Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

It should have happened in 1977 when Oral Roberts said the Lord told him to build a hospital. Hospitals were never needed for miraculous healing in Bible times. Then, it should have happened in 1981 when Roberts said a 900-foot-tall Jesus appeared to him with a message instructing people to send more money to complete the hospital. Roberts said on his 4 January 1987 T.V. show that God warned last March that He will take his life unless 8 million dollars above normal ministry expenses can be raised by the end of this March to train new doctors.

Roberts should be thanked for finally becoming so frantic and extravagant in attempting to raise more money and in claiming divine messages. Many blinded eyes are now opening! Some are getting their eyes opened who thought, “We should never question the religious claims of another person,” or, “All churches, religions, and preachers are sent from God,” or, “If someone says he received a message from God, we cannot deny it,” or, “Oral Roberts and other ‘faith healers’ are men of God.” Even some Pentecostal people are embarrassed by this latest fiasco and are trying to distance themselves from it.

If someone claims the miraculous powers mentioned in the Bible, his preaching and performance must match of the Bible record. For instance, Paul proved that he was an apostle by producing “the signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). John commended those who test men claiming miraculous powers and who prove them to be “liars” (Rev. 2:2). Oral Roberts’ work through the years fails the test of the Bible pattern of miracles in all the following ways:

1. In Bible days, money was never collected in connection with promises or cases of healing.

2. No inspired man or worker of miracles ever claimed God would take his life if people failed to fund certain programs for him.

3. The apostles never “prepped” an audience with shouts, cries and loud music to create an emotionally charged atmosphere.

4. Jesus never preceded miracles with an entertainment blitz.

5. No person performing a miracle in the Bible ever told of feeling a sudden “surge of power.”

6. The sick were never promised that they would feel a sudden or strange “surge of power.”

7. Bible miracles were so “notable” or apparent that no one had to coach the person to be healed by saying, “Are you ready for a miracle? This is going to be a miracle, isn’t it? Get ready! Do you feel it? It’s a miracle, isn’t it?”

8. Bible miracles were not limited to only certain illnesses or events, but included all sick and a wide range of events such as walking on water, feeding thousands with a little food, stilling storms, raising the dead out of tombs, etc.

9. True miracles were so evident or “notable” that no even the enemies of the Lord could deny them (Matt. 12:24; Acts 4:16).

10. No Bible prophet promised that people would see the risen Lord, receive new messages, or perform other miracles after the close of New Testament revelation. Beware of any man who says he has heard from God or received miraculous powers after the confirmation and close of a perfect revelation in Scripture (Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Cor. 13:8-10).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 8, p. 234
April 16, 1987

By Morris Hafley

You have no doubt heard about the preacher’s wife who went to the doctor’s office and told him that she had a snoring problem and the doctor asked, “Does it bother your husband? ” She responded, “It bothers the whole congregation!” Robert Turner has probably already used this little story but it fits with what I am about to say too.

You have heard many pray, “Lord, be with us throughout the further exercise of this service.” Our service to God should exercise us. It should exercise our minds as we sing the songs, listen to prayers being prayed, and give “our undivided attention to the speaker of the hour.” We could even have our Bibles open on our laps and turn to the passage given as the preacher preaches! I have even seen a few taking notes.

You have also heard many pray, “Lord, be with us throughout the rest of this service.” After two songs, a prayer and another song the preacher gets up to preach and many sit down to get the “rest” of the service. Some do not like those preachers “who do not need a microphone.” Maybe, it is because they disturb their “rest” of the service.

If you find yourself checking your eyelids for holes during your worship to God you ought to be ashamed of yourself for offering such to God. See Malachi 1:13; Hebrews 5:12-14.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 8, p. 230
April 16, 1987

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: If one is a member of the Christian Church, does he have to be “rebaptized” to become a member of the Lord’s church? What about John’s baptism in Acts 19.3-5 regarding this? Is it left up to the elders to decide this question, and if a church is without elders, who makes the decision?

Reply: In response to the first question, all cases are not the same; therefore, each individual case must be considered in the light of the Scriptures. The New Testament teaches that one must submit to the conditions of salvation – faith, repentance, confession and baptism (Heb. 11:6; Acts 17:30; Rom. 10: 10; Gal. 3:27). One must be immersed (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12) for the proper reason (remission of sins, Acts 2:38). The real issue is: has one submitted to these conditions? There are no qualifications given in the Scriptures for the person doing the baptizing. The validity of one’s baptism is not dependent upon the character or the status of the person doing the baptizing. Alexander Campbell and his wife, his father and mother, and his sisters (seven persons total) were baptized by Matthias Luce, a Baptist preacher. Campbell had stipulated that the baptism be performed precisely according to the pattern in the New Testament. Luce first objected, as it was contrary to Baptist usage; but he finally consented, remarking that he believed they were right and that he would run the risk of censure (Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. 1, pp. 397-98).

These points are established: (1) that for one to be scripturally baptized, he must submit to the conditions of salvation set forth in the New Testament and (2) that the validity of one’s baptism is not dependent upon the one doing the baptizing. Therefore, we conclude that it is possible for one to be scripturally baptized by a preacher of the Christian Church. This is certainly not to say that everyone in the Christian Church has been scripturally baptized. No doubt many in that body have never obeyed the gospel. Therefore, to properly answer the querist, we cannot arrive at a “blanket” conclusion (one and one only) that win cover all cases of those coming from the Christian Church desiring to become members of the Lord’s church.

When one is scripturally baptized, the Lord adds him to His church (Acts 2:47), not the local church, but the universal church – a spiritual fellowship. One may at the same time, or later, identify himself with a local church (Acts 9:26). Or, although having been scripturally baptized, he might even at the same time or later, identify himself with some unscriptural body (such as the Christian Church), not knowing or understanding fully at least, the identity of the Lord’s church. Nevertheless, he was scripturally baptized, and we cannot say that this action nullified his former obedience. We cannot believe that the multitude on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) understood all about the church when about three thousand were baptized. But the Lord added them to the church (Acts 2:47). All of us had much to learn when we were baptized. But the Lord added them to the church (Acts 2:47). All of us had much to learn when we were baptized, and we are still learning.

We must be aware that not all religious bodies practice scriptural baptism. The Baptists believe and teach that one is saved before baptism, but they make it a necessary condition to enter the Baptist church. The Christian Church generally teaches baptism for the remission of sins, yet some practice open membership. So, when one comes from the Christian Church, it does not necessarily mean that he has ben scripturally baptized. On the other hand, we are not to conclude that everyone who comes from the Christian Church must be “rebaptized.” (There is only one baptism, Eph. 4:5, so the term “rebaptized” is an accommodative term.) We must also keep in mind that all baptisms for the remission of sins, but they baptize in the name of “Jesus Only.” Again, we emphasize that each baptism of one desiring to become a member of the Lord’s church must be examined in the light of what the Scriptures teach.

As to John’s baptism, referred to in Acts 19:3-5, it grew out of repentance (Mk. 1:4) as John was preparing the people for Christ. And even though it was for the remission of sins (Mk. 1:4), it was not in the name of Christ. John’s baptism was not in operation when those at Ephesus had been baptized into it. Apollos was continuing to preach it, “knowing only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). Those at Ephesus were “rebaptized” because they had been baptized into John’s baptism after it had been discontinued and after Christ’s baptism had gone into effect. This is not an established precedent for everyone coming out of the Christian Church and desiring fellowship in the Lord’s church. The case at Ephesus was an established matter without exception, whereas there is no one rule that applies to everyone coming out of the Christian Church to become a member of the Lord’s church.

As to who is to decide on the validity of a person’s baptism in such a case inquired about, the Holy Spirit has already revealed the pattern in the Scriptures. A person either has, or has not, conformed to that pattern. The decision of elders, or other men where there are no elders, will not change the status of the candidate one way or the other. The issue is: has the person been scripturally baptized? If one finds that he has not been scripturally baptized (having been shown by the Scriptures), then he should make himself right by doing precisely what the Bible teaches. When an honest person learns from the word of God that he is in error, then he will not hesitate to correct it. If he needs to be “rebaptized” (baptized scripturally) then, like those at Ephesus, upon learning the truth he will do as they did.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 8, p. 229
April 16, 1987

By Robert F. Turner

A friend writes, “In Galatians 3:19 we are told the law was added because of transgressions. That seems strange, because without law there is no sin. Is this saying that what was a sin under the Old Law was already a sin before the law, but the law had to point it out? Did the law make people guilty of more -sins, or just aware of how guilty they already were?” I believe the law did identify moral sins that previously existed, though it also gave new positive orders. However I would not agree with those who say the law is responsible for more sins. God may require something of us we do not want to obey, but the responsibility for sin is with Satan and our own desires. Think with me on this Bible matter.

As the second affirmation of his Galatian letter, Paul argues we are not justified by law, but by faith (Gal. 2:16f). Those who seek justification via law are under a curse, the curse of demanded perfection (3:10); and we were redeemed from this curse when Christ died on the cross to make forgiveness possible for all who put their trust in Him (3:13-14). Through much of this discussion the Greek text does not have the article “the” before “law,” even though the law (of Moses) is clearly the chief example of a law system. But Paul knows that his teaching concerning law poses certain problems for the Judaizing teachers, so he raises two questions for consideration. “Wherefore then serveth the law?” (3:19, K.J.), and, “Is the law then against the promises of God?” (3:21). We are taking a close look at Paul’s first question.

The question itself varies in different translations. The A.S.V. reads, “What then is the law?” while the New K.J. reads, “What purpose then does the law serve?” The R.S.V. has, “Why then the law?” while Marshall’s interlinear says, “Why therefore the law?” All are asking, since the new covenant or system of faith supplants the law, why was it given in the first place? The key Greek word in Paul’s answer is charin, which all the above versions except Marshall’s translate “because” of transgressions. Marshall says “by reason of” transgressions. But this brings up the problem perceived by our querist, viz., if transgressions were the cause of the law they must have existed first and without the law. Various scholars agree that charin can mean causal, but it is also translated “by reason of,” “with a view to,” “for the sake of,” etc. Paul certainly is not saying sin created the law, or was first cause.

We are, perhaps, wedded to the concept of dispensations: Patriarchy, Judaism, Christianity; and have lost touch with a most basic principle. “Law” in the sense of obligation to God, exists by virtue of the Creator-Creature relationship. Man has always, even unto today, owed God allegiance because He is God, and we are His creation. He is the potter, we the clay (Rom. 9:20f). There are two things any intelligent being can know about God by looking at the universe: the eternal power and divinity of the Maker (Rom. 1:19-21). All of God’s creatures, having this capacity, are obligated to glorify God and be thankful. When we fail to make such a response, God “gives us up” to the consequences of our folly, and specific sins ensue (Rom. 1:24f). When Paul says, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law” (Rom. 2:12), he refers to codified law. But having no codified system does not excuse the violation of conscience and moral obligation before God (2:14f).

The purpose of revealed law is also discussed in Romans. Paul says, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (3:20). Again, “The law entered that the offense might abound” (5:20). When he says, “I had not known lust except the law had said. . . ” he does not mean he would not have coveted, but rather, the law made his sin apparent (7:7). Paul commends the law as holy, just, and good; then says, “Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me. . . ” (7:12f). Revealed law identifies sin, spells it out, stipulates its details, and makes us know our true condition before God. His laws are for man’s benefit, telling us His will, and giving us standards by which to keep constant check on ourselves. The negation of the Old Covenant, denying justification by a system of law, does not argue against the need for or proper use of law.

Expositor’s Greek Testament rightly considers “the law” of Galatians 3:19 to be a reference to the Law of Moses. Concerning why it was given, the writer says, “The real meaning is that it was added with a view to the offenses which it specifies. . . . The prohibitions of the Ten Commandments reveal their own purpose: they were enacted in order to repress the worship of false gods, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness. These sins prevailed before the Law, but by pronouncing them to be definite transgressions it called in the fear of God’s wrath to reinforce the weakness of the moral sense and educate man’s conscience.”

To this Paul adds one more reason for law: “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). As the law made sin apparent, focused attention upon sin, those who wanted to stand justified in God’s sight were made to realize the need for mercy. Law showed them their own inadequacy, and brought them to the feet of Him who died in their behalf, and whose blood made forgiveness possible. In a sense requirements of the New Covenant serve that purpose today, making us humbly aware of our need for an Advocate (1 Jn. 2:1-6).

Law and grace are in conflict only with reference to justification; for to be “free of guilt” on a law basis would require perfection on our part. Since everyone sins (Rom. 3:23-26) justification requires forgiveness – mercy – and to this end Christ died on the cross. But this does not negate the need for the stipulation of God’s will for mankind. Our faith must be based upon His word (Rom. 10:17); and by our response to His words we shall be judged in the last day (Jn. 12:48). Law, as instruction and command, is necessary to tell us what to do to be saved. I fear our failure to appreciate these most basic truths has led some to become legalistic, requiring perfection; and others to stress a false concept of “grace.” We are not under the same covenant with David, but our desire should be one with his, “Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy laws” (Psa. 119:34).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 8, pp. 231, 247
April 16, 1987