Truth Magazine

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

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

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