The Deaver-Vick Debate (Part 2)
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Several articles could be written about this debate, but the approach taken in this one will be to look at the first argument used on both sides, along with pertinent, subsequent comments made. In his third speech on the first night of the debate, brother Vick set forth the following syllogism:
Major Premise: All miracles have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10; Eph. 4:11-16).
Minor Premise: The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a miracle (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-47).
Conclusion: The baptism of the Holy Spirit has ceased.
This syllogism is valid in its form. If the major and minor premise are true, the conclusion is true. The only question left to determine is, then: "Are the premises true?"
The major premise is true. Paul taught that the spiritual gifts were coming to an end. He selected three of the nine gifts from 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, and he said that prophecies would fail, tongues would cease, and knowledge would vanish away. These three represent all of them. Many of the gifts (such as knowledge, prophecy, and tongues) involved the Divine revelation of God's Word apart from natural means. God supernaturally imparted spiritual knowledge to those who had these gifts. But when the entire revelation was complete (that which is perfect had come), then the gifts would no longer be needed since all would have access to the completed Revelation. Mac did not deny this major premise.
But he did take issue with the minor premise. He clearly and plainly denied that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a miracle. Some matters in the debate may have been hard to follow, but Mac is clear on this point:
He's wrong in saying that Holy Spirit baptism is a miracle. Why would you say that? There is no proof of that. That's just a wild assertion…. It's not a miracle (1:3D [first night, Deaver's third speech]).
So, is Holy Spirit baptism a miracle or not? Ben responded (2:1V) by giving the definition of a miracle:
An extraordinary manifestation of Divine power, operating either independently of the laws and forces of nature, as in the original creation, or in opposition to them, as in the separation of the waters of the Red Sea, or in connection or harmony with them as in Noah's flood.
Mac's position is that the manifestations of power, such as inspiration, speaking in tongues, and working miracles are separate from the Holy Spirit baptism itself. "Really?" you might ask—and rightfully so. "Yes," he would respond. He argues that Holy Spirit baptism is not a miracle in itself, and there is not necessarily anything miraculous associated with it. In fact, he went so far as to say that the 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost—as well as those who were not even present!
What does Acts 1:8 actually say? According to the Greek Interlinear (Berry), Jesus said to the twelve, "But you will receive power, having come the Holy Spirit upon you, and you shall be to me witnesses both in Jerusalem and all Judea and in Samaria and to [the] uttermost part of the earth." Can the coming of the Holy Spirit be disassociated from the power? The Holy Spirit's coming on them resulted in miraculous things. If the inspired writer wanted us to consider them to be totally separate, why did he have them both occur at the same time? Why not write that the apostles and others received Holy Spirit baptism on one occasion but that they did not receive any miraculous powers until later? Why is it that we need Mac to explain it to us?
The Holy Spirit put the two together because they belong together. We ought to notice that the apostles were all gathered together on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1). Mac is still insisting that it was the 120, but he made no reply to the article this writer previously made against that notion. Few, if any, brethren have ever taken Mac's view on that subject; perhaps that's another point everyone "missed." So, when were the apostles all baptized in the Holy Spirit? Was it when they were all in one accord in one place?
Or was it when there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, filling the whole house where they were sitting (v. 2)? Neither the gathering nor the sound implies they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. Would not most of us say that the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit when there appeared divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each one of them (v.3)? It's at this point that the text says they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (v. 5). The phrase, filled with the Holy Spirit does not always refer to Holy Spirit baptism, but in this case it does. The baptism and the speaking in tongues are simultaneous. They both occur at the same moment or within seconds of each other. There is no delay or "time lapse."
Ben argued that Cornelius and his household were also baptized in the Holy Spirit (some brethren do not hold this view). Once again, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to Peter preach (Acts 10:44), and when He did, they spoke with tongues, which was immediately noticeable to the Jews (v. 45). Once again, there was no time lapse between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the speaking in tongues. Mac denies that this ability to speak in tongues has a close association with Holy Spirit baptism. The power to speak in tongues and Holy Spirit baptism are two separate things, he says, but he does not get this idea from the text; it comes from his theology. Just asserting that the two are different does not disprove Ben's syllogism. Holy Spirit baptism was miraculous. It was something that the Holy Spirit bestowed directly upon people, causing them to speak in various languages.
The Mention of Baptism
In his first speech of the first night (1:1D), Mac referred to a question he had presented to brother Vick, which he had answered:
True – False. In each New Testament account where someone became a Christian, the word "baptism" or one of its forms must be found in the immediate context (cf. Acts 5:14, 9:31).
Ben correctly answered false though the two verses supplied are general statements about the number of believers increasing—not individual accounts of conversion. Mac then drew this inappropriate conclusion: "But if we can know that about baptism in water, why can't the same be true about baptism in the Spirit?"
The two concepts are not even remotely similar. As members of the church know, baptism is mentioned in cases of conversion—almost without exception. How many accounts of conversion are mentioned? Some are found in Acts 2:41 (the three thousand); 8:9-13 (Simon and the Samaritans); 8:35-39 (the Ethiopian eunuch); 9:18 (Saul); 10:44-48 (Cornelius and his household); 13:12 (Sergius Paulus); 13:48 (some in Antioch in Pisidia); 16:15 (Lydia); 16:31-34 (the Philippian jailer); Acts 17:34 (some from Athens); 18:8 (Crispus and other Corinthians); 19:1-7 (the Ephesians).
Of those twelve instances, only three do not specifically mention baptism (the two in Acts 13 and the Athenians in Acts 17). Three out of four specifically mention baptism as part of the conversion process. Now what is the ratio in instances of Holy Spirit baptism? Acts 11:16 implies two and only two events—one on Pentecost and one with Cornelius. No other events in the entire New Testament mention baptism in the Holy Spirit. But Mac sees it everywhere! If the apostles are laying hands on the Samaritans, why, they were identifying those brethren so the Holy Spirit would know to give them Holy Spirit baptism (really?). In fact, just about any time the Holy Spirit is mentioned or miraculous gifts are mentioned, Mac assumes that Holy Spirit baptism is under consideration. But if we take those same twelve conversions, only two times is baptism in the Holy Spirit implied. Is it that hard to see (when comparing 9 out of 12 to 2 out of 12) the answer to Mac's question? We can be assured that in the three instances, those who believed were also baptized. But why would anyone conclude, with a sampling of only two instances, that the other 10 were instances of Holy Spirit baptism? Such is folly.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit, then, is a miracle; miracles have ceased. Therefore, baptism in the Holy Spirit has ceased and is not in the church today.
The Purpose of Holy Spirit Baptism
Also related to Ben's syllogism was the chart that Mac put up later. He put up a chart with several parts to it, but following is the gist of it. The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism was not for the production of miracles or for inspiration. Miracles were done in the Old Testament, and men were inspired of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Mac says that one of the purposes of Holy Spirit baptism was to regenerate, to make alive, but the Scriptures he quoted to "prove" that assumption said nothing about Holy Spirit baptism. He also asserted that Holy Spirit baptism was the means of our being placed "in spirit" and that it made the indwelling possible. He alleged that Holy Spirit baptism is the means by which we have access to the Father, but, again, no verse that he cited mentioned Holy Spirit baptism. By now anyone following the debate can see why Mac made the preceding argument. He knows that none of these verses teach his doctrine; so he tries to make every appearance of the Holy Spirit refer to Holy Spirit baptism, which is not the case at all.
Consider, however, this statement: "The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism was never the production of miracles; the purpose of Holy Spirit baptism was always the production of character" (4:2). Really? Okay, is it not fair to use Mac's own logic on this matter? Are not the two statements below parallel?
1) Holy Spirit baptism can have nothing to do with miracles because miracles were performed in the Old Testament.
2) Holy Spirit baptism can have nothing to do with character because men possessed character in the Old Testament.
Whoops! Brethren have used the following phrase for decades. "What proves too much proves nothing." Mac proved way too much with his reasoning above. The fact is that there was just as much "character" in the Old Testament as there were miracles. Abraham, for example, is called faithful (Gal. 3:9). Moses was faithful in all his house (Heb. 3:2, 5). He was also more humble than all men who were on the face of the earth (Num. 12:3). How could he be these things without the baptism of the Holy Spirit? How could David be called "a man after God's own heart" (Acts 13:22)? Job was longsuffering, an example of suffering and patience (James 5:11). How could all these men have such marvelous character without the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23)?
The fact is that no verse in the New Testament says that character is formed when one is baptized in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, two texts actually do associate Holy Spirit baptism with a miraculous event, but none associate it with character.
It is true that miracles and inspiration existed before baptism in the Holy Spirit, but that does not preclude it being for that purpose anyway. Say, for example, that a rich man gives his son ten thousand dollars a year from the time he is 12 to the time he is 18. When the lad turns 18, the father says, "Here is a credit card that you may use any time you want." Now would anyone seriously argue that empowering him with a credit card meant that he never had any money to spend previously? Yet, in effect, that is what Mac does.
Yes, there were miracles and inspiration in the Old Testament, and usually they were connected for the same purpose they are in the New Testament—to establish the fact that the speaker is God's spokesman. This was the case with Moses, whose deeds and teachings were accompanied by miracles. It was also true with Elijah and Elisha as well. Jesus and His apostles worked miracles to establish proof for their teachings as well (John 20:30-31; Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:1-4). On the Day of Pentecost, the apostles were given their powers permanently when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. So far as we know, they had these abilities the remainder of their lives. No verse says anything to the contrary. Mac is wrong about the purpose for Holy Spirit baptism.
Did the Denominations Get It Right?
The first night of the debate Mac shocked many in the audience, and those who have seen or read this clip continue to be amazed. He said (forcefully):
…we're saved by water, and I thought that was all of it, just as he [Ben Vick] still does. I now know it's not. Not water only. It's water, and you see we've been right about that all the time. The Baptists and the Methodists and the Presbyterians and others who we debated in days gone by—they couldn't see that. There's no water….
We were right about the water. They had a hard time being convinced because they were always stressing the Spirit, and that's where we were weak. We wouldn't stress the Spirit; we'd stress the water. They wouldn't stress the water; they'd stress the Spirit. Neither one of us had it completely right….
What destroyed our influence with them (at least, in large part) was we didn't stress Spirit….
They wanted to have Spirit baptism without the water; we wanted to have water baptism without the Spirit. Neither one of us was right in that sense.
Wow! Where does one begin to show all of the fallacies? First of all, if we were debating the role of water baptism in salvation, why would one introduce baptism of the Holy Spirit? Second, brethren did debate baptism of the Holy Spirit with Pentecostals. Third, those who actually did debate in favor of Holy Spirit baptism were just as wrong as Mac is, and none of them would accept his non-miraculous Holy Spirit baptism which he tries to disassociate with miracles. Fourth, our debating brethren did have it completely right. Fifth, our influence was not destroyed with those in denominations. Large numbers, occasionally a denominational preacher, and even an entire congregation were sometimes won over to the truth. Sixth, how can Mac say that neither one of us was right (in that sense)? Seventh, how long will it be before Mac is participating in unity meetings with the various denominations to make a speech like this—the way Rubel Shelly did twenty years ago? [This is not a baseless comparison (or name calling). Much of what is said above sounds like Shelly in those days.]
The denominations' rejection of water baptism had little to do with our rejection of Holy Spirit baptism; it had everything to do with their theology of salvation by faith only. Brethren need to think carefully about this speech of Mac's. It was his first speech of the debate. One would expect that he planned to make this case. Much of what he said later was in response to brother Vick, but this accusation was prepared in advance. Those listening to the debate or reading these words should consider the dangerous things that are being taught. These things are not a matter of indifference. It is time for brethren to repudiate emphatically these false ideas.