Truth Magazine

By Roland Worth, Jr.

Those who claim the power to perform miracles today are open to challenge on several grounds. For them to dismiss the objections in arrogant unconcern is always possible. The “True Believer” is blind to all things he dislikes; those not obsessed with their belief will be of a more open mind.

(1) “Miraculous Healers” seldom if ever meet the Biblical pre-requisite for the healing powers they claim to exercise. The pre-requisite for possession of the healing ability was belief (Mark 16:17) but the preceding verse indicates that belief must be expressed in baptism in order to be of spiritual value. Hence baptism must precede the healing power. The significance of this is two-fold. The text (Verse 16) indicates that the baptism is to be for rather than because of the remission of sins. Any other purpose for being baptized would not result in securing healing powers. Furthermore, the word “baptize” means immersion, as even the non-Greek student can see in such passages as Colossians 2:12 and Acts 8:38. Any other act than immersion could not qualify a man for the gift of healing power. Since both the right motive and the right act (immersion) are required, a fatal stumbling block is thrown in the path of “healing” advocates.

(2) Healers emphasize the healing rather than the preaching. What is advertised in the paper and what message is spread by word of mouth when a “healer” comes to town? “A faith healing meeting.” That preaching will go with it is little mentioned; it is almost an irrelevancy. Yet in the first century the emphasis was considerably different. Miracles were used to vindicate the message being taught (John -4:48; 11:39-44). Indeed, John wrote his gospel out of the conviction that even a written account of Christ’s miracles could convert (John 20:30-3 1). But in today’s society, the healings have seemingly become an end in themselves.

(3) Healers emphasize monetary contributions rather than the service they are providing. It may not be true of all of them, but haven’t you noticed a tremendous “push” to have their listeners contribute? If passing the plate once doesn’t yield a satisfactory amount, they’ll pass it a few more times. Then there are the “healing” pens, handkerchiefs, and such like-all of which (let us be honest) are little more than gimmicks.

In their preoccupation with money, they seem more like the corrupt elements of the medieval Catholic clergy than like the apostles of Christ.

To support a man who is providing you the service of preaching is approved (I Corinthians 9:3-12) as is supporting destitute Christians (Romans 15:25, 31). But giving support for men to travel “healing” is something unknown to the New Testament. Peter’s first post-resurrection healing found him without a cent to his name (Acts 3:6) and there is no evidence that his healings ever earned him a penny.

(4) Healers often fail. In the New Testament we find only two cases where healings were anything but spontaneous. In one case the apostles could not heal an epileptic. Christ promptly pointed out that it was their lack of faith, not that of the epileptic, that made the healing impossible (Matthew 17:20). Modern “healers” are the opposite: they place the blame for their failure on the person they are trying to help.

In the other instance (Mark 8:22-26) a blind man’s eye-sight was restored. Although he could now see, he still could not focus his eyes right; Christ touched the man’s eyes again and the problem immediately corrected itself. The delay was a mere matter of seconds. Even if the eyes had never been able to focus rightly the healing was such that no modern healer could imitate it.

Contrast these two “difficult” healings (both of which resulted in a complete recovery) with the ignoble record of modern “healers.” When we compare the thousands who come for healing with the few who are “healed,” we can only conclude that the successful “healing” is the exception not the norm. Medical doctors have a far better “track record.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 19, pp. 11-12
March 16, 1972

By Larry Ray Hafley

Mr. Wayne Camp, President of the Illinois Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, was asked the following question in his weekly newspaper article (Feb. 10, 1971), “What is your opinion of one giving an account of his experience when he is trying to win someone to the Lord?” His answer:

“The Bible has several accounts of people who tell their experience of salvation. When Paul was being prosecuted for preaching the gospel of Christ he gave his personal experience (Acts 22). When he was before Agrippa, he also told him about his experience. He was so convincing that Agrippa declared: ‘Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.’ See Acts 26. When Paul wrote to 77mothy and to the church at Philippi he gave them an account of his conversion (I 77m. 1: 12-14; Phil. 3: 7-10). David seems to be giving his experience and that in a wonderful way, in the first three verses of Psalm 40:1-3.”

Mr. Camp attempts to justify the giving of personal experience accounts by the Scriptures. In that, he is to be commended. He cited divine testimony written and inscribed by the Spirit of God, but this does not justify our use of our personal experiences. The “experiences” to which he referred in the Book of God are the ones we are to use. We can be agreed on the experiences selected by the Holy Spirit, but when each of us begins to give his own view, we confront confusion and contradiction.

We must “learn not to go beyond the things which are written” (I Cor. 4:6). “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (I Pet. 4:11). Use the “experiences” stamped with the unerring veracity and infallible authenticity of the Holy Spirit.

Note the result of relying upon our personal experiences instead of upon the accounts in the word of God.

“Sir, how do I become a child of God?”

First Answer: “Well, if your parents had sprinkled water on you when you were an infant, you would already be one. That was my experience. “

Second Answer: “I went to a certain church, and they told me to pray and beg God until I felt I was ‘taken over’ by the Holy Spirit. Finally, after several nights of trying to get ‘under conviction’, I felt an inner glow, and I just knew I was saved. That was my experience.”

Third Answer: “I got real sick one time and was afraid I was going to die, bat one night Jesus just came into my heart. I told a preacher and they voted on me and I was accepted into their church. That was my experience.”

Each of these accounts represents the experiences of individuals. Which one may we depend upon to know if we are saved or not? Feelings, personal experiences, may be deceitful, but the word of God is sure and settled. To convert one to Christ, plant the seed of salvation, for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10: 17). My personal experience will not save. Christ and His word can (Jno. 8:32; 17:17)!

Let us study the “personal experiences” selected by the Holy Spirit. Let these be our guide in leading people to the Lord.

(1) Acts 2: The word was preached (v. 41. They were convicted by the word (v. 37). They repented and were baptized “for the remission of sins” (v. 38).

(2) Acts 8:5-12: The word was preached, and the people believed it and were baptized (v. 12). They were saved, for Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

(3) Acts 8:26-39: The Eunuch heard the word; he believed and was baptized, and then rejoiced.

(4) Acts 16:30-34: The jailer heard the word; he also believed and was baptized and then rejoiced.

These are “personal experiences” upon which we can rely! Why not accept the Bible standard as the pattern for our lives? Paul said that his “experience” is the one we should use. It was given “for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting” (I Tim. 1: 16). Let us use Paul’s experience and not our own.

Mr. Camp cited Acts 22, but he will not accept Paul’s experience as there recorded. Paul was told to “arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Baptist doctrine says, “arise, wash away thy sins, and then be baptized.”

Paul was saved by God’s own “purpose and grace” (2 Tim. 1:9). He was “justified by faith” (Rom. 5: 1). He was “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If he was saved before he was baptized, he was saved before he was IN CHRIST, for he was “baptized into Christ.” Paul received “redemption through his blood” IN CHRIST (Eph. 1: 7). So, he was not redeemed by the blood of Christ until he was “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). Paul’s experience included obedience to the words of Ananias, “arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

We should be satisfied by the “personal experiences” which were recorded by the Author of the Bible. They are our pattern (2 Jno. 9; Phil. 4:9).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 9-10
March 30, 1972

By Joe Nell Clayton

The Shadow of Christ

When the children of Israel had dwelt in the land of Egypt for that period of time predicted by God to Abraham, God raised up a leader to bring them out to the land he had promised to their fathers. Moses thus became to the Israelites an everlasting symbol of the care of God for His people. Every word that has dropped from his lips, and every line written has been respected, rightly so, as the word of God. His reputation as a leader of Israel causes even Christ to speak of the Old Testament as “Moses’ law.” (John 7:23). Yet, Moses was only important in the fact that he served as a “shadow” of Christ. He functioned in regard to the Old Law in a way similar to that of Christ for the New.

Some would say that we can compare Moses and Christ, but it is probably better to say that they appear in contrast. The writer of Hebrews calls Moses “the house,” while speaking of Christ as “he that built the house.” (Heb. 3:1-16). This figurative use of terms draws a definite contrast between the two.

In three ways, we may see a contrast between Moses and Christ. First, they were both prophets. Moses must be considered the great prophet of the Old Testament, superceding all others, for he speaks only of one other prophet to come, and says that He will be “like unto me.” (Deut~ 18:15). Now, all prophets have the same function, in that they “speak for God.” However, Moses was confining his prediction of the coming of another prophet to only one. This was understood by men of Jesus day to refer to Christ. (see John 1:45). And, men were conditioned by Moses’ words to look for “the” prophet. (John 1:21). The Apostles were moved by the Holy Spirit to make application of Moses’ prophecy to Christ, and to warn their hearers of the consequences of rejecting Him. (Acts 3:19-23).

The things prophesied by Moses and Christ help to establish the contrast more keenly. The Father demonstrated this in the mount of transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8), and the Apostles said that this event caused them to have “the word of prophecy made more sure.” The consequence to us is the warning, “Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place.” (2 Peter 1: 16-19).

The second contrast is seen in the fact that they were both “lawgivers.” No one questions the idea that Mows was yoked with a. law, but many religious people will read passages such as John 1: 17, Romans 6:14, or Galatians 5: 18, and conclude that there is no manner of law connected with Christ. To come to this conclusion would deny the truth of other passages which speak of the word of Christ as “law”, such as Romans 8:1-2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, and Galatians 6:21 Because the Law of Christ has a larger importance than that of Moses, the apostles adorn it with terms such as “grace … truth,” “faith.”

The Law of Christ is contrasted to Moses’ by the term “perfect.” The writer of Hebrews says, “There is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of it weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God.” (Hebrews 7:18-19). Yet, of the word of Christ, James says, “But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty,” continuing to “hear” and “do,” will be blessed.

 

The third contrast must be seen in the roles of Christ and Moses as “saviors.” When

Israel was in bondage in Egypt, God sent Moses to them, and saved them. (Exodus 14:30-31). This “salvation” was from physical oppression and slavery of the body. Ever since that day the Jews celebrate the Passover to remember the deliverance of their ancestors. But this limited salvation, involving only one small nation, and surpassed in physical magnitude by other more modem liberations has one unique feature to make it stand out. God was the final deliverer!

Now God has concern, not for one nation, but for all nations, and has sent His son to be savior of the whole world! (I John 4:14). At the same time the deliverance is from a greater and more deadly bondage, the bondage of sin (John 8:34-36). No wonder, then, that the Holy Spirit caused it to be spoken of as “so great a salvation” (Hebrews 2:3). It is so great, as not to be compared in force, scope, or purpose to that of Israel from Egypt. Anyone sharing in the salvation wrought by God in Christ has no need to honor Moses, for the prophetic, legal, and saving services of that early servant of God have been supplanted and surpassed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Let every Christian hold his Master in such esteem that all men, especially Jews, may see these contrasting virtues of the Lord, and be brought to give Him comparable praise.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 8-9
March 30, 1972

By Connie W. Adams

Get Out Your Money

At least two of the colleges are now all out after contributions from churches. Last summer Batsell Barrett Baxter of David Lipscomb College wrote to churches all over the country soliciting contributions to that school. Along with his letter he sent a copy of an ad in a Nashville newspaper in which he had reported that Charlotte Avenue in Nashville had contributed to David Lipscomb College for over 50 years. In a letter dated November 29, 1971, Baxter made a second appeal to churches. First he thanked churches which had already responded. He said:

“We deeply appreciate the way in which many congregations across the Land are concerned that this program of teaching the Bible – the most extensive program undertaken anywhere in the world so far as we are able to determine – may continue. We are grateful for the number of contributions received since this request, and we are hopeful that, as you make your financial plans for 1972, you will include this effort in your budget.”

Later he said “Many congregations are presently helping to pay the cost of this teaching of the Bible.”

Now comes Freed-Hardeman College with the same plea. In November, 1971 they also mailed out a letter with this statement:

“As one of a thousand churches being asked to contribute $100.00 between now and January 1, 1972, you will be joining forces with other interested congregations in furthering the great cause of Christian education at Freed-Hardeman.”

For years we have been trying to tell some brethren that institutionalism was a “package deal.” The same principle which allows church contributions to benevolent institutions will allow church support of the schools. We also tried to point out that the orphan home in the budget was not the real issue, but a softening up campaign to get the schools in the budget. My question is this: What are those brethren now going to do who vehemently said they would leave if the congregation where they worshipped ever put the colleges in the budget? I predict that most of them will just gag a little and then swallow. Baxter was right when he said “they stand or fall together.” The trouble is that both of them “fall” for want of scriptural authority. But, let the liberal churches get out their money. It would not do to be called an “anti” on this question. It will also be very interesting to see what Reuel Lemmons of the Firm Foundation will have to say since he is on record as saying there is no difference in a church supported college and a missionary society. In fact Baxter said in his letter of November 29, 1971, “In a very real sense, this is one of the most extensive mission efforts being undertaken anywhere.”

Speak, Brother Lemmons, we are anxious to hear what you have to say.

Sex at Sunday School

The December 27, 1971 Newsweek magazine reports that the Unitarian Universalist Association is now showing in Sunday School some very explicit sex education films depicting intercourse between adults as well as scenes of various kinds of perversion. These are said to be “franker” than any of the materials ever used in the public school sex education courses. The children are urged to make their own, decisions and “not to impose their own views.” It is reported that Unitarians hope this course of study will be adopted by the public schools. This extreme case but illustrates why some people in various denominations are greatly upset and honestly wanting to find something that makes sense in religion. Brethren, are you listening? The radical changes in denominationalism provide many good opportunities for alert soul winners to find receptive prospects.

Preacher, Anyone?

The November 22, 1971 Christian Chronicle carries an ad from a preacher as follows:

“Progressive, born-again preacher seeking congregation where Biblical preaching is appreciated. I refuse to be bound by traditionalism! Excellent references available. Willing to move anywhere the Spirit seems to direct. Ten years experience.”

Hurry, brethren, this fellow must be something on a stick!

Movie Ratings

A reporter for the Jefferson Reporter, a weekly suburban Kentucky paper, interviewed the managers of several drive-in movies about the movie rating system. The manager of the Valley Drive-In in Louisville was asked what was the difference in a movie with a “G” rating and one with a “GP”. He was quoted as saying “Mostly the cussing.” In case you have been thinking that a GP rated movie would be acceptable for the family, just remember that the language gets pretty blue. Have you noticed the increase in profanity on TV programs this year? Maybe the country needs a rating system for TV.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 6-7
March 30, 1972