Truth Magazine

By David D. Bonner

In the last two weeks of October, Ronald Buxton, preacher for the Southside church of Christ in Duncan, Oklahoma and T. Grady McCord, preacher for the Jesus Name Church in Comanche, Oklahoma, engaged in an eight-night debate on the subjects of the Godhead (whether there are three persons or one) and what, if anything, one has to say while baptizing in order for the baptism to be valid. Buxton had done his homework well and presented the truth with clarity, using some fifty charts with logic and force. Not only did McCord not even try to meet the arguments Buxton presented, but the audience went away frustrated not even knowing what McCord believes on the Godhead. McCord defined “person” as one who has flesh and bones and affirmed there was no flesh back of Bethlehem. With his definition, Buxton was not able to get McCord to commit himself as to whether there was even one person in the Godhead before Jesus came into the world, or whether there is even one in the Godhead now, although by inferences it seems he may think Jesus is in the flesh now (?).

On the baptism question, McCord presented the four Scriptures (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) which specifically state that baptism is in Jesus’ name and affirmed that is what the baptizer must say while baptizing. He affirmed the validity of baptism hinges on what is said at the baptism. Buxton ably proved that although one must be baptized in Jesus’ name, yet the Bible nowhere states what must be said, if anything, at the baptism, only what must be done. Buxton affirmed that all we do in word or deed must be done in the name of the Lord (Col. 3:17) and asked McCord if we have to say it for each act of worship, etc. to validate each action, to which McCord responded with silence.

Buxton conducted himself throughout the debate with dignity as a Christian ought.

In this part of Oklahoma, crowds where truth is discussed are never big but McCord’s people seemingly dwindled some during the debate; faithful brethren from the area attended consistently. The seed was sown so only time will tell what the results will be in the hearts of those who attended. Ben Roberson, who claims to have debated these questions throughout the years and moderated for other debaters who have met Guy N. Woods and others, moderated for McCord. I moderated for Buxton.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 796
December 11, 1980

By Lynn Trapp

In the world today there are multitudes of people who claim either they or others have power from God to perform miracles. In spite of clear New Testament teachings that miracles (being part and parcel of the apostolic message) were confined to the apostolic age, these persons continue to claim that they have performed miracles and have witnessed the performance of miracles by others. Due to these claims hundreds of innocent persons are being led into a grievous deception and are emphasizing the presence of the supposed miraculous events to the exclusion of the revelation from the Spirit of God. It is a grievous deception because they are rejecting the salvation of their souls and accepting the love of the present world. It is most important that men today learn the difference between the so-called miracles of today and the valid miracles of the apostolic age.

In the New Testament we are given a command to “try the spirits whether they are of God.” In line with that we set forth the following tests of modern miraculous claims and modern faith healers. We will leave it to the readers to discern the validity of the test and the validity of the modern claims.

I. For a miracle to be valid, it must be instantaneous. We do not find cases of New Testament miracle workers performing miracles which took days, weeks, and even months to take effect. Numerous examples are found in the New Testament of instantaneous healing – a leper was immediately cleansed (Mt. 8:2-3), Peter’s mother-in-law was healed as soon as Jesus touched her hand (Mt. 8:15), and Malthus’ ear was restored whole immediately (Lk. 22:51). A multitude of other examples can be cited to demonstrate our point but these should suffice. Let the modern claimants present a New Testament case of a “slow” miracle. They cannot do this, and yet, this is the only kind of “healings” which are performed today. Innocent people are told, and they sincerely believe, that they have been healed even though their symptoms remain. Any slow abating of their disease is not attributable to the power of the “miracle workers,” but to the power of God inherent in natural law.

II. For a miracle to be valid it must be complete. Partial recovery of some of the afflicted is the usual track record for today’s so-called healers. People may feel better for a time, usually while under the hypnotic influence of the healer, but their pain soon returns, sometimes worse than before. When Jesus healed people, they were made “whole” (Mt. 9:22; 12:13) and the apostles gave “perfect soundness” to those they healed (Acts 3:16; 4:9).

III. For a healing to be valid it must be the cure of an organic disease. “The limitations of present day healers, however, is tragic to witness. Of 1400 modern cases of healings that were investigated, not one of an organic character was discovered; all supposedly cured were of a neurotic nature” (Herbert Lockyer, The Healer and Healing Movements, p. 46). Though this statement was made over 20 years ago I am certain that its truth can be confirmed today. (For further reading on this subject see Dr. William A. Nolen’s book A Doctor In Search Of A Miracle.) New. Testament healings were of an altogether different nature: Christ restored a severed ear (Mt. 26:51), Peter healed a man who- was born lame (Acts 3), and the dead were raised (Jn. 11:43). Surely, the evidence is in favor of New Testament miracles and against modern claims.

IV. For miracles to be valid they must not foster division among God’s people. I have personally asked a number of persons who believe in modern miracles to explain how there can be conflicting doctrines among various miracle workers. One fact is certain from these inquiries, no one is willing to call the other’s miracles fake even though they teach different doctrines. Thus, so long as they can oppose a gospel preacher’s stand on miracles, they will walk hand-in-hand even though they differ on such crucial doctrines as the nature of Deity and the number of beings in the Godhead. I challenge anyone to find a case of two inspired persons in the New Testament teaching conflicting doctrines. The apostles and other inspired persons in the first century stood together when it came to the teachings of Christ.

V. For miracles to be valid they must be universally accepted. No one who saw the Lord and the Apostles perform a miracle ever claimed that they did not actually perform the miracle. One effort was made to attribute the Lord’s miracles to an unholy source (Beelzebub), but even then these enemies of Christ admitted the actual occurrence of the miracles. It should be emphasized that these enemies of the Lord would have had much to gain by claiming that He did not actually perform miracles, that the miracles were just delusions, or that they were merely the control of functional disorders. In contrast, the modern claims are universally denied. Only a small minority of the world accepts the modern “miracles.” The New Testament evidence cited shows that this would not be the case if the modern “miracles” were like the miracles of the New Testament.

Many other tests could be applied to the modern claims of the faith healers, but these should be sufficient to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the claims. I put it before the readers to test these claims of the so-called healers. Do not just accept their word that they are performing miracles. Put them to the Bible test and accept only that which can be validated by the scriptures. Reject anything which cannot meet the test.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 793
December 11, 1980

By Wallace H. Little

I hear of situations where ambitious preachers fight with elders, and as a result, churches divide. I read of situations where Diotrephes’, masquerading as elders, act as lords over God’s heritage, to divide it. I learn of situations where stubborn and willful brethren, obstinately “taking the bit in their mouths” decide they are going to have their way, run roughshod over the conscience of other brethren, and the flock is split. I find situations where “she-elders” refuse to follow the Biblical admonition of subjection; indeed, they thrust themselves into positions of control through their spineless husbands, to the splintering of God’s local churches. And lest the young people be left out, on several occasions, I have received information of situations involving willful and rebellious younger members of the church deciding they were going to “do their thing” in their personal lives, such as going to dances, social drinking and what not, and the congregations were rent asunder as a consequence. I have heard of situations where unbelieving liberals and modernists have hidden their pernicious unbelief, and working like leaven, created factions, to the dividing of a group of God’s saints.

And in all cases, it seems, “. . .think(ing) that he (they) doeth God service” (Jn. 16:2).

When, oh when, will we ever learn that we are dealing with souls?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 792
December 11, 1980

By Earl Robertson

There is nothing inherently or basically wrong with change. In fact, in many instances it is good and healthy. However, in religion no change can be made or engaged in the word or the actions it causes. The means and methods employed in carrying out what the word of God teaches will vary in time, but the word itself remains unchanged. It is the very word of the eternal God! However, we must observe the obvious: as men are strongly determined to act from their own feelings and desires, they see the need to take liberties with and/or change the word so they can, unhesitatingly, move in their own way. Peter says some “wrest” the scriptures from their intended purpose to make them teach what God never intended (2 Pet. 3:16).

Balaam’s inability to attempt anything in opposition to God’s will stemmed from his moral reverence of God and dread of personal punishment, causing him to burst forth in mighty exclamation, “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more” (Num. 22:18). Balaam had wonderful knowledge of God’s restrictions expressed unto him through His word, but it became completely obscured by his “greed for reward” (Jude 11). Though God had forbidden him to comply with the wish of Balak, he implored Balak’s princes, “I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the Lord will say unto me more” (Num. 22:19). More! What more could Jehovah say? The spirit of change moved into the heart of Balaam. He would now risk everything in his apostate actions.

Others, like Balaam, will walk in the unvarying counsels of God for a time but will undertake the journey of change when the price is right. The spirit exhibited in the Conferences on “Spiritual Renewals,” “Unity Meetings” and efforts for “common” ground, is the spirit of change. As a Christian Church preacher recently wrote of a “Spiritual Renewal” meeting held in a church of Christ in Nashville in January by nearly 100 from “Church of Christ, Christian Church, and Disciple of Christ heritage”. “Under the leadership of Don Finto, the elders of Belmont had announced to the congregation just the Lord’s day before our arrival that they could no longer make the non-use of musical instruments a church law. This was in recognition that God is speaking to the present generation in terms different from the way He spoke to past ones. On Wednesday Truth Magazine evening, just before Bob Yawberg spoke, a group of young adults led the worship with the aid of a guitar” (Harbinger, Too, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 44).

So, they now think the whole objection to instrumental music in worship was just a matter of “church law.” Since it is just “church law,” they console themselves saying “God is speaking to the present generation in terms different from the way He spoke” to us in the past! The spirit of change!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 792
December 11, 1980