The Deaver-Vick Debate (Part 3)

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

In this final consideration of the recent debate, we examine Mac's first proposition, which consists of 93 words (almost twice the length of the Preamble to the Constitution, which is only 52 words). Anyone who does not understand it upon the first reading should count himself normal.

If (1) the apostles had already been baptized in water only prior to Acts 2, and if (2) baptism in water only is baptism into the name of Jesus only, and if (3) baptism into the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit occurs when one receives the Holy Spirit, and if (4) in order to enter the kingdom one must be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, then the apostles entered the kingdom based on their being baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit (3:1D)

Several observations can be made about this syllogism; the first is that, even if it were valid in its structure, it is false in content. Second, Mac never proved that (2) and (3) were true. Third, Mac mentioned several times that from the time of John to the preaching to the Ephesians (Acts 19) was a transition period, but then, in this syllogism, he acts as if what occurred here (during the transition) is our pattern for today. For example, the apostles were baptized prior to the establishment of the kingdom. But from the Day of Pentecost onward, the Lord added His disciples to the church at the time of baptism (Acts 2:41, 47). Fourth, he makes up out of thin air two kinds of baptisms.

The first point in the syllogism is the only part of it that is true: The apostles were baptized in water only prior to Acts 2. The second part asserts that baptism in water only is baptism into the name of "Jesus only." At this point, Mac began to sound like a "oneness" Pentecostal. He invented a dichotomy that is not easy to understand.

Christians know that in the great commission Jesus commanded that His apostles make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Mac arbitrarily splits this up into two baptisms—one in name of Jesus (water only) and one in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit baptism). Is there some compelling Scripture that makes this dichotomy? No. Not one passage in the entire Bible defines Holy Spirit baptism as Mac does (which helps to explain why scholarly brethren have "missed it" all these years). They missed it because it is not there. For Mac's followers, it is painfully absent. He cannot produce one verse that defines Holy Spirit baptism in that manner. He arrived at this notion because it fits his theology—not because the Bible teaches it.

But what about the claim that baptism in water is baptism in the name of Jesus only? Ben called him on his misplacement of the adverb only, and Mac's response was, "It doesn't make any difference." Well, then, consider Acts 8:12-17, which Mac claims establishes his case.

But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,

Who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Mac's first problem is that he must contradict the meaning of the text. He must argue that Philip preached the things concerning the kingdom of God but could not baptize them into it. Sure, the text implies that he preached the kingdom and the name of Jesus, and they were baptized to have forgiveness of sins and to enter into the kingdom, but Mac has to come charging in to declare, "No, wait, you are not in the kingdom yet—not until you receive the Holy Spirit." Immediately, Mac must make two assumptions: 1) that the Samaritans did not come into the kingdom until a later date (although the text does not so state); and 2) that, when they received the Holy Spirit, they then entered the kingdom (although, again, the text does not so state).

A third assumption is that, when Peter and John laid their hands upon the Samaritans, this constituted baptism into the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit (which is not so stated in the text). A fourth assumption is that Luke is describing Holy Spirit baptism (which the text does not so state) rather than the imparting of a spiritual gift, which shall be proved later.

But to return to verse 16, does the text say the Samaritans were baptized in the name of "Jesus only"? No, and the reader can clearly see that is not the intent of the verse. Luke is making a contrast. The Holy Spirit had not fallen on them to this point; they had simply been baptized in the name of Jesus. No one could get baptized with the name of "Jesus only" out of this verse without doing some wresting. Nothing in this text agrees with anything Mac has claimed for it, but he especially misses and perverts the purpose for Peter and John coming to Samaria.

Mac claims that the apostles went there to identify those whom the Holy Spirit should fall upon—apparently, the Holy Spirit would have had trouble knowing who they were, otherwise. He rejects the idea that Peter and John laid their hands upon the Samaritans so that they might have a spiritual gift. In fact, in his very next speech, Mac once again floored most gospel preachers by calling for one passage "that says that apostles only could lay their hands on someone and impart a miraculous gift" (3:2D). Is there a passage that says only? No, but there is no passage that ever says that someone besides the apostles had that ability.

Paul's Holy Spirit Baptism

Mac thought he found two instances of someone besides the apostles imparting the Holy Spirit. He is dishonest with one of them and inaccurate with the other. Let us deal with the one that is inaccurate first, then we let the reader judge the issue of dishonesty.

Mac asked the question, "When did he [Saul, GWS] receive the Holy Spirit? He did at the hands of Ananias in the water." And what is the proof of that claim? Mac cannot be referring to Acts 22, since the Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all in verses 10-16; he must be thinking of Acts 9:17-18, which say the following:

And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared on the road to you as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

One might legitimately assume that Ananias was going to do two things for Saul: 1) restore his sight; 2) impart to him the Holy Spirit. However, Ananias could also have meant that, when Saul's sight was restored, the latter event would occur subsequently (but not necessarily immediately). A mother might commission her children to go to the store, saying, "This money will allow to you buy groceries and for us to eat dinner." The two obviously do not occur at the same time; in fact it might be three or four hours later that the family eats the prepared meal. Of course, the two actions in the above passage could occur simultaneously, but such is not necessarily the case. There is no causal connection between the two that would obligate the second occurring immediately after or simultaneously with the first. In fact, the text suggests otherwise.

Saul received his sight at once. In the Acts 22:16 account, Ananias said to Saul: "Why do you wait? Arise and be baptized, washing away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." The Acts 9 account omits those words but does declare that Saul arose and was baptized. Neither account says anything about Saul receiving the Spirit or being baptized in the Spirit. If it had occurred at that time, it certainly would have been worthy of mention—especially if Mac's position were correct. The text ought to say, "Saul arose and was baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit." Not only does it not make that claim, it does not say anything about Paul being baptized in the Holy Spirit while he was in the water. Where does Mac come up with these things? One might argue that he received the Holy Spirit when Ananias laid hands on him (which would be an assumption), but nothing indicates that Saul received the Holy Spirit while he was in the water.

In fact, the New Testament never states the precise time when Paul was baptized in the Holy Spirit. Was it shortly after he was baptized in water, or did the Lord make him wait a few days? What occurred on Pentecost was visible to all. Was not Paul's also? If it was, it is odd that nothing was said about it at this time, such as, "After Saul was baptized he received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (or prophesied)." This omission is conspicuous by its absence.

Timothy's Gift

Mac fails to establish his position that others besides the apostles imparted the Holy Spirit when he alludes to Ananias. He is dishonest, however, in implying that the elders gave Timothy a spiritual gift in 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul wrote: "Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Did the elders, in fact, impart a spiritual gift to the young evangelist? Mac insists that they did:

You look at 1 Timothy 4:14. Timothy had a gift. According to the second book, Paul had a part in the impartation in some sense. But in 1 Timothy 4:14 there were certain elders who had a part in that. Why don't we make up a category for those who receive miraculous gifts through laying on of the elders' hands?

The reason is that there is no such category. This kind of argumentation is inexcusable. Mac allows as Paul may have had "a part" in the impartation? Anyone who heard the debate will recall Mac berating Ben for not knowing that the preposition eis was used in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 8:17 (although Ben never said otherwise). It was at this juncture that Mac emphatically announced: "The Holy Spirit wrote the book very precisely" (3:3D). Then how is it that Mac overlooked entirely the prepositions used in connection with Timothy's gift?

In 2 Timothy, Paul reminded Timothy "to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands" (1:6). The preposition used here is dia, which means "by" or "through." Timothy received a spiritual gift by or through the laying on of Paul's hands. The preposition in 1 Timothy 4:14 is meta, which means "with." When Paul wrote "through prophecy" in 1 Timothy 4:14, that preposition is also dia. In other words, the gift which Timothy possessed came as a result of prophecy (if not Paul's, then someone else's) by the laying on of Paul's hands with the hands of the presbytery. The elders imparted no gift at all to Timothy but simply accompanied Paul's hands. How could Mac have missed this precise language with respect to prepositions? It is doubtful that too many men who have been preaching for any length of time do not know these particulars.

"Are You With Me?"

Having examined the "support" for Mac's second point in his syllogism, we next consider what he said about the third point. After reading the point, he turned and said, "Are you with me?" Uh, no. How about some evidence? A proposition is to be supported with proof—not asking if the audience is with him. He did no more than repeat what he had already asserted (but not proved) regarding the Samaritans being baptized in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit (which the text never states). Mac's syllogism is unproved and unprovable. His case fails.

The Purpose for the Laying on of Hands

Mac keeps insisting that Peter and John went up to Samaria to "identify" the Samaritans so that the Holy Spirit could baptize them. Included in Mac's version of this event is a denial of the text! In his final speech of the debate, he posted a chart of Simon the Sorcerer's mistakes. Among other things on this chart are the following words:

10. But since the Holy Spirit himself is the power by which miracles are performed (1 Cor. 12:11), Peter says that Simon, in effect, had attempted to buy "the gift of God," that is, the Holy Spirit himself….

11. Peter and John had not given the Holy Spirit to anyone (cf. John 5:18); Simon saw that "through the laying on of the apostles' hands that the Spirit was given because Peter and John were identifying those baptized parties to whom the Spirit was to come.... But Simon was wrong to think that Peter and John had given the Spirit….

Simon's first mistake was that Peter and John were the actual source of the Spirit's coming…. …his second mistake was to assume that miracles would always accompany the coming of the Spirit….

Anyone who reads Acts 8 will see the fallacies in these statements. No verse says that Peter and John were there to "identify" anyone. The apostles prayed that the Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit (v. 16): "Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (v. 17). All of the talk about Peter and John not being the source of the Holy Spirit is so much misdirection. No one ever said that they were, but they were the means through whom the Holy Spirit was imparted. Unless apostles laid their hands on people, they would not have received any miraculous ability. That does not mean that they were the source of the Holy Spirit, which would be absurd. The fact, however, that they were not the source does not negate their role or the way in which God chose to do things. Mac tried to force upon brethren a false position: Either the apostles were the source of the Holy Spirit, or they had nothing to do with the Samaritans receiving the Holy Spirit. This is a false dilemma because other options exist.

Furthermore, it is Mac who errs—not Simon. He did not offer money that he might receive the Holy Spirit; he said: "Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." Before Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans, they did not have the Holy Spirit, but afterward they did. Everyone but Mac and Glenn (and their followers) understand that. Was Simon mistaken about that? If so, then so was Luke because he recorded that "Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given…" (v. 18). Mac should give up this position; he is in direct conflict with the inspired writer. Brethren should realize that false doctrines led him here.