/F 3. Before the sinner is immersed in water, some things he does he does inside the kingdom and some things he does he does outside the kingdom. (False)

As One Is Immersed In Water

  • T/F 1. As the sinner is immersed in water, all that he experiences, he experiences outside the kingdom. (False)
  • T/F 2. As the sinner is immersed in water, all that he experiences, he experiences inside the kingdom. (False)
  • T/F 3. As the sinner is immersed in water, he experiences at least some things from outside the kingdom (forgiveness and then regeneration), and then he experiences at least one thing (indwelling) which transitions him from outside the kingdom to inside the kingdom. (True)

Note: At some point while under the water, the person has to go from outside to inside the kingdom!

  • T/F 4. The sinner leaves sinner status and gains saint status while he is under the water so that he can arise to walk in newness of life. (True)

When One Arises From The Water

  • T/F 1. As a saint all that he does he does inside the kingdom. (True)
  • T/F 2. As a saint nothing that he does he does inside the kingdom. (False)
  • T/F 3. As a saint only some things that he does he does inside the kingdom. (False)

May God help us to come to a greater understanding of and appreciation for the new birth. And let us all be united in the truth that the Lord adds only saved ones to the kingdom.

Posted in General

Read Your Bible

Posted on by lmkilpatrick1

By Marlin Kilpatrick

In years gone by, I have often emphasized the importance of reading the Bible. There’s no book like the Bible, and knowledge of its contents is basic to the living of the Christian life. But, is just reading the Bible all that’s necessary to the living of a life that’s pleasing to the Lord? If one is to benefit from reading the Bible, he must first understand some guiding principles that will assist him in coming to a deeper appreciation of God’s eternal word (cf. Matt. 24:35), and how the scriptures have an application in his own life.

The Bible is literature. Not all literature is interpreted in the same way. To further challenge our understanding of what we are reading, the Bible is comprised of different kinds of literature. When one reads the Bible he will encounter history, poetry (wisdom literature), biography, along with some apocalyptic writings. Each of these kinds of literature requires the reader to apply certain rules of interpretation. A mistake is made when we try to interpret all scripture the same way.

The Bible is a book. All books have a basic function which is to impart information. One who is trying to solve a mathematical problem would not seek help from a book about world history. He would seek a book that illustrates how to solve various kinds of mathematical problems. Likewise, the Bible, being a book, imparts all the information one needs to be able to obey the gospel of Christ and live successfully the Christian life. The Bible is unique among all books, because it is God-breathed (2 Pet. 1:20, 21).

Christians are supposed to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). The first step in our spiritual growth is to read the Bible. But more is required than just reading the scriptures; we must correctly handle God’s word (2 Tim. 2:15). If we correctly handle the scriptures, we will be able to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). We will also be able to “prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of the God” (Rom. 12:2). The reading of the scriptures will make us “wise unto salvation” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15).

Should we just read the Bible? No, but reading, studying, and applying the teaching of the scriptures in one’s own life will greatly enhance his life and lead him to that eternal home of the soul. Think about it.

 

Posted in Restoration History

Thomas Campbell’s Desk

Posted on 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.

 

Posted in Christian Living

Summer Is Near

Posted on 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.

 

Posted in Apologetics, Christianity and Culture, Evolution

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

Posted on 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).