Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Indiana: “Are there any scriptural objections to prevent conducting a marriage ceremony (not reception, etc.) inside a church building? (This would include the exchanging of vows and remarks by the evangelist only.)”

REPLY:

The answer to this question depends on who you ask! Seriously, this response will not suit, soothe, or satisfy everyone, but a few thoughts may be helpful. It is hoped that no feuds or factions will form from this question or its answer.

Our querist has inserted a very important qualification. There will be no wedding reception, rice throwing, secular songs, the traditional trappings of a social event, and “This would include the exchanging of vows and remarks by the evangelist only.” I have serious reservations about the pomp and pageantry of many weddings because ostentatious showmanship takes precedence over the solemn setting of teaching and an exchange of marriage vows.

The Building And Teaching

The meeting house of a church is an expediency. It is authorized by general authority under the command to “assemble.” The church is charged to teach and to relieve its needy (1 Thess. 1:8; Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:16). There is nothing specific about the method or “how” the church is to teach. During a wedding such as described by our inquirer, I would preach a sermon on the history, purposes and laws of God respecting marriage. I believe I may do this in a church building when no bridal party is before me. May I not do the same thing in the same place when a couple is before me desirous of being married, of exchanging vows? The bridal pair is a living demonstration and illustration of the teaching that is done.

The church building is not sacred, in the Roman Catholic sense. It is not a shrine. It is not God’s sanctuary. The church is God’s temple, His sanctuary (Eph. 2:19-22). The church building is not. However, the building should riot be a public auditorium to be used for any and every purpose and activity. It exists as a place for the church to do what God has authorized it to do. The church must teach. A wedding as a teaching situation, not as a social, secular event, is justified since the command to teach is general and not specific as to how it shall be done. The church building is not a wedding chapel, but a wedding affords an occasion for teaching. A meeting house is not a funeral parlor, but it provides opportunity for gospel preaching. A church house is not a baptismal site, but a baptismal service gives time for the performance of what God has commanded of the individual and for teaching and admonition on the subject.

Conclusion And Admonitions

The following is not a rebuke or a reprimand to our querist. It is good that he desires to know if there are scriptural objections to a practice. However, let us first ask, “Where is the authority?” before we ask, “Are there any scriptural objections?”

And again, let there be no divisions over such matters. Too much strife and too many quarrels have been gendered and generated by well meaning brethren who have tried to make laws in areas where God has not specifically legislated. Let all be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. L

Truth Magazine XVIII: 5, p. 75
December 5, 1974

By Ronald D. Howes

One of the distinct advantages of growing up in Chugiak, Alaska is the opportunity to know and work with Mormons on their home territory. Alaska has long been a. Mormon mission field. One of my schoolmates, a 16 year-old Mormon priest and elder (at the time), walked up to me and said, “I can prove to you that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.” Our discussion of that issue had been going on hot and heavy for several months. He continued, “In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 87, you will find the `Civil War’ described in great detail some 30 years before it came about.” Needless to say, that sort of threw me for a loop. He also mentioned that “We have made a lot of conversions with that prophecy.”

. . . Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the war that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; And the time will come that war will be poured out on all nations, beginning at this place. For behold, the Southern states shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out on all nations. And it shall come to pass after many days, slaves shall rise up against their Masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war. And it shall come to pass that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal! themselves, and shall became exceedingly angry, and shall vex the gentiles with a sore vexation. And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations” (Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 87, vs. 7-8 omitted). A quick reading of the Articles of Faith (pg. 25, by James E. Talmadge) will point out the tremendous importance that Mormons place on this prophecy. The reason being, of course, that this is one of the few times that our erstwhile “prophet” ever came near hitting what he was predicting. The only problem being, he missed it by a mile.

A Few Small Problems

The introduction to the prophecy gives its date as December of 1832. One month prior to this date, South Carolina had passed the Nullification Act, refusing to recognize a law recently passed by the Congress. For 40 years prior to 1832, the North and South had experienced growing tension over trade rights, tariffs and slavery. The editorials and headlines of November and December, 1832 were filled with predictions of violence. Although Micah predicted the birthplace of Christ nearly 730 years prior to that event by the influence of the Holy Spirit, all that Joe had to do was read his newspaper for the text of his prophecy.

Mormons like to point to, the astounding prediction that the South would call upon Great Britain. But, was this a prophecy in the purest sense, or just a “calculated guess?” Who else would like to see the Union weakened but her former owner who was still feeling the wounds suffered in the Revolution,’ and again in the embarrassing 1812 defeat? Joe pronounces that the call was made “in order to defend herself against other nations.” The call was made, but here Mr. Smith draws a blank. A war-weary Great Britain, with trouble in the empire, did not respond with the aid as predicted.

Nearly Everybody And His Second Cousin Gets Killed

He says that “war shall be poured out upon all nations,” and, again, Joseph’s prophecy fails the test. This war was strictly confined to the Continent, no one else worth even mentioning, became involved. Again, our prophet relates that the .slaves would marshal! for war. That did not happen, as most were faithful to their masters for the duration, and left only under pain of economic necessity. Admitting that there were slaves involved on both sides does not embarrass us a bit. We want to know where Joe’s “marshaling” took place. The seer saw a great Indian uprising to accompany the war. This time he really blew it. There were a few battles in which they took part, but no uprising. It turned out later, that it was the Gentiles who vexed the Indians with a “sore vexation” and not the other way around. In his penchant for over-statement, our revelator says that the “inhabitants of the earth shall mourn.” But where is his general famine, terrible plagues, tremendous earthquakes, and especially his bad weather? In a last terrible fit of. apocalyptic fervor, he declares a “full end of all nations” as a result of the Civil War! Republics, democracies, dictatorships, and all the rest have continued to exist, and the number of nations has increased dramatically since the 1800’s, quite contrary to Joe’s pretended curse.

Other Strange Ideas

No study of Mormonism would be complete, without at least a short perusal of some of their truly strange concepts. Under the guise of “inspiration from God” they have managed to assemble a truly unique collection of weird thought. They rival only Sun M. Moon for first place in motley collections of doctrinal trivia. Here is the Mormon doctrine regarding the nature and essence of Deity: “. . . three individuals physically distinct . . . in form and stature perfect men” (Articles of Faith, Talmadge pp. 39, 42). “. . . God has a body of flesh and bones” (Doctrine and Covenants, section 130, v. 22). Regarding the nature of man, Smith said the following: “. . . Man was in the beginning with God” (Doctrine and Covenants, section 93, v. 29). With reference to baptism for the benefit of dead persons, he said: “: . . baptizing for the Dead . . . was instituted before the foundation of the world” (Doctrine and Covenants, p. 221, v. 33).

In addition to this short list, Mormons ordain non-Jews as Levitical priests, or as they call it “the Aaronical priesthood.” A study of the Book of Mormon makes mention of the children of Joseph being ordained as priests, contrary to all the Old Testament says about only using Levites as priests. (Numbers 16:1-35) Within the complex structure of their, religion, young men are ordained “elders,” which to the reader of the New Testament is a contradiction of terms. Few Mormon elders are married and have believing children, since these are not prerequisites to their office, in Mormon doctrine.

Conclusion

No more fitting ending could be given to any study of this human organization that what Israel was told by Moses about false prophets many years ago, “But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other Gods, that same prophet shall die . . . . How shall we know the word which Jehovah hath not spoken? . . . if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:20).

Truth Magazine XVIII: 5, pp. 71-72
December 5, 1974

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

Introduction to 1 Cor. 12

The apostle Paul begins 1 Corinthians 12 by pointing out to the brethren there what spiritual gifts are not. Erdman expresses the undoubted rationale behind Paul’s discourse on the charismata, “These supernatural endowments were being regarded by the Corinthian Christians as ends in themselves. They were being displayed for the pride and gratification of their possessors. The most surprising of the gifts and not the most useful were the most highly prized, and the exercise of these gifts was resulting in envy and vanity and division.”(1) Paul makes a deliberate contrast between the work of the Spirit and what they were familiar with in their former heathen celebrations. “. . . the Corinthian Christians were inclined to believe that the more one was deprived of reason and self-consciousness, the more truly was he under the power and control of the Spirit of God.”(2) The “frenzied ecstasy” of pagan cult worship is a vivid contrast with worship directed by and toward the true and living God. Being “seized” as in their prior manner of worship was the very opposite of being possessed of spiritual gifts. No one under the direction of the Spirit can utter language that will dishonor Christ and conversely only those truly led by Him can say that Jesus is Lord (vs. 3). It is significant to note that the apostle’s stress is always upon the rational, intelligible exercise of the gifts of the Spirit.

From this editorial introduction, Paul proceeds to point out the source and purpose of such gifts in the church. It should be noted that in vs. 4 Paul strategically substitutes “charismata” in place of what undoubtedly was the Corinthians’ favorite designation for the gifts pneumatika. Oh how “spiritual” these brethren felt when they egocentrically exercised their gifts. As F. D. Bruner has pointed out, there was evidently the tendency for the Corinthian church to see the Spirit’s work not in only in a particular way (being “carried away,” vs. 2) but also in a particular way (speaking in “tongues,” ch. 14).(3) Just as there are different gifts but the same Spirit, different types of service but the same Lord, and different manifestations of power but the same God-so are the abilities and gifts of each member to be seen. The gifts were not bestowed for their exotic appeal or to elevate the possessor above another, but for the common good of the whole assembly (vs. 7). The apostle’s emphasis throughout chapters 12-14 is upon the mutual edification of all, the whole assembly. When a brother begins to think of his gift as the most important or worse yet, that he himself is the most important saint in that community, then division is inevitable. This is the very thing Paul is seeking to correct and which is an insight into the problem of the Lord’s supper observance at Corinth (1 Cor. 11). The gifts were never granted for “private devotion” for the individual but that all the saints might “profit withal.”

Gifts of Revelation

In vss. 8-11 of 1 Cor. 12, Paul provides a catalogue of nine gifts which serve to illustrate the theme he began in vss. 1-7. There are varieties of gifts, but they all proceed from one source, the Spirit; consequently no one should feel either superior or inferior, realizing that “all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as He will” (vs. 11). In granting the gifts, God’s sovereign will is involved and each member has his own indispensable function (vss. 12-31) for the progress of the church. Conspicuously prominent at the top of the apostle’s list are the gifts associated with intelligible and thoughtful utterance. Equally conspicuous at the bottom of the list are the gifts of tongues and interpretation. How surprised and unsettled his readers must have been, seeing their most prized and sought after gifts at the very end of Paul’s catalogue. However, this is but a preliminary by the apostle of a more severe attack upon and expose of the Corinthians’ improper priorities regarding the gifts in chapter 14.

The first two gifts listed may properly be designated “gifts of revelation,” in that they entail the unusual and supernatural ability to utter truth and then explain its application. On the surface, it appears a difficult task to distinguish between “wisdom” and “knowledge”; Paul, however, clearly has in mind not one gift, but two and thus we are constrained to discover the difference between them. The uncertainty of Biblical scholars regarding the difference between the two terms is somewhat vivid proof that no one possesses such gifts today. The term for wisdom here is sophia and it occurs 51 times in the New Testament. The term for knowledge is gnosis which occurs 29 times in the New Testament. The terms are used together only three times: 1 Cor. 12:8, Rom. 11:33 and Col. 2:3. The latter two instances, however, afford us little assistance in ascertaining a distinction between the two. We are obliged then to turn within 1 Corinthians itself to get an insight into possible differences.

“Wisdom” is one of the recurring motifs in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church. Lenski, focusing on 1 Cor. 1:30, contrasts the wisdom of God, “consisting of all the gracious, heavenly, and efficacious thoughts of God embodied in Christ Jesus for the enlightenment of our souls” with “fleshly, worldly, and mere human wisdom, 1:20, 2:5, 6, 13; 3:19; 2 Cor. 1:12.”(4) The wisdom that was embodied in Christ (Col. 2:3) consists also in the gospel-the message announced by His apostles. God’s wisdom then, consisting “not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth” (1 Cor. 2:13), involves the whole scope of God’s redemptive plan for mankind. If “wisdom” is thus the revelation of God’s eternal plan, it is not improbable that “knowledge” then deals with an elaboration of that data. Robertson suggests the contrast is between “speech full of God’s wisdom” and “insight” into that revelation.(5) Eph. 1:8 is a fair parallel: “. . , which He made known to us in all wisdom and prudence.” “Prudence” in this text is phronesis which is understanding or insight. The implication is that “wisdom” involves a revelation of factual material regarding the will of God and that “prudence” or knowledge involves an appreciation for and understanding of its application. We may surmise that the “word of wisdom” at Corinth entailed the revelation of spiritual data relative to the establishment and maintenance of the church, while the “word of knowledge” entailed the explanation, application, and implication of the “word of wisdom.” Perhaps it is proper to visualize the relationship between these two gifts as that existing between tongues and interpretation.

A plausible example may be found in the preaching of the apostle Peter. On the day of Pentecost, he announced, “Repent ye and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him” (Acts 2:38, 39). Despite this rather clear declaration of the universality of the gospel, Peter evidently did not understand the implication of his words: he excluded Gentiles. It took a rooftop vision to convince him otherwise (Acts 10:9-16; 34, 35). Hence, one may possess the “word of wisdom” as a gift and still be in need of the “word of knowledge.”

Thus the two gifts complement each other and their linking in the apostle’s list is readily understood. Conceivably the exercise of the gifts was as closely aligned as that of tongues and interpretation. In any event the value and purpose of the two gifts in the Divine economy is apparent for the early church. Each was essential to the growth and stability of the first century community of faith.

Endnotes

1. Charles R. Erdman, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), p. 118.

2. Erdman, p. 120.

3. Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1970), p. 288.

4. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 and 2 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 500.

5. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), p. 169.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 5, pp. 73-74
December 5, 1974

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