Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The article below appeared in the “Commercial Appeal,” Memphis, TN, August 5, 1985.

A sheriff was bitten by a poisonous snake yesterday as he tried to break up a religious service in which a preacher’s son held up 10 snakes as a display of his faith, authorities said.

Sheriff Jack Arrington was admitted to Haywood County Hospital, where he was in stable condition with a snake bite to the thumb, said hospital spokesman Joan Mackey.

Charles Prince was charged with two counts of handling reptiles of a poisonous nature and one count of resisting and delaying officers, the police said. U.G. Prince later said he was sorry Arrington was bitten, but called the accident a “sign of the Lord.”

Since when was an accidental snakebite a “sign of the Lord”? The apostle Paul was evidently accidentally bitten, but the bite was not a miracle. The fact that he, unlike the sheriff, suffered no harm was a “sign of the Lord,” a miracle (Acts 28:3-6).

Now, of course, the Pentecostals may claim that they were not bitten, but the sheriff was. Well, that is not a miracle, either. That is just a simple case of a snake doing what snakes do.

Incidentally and ironically, the passage snake handlers rely on, Mark 16:17, 18, is the same Scripture which says, “They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Why did not Mr. Prince perform that “sign of the Lord”? If he insisted on “handling reptiles” “as a display of his faith,” why not “lay hands on the sick” sheriff “as a display of his faith,” and as a “sign of the Lord”? The Pentecostals did not, yea could not heal him. Some sign.

Mr. Prince contradicts himself — “he was sorry Arrington was bitten,” but called the accident a “sign of the Lord.” Why, pray tell, be sorry for an alleged “sign of the Lord”? If the sheriff was wrong, if he was opposing the Bible, if he was denying and depriving the Pentecostals of their right to obey God (as I am sure they would all say he was), why be sorry? If a man did all that, he should have been bitten’ Or, if that is too harsh, the snake should have at least looked at the sheriff real mean and stuck out his tongue at him. Instead, he chose to gnash on him with his teeth.

But if Sheriff Arrington did all that, he was obviously “demon possessed.” (Would Pentecostals deny that he was?) And if he was, why did they not further obey Mark 16:17 by casting out Mr. Arrington’s demons? After all, the text says, “In my name shall they cast out devils.”

The Pentecostals miserably failed in every respect. The poor Sheriff had a sorry time, too. But the snake won the day-even if he did bite the wrong person!

Addendum To “Sign Of The Lord”

After the article above was prepared for publication, the following notice appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, August 20, 1985. Read it and weep.

Snake Bite Kills Man

A snake handler who defied the law in neighboring North Carolina by conducting religious services with poisonous reptiles died Monday from a rattlesnake bite to the thumb, authorities said.

Charles Prince, 45, was bitten at a religious service here Saturday night at the Apostolic Church of God and refused medical treatment, said Greene County Sheriff Gail Colyer.

Prince, of Canton, N.C., died at the home of Carl Reed of Limestone, Colyer said.

Prince was arrested Aug. 4 in Haywood County N.C., and charged with handling poisonous reptiles after Haywood County Sheriff Jack Arrington was bitten on the hand by a rattler.

It gives me no pleasure to report such things. Any man’s death diminishes me. “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:11). However, it gives me even less pleasure to see men like Mr. Prince deceive the hearts of the simple.

Mr. Prince was consistent. He claimed the miracles of Mark 16:17,18 applied to him. In this, he was unlike Oral Roberts, Ernest Angley, and lesser known Pentecostals like Robert-Bayer, Raymond E. Parnell, G.T. Sharp and Hulon Myre. They claim “tongues and healing,” but wisely sidestep drinking “any deadly thing” and the taking “up” of “serpents.” They are inconsistent but alive. Mr. Prince was consistent. He is dead.

How Can We Distinguish?

Sharp, Myre, Bayer and Parnell make the same arguments for their position as did the late Mr. Prince. They give the same “testimony” and “witness.” They are just smart enough to know where to draw the line. They are alive. Mr. Prince went to the end of the line. He is dead.

How can we distinguish between the claims of Prince and Parnell? What is the difference between their “signs” and those of a pagan witch doctor? Catholics, Mormons, Pagan Witch Doctors and Pentecostals like Prince, Sharp, Parnell, Bayer and Myre all have claimed miracles by the power of the Spirit. What shows that the Pentecostal miracles are genuine but that those of the Mormons are false? Obviously, there is one difference between Prince and Parnell. Parnell, Bayer, Myre and Sharp refuse to “demonstrate” their faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. Mr. Prince demonstrated his faith. They are alive. He is dead. “He being dead yet speaketh. “

Note the following chart:

What Is The Difference Between “Miracles” Of Mormons, Catholics, Pagans and Pentecostals?

Each One:

1. Claims to have worked miracles.

2. Cites cases of miracles.

3. Says, “Accept my testimony.”

4. Refuses to demonstrate power.

5. Uses excuses for failure.

Difference Between True and False Miracles Obvious In The Bible

1. Moses vs. Magicians – Ex. 7

2. Elijah vs. Baal – 1 Kings 18

3. Philip vs. Simon – Acts 8:9-11

4. Apostles vs. Jews – Acts 4:16; 19:13-17

5. Pentecostals vs. Mormons – ??

What Now?

Brethren, what shall we do? Shall we wink and smile at error and its proponents? Shall we ignore their specious arguments and pious superstition and keep ourselves “above such tripe”? Shall we allow them to continue to swallow up the souls of men with their spiritual quackery and not raise one verse of Scripture in protest?

Elijah “mocked” the prophets of Baal (I Kgs. 18). He chided and derided their fraudulent claims with caustic contempt and scorching, searing sarcasm. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but neither are they ineffectual (2 Cor. 10:3-5). We must not strive, but be gentle unto all men (2 Tim. 2:24). Some, however, must be met “with all boldness.” It is not pleasant. It is not fun. But seeing souls deluded and damned forever is neither pleasant nor funny. Our course, therefore, must be set, fixed, determined. We must use tact and judgment — “be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.” Only by a constant warfare of speaking the truth in love can we prevent more losses like that of the lamented Mr. Prince. If you have a better solution, we would like to hear it.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 554-555
September 19, 1985

By Dusty Owens

Read Matthew 18:15-20. Here, Jesus tells what my obligation is toward one who has sinned against me, in word or action. He may have brought injury to my character, person or property; matters not, I must not allow this to fester inside of me, but must go to him to resolve the problem.

Too many times what we want to do is gain sympathy and support by going to everyone but the offending brother. We end up causing this brother’s reputation to be impaired as we stir up the brethren against him. What Jesus says to do is “go, show him his fault between thee and him alone” (v. 15). It may be that all was a misunderstanding, and I have “made a mountain out of a molehill.” A little kindness and brotherly love many times will help settle a difficulty immediately, and if this happens, I have “gained a brother.”

Again, my attitude plays an important part in my role here. I must have as my main objective peace with my brother, not who is right or wrong in the matter. Certainly, if sin is involved, I must try to get him to see that, but only in a spirit of meekness and gentleness, not arrogance and haughtiness. My approach to him must not be with a disposition to “get even,” or to “retaliate,” but must be Christ-like (1 Pet. 3:8-12).

“But If He Hear Thee Not”

The brother could take on the adversary role, what then? Sometimes it might be necessary to visit with him on more than one occasion to try to resolve the problem. If, after I have tried every way and everything possible, and he insists on their being enmity between us, I must seek out “two witnesses or three” to accompany me that “every word may be established” (v. 16).

There are several advantages to this: (1) they may be able to talk convincingly to the brother and help him to see the wisdom of resolving the matter; (2) they may be able to bring further evidence showing him to be at fault; and (3) they can act as “witnesses” if the matter must come up before the church (Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13: 1; Jn. 8:17).

“Tell It Unto The Church”

If all has failed to “gain the brother,” then the matter must be brought before the assembly (church). Notice, please, that Jesus did not say, “bring the matter to the attention of the preacher or elders.” He said, “tell it unto the church.” That is to all Christians that normally assemble at one place. Notice again please, Jesus did not say, “This one should be written up all across the land” so that all churches may be notified to beware of such a one! No, the group to which he would normally have fellowship is under consideration, and they should be told for the same reason that I must go to him in the first place, to gain the brother. There may be others that can bring influence to bear upon the situation, hopefully to clear it up.

But, what if he will not “hear the church”? Jesus said, “Let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican” (v. 17). Notice, Jesus said, Let him be this “unto thee.” The original difficulty was between him and me. The consequence of his obstinacy involves two people! The church is not under obligation to withdraw fellowship on the basis of a falling out between two brethren. Too many times, the brother who feels “sinned against” immediately masses all the forces he can in the church to do battle and to win against the brother. If he cannot get the “offensive” brother to “repent,” he will try to get him “disfellowshipped,” or “discredited” in some way!

Jesus is not talking about disfellowshipping in general. He told the “sinned against” brother to treat the “sinning” brother “as the Gentile and the publican.” That means he may not enjoy a closeness or fellowship with him, but he must not treat him as an “enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:16). He must not hold a grudge, harbor ill-feelings, withhold his hand, snub, or in any way misuse him, but treat him in the same way he would treat any non-Christian (Gentile, publican).

Brethren, we have more to do in the kingdom of God than to do battle with each other. In many ways we seem to wear our feelings “on our sleeves”; we are quick to criticize and find faults in others without seeing our own; and we are highly suspicious of the motives of others, without the capability of knowing the heart!

Or, we go the opposite direction and demonstrate an attitude of apathy and indifference by not (1) going to a brother caught up in a sin, (2) showing an interest in one who is erring from the truth, or (3) getting to know the brethren so we can understand and love them.

May God help us to properly identify our erring brother and then to treat him as God has outlined in His word.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 556
September 19, 1985

By Lewis Willis

Most who read this have been exposed to enough truth to know that the focus of our attention should be on spiritual things first, with material considerations taking a subordinate role. The Apostle Paul told us to “seek those things which are above,” setting our affection on heavenly things and not on things on the earth (Col. 3:1-2). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness. . .” (Matt. 6:33).

If we are serving the Lord, implementation of the above instructions will be the primary purpose as we live day by day. This means that every Christian must directly involve himself in that which is spiritual. However, before one can get involved, he must learn the areas of involvement set forth by the Word of God. If he does not know what to do, there is no way that he can do it. A part of the work of the church is the edification of Christians which enables them to apply their efforts in the accomplishment of the overall mission of the kingdom of the Lord (Eph. 4:16). Over the years, I have observed that fewer and fewer Christians have been sufficiently edified to enable them to identify spiritual activities in which to engage themselves. Thus, it is not unusual to hear some Christian say, “I don’t know what I can do.” Our purpose in this brief article is to identify some specific activities in which Christians can involve themselves. Let me credit some of the ideas of this article to some things I read in the Caprock Church Bulletin, Lubbock, Texas.

What can a Christian do? He can spend some time studying the Word of God every day (2 Tim. 3:16-17). God’s Word will enlighten so that we can see others things which we need to do. I am persuaded that the Christian who cannot find anything to do is a Christian who is not studying as he should.

Every day you can pray to God (1 Thess. 5:17). In that prayer you can penitently seek forgiveness of your sins; you can ask God to bless your family; you can pray for the sick, both spiritually and physically; you can pray for civil authorities; for those who mourn; and for the spread of the gospel. Prayers of righteous men accomplish much good (Jas. 5:16).

You can be conscious of the fact that you are an example to someone. With this clearly in your mind, you can be careful to let the “light” of your example shine brightly so that those who learn by what you do, will always do what is right (Matt. 5:16).

If you still can’t find anything to do, you could invite a friend to attend the worship of the church with you. During that worship he would hear the gospel which would save his soul. Everyone needs the gospel, for it is God’s power to save (Rom. 1: 16). During the life of Christ on the earth, one of the things we learn about the gathering of disciples to Him was that those who came brought their relatives and friends to the Lord also (Jn. 1:40-49).

You can give generously into the treasury of the Lord’s church (1 Cor. 16:1-2). In the discharge of the church’s duty, money is essential. Not only must the local work be done, but the entire world is to hear the gospel (Mk. 16:15), and the church is the organization responsible for seeing that it is preached (1 Tim. 3:15). You can become actively involved by personally instructing the lost with the Truth. Or, you can give someone a good tract on Bible themes. Or, you can give them a bulletin which is appropriate for their needs. These things cost money. Or, you can enable the support of preachers in distant places. When you give into the Lord’s treasury, you are aiding the spread of the gospel, and that is spiritual in its nature, not physical.

If you still can’t find anything to do, a great spiritual purpose is accomplished when you take the time to visit those who are sick and/or confined because of failing health (Matt. 25:31-46). In that passage, Jesus said that we are serving Him when we are attending to the needs of those around us. Especially, when a fellow Christian is in distress, you can do what you can to comfort him through an expression of sympathy (1 Thess. 5:11, 14). Some who are sick and some older Christians could be assisted greatly if someone cared enough for them to take them out to cat or to prepare a meal for them. There is always someone who can use our help.

If you are still one of those people who are frequently heard to say, “I don’t know what I can do,” then go back and read this article again and you will find something to do if that is what you are honestly seeking. And old song says, “There is much to do, there’s work on every hand . . . .”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 557
September 19, 1985

By James R. Cope, reprinted from The Preceptor

(Introductory Note: I am indebted to my friend and brother Robert F. Turner for pointing out to me the article on “Majorities and Manners” by James R. Cope, which appeared in his column “Preceptor Perceptions” in The Preceptor, Feb. 1952, p. 4. In the “Dunne-Pickup Debate,” published in the Gospel Guardian beginning 19 Nov. 1953, the Catholic priest Dunne claimed that Cope’s article endorses the concept of a hierarchy. We can understand Dunne grabbing at straws by misusing Cope’s article as well as by misusing Scripture. The Bible pattern for elders to oversee and to shepherd the local church, as defended by Cope, precludes both the extremes of hierarchy and of majority rule. There is a vast difference between one who leads in making decisions of expediency, which by definition admits that the decisions may be revamped when elders and brethren see changing circumstances, and one who makes ecclesiastical law equivalent to the divine revelation ordained in Matthew 16:19, which is precisely what Catholicism claims for its hierarchy.

Among our own brethren, history reveals the working of the destructive demons of radicalism, extremism, digression, and factionalism. During the institutional apostasy which began in 1849 and which recurred after World War 11, some elderships suffered from delusions of grandiose officialdom, used arbitrary and carnal tactics as though the end justifies the means, and ran roughshod over their brethren and the Bible. At the other end of the spectrum, a few men like Charles Holt have denied that the local church is an organized entity or that the Bible provides a pattern for a specially designated eldership which can lead with authority in the sense of making decisions in the realm of expediency. A few brethren have defied elders by resorting to the carnal and political tactics of majority rule-calling for votes and passing petitions. We commend brother Cope’s article as a balanced presentation of the truth.-Ron Halbrook, 1101 Dyson Rd., West Columbia, TX 77486)

I civilized countries recognize the necessity of government. Different forms of government hold sway in various lands but all admit the necessity of some final tribunal and ultimate authority. Chaos and confusion prevail where no rule obtains. Whether we study the civil, domestic, or religious realm authority must be vested and recognized as existing somewhere if peace and order are to be realities.

Authority Of Christ Supreme

In the church of Christ all authority resides in Christ. He is the maker, giver, and judge of his law as well as the discerner of the hearts of his subjects. On earth there is no super-organization of all Christians with authority stemming from some central headquarters. In view of plain Bible teaching one of the simplest and most revealing tests of the scripturalness of any professed religious organization is the question: Does it have some national or international head on earth? If the answer is the affirmative, such within itself shows that religious body not to be the Lord’s spiritual body for his church has no such organizational structure.

The only organization which Christ has on earth is the church in some given locality generally spoken of as a congregation of disciples or baptized believers. The law of Christ governs believers in their congregational relationships just as it governs Christians in their individual relationships. As the individual disciple cannot disregard the will of Christ in his individual activities and remain sinless, so the congregation cannot violate the law of God in its congregational or collective activities and remain sinless.

Bishops And Expediency

In the local church God has made provision for bishops to govern in matters of expediency. These officers are sometimes called elders, overseers, and presbyters. In matters of faith, i.e., where God has definitely spoken, bishops are under exactly the same obligation to obey implicitly the word of God as are all other Christians. They have an additional responsibility of faith not bound upon all saints, viz., they are to “feed the flock.” This is not a matter of judgment but a solemn obligation devolving upon them as a result of the relationship they sustain to those whom they oversee.

In matters of judgment or expediency those meeting the divine qualifications of bishops are supreme and their word is final. The Holy Spirit has appointed them and to resist their authority is to rebel against the Holy Spirit. God knew that the final decisions in the sphere of expediency had to be made by somebody, and divine wisdom has provided for them in the eldership. Regardless of the individual’s judgment, it becomes his solemn obligation to acquiesce in the bishops’ rule when that rule is announced. For all practical purposes their decision is God’s decision, and therefore, must become the disciple’s decision. To do otherwise is to nullify the office of elders and reflect upon God’s purpose in providing them. If their decisions can be disregarded, their office can be ignored. If their office can be ignored, God’s word can be set aside, for it makes provision for bishops in the churches.

The Spirit Of Rebellion

Sad to say, many feel today that God’s word can be set aside. They will not admit it but their actions betray their true sentiment. When rebellion breaks out and the judgment of qualified, God-fearing elders become the target of invectives and harsh criticisms of loose thinking and looser-talking church members, the Lord’s word has been set aside and his own government attacked. Either elders are to rule or they are not to rule. If they are to rule, they must be obeyed. If they are not to rule, divine wisdom was mistaken in commanding that they be obeyed.

When the spirit of rebellion begins to foment, it generally finds expression in overt acts. Absalom became the victim of his own vain ambition to rule in David’s stead before the people were stirred to help him consummate his evil designs in dethroning his father. His dissatisfaction with the existing order, first, and his conceited notion that he could successfully replace God’s appointed king, next, formed the framework of his scheme to usurp the throne of Israel. His foolish folly is best seen in the overthrow of his plan and the loss of his life.

A disposition to throw out the elders and change the existing order is the thing of the day in some localities. It is the mind of Absalom and the spirit of Korah. When it takes tangible form, it is overt rebellion against God and the gospel. It denies the authority of Christ and brings his body to open shame. Within the last decade churches all over the land have witnessed such heart-rending spectacles, and the cause at large has suffered irreparable damage as a direct result of this spirit.

Majority Manners

Most always the situation resolves itself into majority rule versus elder rule, and eventually into open division of the congregation. Christian principles and decent manners fall prostrate before majority vote. The would-be rulers take over, and the men who only a short while before held the confidence and respect of all are now ambushed by ambition, scourged by scoffing, and crucified by calumny. Majority rule in the church has no manners-decent manners, that is. And those who constitute the majority are so blinded by pride that they can see no sin of their own and so infatuated with their own importance that they do not listen to reason and will not heed revelation.

Where gospel preachers are willing to submit themselves to the judgment of elders when they fire as well as when they hire, the situation will rapidly improve. If preachers and elders will hold faithfully and constantly before the congregation, its responsibility and proper attitude toward the elders the disciples will not likely get out of control. This is one sure way to honor the divine arrangement and preserve the peace of God’s people.

Majority rule is not God’s plan for his church. If it is right part of the time, it is proper all the time. If it is right all the time, there is no room for elder rule. If there is no place for elder rule, there is no place for Christ’s rule. If there is no place for Christ’s rule, there is no place for Christ’s church, and if there is no place for Christ’s church, there is no room for Christ. Beware of the man or men, preachers or otherwise, who will dissipate the divine plan for their own purposes. Such persons are too liberal for the progress and prosperity of the Lord’s people in spiritual affairs.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 558-559
September 19, 1985