A Review of the Deaver-Vick Debate (Part 1)

This debate took place October 24-27 in Indianapolis. For the first two nights the proposition was:

The Scriptures teach that Holy Spirit baptism has ceased and is no longer in the church today.

The proposition for the last two nights was:

The Scriptures teach that when a person becomes a Christian he is baptized in the water and in the Holy Spirit.

It was not too long ago that brethren were debating propositions like these with Pentecostals and charismatics. In fact the first proposition above was used in the Woods-Franklin Debate in 1974. Franklin had been a gospel preacher but had departed from the faith. The fact that someone as sound as Mac Deaver once was would be denying the first proposition above and affirming the latter shows how far some in the Lord’s church are willing to digress. Frankly, to show how bad (doctrinally) some things have become, this writer firmly believes that if Mac Deaver stood up next week and said, "I can speak in tongues, work miracles, and have been appointed as a modern apostle," he would not lose but a handful of followers. This is not a prediction that he will do so but rather a statement that highlights the devotion so many have to a mere man instead of to the truth.

Talking Trash

Both parties made disparaging remarks about the other. Ben referred to Mac as a "half-baked Pentecostal," questioned whether or not he was a "modernist," and threw in the suggestion that Mac is a Calvinist, which he quickly denied. Despite his well-prepared protest of that allegation, some would say that Mac agrees with Calvinism when he says that a man's nature is changed when he is baptized in the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, it did not take Mac long to begin his usual smear job on his opponent. Time and again Mac would say things such as, "You can see Ben is struggling," when in fact he was not. He would refer to Ben's having "gotten in trouble" with an argument and comment that Ben was under enormous pressure. He spoke about how he told his wife that he pitied Ben before the debate began and how that he felt sorry for Ben. No Deaver debate would be complete without Mac saying that his opponent's arguments were "pathetic" and "silly"—but such disparagements are all right because Mac said them kindly.

The debate would be better without comments such as these from either side. Ben may well think it is worth lamentation that a gospel preacher would hold Mac's positions (and most of us do), but the purpose of the debate is primarily to show the fallacy of an opponent's views. Mac may well think that Ben's reasoning is pitiful (though he commended him repeatedly for having the courage to face Mac in public debate), but he could spend his time better in presenting his case. When Ben spent a few moments quoting from Mac to show his arrogance (which is apparent to most brethren), Mac spent even more time complaining that Ben had wasted his time in doing so. He was right in that it was irrelevant to the debate.

Humor

It is always humorous to watch Mac try to intimidate his opponent by saying how poor a job his opponent is doing in the debate. Perhaps these comments are to convince those who are in Mac's corner, but the rest of us just chuckle and say, "Well, there he goes again." It actually harms Mac to provide such assessments when they are not valid; people may dismiss such comments when they are actually true. These things aside, Mac did three things during the debate that he did not intend to be humorous, but they were.

The first was his continual complaining. He said in his first speech that he had been trying to get a debate for years. He apparently has forgotten that he turned down an opportunity for one with Wesley Simons on rather flimsy grounds. Also, he refused to continue negotiations through the proper channels for a debate with Daniel Denham just last year. After several months, he had not taken five minutes to reserve a location for the debate. Apparently, he did not instruct his efficient secretary to place such a call, either. When it was brought to his attention that he had not procured a place and that the only place he had mentioned was not available, he became defensive. Rather than taking five minutes to check on a site at that point, he wrote several e-mails of complaint—even telling the person in charge of negotiations that he wore him out.

So after complaining (erroneously) in his first speech of the first night that no one would debate him, he complained in the second speech about the length of 20-minute presentations. He would have preferred thirty-minute ones because twenty was just not enough time to cover everything. This writer could not help but think that the format was the same as with the Warren-Flew and the Warren-Matson debates (except for the rejoinder at the end). If brother Warren could defeat two prominent atheists with twenty-minute speeches, why could not Mac make his case concerning Holy Spirit baptism in such a format?

Keeping these two complaints in mind, it simply got to be humorous on the second night of the debate when in his first speech Mac complained that Ben was debating the wrong proposition. He then presented what he thought Ben should have been debating, which was: "The Scriptures teach that a person becomes a Christian by being baptized in water only." This does not appear to be identical, but Mac insisted that it was. Well, say, since Mac took the time to rewrite the proposition, why not just tell Ben what he should argue, also, so that Mac could refute it—in thirty-minute speeches? Nothing about the debate seemed to satisfy Mac.

In his last speech on the first night, Mac, as part of his response to Ben's previous speech, looked incredulous, and said, "He doesn't believe in the time lapse." Probably no one reading the Scriptures would have a clue as to what Mac was talking about, which was what made his outburst humorous. Only by knowing Mac's views, as on Holy Spirit baptism, would anyone understand what he meant by the "time lapse."

The third incident occurred in Mac's second affirmative speech on the third night. He had previously introduced a syllogism containing 93 words, not counting 5 numbers. He followed that by a second syllogism in his next speech that contained 92 words. Now, understand that this "logical" argument is three times the length of The Pledge of Allegiance and one-third of the Gettysburg Address. After reading the second syllogism, Mac commented on it briefly before saying, "How can it be more simple than that?"

"I've Grown"

Ben began the first evening by playing a recording of Mac saying ten years ago that he took strong exception to anyone saying that he believed in Holy Spirit baptism—that it was unfair to characterize him as holding a view of something he did not espouse. Yet now Mac is defending the position that he adamantly refused to be associated with just ten years ago. Mac did not take issue with the evidence, but rather than saying he had flip-flopped on the issue, he argued that there had been an evolution in his thinking. He had continued to grow and learn. The fact is, however, that every false teacher says one of two things. Either they say they have been misunderstood or that they have "grown," which is a cause for "groan"ing on our part.

In his second speech of the debate, Mac added that others came to this position first, and he named specifically Glenn Jobe. He claims that he reluctantly came to hold the position. He added that his father Roy, who never espoused such a view in his writings, was coming to a knowledge that all Christians were baptized in the Holy Spirit. He also said that it was an old view—that Lard and Milligan held the same view, but brethren chose McGarvey over Lard. It is doubtful that he is correct about Lard, despite a quotation that he gave later. But suppose that he were correct. Did it ever occur to him that brethren adopted McGarvey's view because he was correct and the others were wrong?

Is Deaver not aware of the two different views on the Godhead held by Campbell and Stone? Stone looked upon Jesus as a created being (not unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses would later adopt) while Campbell rightly believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all co-equal Deity. The reason that Stone's view fell by the wayside is that it was not the truth, and the same may be said for those who opposed McGarvey. He was a fallible man, of course, like all of us, but he presented a compelling case for his view, and brethren could see that he was right.

Ben did well to introduce quotes and charts by brother Warren and others, who believed in the literal indwelling but debated against the concept of Holy Spirit baptism for today. Mac said that brother Nichols missed it, brother Warren missed it, and his daddy missed it on this subject. He missed it too for many years. Of course, the rest of us all missed it, also, along with the entire brotherhood for the past century. How fortunate that we now have Glenn Jobe and Mac Deaver to lead us out of the darkness on this matter! Perhaps the reader will understand better why Ben took the time to show instances of Deaver's arrogance. Great minds such as Guy N. Woods, Thomas B. Warren, Gus Nichols, William Woodson, and others did not fail to research this issue. They did, and they went where the evidence led; they made compelling cases for their conclusions. Mac simply ignored all of that and assumes that his interpretation is correct, though it is severely flawed and contrary to clear-cut facts and principles.

Why the Debate?

Ben asked the very first night questions to determine the magnitude of the difference of the two positions from Mac's perspective. Surprisingly, Mac said that you could be saved without knowing or agreeing with his position. He affirmed that he did not know for several years that he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, but he was nevertheless. He must take this position or else insist that brethren Nichols, Warren, his father, and himself were all lost until he discovered this "truth"—something he was not willing to do. But this position, while pleasing to people, contains three flaws:

First, one would not know the truth concerning what baptism does—yet receive all the benefits of it. For years, we have told people (with respect to the forgiveness of sins), "You cannot be taught wrong and baptized right." Brethren have definitely taught for decades that people are not baptized in the Holy Spirit when they are baptized in water. We have generally taught people that Holy Spirit baptism was a promise that was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. We have consistently taught that baptism in water is a command, done in obedience to the Lord. We have, according to Mac, taught people wrongly all these years, but they received Holy Spirit baptism anyway, though taught to the contrary. This fact may not defeat Mac's position, but it certainly makes his view look suspicious.

The second problem with Deaver's view (which Ben pointed out) is that, if Holy Spirit baptism occurs whether or not we know it, then why write a book about it, and why debate it? If we are not penalized for our ignorance, then why not let everyone remain ignorant and quit splitting the brotherhood over it? Many people believe that Mac's doctrine leads to Pentecostalism; why needlessly offend all of those brethren if it is unnecessary? Yet Mac has taken it upon himself to "enlighten" his brethren with great fervor.

Third, Mac's own analogy shows his position to be false. He used 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 to support his case:

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall be one flesh." But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Following are Mac's immediate comments on this passage.

That's my spirit and the Holy Spirit, by the way. And that's—and that's not participation by long distance. Whatever the connection between a man and a harlot, whatever makes them one, it's the parallel over here on the spiritual side. If there is direct contact, flesh upon flesh, that makes them one flesh, over here I've got one spirit—that's Spirit upon spirit.

Is being one spirit with the Lord literal or figurative? Notice in the first place it is the Christian being one spirit with the Lord—not the Holy Spirit—even though shortly the body will be said to be the temple of the Holy Spirit (v. 19). But, suppose that Mac were correct about man's spirit being one with the Holy Spirit—and that it was literal instead of figurative. Uh, when a man is one with a harlot, does he not know it? Is it not something that he experiences? How, then, can man's spirit be one with the Holy Spirit, and he not know it? How can he not experience something by which he is certain that his spirit and the Holy Spirit are one? Mac cannot resolve this difficulty with his theology.

Remember that this illustration was one of Mac's own choosing. The difficulty cited above is just one problem that one incurs by trying to make the figurative literal. What are the implications of our Spirit being fused into the Holy Spirit? Would we thereby receive some of the power He possesses? Would we be able to prophesy, understand all mysteries, possess all knowledge, be able to work miracles? If not, why not? Are we only fused into the non-miraculous parts of the Spirit? How does this oneness play out? Furthermore, are we only "one" at various times (as a man is with a harlot) but separated at all other times?

How does God's Spirit upon man's spirit work with respect to sin? Can a person sin while he is one with the Holy Spirit? If the Holy Spirit envelops a person, how can sin get in? Why would Christians not, then, be perfect and free from sin? It seems that one has only two choices by way of reply. The first is to say that being one with the Holy Spirit keeps him from sin, but that would deny 1 John 1:8 and 10. The other is to say that our spirit is one with the Holy Spirit, but we sin anyway—in which case, what is the advantage of the union? Mac explained on the third night of the debate, as he was defining his proposition, what he meant by baptism in the Holy Spirit: "I mean your spirit is submerged; it is enclosed by the person of Holy Spirit." He further argued that we always maintain that contact. So, how is it that we sin?

None of these difficulties exist if we understand that we are figuratively one with God as we obey His teachings, which are inspired of the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, if we entertain sin, we are no longer one with the Spirit of God. We have walked away—perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently. How does the literal unity work with one who has erred from the truth or gone back into the world? Surely Mac would not argue that a Christian cannot fall from grace, since that doctrine clearly contradicts Galatians 5:1-4. That leaves him the unenviable alternative of saying that we are sinning so as to be lost while still submerged and enclosed by the Holy Spirit. How can Mac extricate himself from such a dilemma? He cannot cite Judas as an example because he betrayed Christ and killed himself before the baptism of the Holy Spirit was given. The position that most brethren take is not fraught with these contradictions, which show that Mac's position is false.