|
|
|
Few brethren knowledgeable of current events in the church are not aware of
the controversy raised by brother Mac Deaver in the last several years.
Brother Deaver's belief that Christians require direct and supernatural help
from the Holy Spirit in order for them to obey God is a well documented fact,
and beyond dispute. Less well known is the fact that a large segment of
brethren agree with this view, some openly, and others quietly.
Since making a few brethren aware of Mac's error shortly after The Deaver-Fox Debate, I have been relatively quiet on the matter. Other brethren have been more capable and better situated to bring the matter to light. Recently however, I received a copy of a letter Mac Deaver sent to brother Harrell Davidson commenting on matters included in Davidson's new biography of brother Guy N. Woods. The letter addressed a concern of Mac's that Harrell seemed to be drawing a line of fellowship over the work of the Holy Spirit, and it included enclosures of two arguments reiterating arguments Mac made in his debate with Jerry Moffitt about a year ago. I believe comments in this missive are worthy of our consideration, so I write this response. Before Mac's headlong fall into this error he was held by many, including myself, in high regard for his work in the Lord's church defending the truth against error. We admired him for his careful use of reason, logic and truth in dealing with error. No one could form better arguments than Mac. His arguments were always valid and sound. Yet today, brother Deaver's arguments are as prone to fallacy and error as those arguments he once exposed for the error they contained. This is necessarily the case, because false doctrines cannot be sustained by valid sound arguments. Somewhere validity or soundness must fail, and brother Deaver's arguments are no exception. One of the greatest fallacies that Mac commits in his error is the fallacy of equivocation. He would never have allowed a false teacher to commit this error when he opposed them, but he is clearly guilty of the same now. Equivocation is the deceptive practice of changing the meaning of words and terms in mid-argument. In other words a proposition is established with terms using one definition as the basis for establishing another proposition that uses the same terms but newly defined. For example in the following "argument" the meaning of the word "dog" changes between the first and second proposition, so that the conclusion, which appears to be a valid conclusion, is in fact invalid: All dogs are lovable Hitler was a dog. Hitler is lovable. Whether or not one agrees with the truth of the first proposition, the conclusion of the proposition does not follow from its premises, because equivocation has occurred between the first and second propositions. "Dogs" in the first proposition refers to dogs in the sense of household pets, but the same word in the second proposition refers to a dog in the sense of a man with a despicable character. A valid argument of this type should have only three terms, in this case "dogs," "lovable," and "Hitler," but this "argument" in fact has four terms, because of the equivocation of the word "dog." For this reason the fallacy of equivocation is sometimes called the fallacy of four terms. Mac commits this fallacy in his reasoning regarding the term "supernatural." In the body of his letter to brother Harrell Davidson, Mac wrote, "[S]ince some of our opponents (like Garland [Elkins]) were failing to distinguish the scriptural difference between the supernatural non-miraculous (which is currently operative) and the supernatural-miraculous, I asked Garland Elkins the question: "When you were forgiven of your sins, were you forgiven according to natural law or supernatural law?" Besides the obvious fact that Mac is seeking to "affirm the middle" between the supernatural and non-supernatural ("supernatural non-miraculous" is simply an oxymoron), Mac is attempting in this statement to establish the case for modern day supernatural acts of God, but in doing so he equivocates with the word "supernatural." There was a time when Mac Deaver made a great effort to be precise in his preaching and writing, giving clear and unmistakable definitions to every term used, but in this case Mac takes advantage of the ambiguity of the word "supernatural" to establish a devilish doctrine. The ordinary meaning of the term "supernatural" refers to actions that supercede the laws of nature in a way that could not occur without an exercise of God's miraculous power. However the word can also be used to refer to any act emanating from deity. In the latter sense divine forgiveness is supernatural, because it comes from God, but forgiveness is not supernatural in the first sense, because no laws of nature are superceded by God when he forgives. If forgiveness was supernatural in that sense, then men would be unable to forgive, because mere men cannot supercede the laws of nature. A better question though is this: "When men are forgiven of sins, what natural law of God is superceded?" If there is none, then forgiveness isn't supernatural in the primary sense of the word, and no supernatural act is required for it in that sense. The equivocation occurs when Mac draws from the proposition that forgiveness is supernatural in the secondary sense that supernatural acts of God in the primary sense still occur today. In order to uphold his doctrine of direct operations of God, Mac must affirm that supernatural acts of God in this primary sense occur today, but the argument he uses to establish that proposition has four terms, and is thus fallacious. Another of Mac's fallacies is seen when he misstates commonly held views in order to justify his position. For example to introduce one of his arguments Mac wrote, For years two groups ("word only" advocates and "personal indwelling" advocates) have agreed to disagree on the indwelling for they said, "As long as both groups claim that the Holy Spirit indwells the church, we can fellowship each other." Mac is correct that brethren who differed over the manner of the indwelling of the Spirit did so without a break of fellowship, but he is incorrect in the ground stated for that fellowship. By putting the stated ground in quotes he gives the impression that this was the primary concern of brethren when differences over the manner arose, but the fact of the Spirit's indwelling of the church is not the concern that brethren expressed when it came to matters of fellowship. Mac has to know that the ground on which brethren maintained unity, even while disagreeing over the manner of the indwelling, was agreement on the work of the Holy Spirit. In the preface of the The Deaver-Fox Debate the publisher quoted brother Franklin Camp in order to express the true ground of unity that brethren have expressed. I know that brother Deaver has a copy of this book. Brother Camp wrote, "[A]s long as we agree that the Holy Spirit convicts, leads, directs, and edifies only through the Word, whatever other differences there may be on the subject ought not to have the least effect on the question of fellowship." The sentiments of these words have been repeated countless times by many faithful brethren. Most believed at the time that brother Mac Deaver agreed with those words, but it is clear today that is not the case. Mac does not "agree that the Holy Spirit convicts, leads, directs, and edifies only through the Word." He has gone beyond this ground to uncharted ground, but in order to blame others for his loss of fellowship, he has to move the boundary lines, and pretend that others have moved them. Finally to demonstrate Mac's utter inability to establish his beliefs logically and reasonably, I present one of Mac's countless "ungetoverable" arguments (as he likes to say) that makes absolutely no sense at all. In this argument Mac strings together a number of propositions whose truth he supposes leads naturally to its conclusion. The argument is stated thus: If (1) the word of God can directly affect the human heart, and (2) the Holy Spirit indwells a saint's heart in conjunction with the word, and (3) the word alone in a heart cannot produce the fruit of the Spirit, and (4) the saint must produce the fruit of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit must directly affect a saint's heart. The purpose of this argument is supposed to establish the conclusion that a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart of a Christian is necessary, but where is the nexus that connects the premises of the argument with its conclusion? Even if we were to concede the truth of the premises (which we do not), the conclusion would not necessarily follow. Mac would never have made such a weakly based argument in debating the necessity of baptism for salvation, or the sinfulness of instrumental music in worship, but the falsities of his present beliefs on the work of the Holy Spirit necessitate arguments such as this. The conclusion of the argument would follow only if it was the only way the fruit of the Spirit could be produced given the truth of the given premises, but given those premises, Mac has not established that a direct operation would be the only way such fruit could be produced. It would be one possible way, but not the only way. God could work in other indirect ways given the insufficiency of the Word, so Mac's conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. However, the premises as stated are not true. Let's consider each of them briefly:
There is nothing in Galatians 5 or anywhere else that requires a direct operation for this, for any argument seeking to establish such does so at the expense of belittling the word of God, which is as we know the sword of the Spirit. One should be wary of crossing swords with that sword. Mac Deaver once was a giant in the Lord's church. He has become small as result of his apostasy. It gives us no pleasure to say so, but it is true. One cannot uphold error and reason at the same time. One must give way to the other. Mac Deaver has abandoned reason and argues now as a simpleton. It's not inability to blame, but the false doctrine he holds that forces him into these fallacies. We wish he would repent, but all should beware of making the same mistakes. |