Some Thoughts on “Second Baptism”

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Long before our time the question of re-baptism has been debated, argued and hashed over many times. One can understand the need for such discussions during that period of time when men were trying to come out of the sects of christendom to unite on the Bible. Issues were not as well defined then as they are now. One can appreciate the disposition of inquiring minds not yet settled on doctrinal matters (1 Thess. 5:21). Since that time (i.e., what is commonly called the “restoration”) what constitutes genuine baptism has been stated and restated many times. In spite of this some still want to argue the propriety of re-baptizing those who come out of denominationalism. Also it is not too infrequent that we come into contact with some people who are troubled with what they call “my baptism.” Those who are this anxious regarding their baptism usually make their uneasiness known by requesting a “second baptism.” This too has been thought to be inadvisable and unnecessary by brethren.

It is obvious that genuine baptism is required only once, both for time and eternity. Everything that is called baptism today is not baptism. Baptism is baptism only when it is done the way the Lord said it must be done, and for the purpose for which he said it must be done. If a person does not understand the nature of baptism (its purpose, action, etc.), how can it be argued that that person has done what the Lord commanded even though he may have gone through an act that resembles baptism? Obedience is a purposeful act on the part of an individual who is accountable to God (2 Cor. 5:10). In order to obey God, an individual must not only know that salvation is essential; he must know what the Lord requires in order to obtain it. To re-baptize a person who feels that he or she has just gone through a semblance of baptism, and feels deeply that he did not know what he was doing when he did it, is justifiable. It is justifiable even if for no other reason than “to make one’s calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). As to re-baptizing a person who comes from a denomination, it can be established in most cases that the person could not obey what he did not believe was essential and therefore-should be re-baptized.

How Much Should One Know?

Discussions on the subject before us usually end up, one way or another, with the question of how much a person has to know about baptism in order to do what is required of the Lord This writer has been distressed over the fact that at least one brother several years ago took the position that re-baptism is not necessary because a person does not have to believe or understand that baptism accomplishes anything (Sentinel of Truth, Vol. 4, No. 8, pp. 10-14). This in effect says that a person can obey something that he does not understand and is ignorant of. On the other hand I know of no preacher who takes the position that before a person can be baptized he must understand all that the Bible says about baptism. This is demonstrated by Romans, chapter six.

However, the person wanting to be baptized must know something about baptism, even if the extent of that knowledge is open for discussion. If the examples of conversion in the book of Acts teach anything, they teach that a person must know enough to prompt him to do what is commanded. For example, the eunuch knew that baptism was essential to his salvation, and that it required a burial in water (Act 8:36-39). The three thousand baptized on Pentecost knew that baptism was necessary to save them from this “untoward generation,” and that the act was for the “remission of sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38, 40). It is concluded therefore that one must have knowledge of the scriptural motive for being baptized and have an understanding of the design or end in view. When a command is given with the reasons for the obedience stated and the benefits to be derived from that obedience given, obedience from the heart must include an understanding of the reasons and benefits thereof. Like worship, obedience to the Lord in baptism must be in accordance with truth (Matt. 4:24; Matt. 15:9). A person knowing no more than what any one example of conversion in the book of Acts demonstrates or teaches knows enough to be baptized. In fact, that person should be baptized. Corning to a fuller and more complete knowledge of the subject at a later date does not necessitate re-baptism. However, if a person feels he did not know or understand what he was doing, he should be baptized a second time.

Re-Baptizing People from Denominations

Almost all denominations confidently believe that one makes his peace with God and enjoys forgiveness of his sins without baptism. People coming from these groups not only fail to believe what the Bible teaches about baptism, they in fact disbelieve them. Disbelieving what it says about the subject is far different from failure to understand! Can one possibly obey God from the heart when he obeys a command which he believes is nonessential? Believing that one cannot obey God by accident, but that obedience is a purposeful act, this writer does not hesitate to teach and encourage those who are wanting to come out of denominationalism to be re-baptized. The worth of one’s baptism is not dependent . upon the person doing the baptizing, nor upon a baptismal formula. True baptism purges one’s life from the control of sin (Rom. 6:1-6; 1 Pet. 3:21). That life should be replaced with a new kind of life (Rom. 6:17). “Therefore the person who is baptized in response to the authority and Word of God, in obedience to him and in realization of the necessity of dying to sin, being cleansed of the guilt of sin, and in being joined to Christ in order to live the rest of life in service to him, is fulfilling the scriptural conditions of baptism, and to my way of thinking this is the sort of teaching that will solve the problem of those who were baptized within the framework of denominational teaching” (Firm Foundation, May 13, 1969, p294).

Baptism is not baptism when it is done in infancy, because scriptural baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Infants have done nothing wrong and are as pure as heaven itself (Matt. 19:14). Baptism is not scriptural when it is administered by pouring or sprinkling. Baptism is a burial with Christ (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:4-6). One is not baptized, even if he was buried in water, when he does so to be admitted into some man-made church. This constitutes the wrong purpose and involves institutional baptism. These are just a few of the reasons why those coming from denominations should be baptized again. If one is scripturally baptized within the framework of denominational teaching, it will be in spite of and not because of their teaching!

Is Re-Baptism Church of Christ Theology?

At this point let it be re-stated that the spiritual condition of the person being re-baptized does not depend upon the spiritual condition of the one doing the baptizing. When Jesus commanded baptism (Matt. 28:18-20), he did not grant to any specific group of persons the exclusive right to administer the act. It is possible, but most unlikely, that a person who is an alien might learn about the command to be baptized from the Bible and render proper obedience, even though it is administered by an unbeliever. A person could possibly do so without even hearing that there is a church of Christ, for the simple fact that once the process of the new birth is begun and carried out, no one can deny that the person thus baptized is a new creature (Jn. 3:1-6; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 18:3; 2 Cor. 5:17). This is not to argue that the person under these conditions remains faithful, or that we have fellowship with him. Fellowship exists only when those translated out of darkness continue to walk in the light (Col. 1:13; 1 Jn. 1:6-7). Our fellowship is contingent upon our faithfulness to do God’s will. This is why there are no Christians as such in the sects, and why we cannot fellowship those who depart from truth to join denominational teaching.

It is possible, though I do not know of any example of such, for brethren to view second baptism or even baptism itself as “Church of Christ baptism.” If so, then this is pure sectarianism. If there are any who do teach: baptism as a “Church of Christ doctrine,” then those who are baptized in response to it obey the “Church of Christ” and not the Lord! I would insist that this person be baptized again in response to the Gospel just as quickly as I would insist that one who was sprinkled be “re-baptized”-rather, that he be immersed, which is the Biblical meaning of baptism.

Robert Turner, in the May 1, 1969 issue of The Gospel Guardian, demonstrates how easy it is to equate practice with truth. He shows’ how we conclude (rightly so) that the true church is that body of people who accept and obey the truth; how that if we accept and obey truth that makes us the true church; and how some take the fatal step from the divine standard to the human by concluding (wrongly so) that only those who do as we do are members of the church. We must be careful less we view baptism in this light and conclude that only “Church of Christ preachers” can baptize scripturally. While in some rare instances there may be some who view baptism in a sectarian atmosphere, we must be careful not to label all who insist for truth regarding second baptism as teaching a “Church of Christ theology.” More important yet, one must not allow the abuse of this question to drive him to the other extreme to where he practices “open membership” by insisting that it is not necessary to re-baptize those coming from denominations.

Conclusion

Baptism is baptism when an individual voluntarily and understandingly confesses his faith in Christ Jesus, and as a penitent believer cheerfully submits himself to God by being baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 2:38): God nowhere accepts substitutes for what he commands in baptism. If you have not done in connection with your baptism, or if your baptism does not coincide with the requirements laid down by God-you should be baptized again. In face, you simply should scripturally be baptized!

Truth Magazine XVIII: 6, pp. 89-90
December 12, 1974

New Papers Galore

By Cecil Willis

In Edward George Earl Lytton’s dramatic production, Richelieu, written in 1839, it was said that “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Our Lord also knew this. All that we know of what He taught is what we learn through the written word. We never would have known one thing that our Savior taught, had not God seen fit to preserve those teachings through the inspired writings of apostles and prophets who permanently inscribed them with quill and pen.

The power of the written word today well has been evidenced by the impact that religious periodicals and church bulletins have had in stopping that monster of digression which has devoured so many of the churches of our day. The Devil never ceases his nefarious work. Hence, there is always the need to oppose error both by the spoken and by the written word. While the meeting houses doors of many churches effectively have been locked to prevent anyone from teaching the truth from the pulpit, there has been one thing the liberals have not been able to do: They have been unable to put locks on the mail-boxes of their members. Many souls have been saved, “snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 23), because someone cared enough to send them a tract, or to send to them a good teaching bulletin published by some church, or by purchasing a subscription for them to some good religious journal.

Our brethren have been educationally oriented. They have realized the effectiveness of various teaching instruments, and have utilized the services of some service-type organizations which provide written and, in some cases, oral instruction to those who wish to purchase such products or services. But the mortality rate of these service-type organizations has been great. Recently I saw the following statement: “Of the 19 Christian colleges started before 1924, only six survived-Nashville Bible College, Abilene Christian College, Harding College, Freed-Hardeman College and the little colleges at Grafton, California and Beamsville, Canada . . . .” Those who know me well know that I do not approve of the usage of the word “Christian” when applied to a school or paper. Someone has said that the term “Christian” should not be applied to anything which has not been scripturally baptized. Nor do I approve of a single one of the schools mentioned in the above quotation. I simply am calling attention to the high mortality rate of such organizations.

The propensity of brethren to start religious journals has been many times greater than that of founding schools. Dr. Claude Spencer, Curator-Emeritus, of the Disciples of Christ Historical Society located at Nashville, Tennessee, said once that people associated with the “Restoration Movement” have within the last 175 years started at least 1300 different religious journals. The mortality rate among papers is likewise high. However, Mission magazine this year made a journalistic report on 66 periodicals now being published by members of the Churches of Christ. As I write this article, I have before me a listing of 90 different journals which are published by members of the church. Many of these papers, I have never seen. I subscribe only to about 35 of them. Most of them are published by liberal brethren. These journals are of varying types, from “Doctrinal or Teaching,” to “Regional News,” or from “Devotional and Inspirational” to “Open” or “Specialty.” The inclination of members to purchase and to read religious publications has not kept pace with the readiness of brethren to start new journals. This statistical fact probably is the main contributor to the high mortality rate among religious journals published by brethren.

But even after considering these unfavorable statistical odds for survival, there are several new periodicals being started by conservative brethren concerning which we would like to inform our Truth Magazine readers. I wish it were possible to get every member of the church to subscribe to one or more of these journals. I even wish it were possible to get every subscriber of Truth Magazine to subscribe to all of the good papers published by faithful brethren. Without intending to connote the opprobrious context in which the Apostle Paul made the statement, I can, like him, without difficulty say, “that in every way . . . Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Phil. 1:18). Just as there cannot be too much spoken gospel, neither can there ever be too much written gospel.

Currently Being Published

Until recently, the best known periodicals written by conservative brethren in English have been Searching the Scriptures, Preceptor, Gospel Guardian, Torch, and Truth Magazine. Additionally, there have been some “first principle” type papers which serve their purposes well. About two years ago Robert Welch, and his son John, started a Quarterly known as Faith and Facts which is well worth your money, and time spent in reading it. You can order Faith and Facts from P.O. Box 214, New Albany, Indiana 47150. Subscription price is $2.00 per year. Searching the Scriptures can be ordered from Connie W. Adams (previously associated with Truth Magazine), Box 68, Brooks, Kentucky 40109. This paper is published monthly, and the subscription price is $5.00 per year. Former Associate Editor of Truth Magazine, James P. Needham, now edits a monthly known as Torch. The subscription rate is $3.00 per year, and may be ordered from Brother Needham at 1600 Oneco Avenue, Winter Park, Florida 32789. The Preceptor is edited by Stanley Lovett, is published monthly, and may be purchased for $3.00 per year by writing Box 187, Beaumont, Texas. The Gospel Guardian is published fortnightly and may be ordered from Box 858, Athens, Alabama 36711, and its subscription rate is $7.00 per year. More will be said regarding the Gospel Guardian later on in this article. And I was just about to forget to mention another fairly young but very good journal, The Bible Standard. It now is published monthly, is edited by Kent Ellis, and sells for $3.00 per year. Subscriptions may be sent to Brother Ellis at 1210 Neans Drive, Austin, Texas 78758. David Tant and Billy Norris both publish “first principle” type papers, and I will be glad to send you information on how you may order them, if you will write me. I am now in the Portsmouth, Ohio area in a gospel meeting with the Harding Avenue church in Sciotoville, Ohio, and do not have all the salient information with me regarding these papers. A paragraph like this one is dangerous! It is nearly inevitable that I inadvertently overlooked some journal that I gladly could commend to you. If so, please call it to my attention, and I will publish pertinent data regarding it. I might just add here that there also is a paper called Truth Magazine to which we would like to have you to subscribe, if you do not already do so.

Several New Journals Beginning

Several brethren have announced intentions to start some new journals about January 1, 1975, and one new paper has just recently begun publication.

Gospel Anchor: Brother Gene Frost has revived his paper called Gospel Anchor. The first issue of this revived paper appeared in September, 1974. Gene Frost is a well-known and highly respected student and writer. Associated with him in this new journalistic effort as “Regional Editors” are Maurice Barnett of Phoenix, Arizona; Jere Frost of Orlando, Florida; David Harkrider of Denver, Colorado; Jack Holt of Memphis, Tennessee; Brent Lewis of Cypress, California; Elmer Moore of Kerrville, Texas; Lloyd Nash of San Antonio, Texas; and Morris Norman of Akron, Ohio. This monthly journal sells for $6.00 per year, and may be ordered from Box 21172, Louisville, Kentucky 40221. In case the name Gospel Anchor sounds familiar to you, let me just mention that several years ago Brother,Frost published for one year a very informative paper that bore the same name.

Sentry: Brother Floyd Chappelear, 3910 Glenbrook, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 has announced his intention to begin a new paper which he has chosen to call Sentry magazine. Subscription price to this monthly journal is only $2.00 per year. As yet, Brother Chappelear has not announced who, if anyone, will be associated officially with him in this effort. He may have chosen to bear his cross alone! Publishing a monthly or weekly paper is no picnic!

Brother Chappelear has indicated that most articles will be produced by request. The announcement states that Sentry will feature “articles on living as Christians.” “Upcoming Articles” are said to include a series on rearing children, an article on the Christian and the Labor Movement, a piece called “Games People Play,” and several articles on the Bible and Physical and Mental health, written by a physician. Getting its first subscribers is the most difficult period in the existence of any publication, so I am sure Brother Chappelear would appreciate receiving your subscription. I have been told that the paper has adequate financial backing to guarantee its continued existence. If true, I envy him! Truth Magazine has never been so fortunate.

With All Boldness: For several years Brent Lewis has put out an impressive and very informative eight-page or more bulletin entitled With All Boldness. Brent is a good writer, and he has done some particularly good work when he has devoted entire issues of his bulletin to one subject. Such issues usually have turned out to be something that you wanted to file away for future use. Now Brent has decided to turn With All Boldness into a subscription-type monthly religious journal. Subscriptions to this journal may be sent to Brent Lewis at 4871 Cathy Avenue, Cypress, California 90630. I am sorry that I do not know the subscription price at this moment, but Brent will be glad to supply you with details. Whatever the price may be, I feel confident that you will feel that your money was well spent on a subscription to With All Boldness.

Gospel Guardian: You may think it strange that I mention the Gospel Guardian under the heading of “New Journals Beginning.” But I think it appropriate to do so. The Gospel Guardian of ten or fifteen years ago slowly has died in the last five years. Some of those associated with the paper think that opposition to the Gospel Guardian is what killed it. Not so! The Editor, some of the Associate Editors, and its contents are what killed it. It was first “watered down” under the guise that it was going to become a “family magazine.” But more recently, it became the forum for those who advocated a loose view on the grace-fellowship question, which position we have strongly opposed, and do still strongly oppose, and have every intention to continue to oppose as strongly as we can: The Gospel Guardian which formerly was dedicated to do precisely what its name implied gradually died. Oh, I do not mean that it completely and formally died, but insofar as its original stance and intentions were concerned, it was dead. Worse still, in recent years, it has been the leading advocate among conservative brethren of positions of which it formerly was the leading opposer. So quite frankly, I was glad to see the Gospel Guardian, as we have seen it for the past four or five years, die.

But I am equally as happy to announce that the Gospel Guardian has been born again! The paper has been sold to a group of Christians who have dismissed the former staff, and have placed Eugene Britnell as Editor. The first issue of the Gospel Guardian under Brother Britnell’s editorship has appeared, but I have not seen it as yet. But going on one thing only-my implicit confidence in the soundness of Eugene Britnell-I feel confident to say that the Gospel Guardian, as we have known it for the past five years or so, is dead, buried, and will not be resurrected. And under Brother Britnell, it is my judgment that the Gospel Guardian, as it for many years previously was known, is among the living, again.

I do not know as yet who will compose the staff of the new Gospel Guardian, but I am confident that Eugene Britnell is – not going to permit any paper he edits to be loaded with errorists and softies. I do not think you will be seeing any more of the “fellowship every brother who has been baptized for the remission of sins” doctrine which recently has been taught through the pages of the Gospel Guardian. I am aware that Brother Edward Fudge would say that his is not a “fellowship every brother who has been baptized for the remission of sins” position. He believes that adulterers and murderers should not be fellowshiped, and he believes that those who knowingly, presumptuously, and high-handedly sin also should not be fellowshiped. But he simply does not believe that issues like instrumental music in worship, missionary societies, sponsoring churches, church-supported human institutions, churchsupported recreation, and other similar digressions should ever have become grounds for a breach of fellowship, and consequent division. According to Brother Fudge, these brethren merely are confused intellectually about some of the unnecessary “doctrine” of Christ, but they still believe and have obeyed the essentials of the “gospel.” So far as I can tell, his position on fellowship is identical with that of Carl Ketcherside, with the exception that he tacks on at the end of his affirmation, ‘for the remission of sins, ” and Ketcherside does not think that whether one was, or was not, baptized for the remission of sins is of any great consequence.

Ours has never been a fight with the Gospel Guardian as such. Ours has been a fight with the men who used the pages of the Gospel Guardian as their forum through which they taught pernicious error. I have talked with Brother Britnell, and have told him that we do not intend to carry on any longer a running battle with those who write in the Gospel Guardian, for I do not expect to see in it any more articles containing these pernicious errors. But neither am I naive enough to think that those who have promulgated such damaging teaching are going to roll over and play dead just because the pages of the Gospel Guardian no longer are available to them to be used as an instrument to further their false teaching. This error is not dead, so do not think that there will be no further occasion to oppose it. But I sincerely do not believe it will be taught, and left unanswered, any longer through the pages of the Gospel Guardian under the editorship of Eugene Britnell. This change of ownership we were very glad to see, and with a new editor to be appointed, I hardly see how the new owners could have chosen a man for whose soundness brethren have greater respect than for that of Eugene Britnell. We are delighted to wish the resurrected Gospel Guardian tremendous success and a wide circulation.

Vanguard Magazine: With the sale of the Gospel Guardian and the appointment of Eugene Britnell as Editor, Brother Yater Tant has chosen to start a new paper named Vanguard Magazine in January, 1975. This proposed new paper has an imposing staff connected with it. Brother Tant will serve as Editor, Brother Ed Harrell will serve as “Special Columnist.” and an Editorial Board has been appointed, consisting of Homer Hailey, Franklin T. Puckett, Clinton Hamilton, Robert Farish, Hoyt Houchen, L. A. Mott, Jr., Sewell Hall, and Peter J. Wilson. This new paper will cost $7.50 per year, will be published twice a month, will consist of 32 pages per issue, and may be ordered from Vanguard, Box 3006, Memphis, Tennessee 38103.

Brother Tant’s article, “My Farewell to the Gospel Guardian,” which appeared in the October 31, 1974 issue of the Guardian, was a poignant one to me. Brethren in faithful churches today owe a great debt of gratitude to those men who fought so hard for the truth through the pages of the Gospel Guardian during the early 1950’s. This feeling of such deep gratitude was that which increased my abhorrence of what I had seen the Gospel Guardian become in the past five or so years. Many of those great warriors have now left the battlefield here below; among them such admirable men as W. Curtis Porter, Cecil Douthitt, R. L. Whiteside, and C. R. Nichol. Others who had fought the good fight in earlier years had abandoned the Gospel Guardian when its management and ownership came under the control of those who stood upon shifting sands, and among these were Roy Cogdill, Luther Blackmon, James W. Adams, Robert Farish, Robert Welch, and Hoyt Houchen-the men who really were the heart of the Gospel Guardian. Brother Tant alone remained connected with the Gospel Guardian, and in his last article, he said that “for three additional years I was listed as an Associate Editor (during which time I wrote practically nothing . . J.” So after about 25 years of close association with the Gospel Guardian, Brother Tant, now approaching 70 years of age, sets out anew upon the journalistic seas, which he knows are frequently turbulent, in a brand new boat-Vanguard Magazine.

I graduated from High School in 1949 . . . the same year that the Gospel Guardian began to appear as a weekly journal. My home was at Woodlake, Texas, a metropolitan area of about 300 people, which was located about 3.0 miles from Lufkin, from which the Gospel Guardian for so many years was mailed. In my limited view of things, Roy E. Cogdill, Luther Blackmon, James W. Adams and Yater Tant were the Gospel Guardian. I did not know the other able writers then.

Due to bilateral cerebral atrophy, Luther Blackmon is wiped out completely as a gospel preacher and writer. His writings will continue to live for years to come, as they inevitably will be re-printed from time to time. But his pulpit days are gone, as he himself so well is aware. Roy Cogdill is battling cancer, and how much longer he may be able to continue to preach the gospel with such unique power is very uncertain. Already his failing health has seriously curtailed his ability to write prolifically as he has for five decades. James Adams, who is nearing 60, appears to be in good health and perhaps will be able to use the pen in his inimical way for some years to come. Perhaps it is just hard for me to realize that the “Old Guard” is passing from the scene of action, but I cannot restrain the tears as I reflect on those worthies, both living and dead, who have fought so hard for the defense and furtherance of divine truth. I know that God has His own way of raising up other men to take the place of those who fall in battle, but I cannot reflect upon these gallant warriors without great emotion of gratitude. We owe them so much, and should tell them so!

In Brother Tant’s “Farewell” piece, he said:

“My years on the Guardian were filled with many events and they are rich in memories. I especially carry in my heart, and will till the day I die, the total loyalty and support given me by Roy Cogdill. He was a tower of strength! He owned the paper, but not once did he tell me either to print something, or not to print something. I had absolute freedom to use my own judgment. And more than once I printed something I knew Roy would not like-and he didn’t like it. And told me so in words easy to understand; and then went right on with never a hint of any weakening in his backing and support! Others sometimes complained that he was hard to deal with; this was never my experience. And when I learned some months ago that he had a malignancy that might take his life, I wept openly and unashamedly. By God’s grace it seems now that he may have many additional years of service; but whether he lives or dies, his place in my heart will remain secure.”

A Concluding Postscript

I am not an Existentialist, but I suppose it will be all right if I use as a caption an adaptation of the title of one of Kierkegaard’s books. Throughout my preaching life, Roy Cogdill, Luther Blackmon, James Adams, and Yater Tant have had much influence upon me through their writings and preaching. Five years ago when Roy Cogdill and James Adams approached me about turning Truth Magazine into a weekly, I was very hesitant to do so. After deciding to do so, I suggested that we install Brother James Adams as Editor. He declined that proposal. So they both can verify that since 1969 I have leaned quite heavily upon them for counsel and editorial advice. Frequently when I was uncertain and wavering about whether to publish an article that I thought hit particularly hard, I have asked their judgment before proceeding. I believe I can say that, without exception, they have in every case said, “let her fire!” Though both now are “getting along in years” as we sometimes put it, neither has shown any sign that he is about to withdraw from the battlefield, or to soften his blows in battle against error.

Some of the new papers state rather idealistic objectives as to how they are going to deal with error when it arises. I do not know any way to deal with error but to deal with it specifically and explicitly. I have sought to represent those with whom we had controversy accurately; when we have failed to do so, I have sought to correct the misrepresentation, if I was convinced that I had indeed misrepresented the person involved. Perhaps some of these other papers can deal with error and errorists effectively without calling names and documenting the error taught, but I do not know how to deal with error effectively while dealing with it only in generalities. We have no intention to modify the course we have chosen to take in dealing with error in Truth Magazine. If our manner did not comport with that of our Lord and His Apostles, then we would be open to change. After reading again recently through all the Gospels and Acts, I have felt no need to question whether I have fought error too hard. However, I have wondered if I opposed error and those who teach it strongly enough!

I am not so naive as to fail to see that some of the new papers being started have been started because some .,have thought we write too strongly, and deal personally with errorists, through Truth Magazine. But as old Brother F. B. Srygley said once when he was criticized for personally dealing with some false teacher, so say I: “All the error which I have encountered thus far in my life has been error taught by some man; but if I ever encounter any of this error just floating around in the air, I certainly intend to take a shot at it!” If our deliberately chosen procedure eventually should cause the failure of Truth Magazine and should even bring on its demise, my attitude is, So be it! I have no apology to make for the course we have chosen in opposing false doctrine within or without the church, and have no plans to change our procedure.

Several years ago, a gospel preacher about 60 years of age and I were discussing the “methods” of a certain gospel preacher in opposing error. Being a young preacher and having very high regard for this older man, I was mostly listening, and letting him do most of the talking. (Did some of you say that you do not believe that last statement???) Well, I really was, believe it or not. This older brother, after criticizing the methods of the preacher being discussed, then paused and after reflection said: “I have never approved of the methods employed by Brother . Instead, I have always tried to just deal with the Bible principles involved, without dealing with personalities and without making specific application of those principles that I preached.” Then after another considerable pause, he continued, “But I must confess that everywhere Brother has preached, there is today a faithful church. They may have had quite a furor and quite a fight, and the church may even have split. But every single place he has preached, there is today a sound church. And I must confess that every church for which I have preached in my entire life, up until the one with which I am working now, is today a liberal church. ” That conversation spoke volumes to me about how to deal with error. I hope that we might so preach and so write that wherever we go, behind us will be left a string of churches faithful to the Lord, and fervent in His service.

Before you now are some details about many papers. I personally would like to see each Christian subscribe to all of them, and to read from and to study all of the material presented therein. Then appropriate into your life and work every morsel of truth presented by any writer in any paper. Preachers, papers, and writers are all of relative unimportance, but all divine truth is supremely important. Get all of it you can! As Solomon said: “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23).

Truth Magazine XVIII: 6, pp. 82-87
December 12, 1974

Spiritual Gifts (III): Gifts of Faith and Miraculous Power

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

The Gift of Faith

The next three gifts in Paul’s catalogue in 1 Cor. 12:811 are faith, gifts of healing, and workings of miracles. These are interrelated and thus we shall examine them as a group. Some denominationalists have a field day with the apostle’s mention of faith in his list of charismata, searching for a “proof-text” that “saving faith” is a gift of God. That Paul places this “faith” in a list of supernatural endowments which no believer possessed in full is a clear indication that something other than “saving faith” is under consideration. There are at least three uses of the word faith (pistis) in the New Testament; one is the use our text makes of it; a second is that “faith” which “was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3) referring to that body of Divinely revealed beliefs by which the saints are to conduct their lives; the third usage is that “faith” without which “it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto Him” (Heb. 11:6). This latter usage is “saving faith,” a faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind, the Son of God. This saving faith “is a complete commitment-intellectual, volitional, and emotional-to the Lord through obedience to His word.”(1) This faith occurs not through a special, personal supernatural endowment, but rather “comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). Though all of these “faiths” may in some generic sense be called “gifts from God” since they are all made possible by Him, it is quite apparent that Paul has something more distinctive in mind when he lists “faith” among the charismata.

The most reasonable understanding of “faith” in 1 Cor. 12, in view of its link with other miraculous powers in the text, is that it refers to a particular degree of faith which enables the possessor to perform tremendous feats. Jesus referred to this “mountain-moving” degree of faith (1 Cor. 13:2) during His earthly ministry, “Verily I say unto you, if ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done” (Matt. 21:21) and it evidently was a prerequisite to the working of any kind of miracles requiring tremendous power (see also Lk. 17:6; Mk. 11:23). McGarvey pointed out that no amount of faith ever enabled one to perform a miracle to whom such power had not been given. The Spirit distributed the gifts through the agency of the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 8:18; 2 Tim. 1:6). The “miracle-working” faith made the gifts operative. Hence, no amount of faith, devotion or prayer can unleash the Divine energy which works miracles unless one possesses the gifts. Since there are no living apostles, it is impossible for believers to possess such gifts in our day and time.

Gifts of Healings

New Testament healings are distinguished by their completeness and instantaneousness. Unlike modern-day “faith-healers” whose “miracles” take years and years to “take effect” and then only with the assistance of physicians (!), the healings of Scripture occur immediately-truly miraculously: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk. And he took him by the right hand, and raised him up: and immediately his feet and his ankle-bones received strength” (Acts 3:6,7; see also 5:15ff.; 8:7; 19:12). Gifts of healings impowered the possessor to effect complete and instantaneous recovery-without a period of “convalescence.” In New Testament days, God healed through specific persons endowed with this special gift; these were granted primarily for the purpose of confirming the word (Jn. 20:30, 31). God still heals the sick today and the fact that He does so is no less “divine;” however the manner in which He accomplishes this is quite different. God now works providentially through natural means to effect His will.

Lenski makes a significant point of which we should take note: “We should not think that healings and miracles were wrought at will by the person concerned. In each instance a specific intimation came to them from the Spirit that the act should be performed, and not until that moment did it occur, but then it always took place without fail.”(2) The evidence is that the men equipped to perform such healings did not do so indiscriminately; in each instance the power or energy was bestowed from above for that case alone. Peter. was called to Joppa by the disciples to deal with the.death of Dorcas; when he arrived he prayed (Acts 9:40) and then turned and raised her from the dead. On another occasion in Philippi, Paul endured the soothsaying maiden for several days and then suddenly cast the demon but of her (Acts 16:16-18). These incidents indicate that the possessors of these gifts were under the direction of the Spirit, healing at His command.

We might digress here and notice the admittedly difficult passage regarding healing in James. 5:13-15. This passage is often set forth as proof that miracles of healing through men are still operative. Though many submit a highly plausible figurative interpretation of this section (that the context is “spiritual sickness”), our inquiry into the miracle-working faith of 1 Cor. 12:9 may give us some insight into James’ meaning. T. R. Applebury, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, suggests that the “prayer of faith” refers to the faith of the elders, “The article used with the word `faith’ indicates that it was the faith of the elders-the same faith about which we read in 1 Cor. 12:9–that produced a miraculous healing.”(3) James then cites the miracles performed by Elijah to prove his point; clearly, the performance of a miracle in the New Testament always depended upon the faith of the one performing the miracle and not the one receiving the miracle (cf. Acts 3:1-10). Hence, we, conclude that James’ words have no relevance to modern day “miracle working” and must be seen in the context of spiritual gifts which were present in the early church.

Workings of Miracles

“Miracles” here is better rendered “powers” or “energies;” it consists of the same “dynamite” (dunamis) that the gospel is said to be (Rom. 1:16, 17). The apostle distinguishes here between miracles of healing and other displays of Divine energy. His language here especially seems to stress the sheer power at the disposal of those believers possessing the gift. These powers are referred to in. Heb. 2:4 (“signs and wonders, and by manifold powers”) and Gal. 3:5 (“worketh miracles among you”). Such workings would include not only positive feats such as the raising of persons from the dead and the casting out of demons (as well as such things as providing food, calming storms, etc.), but also such negative deeds as the judgment of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) and the blinding of Elymas the sorcerer for “a season” (Acts 13). The design and result of such feats were always the edification of the church (“fear came upon the whole church”-Acts 5:11) and the progress of the gospel (“when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord”-, Acts 13:12).

All three of these gifts are seen to be closely related; extraordinary faith was necessary for the working of extraordinary miracles. These miracles were always performed under the direction of the Spirit for the establishment and edification of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. We find no capricious “snake-handling” brand of demonstrations by the disciples who accepted the Savior and received these gifts. When the Lord is involved, the design -and emphasis is always upon the rational and reasonable use of all abilities and powers.

Endnotes

1. T. R.. Applebury, Studies in First Corinthians (Joplin: College Press; 1963), p: 224.

2. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of I and 2 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1963), p. 502.

3. Applebury, p. 225.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 6, pp. 87-88
December 12, 1974

Who was the “Rock”

By John Berlin

In Matthew 16:18, we read, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the Gates of Hell (Hades) shall not prevail against it.”

From this very important passage of scripture, we learn several things. First and foremost, it should teach us that Christ has a church which he himself built. Jesus did not speak of building “churches” plural, but spoke of building a “church,” singular. This is in accord with Paul’s statement in Ephesians 4:4, “There is one body. . : .” We learn from Ephesians 1:22, 23 that this body was the church, so Paul and Christ both spoke of but one church, the church that Jesus built.

What is the Rock upon which the church is built? Common logic must admit that it could not have been Peter for the Greek words from which “Peter” and “Rock” are translated are altogether different. “Peter” comes from “Petros” (masculine), and “Rock” from “Petra” (feminine). The two words refer to two different types of rock or stone. To refer to Peter (masculine) by a feminine noun (Rock) is like saying, “What a fine baby boy, what is her name?”

A careful study of related scriptures brings out the fact that Peter could. not be the Rock upon which the church was built. In Isaiah 28:16, we learn that the foundation was to be a stone, a tried stone, a sure foundation. Peter was not the foundation spoken of for when he was tried he did not remain, sure and steadfast. Five verses after Jesus said, “Upon this Rock I will build My church,” He said to Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan; Thou art an offense unto Me; For thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Matt. 16:23). This was the same Peter that ten chapters later cursed and swore and said “I know not this man” (Matt. 26:74). Peter repented of this and was a good man, an inspired Apostle, but he was not the foundation of the church. The church is built upon a sure foundation. Peter was “loose, shifting rock” while Christ was the “solid, sure bedrock.” Peter himself declares Christ to be the sure foundation, the tried stone in Acts 4:11, 12, “This (Christ) is the stone which was nought (rejected) by you builders . . . .” The Church of Christ, the church built by Jesus; is founded upon the sure and tried foundation of Jesus Christ, not Peter.

The church was not dependent upon a continuous, unbroken line of succession. The church is propagated by the seed principle. (See Matt. 13). The word of God is the seed of the kingdom. When a seed is sown in a field, it produces a new plant identical to the plant from which the seed came. We would not expect to plant wheat and reap corn. Now if one wants to produce a Christian, what is needful-joining some institution that “claims” unbroken lineage, or to simply plant the word of God, which is the seed of the kingdom? The seed principle cannot be ignored or by-passed either in the natural or spiritual realm.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 6, p. 82
December 12, 1974