Truth Magazine

By James E. Cooper

Those who defend miraculous healing for today often insist that regeneration is a miracle. A. J. Gordon quotes with approval another man who said, “You ask God to perform a real miracle when you ask Him to cure your soul of sin as you do when you ask Him to cure your body of fever” (The Ministry of Healing, p. 193). The assumption here is that when one is convinced that regeneration itself is a miracle, a major obstacle to belief in miraculous healing is overcome. We deny that regeneration is by miraculous means.

Webster defines miracle in part as “An event or effect in the physical world deviating from the known laws of nature, or transcending our knowledge of these laws.” Anything that happens contrary to the known laws of nature is called a miracle; it may not be a miracle at all. One may simply be unaware of what laws of nature are acting.

The latter part of Webster’s definition (“an extraordinary, anomalous, or abnormal event brought about by superhuman agency”) comes nearer to the realization that a proper definition of miracle must distinguish God’s special, supernatural manifestations from things which occur by natural force or law. The difference in a miracle and a natural occurrence is not that the power of God is at work, but that in a miracle God operates in an unusual manner. Gordon says, “a miracle is the immediate action of God, as distinguished from his mediate action through natural laws” (p. 193). We accept this definition with the provision that we remember that there are “natural laws” in the spiritual as well as the physical realm. Paul shows that the law, “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,” applies in the spiritual realm as well as in the physical realm (Galatians 6:7-8).

Regeneration refers to the new birth. To be regenerated is to be born again. As there is no miracle involved in being born the first time, there is no miracle involved in being born again. The child comes as the result of the operation of God’s natural laws. Conception takes place when sperm and egg are united. Following a period of gestation, delivery follows, and a new life begins. The “miracle” of birth is the result of God’s natural law of procreation at work.

In the process of regeneration, the new (or spiritual) birth, the seed must also be planted. In the parable of the sower, Jesus taught that the “seed of the kingdom” is the “word of God” (Luke 8:11). Peter declares that we have been “begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth” (1 Peter 1:23). By the preaching of the gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16), we are “begotten” by the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:15) and thus receive the “implanted word, which is able to save our souls” (James 1:21). When the Word of God works on our hearts, we are brought to the completion of the new birth when we are “born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5) and enter into the church of Christ.

Regeneration is the normal spiritual effect of the working of God’s fixed spiritual law in the matter. The Scripture teaches us that God’s law concerning regeneration requires faith in Jesus as Christ (John 8:24) based on evidence in God’s word (Romans 10:17), repentance of sins (Acts 17:30), and baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; compare also Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16 and Galatians 3:26-27). One who thus enters “into Christ” becomes a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17), and walks in “newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4). There is no miracle in regeneration; it takes place in harmony with God’s fixed (and known) spiritual law of procreation!

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, p. 98
December 19, 1974

By Fred C. Melton

Our British brethren, for the most part, have a traditionally strong aversion to what they refer to as the “one man ministry” or the clergy system and it must be said with all due respect that they come by it honestly. The slightest hint of a class system, especially in religion, many times touches off reactionary feelings stemming from long historical abuses.

I ran across the following description of English church life around the middle of the nineteenth century in a volume called Bristol’s Earliest Photographs by Reece Win stone: “I reached Christ Church in Clifton Park before 11 o’clock. `Have you got a ticket, sir?’ inquired a policeman as I was about to enter the West Porch. I told him I had not, for I was not aware a ticket was necessary. `I’m sorry for it,’ said the young man civilly enough, `for my orders are not to admit anyone without a ticket,’ `And you may rest assured,’ replied I, `that I have too great a regard for your cloth to ask you to exceed them,’ and I turned away to wait until my friend, John Henry, by the Grace of God, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, made his appearance, as I knew I might effect an entrance under the shelter of his lawn sleeves.”

In his indignation at being refused entry to Christ Church, the Churchgoer is joined by an old lady and a reporter, who express their annoyance very loudly. However, on the stroke of eleven, the doors are flung open and everybody enters, the old lady and the reporter still voicing their indignation until lost in the crowd. Another old lady, who was his pew-mate, whispers to him that there is not a pew left to be rented. “I’m told the first ten or twelve pews have given over one hundred pounds each to the church, and a friend of mine, who gave thirty is half-way down the nave.” To which the writer replies moderately that all cannot have the first pew and it is only fair the highest sums should have the highest seats. (One hundred pounds equals about $235.00 at the current exchange.) The old lady agrees and says that she hears that the poor people are to be allowed to pay a half-crown for their sittings in the aisle. The Churchgoer, after noticing the large attendance, the serious attention of all present, the mode of conducting the service, the character of the minister, and expressing his deep gratifications, goes off at a full gallop about the grievances of the poor. He complains that the High Church aristocracy, and the Evangelical aristocracy each have their own churches, but they have both “up to the present moment, overlooked the spiritual exigencies of their humbler brothers.” In short, there is no Poor Man’s Church in Clifton, and Mr. Leech (the “Churchgoer”) “is righteously indignant.” At Clifton “old Church,” the nose of the Beadle (usher) almost curled at the approach of a poor man: the aristocracy filled the pews, and their “pampered menials” the free seats. The Churchgoer, on visiting St. Andrews, the old parish church, afterwards rebuilt only to be demolished by Hitler’s bombs, gives a racy account of a “lofty, perked up looking dowager” (widow with a title) who is attended by a pageboy “so packed and squeezed into his jacket and trousers” that one fears he risked “bursting forth in native fulness and form to the world.”

The gentry and the rich merchants of Clifton went to service on Sunday attended by their servants, who carried the Prayer and Hymn Books, and after escorting their ladies to their pews, took up their places in the free seats at the back, to the detriment of the poor whom the seats were intended for. He mentions the crowds of “feathered fashionables,” visitors who owned no “sittings” waiting anxiously at the bottom of the nave until the busy pew-openers could find them accommodation. Mr. Leech was fortunate in his visit to the parish church, for he heard the great Dr. Pusey “read the Communion Service.” This gentlemen was the protagonist of what we now call ritualistic worship, and by one faction was looked upon as a saintly reformer and by the other as a heretical bugbear.

Is it any wonder then, when today one observes the crumbling old buildings of the orthodox church many times preserved only for their beauty or historical value seemingly avoided by both rich and poor alike?

Truth Magazine XVIII: 6, p. 93
December 12, 1974

By Ronald D. Howes

1844 was a banner year for imagination, speculation, and false prophets. William Miller’s day in court, or night on the roof top, came and went only to be upstaged by the daring enterprise of Ellen G. White of Seventh-Day Adventist fame. New religions were springing up with reckless abandon in the United States. Meanwhile, our neighbors in Persia were being stirred up about a modern-day “John the Baptist.” In this year, the, BAB, Persia’s “voice crying in the wilderness,” begin preparing his countrymen for BAHA `U’ LLAH, alias: Everlasting Father, Prince of this World, Lord of Lords, Alpha and Omega, Spirit of Truth, etc.(1)

The Bahai World Faith, the brainchild of “The Prophet” Baha `u’ llah and his son Abdul Baha, is a religious mutation of the worst sort. The keynote of the teaching of these men was the “oneness of all things.” Therefore, all people are one, all races, all societies, and also, all religions. All the conflicting, contradictory, and irreconcilable differences of the world’s religions are really just figments of the imagination. “All are one.” The foundation principle of the Bahai Faith is that God has manifested himself through 9 different personal representatives, or “divine manifestations” of himself. As they would say it, “All the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God.”(2)

Will The Real Jesus Christ Please Stand Up!

This translates to read that the 9 great world religions, and especially their leaders (Lowe, Krishna, Bhudda, Confucious, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Baha `u’ llah, etc.) were all sent by God, and all had the same inspiration, the same degree of truth, and the same relationship with God. Therefore Jesus is no better than Krishna, Moses has nothing over Mohammed, and the New Testament is some kind of long lost friend of the “Upanishads.” In simpler terms, this theory is a devaluation of the New Testament and turns the “Only Begotten Son of God” into a mere prophet.

Bahais contend that all the “Divine Manifestations” brought the same message from God to men; only adapted for the society into which it was brought. All these different prophets, they claim, were equal and united, all teaching the same message. An enlightened public has generally scoffed at this totally unsupportable premise. Even on basics such as their concepts of right and wrong, after-life, morality, their own mission in life, there is great diversity, yea even great difficulty.

Still, some have been convinced. Here we find offered a simple philosophical cop-out. To those who are distraught by the great differences in the world, and are not satisfied to cope with them in the gospel of Jesus Christ, this is the walk down the garden path. How much simpler it is to say that “everybody” is right, than to preach that “many” are wrong. Great problems are shrugged off as insignificant.

PROBLEMS, Problems, problems

Within the frame-work of this kind of thinking, discussions with the Bahais prove to be difficult undertakings. There is no common ground of authority in religion. All these terms become somewhat elusive and hard to tack down. They do accept the Bible as the Word of God, but no more or less so than the babblings of Krishna, or the Koran. The following excerpts from a conversation with a Bahai Chapter Leader will serve to show some of these exercises in futility.

Discussion With a Bahal

Question: How do Bahais reconcile their belief in the Bible as the Word of God and Baha `u’ llah as the Word of God, when the Bible claims to give us “all things pertaining to life and Godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). If it does, what is left over, and why does the world need Baha `u’ llah?

Answer: Jesus brought everything his generation needed as did Mohammed to his people and Bhudda to his. But, we can not expect a 2,000 year old religion to be applicable to the needs of men in today’s modern society.

Question: If Jesus’ message does not apply today, what new truth did Baha `u’ llah bring that makes his message more applicable than Jesus’?

Answer: Baha `u’ Ilah did not bring a new truth, but a new system of order and unity. Christianity failed to unite mankind, and has decayed and divided into so many sects that it can no longer deal effectively with the world’s real problems.

Question: In the letter to the Hebrews, Paul goes to great lengths to prove that Jesus and his system were superior to Moses and his system. For instance, a better covenant, a better sacrifice, a better priesthood, and more. How do Bahais reconcile these teachings with their belief that Moses and Christ were equal manifestations of the divine will?

Answer: Oftentimes disciples of a great prophet will go overboard in their praise for their prophet. This is such an instance. We do not find Jesus bragging and saying that he was better than Moses.

Question: What makes the Bahai Faith superior to Christianity?

Answer: The Bahai World Faith is more spiritually oriented than Christianity. Your religion has been shackled with worldly things. You are wrapped up in showy services, fancy buildings, physical gestures. We are not!

The last answer to this stomach turning dialogue left something to be desired. So, under further grilling he admitted that they do indeed like big 9-sided temples, hold sometimes extravagant religious feasts (with non-spiritual watermelon), and perform a genuflection during some prayers to promote spiritual humility. Still, our Chapter Leader refused to admit to himself that these were all evidences of physical needs and worldliness, and not his glorified concept of super mental spirituality.

Some Telling Points

The “great prophet” of the “New World Order” could not come up with even one new spiritual truth. By their own admission, Baha `u’ llah came to change society, and along the way he just happened to throw in a little religion to augment his political philosophy and social theory.

Bend Their Arm!

To successfully work with a Bahai, you must first completely and firmly reestablish the absolute authority of God’s Word. Step two, is to press the inconsistency of preaching a God whose prophets rarely agreed and could not make up His mind about what was best for mankind. Do not be so soft in your argumentation. Most Bahais that I have studied with relate with great pride the tremendous emotional crisis they went through in becoming Bahais; a similar crisis may be needed to root out their error. Press them, and continue to press; get them into a corner and make them sweat out their beliefs. Most Bahais consider themselves intellectuals, and this little bit of pride may be used against them to point out some of their worst mistakes for, “God is not the author of confusion” (I Cor. 14:33).

Endnotes

1. Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By (Willmette, Illinois 1957), pp. 93-95.

2.

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