Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

In the First Century, brethren came face to face with this question, “What of Christians who were Jewish returning to the Old Law? How should such be viewed? Are such brethren safe-perhaps ‘safe in prospect’ or hope-since the Old Law recognized the same God as the New?” In the first part of the Hebrew letter, the writer taught that to have God, one must have Christ, and to have Christ one must obey all the words of His law. “God . . . hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . . . Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.” The writer said “every transgression and disobedience” was punished under the Old Law, and assures us the likelihood of escaping punishment for violating the New is even less! “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (Heb. 1:1-2:4).

The writer warned that even God’s people can be guilty of unbelief by continuing in sin; those who do not hear God’s voice and obey “.the word of God” cannot enter into the heavenly rest (chs. 3-4). The writer exalted the New Covenant in all its glory, warning again and again that those who “have tasted the good word of God” but who violate it without repentance shall come to a horrible end; “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the diving God” (chs. 5-10). The brethren were reminded that “without faith it is impossible to please” God, and by reference to great men and women of faith in the Old Testament were reminded also that the faith which pleases God is that which obeys Him. “By faith Abraham . . . obeyed” (Heb. 11). The conclusion contains a prayer that God will ‘,’make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ” (13:20-21). Only those Jewish Christians who continued to obey God’s Word maintained unity with the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and all the saints!

Among other things, James addressee) himself to this question, “Can the church show respect of persons?” James said brethren must not only look into, hear, and understand God’s word, they must obey it; those who think otherwise are “deceiving your own selves” (1:2127). “The royal law” requires love of fellow man without “respect of persons”-and “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Those who will be’ “judged by the law of liberty” must show love and mercy to all men without partiality. James demolished the self-deception of one who argued that he had faith and was justified without all this attention to strict statutes, rules, and laws. “. . . can faith save him? . . . faith without works is dead …. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (ch. 2). No, brethren who violate the apostolic teaching have no hope of justification. Those who “err from the truth” are not covered by grace; each one must be brought back into grace and unity by being converted “from the error of his way” (5:19-20).

Other issues were met, by 1, 2, 3 John and Jude. A major one was, “Can we know God or have His grace and not keep His commandments?” Some claimed to be “in the know”-seeing great truths missed by others, looking into deep mysteries perceived by the initiate. Therefore, they were on a high plane of knowledge and fellowship with God and were not bound to observe strictly every detail of the Inspired Message.

Oh, how John and Jude exploded the proud. fancies of these “knowing” ones! These lordly princes of knowledge who claimed to be ,above the law and sin were sinning every time they said they had no sin! Further, there was no forgiveness for them because their cock-eyed theories prevented them from confessing, repenting of, and repudiating their sins-they would not meet the conditions of forgiveness. Their “light” was darkness; by thinking they could continue in sin without breaking the unity,, they made themselves “of the devil.” All their “knowing” was a farce: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Both doctrinally and in actual practice, these “knowing” ones turned the’ truth in-side-out and up-sidedown. They perverted both the place of Christ personally and the place of his Inspired Message in the scheme of redemption. They did not know how to love either God or their brethren, and were walking in “the spirit of error” while claiming “higher truth.” The apostolic teaching was the true test of Light, knowing God, Love, and Faith; maintaining unity with the Father and the Son depended upon continuing in the apostolic teaching, “The Doctrine of Christ” (1 Jn. 1:1-3; 2:3-6; 4:1-6; 5:1-3; 2 Jn. 9; Jude 3, 17-21).

“How shall churches be organized?” This question was answered for First Century saints by the letters to Titus and Timothy. By the inspired instructions in the letter to Titus, Paul revealed how Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting” among the churches of Crete. Men were not left to build their own ecclesiastical pyramids and to set the bounds of their own authority. Elders and deacons were to be ordained in- each church, which in itself .indicated the sphere of their activity (not to mention other references which state the limit of that sphere; cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Strict qualifications for the office and work of elder were given both to Titus and Timothy. Immediately after discussing some of these matters on church organization, Paul said, “These things write I unto thee . . . that thou may know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15-16). The things written were to be strictly observed: that was the basis of .unity on the question of church organization.

When the book of revelation was written, brethren were being forced to face this very practical issue, “Can we accommodate ourselves to the world in time of persecution?” The “record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ” which John gave was the very word of God-not mere theological theorizing. “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein. . .” (1:1-3). He admonished the saints to be unswervingly faithful, not to accommodate, not to compromise; warned of false doctrine, smug indifference, and refusal to repent of sin; gave a panoramic view of the eventual victory of Christ and His servants, and of the sure defeat coming to the devil and his angels. John concluded with an appeal for men to “do his commandments” and a fearful warning not to “add unto these things” nor “take away from the words of the book of this prophecy” (22:14-19). Unity and victory was for those who continued to obey, defeat and death for those who disobeyed. There was no middle ground, no room for compromise or accommodation-no matter how fiercely the battle raged.

What About Today?

We have demonstrated at some length that obedience in faith to the inspired message was necessary to maintain unity in the first century. What about today? Will it still work? Faith can give only one answer: “Yes!” As has been often said but too little observed in practice: God’s plan will still work if we will still work God’s plan.

In matters of faith and practice necessary to salvation, we can “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). We can still maintain unity with “both the Father and the Son” by abiding “in the doctrine of Christ.” But “whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). We can and must “fulfill the law of Christ” by bearing “one another’s burdens,” while at the same’ time earnestly contending “for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Gal. 6:2; Jude 3).

On the other hand, we dare not try to create or maintain an unholy unity in the bonds of iniquity-either by faith or practice-with those who “pervert the gospel of Christ.” Paul warned, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9). In view of the admonitions contained in these and similar passages, Moses E. Lard asked, “Is it true . . . that all Christians cannot see alike? It is a humiliating fact, I grant, that they will not see alike, but a grand lie that they cannot” (Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. I (1865), p. 253).

“But,” someone objects, “when the Bible is made the standard of unity, it divides people.” Yes, indeed, any standard of unity is also a standard of division! C. C. Morrison, liberal Disciple of Christ, in The Unfinished Reformation complained about the Bible dividing people; Lanny Hunter, liberal member of a Church of Christ, in the June 1974 issue of Mission picked up the same cry. Whatever standard they propose will be a standard of division to all who do not accept it, so the only question is whether we shall have a divine standard of unity (which separates those who do not think it is a good standard) or a human standard (which will also separate).

Yet another brother thinks that our language is not pure, but is crude and misleading, when we claim the Bible is the basis of unity. He says it is not “strictly true that the Bible is the basis upon which we are to unite” and that ‘not “even the plainest New Testament teachings are the basis of unity” (Edward Fudge, June 20, 1968 and May 1, 1969 Gospel Guardian). He proposes Christ as the basis of unity. Whatever such nebulous talk means, it is obvious our brother is uncomfortable with the plea which makes the apostolic teaching the basis of unity. He is making “Christ as the basis of unity” mean something less than the apostolic teaching; such a road leads to making less and less of the apostolic teaching necessary for unity. The truth is that we have unity with Christ the same way sheep have unity with their shepherd. “And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (Jn. 10:4-5). When one strays from the apostolic teaching, he strays from the voice of Christ. Unity in Christ means unity upon His Word. It was so in the New Testament days, and the restoration plea simply calls men to return to that premise.

Another pleads that Romans 14 allows doctrinal diversity in faith and practice. The truth is that the chapter deals with matters in which God has neither required nor prohibited: The same book, in chapter 16:17-18, warns that we cannot teach anything as a condition of salvation and fellowship which God has not bound in the Inspired Message.

In short, brethren, the inspired book teaches this: The unity of Ephesians 4 is maintained by the sound preaching of 2 Timothy 4. That was God’s plan in .the First Century. He has given no notification of its change in the Twentieth Century. We dare not risk our souls (and the souls of others!) on any other platform. In God’s blessed Son, in His Holy,Word, let us maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. In the Twentieth as in the ‘First Century, there is one Lord, there is one faith.

(To be Continued)

Truth Magazine XXI:38, pp. 598-600
September 29, 1977

By Mike Willis

For several years; I have been receiving the Present Truth magazine which is edited by Robert D. Brinsmead and mailed out of Fallbrook, California. I have spoken to some preachers among us who have been receiving the periodical without cost to them from its first issue. Just where this publishing corporation received its mailing list is unknown to me but I know that they are mailing their literature to a large number of the preachers in the Lord’s church. I have hurriedly glanced through the various issues of this paper during recent years and thought that I had a pretty good grasp of what they were teaching. However, in preparation for writing this article, I went back and carefully re-read the last two years of their publications to be sure that I was understanding what they were saying.

Emphasis on the Reformation

One thing has been evident to me from the beginning of my reading of this journal, namely, its emphasis on the reformation. Reformation scholars such as Luther and Calvin are quoted extensively and frequently. In my reading of the paper, I have almost become convinced that the quoting of Luther or Calvin in this paper is as good as the, quoting of the New Testament writers. Whether this judgment be true or not, I am thoroughly convinced that the editor and writers for this paper are bent on the restoration of the reformation. I invite any of our readers to critically examine any single issue of this magazine to see that this is so.

(Let me interject that I am somewhat concerned to. see some articles published among us which seem to emphasize the restoration movement in America to such an extent that one could get the idea that we are supposed to restore the Restoration Movement. We are to restore New Testament Christianity, nothing more and nothing less.)

Peculiar Doctrines of Present Truth

To list all of the things which Present Truth magazine is publishing would be impossible. Some of the points which they are emphasizing are altogether legitimate (such as the authority .of Goal’s word over subjective religious experiences). However, there are a number of doctrinal departures from the revealed word of God which I -want to mention to our readers and to substantiate from quotations from this paper in order that we might be on guard against some who might have adopted these views among us.

1. Perseverance of the saints. Articles which have been published in the Present Truth magazine express belief in the false doctrine of “once saved, always saved” as the following quotations clearly show:

“Moreover, they know-that the remnant of sin which is in their flesh, is not laid to their charge, but freely pardoned. Notwithstanding in the meanwhile they fight in the spirit against the flesh, lest they should fulfil the lust thereof. And although they feel the flesh to rage and rebel against the spirit, and themselves also do fall sometimes into sin through Infirmity, yet they are not discouraged, nor think therefore that their state and kind of life, and the works which are done according to their calling, displease God: but they raise up themselves.” (“Luther’s Comments on Galatians 5:17, “Present Truth, Vol. VI, No. 3, p. 9).

“Wherefore let not them which feel the concupiscence of the flesh, despair of their salvation …. But it followeth not therefore that thou shouldest make a light matter of sin, because God doth not impute it. True it is that he doth not impute it: but to whom and for what cause? Not to them that are hardhearted and secure, but to such as repent and lay hold by faith upon Christ the mercy-sent, for whose sake, as all their sins are forgiven them, even so the remnants of sin which are in them, be not imputed unto them ….And this is the true wisdom and consolation of the godly, that although they have and commit sins, yet they know that for Christ’s sake they are not imputed unto them” (Ibid., pp. 10-11).

These and other quotations which are taken from issues of Present Truth document the fact that these men are faithful to the Reformation theology of John Calvin’s doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

2. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ. The theological basis which is used for saying that God overlooks the sins of the believer is the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the account of the believer. Here are some quotations which document the fact that Present Truth endorses and propagates this doctrine:

“There are two elements blended together in God’s redemptive act In Christ. These elements are righteousness and blood. Paul not only ascribes salvation to the blood of Christ but also to the righteousness of Christ ….The gospel to about Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:3)-His righteousness and blood. If Christ is our Sun, then half of this Sun’s luster is dimmed when we fail to rivet our attention on the grand theme of the righteousness of Jesus” (Robert D. Brinsmead, “The Righteousness of Christ,” Present Truth, Vol. VI, No. 2, p. 161.

“We may summarize the point by saying that God requires of man a holy life. The justice of God’s judgment seat requires exact and perfect obedience to the divine law. Man cannot be saved unless that law be fulfilled-every jot and title of it.

“Says Calvin, ‘The Lord promises nothing except to perfect keepers of His law,’ and then, to underline the human predicament, he adds, ‘and no one of that kind is to be found.’– Calvin, op. cit., Bk. 3, chap. 17, sec. 1. This is where God stepped to by providing for us a Surety (Heb. 7s22) in Jesus Christ. His righteousness consists in His perfect obedience to His Father’s law in our room and on our behalf. Not only by His blood (which atones for our offenses) but by His righteousness He reconciles us to God and presents us in the sight of divine justice as if we had kept the law” (Ibid., p.18).

“Since Christ lived for His people a life of positive righteousness as well as died to atone for their sins, this means that God’s justification of the believer includes more than pardon for past offenses. While the blood of Christ washes away the stain of all guilt, the righteousness of Christ clothes the believer with the righteousness which the law demands” (Ibid., p. 22).

“By faith he can bring to God the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, and the Lord places that righteousness of His Son to the sinner’s account. This is how the believing sinner is justified by faith.

“Justification before the law is more than pardon for past sins. While on the cross Christ bore away the curses of the broken covenant so that the believing sinner might be pardoned. He also fulfilled the stipulations of the covenant by His life so that a perfect keeping of the commandments might be imputed to the believer. Being justified by faith in both Christ’s doing and dying, the believer is entitled to all covenant rewards” (Vol. V, No. 7, p. 52).

We have already encountered some trouble among the Lord’s churches because certain ones among us have accepted the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ. By applying this doctrine to certain matters among us, some have extended their umbrella of fellowship to include those who are wilfully involved in support of human institutions from the church’s treasury, the sponsoring church type of organization, premillennialism, using instruments of music in their worship, diverting the mission of the church to get it involved in recreation, etc.

3. Election. Another point of Calvinism that is presented in the Present Truth magazine is the doctrine of election. The Calvinists are hurting from the extensive attacks of those of us who oppose Calvinism who have charged that Calvinism teaches that God chose to send a large group of men to Hell without them ever having done anything to deserve it. Present Truth does not like the logical consequences of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. However, rather than repudiate the Calvinistic doctrine of election, the writers of Present Truth prefer to rest in inconsistency. They recognize that the doctrine of God eternally decreeing a group of reprobates to Hell is the logical consequence of their doctrine of election but they refuse to accept it. At least these Calvinists recognize their problem as is shown in what follows:

“At the Conference of the Hague the Calvinists stated: ‘When we posit an eternal decree of election of certain particular persons, it clearly follows that we also posit an eternal decree of rejection or reprobation of certain particular persons, for there cannot be an election without a rejection or reprobation. When from a certain number some persons are elected, then by this very act others are rejected, for he who takes them all does not elect” ‘ (Kiaas Runia, “Recent Reformed Criticisms of the Canons;” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 6, p. 27).

Klaas continued in this article to try to grapple with the problem. He said,

“It is of course true that logic’ does play an important part In theology . . . .By this very means the church has developed its doctrine of the Trinity and also its Christology, yet the question must always arise: is a particular consequence ‘good and necessary’? In general we must say that especially at the point of an eternal decree of reprobation we have to be most careful. And one should ask oneself: why does Scripture itself not draw this conclusion, if it is so natural and so logical?” Ibid., p. 281.

Of course, Unitarians would ask Klaas the same question as he posits with reference to the eternal decree of reprobation with reference to the Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead. You see, Klaas is reluctant to accept the logical conclusions of his presuppositions. He wants to adopt the idea of an eternal election, the total depravity of man, etc. but to reject the bad side of the conclusions which result from these presuppositions.

Citing with approval the work of certain Calvinists who are unwilling to accept the conclusion of an eternal decree of reprobation, Klaas said,

“Secondly, they also refuse to change the biblical asymmetry between election and rejection, Into a symmetrical, logical system, in which salvation and perdition evolve from the one decree in two parallel lines. ‘He who wants to be ‘logical” here, must either make faith the work of man alone or unbelief the work of God’ ” (Ibid., p. 29).

Notice the position which Present Truth is taking with reference to the doctrine of election. They want to believe that God predetermined that some would be saved but do not want to believe that He predetermined that others would be lost. Consequently, they charge that the Bible is illogical and asymmetrical on this point. In essence, this says that the Bible is teaching two contradicting doctrines. Klaas leaves the matter up in the air. He states that these two doctrines conflict with each other and that he accepts the idea of an election and rejects the idea of reprobation but offers no way that the two can be harmonized. Instead, he appeals for more study in this area.

4. Total depravity. In keeping with the fact that Present Truth is pretty much a Calvinistic journal, although it does differ with the main stream of Calvinism in some points, the paper teaches that man has received the guilt of Adam’s transgression and stands totally depraved before God.

“Here is a simper. In himself he has no freedom at all. To begin with, he Is in debt to the law. Because he has failed to render to it a life of perfect righteousness, his We is forfeited, and he is obligated to make full satisfaction to the law’s penal claims. By the power of that omnipotent law he is bound to the service of sin (1 Cor. 15:56 Rom. 7:8). Or to put this another way, God’s wrath (‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom. 4:15) 1 has abandoned him to the control of sin. All this has come about by the sin of Adam, his legal representative (Rom. 5:16-19). Then too, his nature Is disposed to hatred of God and to love of evil. So we may safely concede the Augustinian premise that in Adam man is totally lost. He is so enslaved to do evil that he is not free to live a life of righteousness” (Robert D. Brinamead, “The Legal and Moral Aspects of Salvation, Part 3s In the Matter of Election,” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 6, pp. 12-13).

“At this point the Calvinist may ask, ‘How can the sinner, who is dead fn sin’s and totally depraved, be free to accept Christ?’ We simply answer that the legal aspect of redemption takes precedence over the moral condition of man” (Ibid., p. 13).

Notice that Brinsmead had the perfect opportunity to express his disagreement with Calvinism in this last quotation but he chose not to. Why? Because he accepts Calvinism’s concept of man. Man is born totally depraved according to the writers of Present Truth.

5. Salvation without baptism. Having seen this much Calvinism in the Present Truth magazine, I was not shocked to read that these writers did not believe that one had to be baptized in order to be saved. In fact the masthead of the paper reads, “Solely by Grace, Solely by Christ, Solely by Faith.” (Of course, the editor has never taken the space in his paper, at least to my knowledge, to explain how salvation can be solely by three different things! The masthead is a contradiction in terms.) However, let me once again document the fact the Present Truth teaches that one can be saved without baptism. In the second issue of the special on the “covenant,” the writers of Present Truth treated baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the “signs and seals” of the covenant. In this, the writer said,

“We have to acknowledge that people can be saved apart from the signs and seals of God’s covenant” (“The Signs and Seals of the Covenant,” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 8, p. 18).

“There are still some hard-liners in captivity! Some insist that all who are not baptized by immersion according to their particular teaching cannot be saved ….We need to acknowledge that salvation is by grace alone. This means that the Lord Is in the business of saving sinners. Just as no one Is without sin, so no one is without error. If error damns us, then we must all be damned” (Ibid. ).

Repeatedly this paper mentions that one is saved through repentance and faith without ever mentioning that baptism is essential to salvation. Yet in these statements there can be no doubt that these men do not believe that one has to be immersed in water in order to receive the forgiveness of his sins.

Conclusion

As we have gone through an examination of this paper, the question comes to my mind of just how well received is Present Truth among the brethren. I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps some of our readers can inform us as to what they are hearing from comments with other preachers. However, I do know that I have read three complimentary letters signed by gospel preachers among us in the pages of their “Letters to the Editor.” That, I admit, is not very many yet it should awaken us to the danger which is in this journal.

Seeing the dangers that are inherent in this revival of Calvinism, this Neo-Reformation movement, I would like to issue a call for brethren everyone to arm themselves for another fight against the evils of Calvinism. Get out your sermons on total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints and preach them. If you have not prepared any sermons on this subject during the time that you have been preaching, I would suggest that you need to study these subjects and prepare lessons on them. I found these books to be especially helpful to me: The Gospel Plan of Salvation by T.W. Brents and Kept By the Power of God by I. Howard Marshall. (Needless to say, these books are available through Truth Magazine Book Store.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, pp. 595-597
September 29, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Nigeria: “Will you reconcile Rom. 4:5 with Phil. 2:12?”

Reply:

Rom. 4:5 says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Phil. 2:12 says, “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” These texts are in two different contexts. Essentially they do not need to be harmonized or reconciled for they are not contradictory.

“Worketh” Versus “Worketh Not”

In Rom. 4, Paul is reviewing what “the Scriptures saith.” Was Abraham justified by works; that is, was Abraham justified by perfect obedience to law? No, he was not (Rom. 4:3). Whom did David say would be blessed? Did David say the blessed are those who never sin? No, David described the blessed man as the forgiven man (Rom. 4:6-8). God makes one righteous by faith, not by works (Rom. 4:11). Justification is by the system of faith. It is not “through the law,” or by works of perfect obedience.

In Rom. 4:4, 5, Paul is not saying, “But to him that obeyeth not, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Rather, he is stating a fact. He is not making an argument. He is enunciating a simple truth. The one who sins, the one who depends upon God for forgiveness, that is the one that “worketh not.” If the one who has sinned believes on God, “his faith is counted for righteousness.” His works cannot avail, for he has sinned. If he had never sinned, his works would obtain the reward of justification. God would owe it to him to declare him righteous in His sight. Only to one who never sinned would God owe salvation. So, the one who “worketh” is the one who never has sinned. The one who “wvorketh not” is the transgressor who must rely on God for righteousness. If he is forgiven, it is a matter of grace, not debt. His faith is the means by which God declares him righteous.

Whatever terms or conditions God sets forth can never alter the fact that forgiveness is a matter of grace. Again, the man who “worketh” is the man who never sins. The man who “worketh not” is the sinner who cannot depend upon perfect obedience for righteousness.

In Phil. 2, Paul encourages those who have obtained “the righteousness which is of God by faith” to continue in their salvation which is maintained by obedient faith (cf. Phil. 1:6, 7; 2:12; 3:9). Paul does not say, “Work out your own means of being made righteous.” This would contradict Romans 4:4, 5. Consider Abraham. He was not justified by works. He was justified by faith. His faith was a working, obedient faith (Jas. 2:21-24; Rom. 4:12). Abraham did not keep a law perfectly. He sinned. When he did, his forgiveness became a matter of grace and faith, not of debt and works. His faith, which was counted unto him for righteousness, was a faith which was obedient (cf. Gen. 12:1-4; Heb. 11:8; Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:4, 5).

Note The Romans

The Romans illustrate this point. They were sinners. They were not justified by works. They were justified by grace, faith, and the blood of Christ (Rom. 3:24; 5:1; 5:9). Still, their response to God’s system of justification had to be an obedient one (Rom. 1:5; 6:17; 18; 16:26). Then, “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8). “For your obedience is come abroad unto all men” (Rom. 16:19). The obedience of this passage is parallel to the works of Phil. 2:12. Under the system of justification by grace without works, one must be obedient, working out his own salvation with reverence and awe (Eph. 2:8-10; Phil. 2:12).

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, p. 594
September 29, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

In John 10:41 it is recorded that the people said, “John did no miracle,” and there is nothing in the scripture that indicated that this is not true. John the Baptist performed no miracles. And there was a reason as we shall show in the conclusion of this study. But here is food for thought, particularly for those who place so much emphasis on miracles today.

In the first place, John was one of the greatest preachers who ever lived. Jesus said of him, “among them that are born of woman there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist” (Mt. 11:11). Secondly, “he was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb” (Lk. 1:15). Thirdly, he was sent on his mission by the Lord: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John” (Jn. 1:6). He had all the qualifications that modern “miracle workers” claim. But he “did no miracle”. Why?

Old Testament Miracles

The Old Testament records about fifty miracles besides the Genesis account of creation. God did most of these, either for the punishment of wicked men or nations, or in behalf of His people in times of stress or danger. Healing the sick was not among them. In fact, I can think of no instance of healing an individual except the arm or Jereboam (1 Kg. 13) and this was a case of undoing one miracle with another. The healing in connection with the brazen serpent was also of this nature. Numbers of people were killed by God’s power, others were stricken in various ways, and some raised from the dead; but healings were scarce.

The Miracles of Jesus

The Bible says that the recorded miracles of Jesus were “written that we might believe that he was the Christ. . . and that believing we might have life through him” (Jn. 20:30, 31). Here we might just ask this question: “If miracles were to continue through the ages, why was it necessary that the miracles of Jesus be written?” If the Lord were going to give His people power to continue performing miracles, then every generation would have the same miraculous testimony that people had in the time of Christ’s ministry. Hence, there would have been no need to have the miracles of Jesus recorded.

Disciples Given Power of Miracles

When Jesus sent the apostles out under the limited commission (only to the Jews), He said, “as you go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils. . . ” (Mt. 10:7, 8). You have no doubt heard many people say they were miraculously “healed”. How many have you seen or heard who were raised from the dead?

In the same verse in which the Lord said to “heal the sick”, He also said to “raise the dead”. But ask a “miracle worker” to let you see him raise one from the dead and he will indignantly inform you that you are asking him to “tempt the Lord”. But he does not mind our seeking him to work a healing “miracle”. In fact, he invites us to come down on certain nights with the promise that this will be “healing night”. Why does it “tempt the Lord” to work a “miracle” on a dead man but it does not “tempt the Lord” to work a “miracle” on a sick man? Jesus raised many from the dead; Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9); Paul raised Eutychus (Acts 20). What is wrong with raising the dead? When we question their claims that God heals miraculously today by human agency, they accuse us of trying to “limit God’s power”. It is they who limit God’s power. I believe that God can heal a man with an artificial limb as easily as He can heal a backache. But how many people do you know who went to a “healing service” with an artificial limb and were made whole? These “miracles workers” will not take such a person before their audience and try to heal him. They screen these out before their “healing begins”.

Why John Did No Miracle

John the Baptist did no miracle because his mission was of such nature that it did not require miraculous confirmation. Jesus performed miracles that He might confirm His deity: ” . . . these are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30, 31). The apostles also were given power to work miracles, both before and after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The reason they could work miracles after He had risen and ascended to heaven is clearly set forth in . . .

Mk.16:15-20

“And he said unto them, go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the work with signs following. Amen.”

This was a new message. It was different from the law of Moses. So the preachers of this message needed miracles to prove to the people that this new message was of God. The miracles (signs) that they were able to work confirmed the word that they preached. When the people saw these real miracles in connection with the preaching, they knew that these men were sent from God.

But what about those miracles the apostles did before Jesus’ death and during His personal ministry (Mt. 10:5-8)? It should be noted that this was during the same period when John was preaching and baptizing. Why, then, could Jesus’ disciples heal the sick, raise the dead, etc., while John could not?

John was sent to the Jews only-a people already in covenant relationship with God. Neither John’s preaching nor his baptism changed this relationship. His work did not alter the law of Moses. John preached “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” but John did not preach the “gospel of the kingdom”. John introduced Christ but Christ and His disciples preached the gospel of the kingdom. John’s work was to renew the Jews to their zeal and loyalty to Jehovah and to prepare them to receive Christ. His work is clearly set forth in Lk. 1:16, 17: “And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” John’s preaching was limited to Israel and designed only to turn them from their sins in repentance and get them ready to receive the Christ who was to come. This did not require miraculous demonstrations. It was not to be a new system of religion. Very soon these people John taught and baptized would be given opportunity to obey the gospel and, along with the Gentiles, be heirs of the blessings of that “kingdom which would never end”. Jesus was to replace Moses’ law. And it would require more than a Galilean peasant and a group of fishermen and tax collectors to convince the Jews that this message came from the same God that gave the law from Sinai, and to turn the Gentiles from their idols. So, the word they preached was attended by and confirmed by miracles. But the word has been confirmed and God is no more going to perform them again than He is going to send Christ to die again. This is why miracles are not performed by human agency.

“. . . them that believe”

Mk. 16:17 is much misunderstood and misapplied. “These sings shall follow them that believe.” This does not teach that every believer would be able to work miracles. It simply says that those who performed miracles (signs) would have to be believers. Back in verse 14 He had upbraided the eleven (Judas was dead) because some of them had not believed those who had brought them word when Jesus rose from the dead. 1 Cor. 12:20, 29 shows that not all who had spiritual gifts could work miracles. But even among the apostles, those who worked miracles had to believe in Christ.

Truth Magazine XXI:37, pp. 589-590
September 22, 1977