The Deaver-Simons Debate (Part 3)
This third of four articles reviewing the Deaver-Simons Debate comes three months after the first two. All sixteen speeches have now been posted on You Tube. These last two articles will focus on portions of the last three speeches of each disputant. We begin with a look at Mac’s second affirmative speech (#11).
Acts 19
One of the ways that one can determine if a doctrine is false is when it defies plain language and common sense. Everyone can understand the sequence of what is presented in Acts 19:5-6. Below is the plain language of the Scriptures:
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
So, what is the time line here? These men had received the baptism of John when it was no longer valid. John had foretold the coming of Jesus, and Paul told them about Him (v. 4).
1. When they heard about Him, they were baptized in His name.
2. Paul then laid hands on them.
3. The Holy Spirit came upon them.
4. They spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Isn’t this the way everybody understands that passage? But Mac Deaver cannot have it say that; so he composed three charts to explain it away—to have it say something entirely different. He presented Chart 111, comprised of an A, B, and C. 111-A says:
Why did Paul lay his hands on the “about 12 men”? Answer: He laid hands on them to baptize them.
What? Is that what the text said? No. Laying hands on them had something to do with them receiving the Holy Spirit. Laying his hands on these men had nothing to do with baptism. However, Mac thinks that if he throws in a little Greek, maybe it will convince the viewer that he is right. At the very least, it may confuse them to the point where they end up with their eyes glazed over, mumbling, “I-I guess so.” However, pay attention to his explanation on 111-B.
“Laid” is actually an aorist participle (laying on) which means that it is completed action antecedent to that of the main verb “came” which is an aorist, indicative verb. Therefore, Paul had completely placed his hands on each man to baptize him before the Spirit came on that man.
Hey! I warned you. Now, let’s assume that this statement (prior to the last sentence) is absolutely correct—whether you understand it or not. The analysis is irrelevant because Paul’s laying hands on them and the verb came are both in the same sentence (v. 6). The baptism occurred in the preceding verse (v. 5). What Mac would need to have, but does not have, is a participial connection to baptism.
But speaking of the Greek, does Mac know what the Greek word kai means? It is translated as “and.” What occurs in verse 6 takes place after the action of verse 5. No connection exists between Paul’s baptizing of the men and his laying hands on them for a different purpose altogether in verse 6—except in Mac’s mind. He has to take Paul’s laying his hands on them and apply it to baptism in a verse where that action has already concluded (see the four points listed previously).
Notice the brazen assertion then that Mac makes in the rest of 111-B:
NOTE: There is nothing to suggest that Paul laid hands on these men FOLLOWING their baptism. [Apparently Mac comprehends neither Greek nor English—GWS.] We assumed that this was the meaning for years because of our acceptance of the “measures” of the Spirit doctrine [no, we know that Paul laid hands on these men AFTER they were baptized because the text says so—GWS]. But the passage teaches that
Here is where chart 111-B ends and 111-C begins.
when Paul laid his hands on these men to baptize them in water into the name of Jesus (v.5) [sic], then the Holy Spirit came upon them while they were under the water!
Hold it! Did anyone read that the Spirit came upon them while they were under the water? Does anything even remotely imply such a thing? Mac just makes assertions, and, apparently, everyone is just supposed to believe them. He continues in 111-C:
The tongues and prophesies [sic] served as empirical verification (following their baptism) of the now present invisible Holy Spirit who entered them while they were yet under water!! The empirical verification following their baptism in water proved to them this was not a water only baptism. The Spirit…had come upon them!
Everything Mac has argued is nothing more than assumption. The text certainly does not agree with his assessment. The Greek he cited, although correct, has nothing to do with validating his point. The debate was not held on Mount Olympus, and he is not Zeus. He cannot simply issue forth decrees.
Under the Sea
In speech #10 (preceding what we just looked at), Wesley made a valuable point when he said that Mac is obligated to prove, but cannot prove, that “born of the Spirit” means Holy Spirit Baptism. Mac did not prove that notion; he simply strung a list of passages together in speech #11 and asserted that they prove his case. No, the Scriptures he cited are fine, but when connected together, they don’t do what he claims for them. His argumentation similarly lacks coherence. He makes about 165 statements (an exaggeration) which are not related to each other in a cogent manner and then acts as though he proved his argument.
On Chart S-108-C, Mac explains what happens when a person is baptized: “3. The Holy Spirit having entered the forgiven person’s body and having surrounded the human Spirit [sic], now following that regeneration, moves inside the human spirit to indwell it.” Question: If the Holy Spirit has enveloped (rather than just living in us) our human spirit, then why do we sin?
The New Math
In his reply to Mac’s #11, Wesley touched on a number of arguments Mac had made previously, including the idea that A = B = C. Mac had argued repeatedly that there are no measures of the Holy Spirit. To be born again (A) is the same as having the gift of the Holy Spirit (B) is the same as being baptized in the Holy Spirit (C). Wesley proposed some True – False questions based on this claim.
T – F. I, Mac Deaver, have the Holy Spirit to the exact same measure as Jesus Christ. According to his own teaching, Mac would have to answer, “True.”
T – F. I, Mac Deaver, have the Holy Spirit to the exact same measure as the apostles. Again, Mac would have to answer, “True.”
Imagine anyone saying he had what Jesus and the apostles had! And if the gift of the Spirit equals Holy Spirit baptism, why does Mac not have spiritual gifts today? Someone might object that Holy Spirit baptism and miraculous power are two different things. Okay, but Mac says they are equal. So here is an additional question Mac might want to answer.
T – F. I, Mac Deaver, can heal the sick and raise the dead.
If he answers false, then why did not his baptism in the Holy Spirit do what it did for Jesus and the apostles? Wesley quoted Brother Thomas B. Warren as saying:
No one living on earth today has been—or will—be baptized in the Holy Spirit. There is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5)—and that one is in water (Acts 10:47-48; 2:38; 22:16).
In speech #13, Mac made the argument again that the Spirit is as intimate with our spirit as a man is with a harlot (1 Cor. 6:17). He also said that anyone joined to the Lord is one spirit with him. 1 + 1 = 1. This idea had been brought up previously. Wesley answered it in his final speech (#16) in the chart below.
One + One = One
In marriage a man and a woman are one (Gen. 2:24). Wesley commented that such is the aim, purpose, and goal of marriage—not a numerical statement.
God and brethren are also one, according to John 17:20-21. Again, that is in goal, aim, and purpose—not numerically.
Now Mac claims that the Holy Spirit and the water constitute one baptism. Where is the Scripture that states that? And what proves that the two become one?
In the same speech (#13), Mac presented a chart of seven things that Jesus did not say. While some might think it was interesting, it does not necessarily prove anything. One of these was: “5. Forgiveness will occur in every case of water baptism.” Then he pointed out: “Remember that the Lord was baptized.” The implication is that since forgiveness did not occur when Jesus was baptized, there’s an exception. Although the fact might be noteworthy, the truth is that Jesus was the only exception. Why were the Lord’s sins not forgiven? The answer is that He had no sins to forgive.
When we read, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), do we not realize two things: 1) that these words do not apply to Jesus; and 2) that Jesus is the only One to Whom these words do not apply? It is the same with baptism; Jesus had no sins to forgive, and He is the only person who did not have sins to forgive. The reason Mac calls attention to the fact that our Lord did not need forgiveness is that he has already claimed that the Gentiles like Cornelius did not need to be baptized in order to be forgiven; they were already forgiven.
In his last speech (#15), Mac challenged Wesley’s true statement: “Cornelius was a righteous person who needed to repent.” Mac mocked him by saying, “If a RIGHTEOUS person is one who needs to repent, then what would an UNRIGHTEOUS person be? Jesus said in Luke 5:32 that He did not come to call the righteous. Wesley doesn’t know the difference between the righteous and the unrighteous.”
Mac apparently thinks that a righteous person is a perfect person—that is, without sin. Every righteous person that can be named possesses sins he needs to be forgiven of. However, Mac, just a few minutes after ridiculing Wesley over this matter, admitted that he had misrepresented the cleansing of the Gentiles (which includes Cornelius). He corrected himself to say that the cleansing in Acts 10:15 was a social rather than a spiritual cleansing. Now if he would correct everything else!
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: