Truth Magazine

By Don Willis

Cicero proclaimed hundreds of years ago: “Man is his own worst enemy.” Lying deep within our bosom is that deceivable self. By nature, all are selfish. Solomon affirmed, “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city” (Prov. 16:32).

One must learn to “rule his own spirit,” the inner man. “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Jesus said . out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Mt. 12:34). Further, “. . . those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man” (Mt. 15:18-20). James even said that one should be consistent in speech, “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same time sweet water and bitter?” (Jas. 3:10f).

The first word in the earthly “Repentance is preaching of Jesus is “Repent.” “From that time Jesus begin to mind that

preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 4:17). John the Baptist had also preached, “repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 3:2).

What did the Lord mean by “repent”? Jesus gave an illustration, “A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work today in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went” (Mt. 21:28-29). What is repentance? Apparently it means a change of mind that results in a change of life! One cannot be in the kingdom of heaven without this repentance.

John the Baptist told men, “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance… And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?” (Lk. 3:8,10). John said, if you have two coats, impart to the person who has none. John told tax collectors, “Exact no more than that which is appointed you.” Soldiers were told, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages” (see context in Luke 3).

The heart must be changed! That is what repentance accomplishes. Petrarch said, “Five great enemies to peace inhabit with us: viz., avarice, ambition, envy, anger and pride. If those enemies were to be banished, we should infallibly enjoy perpetual peace.” All of these lie within the heart.

Jesus told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn., 3:3); a man must be born of the water and of the Spirit (v. 5). When a believer repents of his sins and is baptized into Jesus Christ, he becomes a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17); a new man is raised from the waters of baptism (Rom. 6:3-6). But, it begins within the heart when one determines that Jesus is the Son of God, and repents! Until one repents of sin, he cannot enter the kingdom, regardless of how many times he is baptized!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, p. 99
February 21, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: What is chastisement, what is the purpose of chastisement, and what should be our attitude toward chastisement?

Reply: The Hebrew verb form yasar is the principle word rendered “chasten, chastise” in the Old Testament. The New Testament Greek verb is paideuo and the Greek noun is paideid which according to Arndt and Gingrich, means “upbringing, instruction, discipline, correction” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 608). The basic meaning of chastisement is “the learning or teaching of a lesson…. The lesson may be learned in three different ways: through the experience of suffering (Jer. 10:24), through the acceptance of verbal instruction (Psa. 16:7), and through observing a given situation (Jer. 2:30)” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 113). In the New Testament chastisement is mostly that of God upon His own people. It is divine discipline (1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 12:5-11). As human fathers chasten their sons (Heb. 12:7; 10a), the New Testament teaches that God chastens His people for their own spiritual good. He fulfills the role of a Father and the infliction is administered in love. It is a maturing process that results from instruction, training, and suffering.

We cannot say that all of our trials are inflicted upon us by God. Some of our suffering, sickness and sorrow are self-inflicted. They result from our disobedience of God’s laws, either in the realm. of the natural or the spiritual, or both. However, there are inflictions that come from God that we may be improved. We should not, though, be so concerned about the source of our suffering or chastisement as we should our attitude toward it. How we receive our chastisement should be the main point of our concern.

Having considered the definitions; and sources of chastisement, a brief textual study of Hebrews 12:5-13 will be helpful. It is the longest single passage in the New Testament dealing with chastisement. Apparently some of those whom the author of the Hebrew letter was addressing were not gladly bearing their persecutions. “My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art reproved of him” (v. 5). It is this writer’s belief that persecution is the context of this passage (see w. 2,3). The Hebrews had forgotten their former encouragement. They should have considered (as we should also consider) that any parent who will not chastise a child does not love the child as he should. A parent that is permissive or lax is not respected. A wise and loving parent will not hold correction from the child (Prov. 3:12; 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13; 29:15-17; Eph. 6:4). “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is not a proverb of Scripture but the principle is there. When tribulation comes upon us and distress rills our hearts, it is quite easy for us to pity ourselves and even take sides against God. The Christian is cautioned against despising the Lord’s chastenings. We must remember that He loves us and it is for our good. We, as the Hebrew readers, are not to be discouraged and disheartened by what may seem to be a heavy burden.

Our question centers upon how God chastens His children. We focus upon verse six. “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. ” Chastisement in various forms is found in several other books of the Bible (Job. 5:17; Psa. 94:12; Prov. 3:12; Rev. 3:19).

We are admonished to endure when we are chastised (v. 7). “It is for chastening that ye endure.” The footnote (ASV) is “endure unto chastening.” To help us endure trials, we must have faith and look to the end result. It is said even of Jesus, “who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame…” (Heb. 12:2). One writer expressed it this way: “Faith not only looks beneath the surface of things and sees the sweet orange beneath the bitter rind, but it looks beyond the present and anticipates the blessed sequel” (Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, p. 941).

The Hebrew author continues by saying, “But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then ye are bastards, and not sons” (v. 8). From the standpoint of human reasoning, we would ask, “If we are God’s children, why are we chastised?” But our readers are told that they could not be true sons without chastisement. They would be considered illegitimate, which is not what they wanted to be.

Surely our respect for God should be greater than that for our earthly parents who chasten their children. “Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live?” (v. 9). Verse ten states that God’s chastening is for profit-“that we may be partakers of his holiness. ” The end result is further seen in verse eleven. “All chastening seemeth for the present to be not joyous but grievous; yet afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit unto them that have exercised thereby, even the fruit of righteousness.” Correction from the hand of God makes one righteous. It is unpleasant for the moment, but the result is our maturity. Christians should look to chastisement or discipline as a source of encouragement (v. 12).

Looking at chastisement from the aspect of teaching or instruction, two passages come to our attention. The first is Titus 2:11,12. Paul mentions that the grace of God instructs or teaches. “Teaching” in this passage is the same root word that is translated “chastise.” It is the Greek verb paideuo which literally means to discipline through the acceptance of verbal inspiration. As the father is to nurture his children (Eph. 6:4), so God’s chastening of His children nurtures them step by step toward fulfilling what He wants them to be. The second is 2 Timothy 3:16,17. The three words in this passage are correlated to chastening. The Scriptures teach and “reprove.” Also, they convict one of error, directing him on the right path. They “correct,” changing us to what God wants us to be. Without correction, we could easily go astray. They instruct – ” instruction which is in righteousness.” The word “instruction” here is the Greek noun paideia. So, chastening is instruction or discipline-it educates and trains us.

Chastisement when administered as punishment, may be so severe as to result in physical death (Acts 5:11) and the fear of God is impressed upon all the saints. Whether our chastisement is suffering (physical or emotional), or instruction and training, in either case or both, it results in our final reward if we faithfully trust, obey, and serve God.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 100-101
February 21, 1985

By Johnny Stringer

When Jesus prohibited divorce and condemned the second marriages or divorced persons as adulterous (Matt. 19:3-9; 5:32), He made one exception to the rule: Divorce is permissible if it is for the cause of Some, however, teach that there is no scriptural ground for divorce. They recognize that Jesus allowed divorce for fornication, but they say Jesus’ teaching does not apply to us.

Proponents of this position maintain that Jesus was merely explain the meaning of the Law of Moses regarding divorce. There was debate among the Jews about the matter; some contended that under the Law, of Moses, divorce was permissible only for fornication, while argued that it was allowed for any reason, no matter how trivial. Advocates of the position under discussion claim that Jesus was merely settling this controversy, showing that. under Moses’ law, divorce was only for fornication. It is, their, contention that the New Testament, which we are now under, allows no exception to the rule that marriage is permanent.

Based On Erroneous Definition

In order for this position to be true, Jesus’ teaching must have been the same as Moses’ teaching on the subject of divorce. He could not have been explaining Moses’ teaching if He were teaching something different from what Moses taught. Advocates of this position contend that Jesus was indeed teaching precisely what Moses taught.

This contention is based on an erroneous, definition of the word rendered “uncleanness”, in Deuteronomy 24:1. According to that divorce was allowed if a man found some “uncleanness” in his wife. It is argued that the word rendered “uncleanness” meant “fornication.” Hence, it is concluded, the Law of Moses allowed divorce only for fornication; Jesus, therefore, was only setting forth what the Law of Moses taught.

In fact, the word rendered “uncleanness” does not have that meaning. It is a rather broad term, vague an indefinite meaning. Young defines it as “a thing offensive.” Brown, Driver, and Briggs define it as “indecency, improper behavior.” God used a term that was vague and indefinite in meaning, because His purpose was not to set forth specific offenses which would make divorce permissible. If God had meant to make fornication the only ground for divorce under the Law of Moses, He would have used a word that had that specific meaning; but He did not.

It is obvious that the word rendered “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24:1 did not have reference either to adultery or to pre-marital fornication; for the woman guilty of either of these sins was to be put to death (Lev. 20: 10; Deut. 22:20-21), whereas the woman with “some uncleanness” was to be given a writing of divorcement and sent on her way. What was to be done to the fornicator was different from :what was to be done to the woman with some uncleanness.

What Jesus taught was clearly not in harmony with what Moses taught. Under Moses’ law the adulteress was not to be divorced, but to, be put to death. Moreover, under Moses, one who was divorced could go and be another man’s wife (Deut. 24:2); but according to Jesus’ teaching, she could not (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18). It is false, therefore, to say that Jesus was merely explaining and reaffirming the Law of Moses.

Purpose Of His Teaching

When Jesus delivered His teaching regarding divorce, His purpose was not to explain and reaffirm what Moses taught on the matter. Rather, His purpose was to set forth the principles that would govern His kingdom. His teaching in general pointed to His kingdom and was designed to instruct men regarding His kingdom (Matt. 4:17, 23).

A good sample of His teaching is found in the Sermon on the Mount, in which He clearly was setting the tone for His kingdom. Jesus’ teaching regarding divorce, allowing divorce for the cause of fornication, is found in that sermon (Matt. 5:32). It is in a section beginning in Matthew 5:20, in which Jesus contrasts the righteousness taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees against the righteousness He would demand in His kingdom. He was making the point that since a higher degree of righteousness was required in His kingdom than was taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees, one whose righteousness did not exceed theirs could not be a part of the kingdom of Christ. The scribes and Pharisees even fell short of what was required in the law on many points; but even when they set forth precisely what the Law taught about divorce, their teaching still fen short of what Jesus required. In the Sermon on the Mount, therefore, as Jesus was setting the tone for His kingdom, He gave His teaching on divorce to help describe the higher righteousness required in it.

Jesus had no intention of entering into and settling a Jewish controversy about what was allowed under a law which would not be binding much longer anyway. He did not argue that His position was correct on the basis of the wording found in the Law of Moses. In fact, He made no effort to show that it was what the Law of Moses taught. Rather, He presented His teaching as being correct; not because it was what the Law of Moses taught, but because of His own authority. With the words, “I say unto you,” He affirmed that this was his teaching resting on His authority (note Matt. 7:29). He was not acting as an expositor of the Law of Moses, but as the King setting forth His own laws to govern His soon-to-be-established kingdom (Mat 4:17, 23).

Then after the Apostles received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the Spirit taught them all things, reminding them of all that Jesus had taught (John 14:26), including what He had taught regarding divorce. Under His guidance, they wrote it into the New Testament. It is now our obligation to be governed by it.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 101-102
February 21, 1985

By Ron Halbrook

On 12 and 14 November 1984 Larry Hafley of Pekin, IL affirmed “that Holy Spirit baptism and miracles as experienced in the early church are not still applicable and should not be a part of present day worship and involvement.” Hulon Myre, a United Pentecostal preacher from Jackson, TN, denied the proposition and affirmed miracles are for today on 15-16 November. It was my privilege to moderate for brother Hafley. The debate was held in the commodious Seeger Chapel on the campus of Milligan College at Johnson City, TN; the facility was rented from the college. D.A. Martin, the U.P.C. preacher in Johnson City moderated for Mr. Myre. Mr. Martin had approached Everett Hardin of the Brookmead church of Christ about the possibility of a discussion. Brother Hardin and the other good brethren at Johnson City graciously accommodated the request.

The audience, which ranged to a high of nearly 250, was well-behaved and attentive. The disputants were dignified, courteous, and attentive to the issue at hand, while pressing their views with firmness. The debate was well-publicized, including excellent coverage by newspapers and television in a tri-city area of 250,000 people. Audio and video recordings are available from brother Hardin (2428 Lakeview Dr., Johnson City, TN 37601). Mr. Martin agreed to see whether the U.P.C. publishing house would print the debate, so contact him if you are interested and encourage him to pursue the matter (P.O. Box 3933 CRS, Johnson City, TN 37601). People who had never heard the truth on the work of the Holy.Spirit and on other matters heard an able presentation of the gospel by means of this debate. Some members of the Christian Church came, enjoyed the discussion, and stayed afterward several nights investigating the question of instrumental music in unaware that public debates had been held on the subject and, being convinced by the Hafley-Myre debate that such discussions are helpful, they expressed an interest in arranging one. (Won’t they be surprised at the answers they will get when they ask their preachers to engage in such a study?) Gospel preachers and other brethren attended from several states.

Only eternity can measure the good accomplished when the word of God-the seed of the kingdom of God-is sown into so many hearts. That seed was faithfully sown on this occasion and God will give the increase according to His own will (Lk. 8:4-15; 1 Cor. 3:6-7). One evidence of the good done was Pentecostal people telling brother Hafley that they did not agree with positions Mr. Myre was taking. Another evidence was a letter addressed to brethren Hardin, Hafley, and myself, which said in part:

We have an eleven-year-old son that was baptized into Christ a year ago. We can’t begin to tell you what it has meant to us and to Brad, for him to be able to hear men stand up for the truth as you have this week . . . this week has been very special to us.

Yes, brethren, debates properly conducted-like all other forms of gospel preaching-will strengthen the faith of Christians, whether the lost respond to the truth or not! When God’s truth goes out, it never returns unto Him without accomplishing good, whether we can see and measure the good done or not (Isa. 55:10-11).

Hafley’s Basic Arguments

Larry showed that the Holy Spirit manifested Himself in various ways and worked in various manners: (1) “without measure” in Jesus (Jn. 3:34), (2) the baptism of the Spirit upon the Apostles, representing the Jews, and upon the house of Cornelius, representing the Gentiles (Acts 2; 10), (3) gifts given by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands (Acts 8:14-29), and (4) the Spirit dwelling in all Christians in a non-miraculous way (I Cor. 6:19-20). The baptisms of Moses (1 Cor.10:1ff), of John the baptist (Matt.3:1ff) and of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2; 10) accomplished their purposes and are not repeated today, but the baptism in water for remission of sins taught by Christ is the only one needed today (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38).

Pentecostal people think that if the baptism of Mark 16 is needed today, then the miracles are, too. Larry’s chart on the passage shows in a simple and powerful way why one is needed and not the other:

MARK 16:15-20
“HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED”	“THESE SIGNS SHALL FOLLOW THEM   THAT BELIEVE”
PURPOSE:   TO SAVE (v. 16)	PURPOSE:   TO CONFIRM WORD (v. 20)
IS THERE A NEED NOW?
YES   WHY? Men are still lost!	NO   WHY NOT? Word has been confirmed
WORD CONFIRMED	SIGNS CEASED

On another chart Larry demonstrated the difference between the true signs mentioned in various passages and the claims of his opponent: (1) Mark 16:20 says, “confhmiing the word with signs,” but the opponent “confirms” his signs with words; (2) Acts 14:3 says the Lord “gave testimony” and “granted signs,” but the opponent gives testimony without signs; (3) Acts 4:33 says that “with great power” the Apostles gave witness, but the opponent with “great” words gives witness.

Miraculous gifts were to fail, cease, and vanish away. They were the means of revelation “in part,” partially, or part by part until the fullness of revelation had come. “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Larry’s charts showed that the passage cannot mean there is a comparison between revelation in part and the “complete second coming of Christ. ” The thing in part must be of the same nature as the thing that is complete. ” Since we do not have the second coming of Christ “in part,” there is no reference to His coming as “that which is perfect.”

Myre’s Basic Arguments

Myre argues that we have today water baptism in the name of Jesus only (i.e. not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) and also Holy Ghost baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Myre attempts to show that there is such a pattern in Acts 2, 10, and 19, then concludes such was the case in “every case of conversion recorded in Acts.” Larry’s response was that the baptisms of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 and 10 are the only cases in Acts or anywhere else. Larry also pointed out that on the premise of Myre’s argument, Cornelius received evidence of salvationbefore water baptism and Simon in Acts 8 was saved Wore receiving the Spirit (which is Spirit baptism in Myre’s view) where is the pattern?

The Spirit baptism in Acts 2 included the women of 1:14 and was not limited to the Apostles, Myre insisted. Larry’s charts on the text of Acts 1-2 showed that Spirit baptism was promised to the Apostles (1:2-5) and that “the eleven apostles” in 1:26 is the antecedent to the pronoun “they” in 2:1. Myre claimed that John the baptist promised Holy Spirit and fire baptism to all of his audience in using the pronoun “you. ” Larry reminded Hulon that John said, “I indeed baptize you with water” in a generic sense without meaning all of his audience. John’s prophecy of Spirit baptism must be understood in the light of its fulfillment in Acts 1-2.

If the promises of the miraculous work of the Spirit in John 14-16 are limited to the Apostles, the promise of heaven in 14:1-3 must be so limited, said Myre. Specialpromises must be distinguished from general principles and Larry illustrated that by this statement in the limited commission: “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few” (Lk. 10:2). Surely Myre quotes that passage without thinking he is under the limitations of that commissiongo not to the Gentiles, carry no purse, etc.

Myre believes miraculous gifts will continue “till the coming of Christ” and Larry could not get him to admit that this destroys the harmony in the things compared in I Corinthians 13. But Myre used the typical argument on Hebrews 13:8-miracles continue because “Jesus Christ (is) the same . . . for ever.” Yet, Myre teaches that gifts will end at the second coming of Christ, so miracles are not “for ever” even according to his own argument! The character and truth of the Lord are “for ever” but he may change certain means and methods of working. According to the miracles “for ever” idea, Myre should raise the dead, but he refused to try lest the dead man might be a saved person who would fall into sin and be lost. But, retorted Larry, it might be a lost person and then we could save him!

Myre Stumbles On Sin And Sickness

A highlight of the debate occurred when Myre made the typical plea that “with his stripes we are healed” means that we must look to Christ both for atonement from sin and miraculous healing from disease (Isa. 53:5). We were referred to the Corinthians who did not discern the Lord’s body conthuad on new page during the Lord’s Supper and who were, according to Myre, physically weak, sickly, and asleep or dead (1 Cor. 11:30). Myre had spoken from his seat in answer to questions and statements by Larry since the second night; when Larry began to mention Myre’s position that sickness in 1 Corinthians 11 was caused by sin, Myre claimed “a point of order” and came to the microphone to say that he was misrepresented because he never said the Corinthians were sick on account of sin.

MYRE: The penalty for not recognizing the efficaciousness of the blood-the penalty for that is eternal damnation. The penalty for not recognizing the Lord’s body, the stripes by which he was beaten for our healing, the penalty for that is simply sickness, weakness, possible premature death. I did not say it was sin [to fail to recognize the Lord’s body, RH].

HAFLEY: If you don’t live right, you’ll get sick like that . . . sickness, weakness, and maybe premature death?

MYRE: There are many weakly and sickly among you, and some prematurely fallen asleep.

HAFLEY: Why?

MYRE: Because they did not recognize the Lord’s body. If you’ll make a study of that, you’ll see that by His stripes we’re healed-by His blood we’re saved. I did not associate sin with that. I think Paul had a physical affliction. I do not think it was because of sin. It was because God wanted to teach him something about His grace.

HAFLEY: Because they didn’t recognize the Lord’s body, then. Can I say that? [Myre nods approval as he sits down.]

Mr. Myre has clarified it. He says you’re weak and sick, and maybe (facing) premature death because you don’t recognize the Lord’s body. Question: Is not recognizing the Lord’s body a sin? Is it? (Pause) I dare you to answer it! Is not recognizing the Lord’s body a sin? He says not recognizing the Lord’s body will make you weak, sickly, and maybe you’ll prematurely die. Is it a sin? Is it a sin?

If he says, “No, it’s no sin,” then why did they get weak and sick and die? And if it is a sin, then sin causes the sickness and the weakness, and that’s what I said (you taught) in the first place! My, my, Mr. Myre, I believe I’d have kept my seat. You helped yourself worse.

That exchange occurred during the last speech of the debate. As Larry reminded the audience on several occasions, Mr. Myre’s weakness and confusion was not due to personal inability, for he was well qualified to represent his people, but was due to the error of his doctrine.

Teach By Asking Questions

Each speaker was limited to asking five written questions per night and these questions played a crucial role in the discussion. Mr. Myre spent most of his time rambling around Larry’s questions and so had almost no time to do anything else, except to occasionally get off on a tangent about the need for godly living, revival, or the like. Of the dozens of charts Larry used, Mr. Myre never called for over two or three to review them.

Larry pressed one line of thought (which I had never seen used), which gave Mr. Myre no end of trouble. His first question in the opening speech was, “What is the baptism of fire (Matt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16)? ” Larry asked who is the subject of it, what is its purpose, what is the evidence that a person has it, and where can we read an example of it? Myre mused that the Bible does not clearly define it, but that he thought the evidence of it might be “the holy enthusiasm” called an “unction” or “anointing” in I John 2:20-27. Larry wondered out loud how Myre could have this baptism or anointing and not know for sure what it is since “the same anointing teacheth you of all things” (v. 27).

“What is the ‘one baptism’ of Ephesians 4:5? ” Acts 2:38 makes it water baptism and Spirit baptism, Myre answered, and “the spirit, and the water, and the blood . . . agree in one” (1 Jn. 5:8). It seemed Myre was getting more and more baptisms to explain: water, Holy Spirit, fire, and now blood. (Why isn’t blood a baptism in I John 5:8 if spirit and water are baptisms?) Four baptism? No, no, Mr. Myre assured us, the blood means repentance, the fire is associated with the Spirit, and the water and the Spirit are “two elements” of one baptism. Just one, see? So, Larry asked if Simon (who got the water long before the’ Spirit) and Cornelius (Who got the Spirit before the water) were only half-baptized and half-saved? Well, Myre explained the one baptism may be a wonderful process which takes time to complete and God recognizes those who are coming toward Him in the process.

In fact, Myre wondered if people in churches of Christ might be in the process since we teach water baptism although at other times he implied that he could not work miracles for us because we are too hardened in heart. Asked to distinguish his “miracles” from those of pagan witch doctors, Myre asserted that God performs genuine miracles “wherever there is faith”- even among the heathen. Presumably, some of them are in the process with the rest of us!

“Does Holy Spirit baptism put one into the United Pentecostal Church?” Baptism puts a person into the body of Christ, Myre said, but the U.P.C. is “just a working arrangement.” Larry observed that this means that the U.P.C. is not the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) and not the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5). Taking the denominational unity-in-diversity concept, Myre averred that the U.P.C. is a part of the Lord’s church along with all other obedient children of God. Where can we read in the Bible of such a structure called a “church” which is larger than a local congregation and smaller than the body of Christ? The U.P.C. is still foreign to the Bible, isn’t it?

After admitting that “all the signs of Mark 16:17-18 apply to believers today, ” Myre was also asked whether the passage proves that tongues are “a sign that would follow every believer of the gospel” (as per their tract)? Again, he said, “Yes.” If it proves tongues for every believer as they claim, it proves every believer must cast out demons, take up serpents, drink poison, and heal the sick? Larry pressed this often by using a reproduction of a picture of snake handlers which appeared in the paper under the heading “Snake-handlers testing faith less frequently.” (We have reproduced the picture in connection with this article because brethren can use it to make excellent overhead charts.) Myre stayed tangled up on trying to get out of the necessary conclusion of his doctrine.

Blunder Of The Week Award: Apostles Today

Myre received the “blunder of the weak award” for claiming living Apostles in the U.P.C. To prove miracles today, Myre asked whether God gives His gifts with respect of persons. Larry answered by asking whether God gives the gift of apostleship with respect of persons (Eph. 4:11). Myre had thundered, “gift, 1 Corinthians 12:28 still applies. Everything in that chapter is stiff in the church. Nobody has been big enough to take them out.” So, Larry asked whether Myre is big enough to take Apostles out today. Feeling the force of this, he admitted that he believes there are Apostles alive today even though some of his brethren deny it. Some of his people at the debate denied it, too! Larry quoted the official history of the U.P.C.: “The organization condemned the teaching that the church is based upon present day apostles and prophets” (United We Stand, p. 144). But Myre could not back up because he said on Hebrews 13:8, “If we’re not doing the same things, we’ve got another Jesus. We’ve got another gospel deleting the gifts.” Myre patched it up by saying that we do not need Apostles like the Twelve who revealed Scripture since we already have the Bible, but we may have “other apostles” in the sense of messengers like the “pioneers” of the modem Pentecostal movement. Asked to name some living apostles, he said he did not know the names of any.

If Pentecostal people can see that the office of Apostles has passed away because its purpose has been fulfilled, they can understand the same point on all the other miraculous gifts. If they can see that the gift of apostleship had as its purpose revealing and confirming new truth, they can see the very same thing on all the other miraculous gifts. The gospel revelation supplied our every spiritual need without the repetition of Holy Spirit baptism or any other miracle today. The challenge Larry issued from first to last still echoes back to us again and again: Cite one spiritual need that the Word of God fails to supply.

This was about the 25th debate Larry has had. He prepares thoroughly, speaks fluently, and presents the truth with boldness and great plainness of speech. Having heard many debates and engaged in a few, I can recommend Larry as among the best I have seen on the polemic platform when you need someone, you will find none better.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 97, 117-119
February 21, 1985