Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

Introduction Of Instrumental Music

Having already observed that no apostle ever wrote anything about instrumental music in worship to God and that no New Testament church ever practiced such, we must conclude that it is not now possible to use it and walk by faith. But in the light of this conclusion and the fact that many churches do use mechanical instrumental music as worship to God, when did such a practice begin? Since it did not have its beginning with God we cannot locate its origin in Holy Writ. We must, therefore, turn to the testimony of men for this information.

“The Greek word `psallo’ is applied among the Greeks of modern times exclusively to sacred music, which in the Eastern Church has never been any other than vocal, instrumental music being unknown in that church, as it was in the primitive church (McClintock c& Strong, Vol. 8, p. 739).

“But this argument would prove that it is as much a duty to play as to sing in worship. It is questionable whether, as used in the New Testament, `psallo’ means more than to sing . . . . The absence of instrumental music from the church for some centuries after the apostles and the sentiment regarding it which pervades the writing of the fathers are unaccountable, if in the apostolic church such music was used” (Schaff-Herzog, Vol. 3, p. 1961).

“It is not, therefore, strange that instrumental music was not heard in their congregational services . . . In the early church the whole congregation joined in the singing, but instrumental music did not accompany the praise” (W. D. Killen, The Ancient Church, pp. 193, 423).

“Yet there was little temptation to undue elaboration of hymnody or music. The very spirituality of the new faith made ritual or liturgy superfluous and music almost unnecessary. Singing (there was no instrumental accompaniment) was little more than a means of expressing in a practicable, social way, the common faith and experience …. The music was purely vocal. There was no instrumental accompaniment of any kind . . . . It fell under the ban of the Christian church, as did all other instruments, because of its pagan association” (E. S. Lorenz, Church Music, pp. 217, 250, 404).

“While the Greek and Roman songs were metrical, the Christian psalms were antiphons, prayers, responses, etc., were unmetrical; and while the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal” (Edward Dickinson, History of Music, p. 54).

“All the music employed in their early services was vocal, and the rhythmic element and all gesticulation were forbidden” (Frank L. Humphreys, The Evolution of Church Music, p. 42).

The Eastern Church “Fathers” definitely occupy this same position. They could be quoted at length to support this contention that the early church did not use instrumental music in its worship. G. I. Papadopoulos wrote, “The execution of Byzantine church music by instruments, or even the accompaniment of sacred chanting by instruments, was ruled out by the Eastern Fathers as being incompatible with the pure, solemn, spiritual character of the religion of Christ. The Fathers of the church, in accordance with the example of psalmodizing of our Savior and the holy Apostles, established that only vocal music be used in the churches and severely forbade instrumental music as being secular and hedonic, and in general as evoking pleasure without spiritual value” (A Historical Survey of Byzantine Ecclesiastical Music (in Greek”, Athens, 1904, pp. 10, 11).

“It was, however, purely vocal” (Dr. F. L. Ritter, History of Music from the Christian Era to the Present Time, p. 28).

In the absence of Christ’s disciples making use of instrumental music in their worship, there is an emphasis on the spiritual: they praised God in singing-music in their hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), and with understanding (1 Cor. 14:15). Their concern was vocal rather than instrumental music. But inasmuch as instrumental music is today offered unto the Lord as worship, though such was not the case in the early church, when was instrumental music introduced into the churches? The American Encyclopedia says, “Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of Western Europe about 670; but the earliest trustworthy account is that of one sent as a present by the Greek emperor Constantine Copronymus to Pepin, king of Franks in 755” (Volume 12, p. 688). The Chambers Encyclopedia (Vol. 7, p. 112) says, “The organ is said to have been introduced into church music by Pope Vitalian in 666 A.D.”

This testimony, both historical and scriptural, bears witness to the fact that instrumental music in worship to God today is a departure from the word of God and does not represent the order of divine service rendered in the early church.

Testimony of Eminent Authors

Dr. A. T. Robertson, Greek scholar of the Southern Baptist said, “The word (psalleto) originally meant to play on a stringed instrument (Sir. 9:4), but it comes to be used also for singing with the voice and heart (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15), making melody with the heart also to the Lord” (Studies in the Epistle James, comment on James 5:13).

Albert Barnes, the eminent Presbyterian commentator, said, “Psallo . . . is used, in the New Testament, only in Rom. 15:9 and 1 Cor. 14:15, where it is translated sing; in James 5:13, where it is rendered sing psalms, and in the place before us. The idea here is that of singing in the heart, or praising God from the heart” (Notes on The Testament, comment on Eph.5:19).

John Calvin, founder of the Presbyterian Church and an able student of Augustine’s doctrine, said, “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law” (Comment on Psalms 33).

J. W. McGarvey, long-time recognized as one of the world’s better Greek students, said, “And if any man who is a preacher believes that the apostle teaches the use of instrumental music in the church by enjoining the singing of psalms, he is one of those smatterers in Greek who can believe anything that he wishes to believe. When the wish is father to the thought, correct exegesis is like water on a duck’s back” (Biblical Criticism, p. 116).

Conybeare and Howson wrote, “When you meet, let your enjoyment consist not in fullness of wine, but fullness of the spirit; let your songs be, not the drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart; while you sing them to the praise, not of Bacchus or Venus, but of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Life and Times of the Apostle Paul, comment on Eph. 5:19).

Alzog, the Catholic Scholar, Church Historian of the University of Freiburg and champion of instrumental music in worship, was faithful to his scholarship when he wrote, “St. Ambrose and St. Gregory rendered great service to church music by the introduction of what are known as the Ambrosian and Gregorian chants . . . . Ecclesiastical chant, departing in some instances from the simple majesty of its original character, became more artistic, and, on this account, less heavenly and more profane; and the Fathers of the Church were not slow to censure this corruption of the old and honored church song. Finally, the organ, which seemed an earthly echo of the angelic choirs in heaven, added its full, rich, and inspiring notes to the beautiful simplicity of the Gregorian chant” (Universal Church History, Vol. 1, pp. 696, 697).

From this testimony one can see the process of denominational experience with this innovation. The denominations at first opposed the introduction of the instrument into their worship but finally yielded to the demand of the masses for it. This long, weary process should be enough to convince any fair-minded person that had there been one statement from the New Testament authorizing its practice or one example where any New Testament church used it under apostolic guidance, the controversy would have been forestalled.

John Kurtz, the Lutheran scholar and church historian, said, “At first church music was simple, artless, recitative. But the rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art. Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularization of church music. More lasting was the opposition of the church to the introduction of instrumental accompaniment” (Church History, Vol. 1, p. 376).

Truth Magazine XXI: 10, pp. 138-139
March 3, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Sir Winston Churchill referred to Communism as “a riddle wrapped in an enigma.” Brethren who discuss division among God’s people are often bewildered. “How does it really happen? What is the real cause?”

The disciples of Christ during His personal ministry were sometimes baffled by certain realities stated by Jesus. “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? . . . Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it . . .” (John 6:60-61). He explained Himself further for the sake of those who truly desired the truth (“For whoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance” Matt. 13:12). And he knew that many things would be made plainer as certain events transpired in the passing of time (cf. John 2:19-22). Furthermore, in the case of the apostles, Christ found it necessary to withhold fully explaining some things until “the Spirit of truth is come” (John 16:12-13).

Jesus Unravels The Enigma of Judas

But in spite of every explanation, in spite of the eventual clarity and fulness of completed revelation, Christ said on one occasion, “But there are some of you that believe not,” having particular reference to Judas (John 6:64). There stands the truth like the rock of Gibraltar, but Judas did not obey it. Why? Well, we can do a lot of “interesting” things with that question. We can start by saying Judas was a complex individual. We can dissect, bisect, and intersect him-analyze, mesmerize, and computerize him. Then put him under the scientist’s microscope (maybe he had a tumor or gland trouble). next on the couch surrounded by a team of psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts. Speculate as to whether his “sex drives” made him egocentric, geo-centric, or helio-centric. He was a man of many lusts, temptations, and loyalties. And what about the fact that he hung himself, which suggests all his actions stemmed from a “guilt complex.” Which “hangup” finally hung him (suggested thesis topic for degree in pastoral counseling)? Judas had many misunderstandings, he could not be expected to “get it all right,” so maybe he is not such a bad fellow after all! Suffice it to say Judas’ fall can be examined and explained from many angles.

Wading through all that, we might stumble on an occasional truth or gain some interesting insight into his character. But when it is all said and done unbelief, not a rumor, unbelief, not a misunderstanding, unbelief, no a “sex drive,” led Judas off. “There are some of you that believe not.” No doubt Judas admired many things Jesus taught, and had a loyalty of sorts to Jesus. But Jesus did and taught some things which Judas could not bring himself to accept. He just did not believe some of the claims and teachings of Jesus-whether about the person of Jesus, the nation of Israel, or the role of a disciple. He did not see how such things could be true or necessary; in that way, he “misunderstood” the truth. But we do not have to know all the inner workings of his mind, will, or emotions to know the root cause of his fall: “there are some of you that believe not.”

Jesus put his finger on the cause of Judas’ inability to serve God faithfully. That should be sufficient for us. That is what we need to know (Deut. 29:29). There may be some interesting discussions of why Judas fell, but the most interesting and most accurate explanation is that given by the Lord himself. The riddle wrapped in an enigma is unwrapped by the Lord when he says, “But there are some of you that believe not.”

Plenty of Approaches to the Enigma of Division

What is the root cause of division among God’s people? Historians have looked at division in what we call the Restoration Movement from many angles. Different writers have different viewpoints, even different purposes in writing. Looking at all the explanations to division offered, one could get the impression that division is a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Without trying to give a “scholarly review” of these explanations, we would like to notice some of them. Elements of truth or valid observations may be found in all of them. Overlapping of explanations occurs and some writers draw on more than one of these ideas. Still it is possible to identify the main point of emphasis in differing approaches to the problem of division.

1. A secular, American history approach. This American history approach talks a lot about the “frontier experience.” Historians point out an emphasis on individualism and independence, an antagonism toward centralization. This explains the desire to break away from established government and religion. It also helps explain an inclination toward congregational autonomy. Then, belligerence on the frontier (man vs. nature and Indians, east vs. west, later north vs. south, etc.) explains the desire of early Restoration figures to debate their beliefs. Things like independence and belligerence create division.

2. A religious, American history approach. This American church history approach tries to apply the American religious experience to the Restoration Movement. This approach may criticize the above one for not observing the impact of man’s religious instinct, separate from such things as his “frontier experience.” The spiritual yearning of man may be given more attention, i.e. the Restoration Movement is an expression of man’s spiritual yearning and its divisions evidence of a continual effort to satisfy such yearnings. Or, the proliferation of sects in the 1800’s may explain the spirit of division which wrecked the unity of the movement. Then the sect-to-denomination pattern may be used. The movement began as a religious sect; but as this sect moved toward denominational status (more organized, accepted, established) new sects spun off under the leadership of minority spokesmen.

3. An economic approach. Some historians explain all history in terms of man’s economic struggle. This approach has touched the field of church history. When the Restoration Movement started out, it was small and poorly accepted and militant; poor people easily identified with this “underdog” status. But as the movement grew, many of these poor people climbed the economic ladder; also, more middle-class and wealthy people accepted the movement and began to join it. The poor and rich have inherent antipathy toward each other, so division is inevitable as the two groups mix (or rather fail to mix). This approach can simplify issues like instrumental music: the group that could not afford an organ labeled it unscriptural simply because they could not afford one. The difference between use and nonuse is the difference between being able to afford one and not being able to! Simple economics.

4. A social approach. This explanation of division overlaps easily with the last one, but is broader. Social status involves more than mere economics. Social differences include things like urban and rural, blue collar and white collar, educated and uneducated, ethnic and racial background. Division comes along social lines and for social reasons. The uneducated preachers reject what the educated ones teach because of sociological antipathy. Political and other movements in society are studied in an effort to relate them to the Restoration Movement. In other words, the Restoration Movement is seen as just another social movement. The make-up of differing groups and the cause of their division can be specified by social identifications like WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant).

5. A psychological approach. Division occurs because men have been molded along certain psychological lines or deprived of certain psychological needs. Southerners fought so hard in the Civil War because they felt guilty about slavery and were trying to hide the guilt in the allout effort required by war, according to one theory. Further the guilt was hidden by appealing to a legalistic view of the Constitution-justification through strict construction. The psychology of the Southern mind is explained by the Civil War and guilt complexes over slavery; but, especially after the war, the militant, strictconstructionist group in the Restoration was strong’ in the South. This explains the division in terms of an overall psychological pattern.

Another instance under this head is what one scholar calls “the male menopause.” Somewhere around 45 to 50 years of age, males go through a period of change, stress, doubt, and re-assessment, related to sexual changes in the body. Psychological pressures and needs at this period may cause one to change religious identification, seek new beliefs, or otherwise realign himself. Becoming a factional leader or otherwise participating in division can satisfy his psychological urges. So goes the theory.

The Bible Approach: Truth Is the Great Divider!

Well, so much for all that. The most interesting and accurate approach of all is the Bible approach! Some truth may be found in the approaches above, but the Bible does not emphasize any of them as the basic explanation of division among God’s people. The Bible approaches the problem of division from one’s attitude toward truth in general and toward specific truth in specific issues. Truth is the great divider.

Truth divides people from people. More than that, it separates men from God. Truth is the power God chose as the means to gather unto Himself an approved people and to turn away those He will not approve (Rom. 1:16; Gal. 1:8-9). He will not have those who will not have His truth.

We do not mean truth as an abstract philosophical idol of some kind-not merely a set of useful theories about life. Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). We are speaking of the truth as revealed in, by, and through Christ. Christ said of the true shepherd, “the sheep hear his voice . . . 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” (John 10:3-5). Then he said, “I am the good shepherd” (Joan 10:11). The fulness of “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

We do not mean Christ as a person subtracted and abstracted from the truth spoken by him personally and by him through inspired men. Christ promised to send “the Spirit of truth” to guide the apostles “into all truth” (John 16:13). He kept that promise. We have his words of truth in the Bible today. Following him means accepting his truth. Rejecting his words is rejecting him. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63).

The kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of truth. When Christ, standing before Pilate, acknowledged that He was a king, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world . . . To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:36-37). The weapons of this warfare “are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4). Christians are armed with the loin girt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:10-17). Make no mistake about it, we are in a battle for truth, a battle to the finish.

And, make no mistake about it, truth is the great divider of men. Christ is the truth, has the truth, reveals the truth in all its fulness. Devotion to him requires devotion to his truth. There are but two camps. There is no neutral army betwixt and between. A line was drawn in the dirt at the Alamo, across which those who would fight to the finish were to step. Those who crossed it stood in unity. But all who would not pass over were divided or separate from those who did. Eternal truth is the line that separates and divides asunder those whom God will have and those He will not have. The truth that unifies, divides.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” (Matt. 10:34-36).

Men who love God will love one another, and men who love the truth of God will love one another. Devotion to Christ and his truth will overcome every obstacle. Personal preferences, opinions, and problems may arise from time to time between brethren, but constant devotion to truth will conquer all such potential barriers.

Senseless separations between brethren began occuring at Corinth; with the trumpet call of divine truth, Paul summoned them back to their senses (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:13; 4:6; 17; .11:1; 14:37). Just as Christ said, “It is impossible but that offenses will come,” Paul warned the Corinthians that their divisions over petty things could degenerate into solidified factions. Such factions are sustained not by devotion to truth, but to some selfwilled choice, some favorite opinion. “For there must also be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). Those who shall be approved (dokimoi-opposite of adokimoi, cf. 9:27) in God’s sight, place truth above every self-willed choice and favorite opinion. Heresy is “an opinion, especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth” (Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. II, p. 217).

The Root of Division: Unbelief

Those who are not so devoted to truth as to lay aside. every personal preference, opinion, and choice are material for division. The devil is working with “all deceivableness” and finding men who receive “not the love of the truth.” Because such men love not the truth, God allows them to be deceived by “strong delusion,” “that they all might be damned who believed not the truth . . .” (2 Thess. 2:10-12). Divisive groups are “composed of those who have chosen their self-willed line and adhere to it” (Alford’s Greek Testament, Vol. III, p. 59). Such works of flesh are condemned in the severest terms: “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21).

Lack of loyalty to Christ, unbelief of divine truth-that is the cause of division. When Moses both spoke to and struck the rock, God charged him with unbelief in that matter (Num. 20:12). All the explanations of his frustration and all the analyses of the pressures brought on him by the Jews will not change the fact that God called it unbelief. The root cause of this failure was unbelief. He did not fail to believe in God’s existence, but in His words. Moses’ character was such that he repented of his failings; yet God impressed upon Moses, Israel, and all of us the great sin of not obeying God’s word even in small particulars.

When brethren become wedded to their own opinions, doctrines, creeds, and preferences, those who are sound in the faith must remember that division is imminent. Sound men must preach and plead with all the heart “for the gospel’s sake.” Yet once brethren set their minds against truth, they are abiding in unbelief. The Corinthian church allowed “others” (other than Paul and other than sound men) to “be partakers” in their financial support (1 Cor. 9:12,23). After doing all he could by appeal to the truth, Paul then warned, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2. Cor. 6:14).

“Lord, Is It I?”

Division will come. It is a sin, and will be here as long as people are here to commit sin. Why do brethren divide? The ultimate answer is not found in a study of American history, religious history, economics, sociology, or psychology alone. The answer is found in God’s Word just as plain as day. Brethren are led off from time to time by all sorts of lusts of the flesh and mind, all sorts of temptations, all sorts of loyalties. We may never know all these inner workings of their minds, but we can know the key element in division. That is no enigma at all. The key element, the root cause, is unbelief of divine truth.

Brethren, let us search our hearts, diligently, daily, remembering these words, “But there are some of you that believe not.” “Lord; is it I?” Remember, our loyalty toward. the Lord and attitude toward truth are basic to the problem of division among God’s people.

Truth Magazine XXI: 9, pp. 135-138
March 4, 1977

By Cecil Willis

I want to direct your attention to the passage most frequently quoted by those seeking to prove that miracles are yet being performed. Therefore, I think it timely that we study Mark 16:14-20 to discover what bearing it may have upon the discussion of the duration of miracles. If this is the strongest proof text, and I think that it is, and we should find that if offers no support to their contention that miracles are yet being performed, then people ought to be willing to turn away from these false teachers. And if Mark 16:14-20 is not the strongest proof text, I would be glad to be informed of what Scripture is. I would be glad for the opportunity to investigate it to see if it lends support to their contention that miracles are yet being worked.

Before citing the passage, just a word that might help us get the setting of the passage. Jesus had already been crucified and raised from the dead. But some of the disciples refused to believe that He had been raised. Therefore the events mentioned in the first part of the passage. “And afterward he was manifest unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed.” (Mk. 16:14-20)

Now it is apparent from this passage that Jesus promises that certain individuals will be enabled to work miracles. It is true that the apostles were given the power to work miracles. Yet this passage seems to indicate that those who believed the words of the apostles would be able to work miracles. The disciples or Christians were to be able to have their words confirmed by the signs that would follow.

But there are two or three things we need to notice concerning these people who were to be given the power to work signs. The first important fallacy in thp argument of those who use this passage to prove that miracles are yet being performed is that they would have one to believe that only the preachers are to be given the power to work miracles. I know of no church which believes that all believers can work miracles. But if one will notice the wording of the passage, he will see that Jesus makes a categorical statement that those who believe and obey the Gospel will be given the power to perform miracles. But the denominations of today maintain that only the preachers have the power to perform miracles. They do not hold that all believers can perform the miracles. If this passage teaches that believers today are given the power to perform these miracles, then it teaches that every person today who cannot do all the miracles in the passage is an unbeliever.

One time I heard this passage quoted as infallible proof that miracles are yet being performed. The same preacher began going through the New Testament books citing passages which state that miracles were performed, and he would then give the date of that particular book and declare that miracles were still being performed at that particular time. I do not know who he had in mind, but I do know that if he intended to be replying to any of my beliefs, he misunderstood what I said about the matter. I do not know of any, save the modernists, atheists and infidels, who deny that miracles were performed in New Testament times. I am very confident that they were. I believe that the apostles could perform miracles, and that those on whom the apostles laid their hands could perform miracles. So one can cite every passage in the New Testament which says that Christians performed miracles and I believe it. But that does not prove that they are being performed today. If we were correct in what we said about the purpose of miracles, there is no need for the performance of miracles today. In the passage under investigation we read, “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed” (Mk. 16:20). The signs were to confirm the word, and once it was confirmed, it needed no reconfirmation.

But notice what Jesus said the believers would be able to do: “And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” (Mk. 16:17,18). All believers were to be given the power to perform all these signs; not just the preachers. But I want you to notice one other thing about the so-called miracles of today. Is it not passingly strange that it is still necessary for God to use these denominational preachers to confirm His word by the sign of healing, but that it is no longer necessary for Him to enable them to be bitten by serpents and to drink deadly things without injury?

The point I am trying to make is this: the preachers who maintain that this passage teaches that they can work miracles only try to perform one or two kinds of these miracles. They will try to get a demon out of a man, and they maintain that they can heal, and speak with tongues. Later we will have considerable to say about the modern manner of speaking with tongues. But notice what else these believers were able to do: they were able to take up serpents, and to drink deadly things without injury.

Not too many years ago different ones of the groups who pretended to work miracles would try the handling of serpents. But they found out that it does not work so well. Some have even died trying to do it! Now they prefer to declare that this particular part of Jesus’ statement has been fulfulled. They will cite the instance in which Paul was bitten by a serpent and suffered no injury from it as recorded in Acts 28:3-6, and then will declare that this event fulfilled the prophecy. But is it not strange that when Paul was bitten by a serpent, it fulfilled the prophecy, but when Paul healed a man, as he did in Acts 20, it did not fulfill the portion of the Scripture which spoke of healing? Why is this? Well, it just so happens that trying to heal a man will not get a preacher killed, and several have been killed from handling serpents. Hence they now teach that this part of the Scripture was been fulfilled.

Some years ago, I preached in Cortez, Florida. There had been a preacher there who sought to prove that he could work miracles, by handling diamond-back rattlesnakes. Finally one of them bit him and he died. So, to cover up this instance, and many other ones similar to it, they declared that the man’s faith failed, or else the serpent bite would have done him no harm. But let me ask this: have you ever heard of one of these snake handlers who has died from a deadly snake bite but that his faith has failed? You certainly have not! Everyone of them that I have heard of or that others have heard of that has been bitten by a poisonous serpent has either died or been very, very ill. So they have decided that Jesus did not mean that this particular sign was to continue.

But what about the others? Well, not all of them have continued. Jesus said that if the believers drink any deadly thing, it will in no wise hurt them. Now how many preachers do you know today who can drink deadly poison that it will not hurt them? Usually when one asks one of them to drink some deadly poison, they reply that to do so would be to tempt God, and they cite the passage in Matt. 4:7, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” But there are some other Scriptures that need to be brought out on this point. The Lord commends the the church at Ephesus for having tried, or tested some who were claiming falsely to be apostles: “I know they works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false” (Rev. 2:2). All I want to do is to try these men of today to test their claims. The apostle John further said, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jno. 4:1). If these men can work miracles, they should not hesitate to do so. If they cannot, they should admit they cannot, and quit pretending that they can-and quit stalling, so as to deceive people.

Jesus says, in our text, that if one drinks any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt him. The common dodge on this point is to say that if one should drink poison unknowingly, it would not hurt him. But, this is not what Jesus says. You let someone slip some poison into his food, and the modern miracle-worker will be affected like any of the rest of us. I expect that these fellows who rely on this passage so heavily to come forth and say that this part of the statement has also been fulfilled. Jesus says that these signs shall follow them that believe. Now if this refers to individuals today, and denominational preachers say that it does, then they ought to be able to drink some carbolic acid or arsenic without harm. If they cannot, and these signs are to follow believers, then they must not be believers. Does it not apply today, or are they unbelievers?

A preacher in Trinity, Texas (which is just 26 miles from my hometown) accepted the challenge to drink the poison. If you were really interested, I guess you could go see where he is buried. Furthermore, there is not any preacher today that is about to try to handle serpents, and drink poison-at least not without extreme safety precautions being taken. Again, I reply that the reason why they are not is because these things will get a preacher killed.

There is not a denominationalist today who believes that this passage is applicable to people today. If there is, let him do all that the believer is supposed to do, handle serpents, and drink deadly things. And if he is not willing to test his faith, let him cease parading this passage as his proof text in his effort to show that miracles are yet to be worked. Miracles served their purpose of confirming the word, and once the word was confirmed, they were no longer needed. What people today need to do is to receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save their souls (Jas. 1:21), rather than look for yet other signs to be done.

Truth Magazine XXI: 9, pp. 134-135
March 3, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Some time ago I had an article in the Gospel Guardian which contained a quote from a Missionary Baptist. In the course of an article, L. D. Capell, editor of the Missionary Baptist Searchlight, inadvertently used Matthew 16:18 with respect to the establishment and “origin” of the church. Well, he has “went and gone and done it again.” As you may know, Baptists teach that the church was established, that it had its origin, before the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Most Baptists argue that the church began in Matthew 4. Some still argue that it commenced earlier, but all agree that it did not begin on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church,” has been a thorn in the side and the flesh of Baptist preachers. That text show that the church was not established prior to the time Jesus spoke the words quoted above. So, Baptist preachers and debaters who contend that the church began before this time have writhed and wriggled in a desperate attempt to escape the meaning of Matthew 16:18. They know that Jesus did not mean, “I will build my church,” because, according to them, He had already built it.

Occasionally, though, Baptists will speak the truth despite their doctrine and faith. In speaking concerning the “Divine Orgin” of the church, or while showing that the Lord’s church is not a man devised organization, they will use Matthew 16:18. When establishing this scriptural view that the church is of “Divine Origin,” they evidently forget their doctrine relative to the beginning of the church. See the words below spoken by Mr. Capell at the Brinkley Missionary Baptist Church, May 16, 1976:

“The New Testament Church is of Divine Origin. Many organizations have human origin. The New Testament presents the church that Jesus built. Matt. 16:18.

“It is a decided advantage to be in His church. He alone had the right to establish the church. Men are usurpers when they take upon themselves the right to establish anything and imply that it is Divine.” (Missionary Baptist Searchlight, July 10, 1976, p. 3.)

Observe the words, “Origin” and “establish.” Mr. Capell is again on record to the effect that Matthew 16:18 deals with the “Divine Origin” and the establishment of the church. Those who discuss these matters with Baptists may find the quotation useful because: (1) It contradicts the view of Baptists that the church was established prior to Matthew 16:18; (2) It shows they recognize that Matthew 16:18 deals with the “Divine Origin” and establishment of the church. (3) It destroys the Baptist evasion that Matthew 16:18 is dealing with the embellishment or building up of the church (Ben M. Bogard, Baptist Way Book, p. 30).

Truth is consistent with itself. Error eventually meets itself coming back. This is the case with Missionary Baptists and their use Matthew 16:18.

Truth Magazine XXI: 9, p. 133
March 4, 1977