Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

We conclude our study of the second assembly communion with a discussion of the “One-Meeting” theory. According to this position there can be held, scripturally, only one service each Lord’s Day for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an individual congregation. Those who were unable to attend the meeting were the communion is served have no right to meeting at the church building at some other time to commune with their Lord. This second meeting for the Lord’s Supper is considered as an innovation.

The Theory Answered

Those who take this position are really saying, “If you do not worship with us at the time and place where we worship, we will forbid you to worship at all.” There are some conclusions we need to consider. I realize that in pointing out the consequences of a theory we do not necessarily prove it unscriptural by the Bible, yet it can be shown that their position leads to some rather foolish results. It certainly indicates that the reasoning leading up to the conclusions needs to be reexamined to detect the faults.

Now take times of disaster or persecution for example, when the church could not gather in one place. We have always felt that it was the privilege of Christians to gather from house to house in small assemblies to engage in divine worship. Such would be out of order according to the “One-Meeting” theory. According to this position the Lord’s Supper could not be served until the entire church could once again assemble in one place. In Acts 8:4 when the Jerusalem church was scattered except the Apostles, we have this unique situation: The very disciples who were present when the communion was instituted could not now gather to observe it because the whole church could not meet with them. This is a foolish conclusion to draw, yet it is the necessary conclusion to the “One-Meeting” theory.

If we should accept the One-Meeting-in-one congregation theory, there is perhaps a solution to the problem: form two congregations! Let those who work in the morning form a separate congregation. The regular time of worship for this congregation would be Sunday evening at 7:30 p.m. Those who do not work in the morning would be in a separate congregation which would observe the communion at 11:00 a.m. These two congregations could use the same building, employ the same preacher, and work together in every way. Those who attend at night could invite those who attend during the day to visit with them at the evening worship. If for some reason a brother who usually works in the morning did not have to work some particular morning, he could visit with the 11:00 a.m. assembly, and take communion.

There is nothing unscriptural about visiting other congregations. We certainly would be justified in establishing a congregation for the convenience of time as to establish one for the convenience of place, as is often the case.

Some Proof Texts Exampled

(1) Acts 20:7-The word “together” in this passage is said to prove that all members of the Troas met in one place at one time to partake of the Supper. The truth of the matter is that “together” modifies the verb “came” and answers the question “where”? The word “together” does not demand that all disciples eat the Lord’s Supper in one assembly on the Lord’s Day. The word “together” does not prohibit a second assembly for the benefit of those unable to attend the first assembly.

Arguing that it is sinful for just one disciple or a few to eat in a second assembly is just a dodge. Actually, those who teach this false doctrine admit that it would be just as sinful for 1,000 to eat in an evening assembly if some disciples had already eaten in an earlier assembly. Sometimes we are challenged to produce a passage which shows that one disciple ate the Lord’s Supper alone. A disciple never eats alone when he partakes of the communion scripturally, for in eating and drinking he eats and drinks with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-21).

Let me suggest also that when Acts 20:7 states that they met to “break bread”, the breaking of bread is no more important than the other acts of worship, such as singing, praying, etc. If mentioning the Lord’s Supper makes that more important than singing, etc., then the expression “breaking bread” makes the bread more important than the fruit of the vine. If not, why not? The facts are that the Bible frequently uses a figure of speech known as metonymy by which one thing is mentioned, but others are included and understood. The expression “breaking bread” refers to the Lord’s Supper; one part of the communion is mentioned but the other part is included and understood. Then the text says the disciples came together to “break bread” it simply means that they came together to worship.

(2) 1 Corinthians 11:20-This passage is used to prove that all must come together in one place at one time. If the passage is studied carefully, one will see that the emphasis is not on one as a definite number, but rather the idea of the word is some place or any place. It simply signifies a gathering at some place. Actually, this passage does not apply to the problem under discussion. Rather it forbids the spirit of revelry and gluttony accompanying the supper at Corinth.

It is interesting to observe that as far as we know from reading 1 Corinthians 11, the disciples were eating and drinking in one assembly. Yet, they were guilty of sin. The sin that brethren claim to find in the second assembly was found in the one assembly at Corinth. If brethren are guilty of sin today in respect to the manner in which they eat the Lord’s Supper would they not be guilty of the same thing condemned in 1 Corinthians 11? One could as easily be guilty of this sin in the first assembly, as in the second.

(3) 1 Corinthians 11:33-We are concerned in this passage with the expression, “tarry ye one for another”. If this passage has any bearing on the issue, it proves that those who meet at 11:00 a.m. are in the wrong by refusing to wait for those who are working in the morning and cannot come until later. Rather than condemn the evening service, it condemns the very ones who use this passage to condemn the evening assembly. The passage does not demand that people quit their jobs in order to attend the first assembly. It commands those who arrive earlier to tarry for the others. If some object that this would involve too long a wait, we ask, what else do you have to do? Do we not have an example of an all night service? Why not have an all day service?

This however is another case of mistaken application of scripture. It is too bad that people will wrest scriptures out of their setting and make them apply to some hobby which they are determined to justify in some way.

(4) Hebrews 10:25-Some make an effort to bind Hebrews 10:25 and Acts 20:7 together and come up with the theory that the Lord sets the day in Acts 20:7 and an hour in Hebrews 10:25. Such people admit that other assemblies are authorized, but have difficulty in showing such authority since they apply Hebrews 10:25 to one particular hour on the first day of the week. There is no one service of the church called “The Assembly”. To call the 11:00 a.m. service “The Assembly” is to depart from scriptural terms. This is just another example of objector inserting their opinion.

Hebrews 10:25 does authorize assembling. It condemns those guilty of forsaking the assembling. But Hebrew 10:25 does not authorize one assembly to the exclusion of all other assemblies. If so, where is the authority for the disciples to assemble a second time on the Lord’s Day? Where is a command for disciples to assemble twice on the Lord’s Day? Where is an example of the disciples assembling twice on the Lord’s Day? Hebrews 10:25 doe authorize one, two, three or more assemblies on the first day of the week.

Conclusion

We conclude this series of three articles on “Sunday Night Communion” by stating simply that when disciples

break bread in one assembly on the Lord’s Day they are doing that which is authorized. When other disciples break bread in another assembly at a later hour on the same day, they are only doing that which is authorized. If either changes the elements, or the day, or the manner of eating and drinking, they act without authority.

Abuses of the Lord’s Supper should be dealt with a Paul dealt with as such in 1 Corinthians 11. Those who do not respond to such teaching must be disciplined. However, it is not our obligation to throw the Lord’s Supper out of the assembly of the church in order to punish those who did not attend an earlier assembly. Why not deal with sinful members as they were dealt with by the Apostles? We did not advocate that the church cater to the whims of the unfaithful, rather such should be dealt with in a scripture manner.

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, pp. 104-105
February 17, 1977

By Cecil Willis

We continue our study of miracles in this editorial with a study of the duration of miracles. By this, I merely mean, “How long were the miracles to last?” Many of the modern denominational bodies declare that miracles are still being performed today. Other individuals believe that miracles were for a definite purpose, that they served their purpose, and were discontinued. This article shall try to show that miracles were performed for a temporary purpose, and are therefore not performed today. Later we shall study the so-called miracles of today.

We can best understand the duration of miracles by learning what they were performed for to begin with. For example, God created the first man and the first woman, but all men and women have not been created in this manner. After Adam and Eve were created, children were born to them by a natural process, just as you and I were born into the world. So after God’s purpose concerning Adam and Eve’s creation was served, God did not create others. So it is with miracles in the New Testament age. They were for a specific purpose, and after that purpose was completed, miracles were done away.

It is as when one erects a scaffold in putting up a building. The scaffold is not a permanent part of the building, but as soon as the building is completed, the scaffold is removed. Miracles were a scaffolding about the giving of God’s revelation to man. When the revelation was completed, the scaffolding of miracles was no longer necessary. The miracles authenticated the revelation, and once this was done, there no longer was a need for the performance of miracles.

Purpose of Miracles

Once again let us refer to the purpose of miracles, for in studying the purpose of miracles we can ascertain how long they were to be performed. First, miracles were performed as an evidence of divine power. Jesus Christ came to this earth, and advanced the claim that He was the Son of God. God did not expect the people to accept this claim without sufficient evidence; hence, Jesus worked miracles to prove that He was God’s Son. Jesus said, “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (Jn. 10:37,38). So the miracles were to produce faith on the part of those who witnessed them, and to vindicate Christ’s claim to deity. The final miracle, or at least the conclusive one, was His resurrection from the dead. Paul said, concerning Jesus, that He was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). So Christ’s claim was definitely established. Miracles are not needed today to establish Christ’s claim to deity.

But neither are they needed today to produce faith. If the miracles that our Savior produced are not adequate to produce faith in our hearts, even if miracles were performed today, they would likewise be inadequate. The apostle John said, “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:30-31). John states that the reason why his account of Christ’s life was written was in order that when one reads of the miracles performed by Christ, he may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. Now, if miracles are needed today to make one a believer, then John wasted his time in writing this Gospel account, because he thought his Gospel account would do this. But we know that the word of God is adequate to persuade one of Christ’s deity. But some might reply that if they could witness the performance of a miracle today they would believe. But Jesus, in Luke 16, stated that if the people on earth refused to hear Moses and the prophets, they would not be persuaded even if one were to be raised from the dead. If one will not accept the testimony that God has chosen to give us, neither would he be persuaded if God were to give him yet other testimonies.

Now that Christ’s deity has been established, and His miracles recorded, what need is there yet for the performance of miracles? Friend, there is no need. And those who think there is are doubtful of God’s ability to do by the past miracles what He said would be done by them. The so-called miracles of today that are being palmed off on a gullible public are not even directed at serving any purpose except that of a vital element in a fund raising campaign. Do not be deceived; these fellows are carrying off the money with them. A friend of mine attended one of these meetings in which the “healer” only requested that six one-gallon buckets be filled with ten dollar bills. That is not bad pay for an evening’s work!

But another reason why miracles were performed was to confirm the word spoken. In Heb. 2:3-4, Paul said, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? Which having at the first been spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing wiitness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.” It should be remembered that at the time these miracles were being performed, all the revelation of God had not been given. In fact, at the time they were begun, none of the New Testament books had been given. So one could not turn to the inspired Scriptures and prove the truthfulness of his message. So God bore witness with them. God showed to the auditors that the spokesman had divine sanction by enabling him to do signs and wonders which no man could do without divine power. God bore witness by empowering his servants to do supernatural deeds, and thus he confirmed their works. So when Paul wrote back to the Corinthians he could say, “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds” (2 Cor. 12:11-12).

Another passage on this same point is Mk. 16:19-20. After Jesus had given the great commission, we read: “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.” God confirmed their word by the signs which followed. This is the same thing as when Paul said God bore witness with them. The word “confirm” means “to make firmer, establish, strengthen, to render valid by formal assent; ratify, to administer confirmation to, to give new assurance of the truth, verify, or corroborate.” So God was giving new assurance to their words by giving them power to work miracles.

But how does this understanding of the purpose of miracles bear unto the length of time they were to last or the duration of miracles’! It does in this manner. Once the word was confirmed, nothing can be added by a reconfirmation. “When testimony has once been confirmed by an oath or in other acceptable or legal manner it does not need to be done again. A witness sworn in once before the court does not need to be sworn in again but upon that one confirmation can complete his testimony and it will stand. An instrument once notarized according to law does not need to be notarized again and again. A check once certified does not need to be certified again. The word of God once confirmed does not need confirmation again” (Cogdill, Miraculous Divine Healing, pp. 18-19). However, if some man is preaching some doctrine other than that found in the Scriptures, and is claiming for it divine origin, then he needs to confirm it with miracles. But if he is preaching only the confirmed word of God, there is no need for him to attempt to reconfirm the already confirmed word of God. So when one attempts to prove the divine authority of his message by working miracles, he is admitting that it is some new doctrine which he is teaching, for if it were taken from the Bible, it would need no such confirmation. So miracles are not needed today to confirm the word, and consequently are not performed today.

That Which Is In Part

We want to study one other passage in this article that has great bearing on how long these miraculous gifts were to last. That Scripture is found in 1 Cor. 13, but as an introduction to that statement, let us notice a reference in 1 Cor. 12. During the time of miraculous power, certain gifts were bestowed upon different individuals within the church. The same gift was not given to every person. In 1 Cor. 12:8-11, these nine spiritual gifts are enumerated: “For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh the one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” These were all miraculous gifts. But these different gifts were not all possessed by the same individuals. The Spirit gave to each man as he willed. In 1 Cor. 12:29-30, Paul asked, “Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?” These are rhetorical questions implying that all do not. These gifts were given “in part.” They were divided to the various members of the church.

But in the following chapter, we find Paul stating that these gifts which were given in part were to be done away. He said, “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether they be knowledge it shall vanish away. For we know in part; and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Paul is not saying that prophecies shall fail to be fulfilled, but that they shall be done away, or that languages shall no longer be spoken, but that the divine power to speak in languages which one had never learned would be done away, and the miraculous knowledge shall cease. But when is this to be? Some would have us believe that this refers to the coming of Christ. But Paul did not say that these miraculous powers will be done away when “he” that is perfect is come, but when “that” which is perfect is come. In the Scriptures the term “perfect” mean completeness. When that which is complete is come, that which is in part, namely spiritual gifts, shall be done away. Arid James refers to the law of Christ, as the perfect law, or the complete law. He said: “But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing” (Jas. 1:25). So when Paul refers to that which is perfect, he is speaking of the completed revelation. So when the Scriptures were completed, these supernatural gifts were done away. This is exactly what Paul said. And Jude adds that the system of faith was once for all delivered, which implies that it is not yet being delivered today. So if the perfect revelation has come, and it has, then that which is imperfect, or in part, the spiritual gifts, have been done away. And all those who claim to be working these various kinds of miracles are making false claims, and are imposters.

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, pp. 102-103
February 17, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

After getting out of our car at a shopping center recently, we noticed two items on the seat in the car next to ours. One was a beer bottle. The other a baby doll. This sad sight symbolizes the home training many children are getting in our country these days. Such is expected among those who are so craving the pleasures of this life that they have no room in their hearts nor time in their lives to “hunger and thirst after righteousness.” Those who do not expose themselves to God’s Word cannot be expected to live by it.

But it is tragically true that more and more of God’s people are compromising with such sin these days. We have known of Bible class teachers who kept beer in the refrigerator. Not long ago a preacher, whose influence is widely known among churches of Christ, told of a new convert inquiring of him concerning the use of beer. It seems the man had grown up in a home where intoxicants were freely used, so the preacher told him it would be alright for him to continue to have his beer from time to time! It does not take long to see how much teaching is neeaed when brethren are excusing a little gambling, a little mixed-swimming-in-scant-clothing, a little dancing, and a little drinking. As old Brother Tant used to say, “BRETHREN, WE ARE DRIFTING!”

Much can be said about the social, economic, and political effects of intoxicants. The intoxicated man sometimes hurts himself, or imagines great offences to be committed against him by his friends and family, and often makes of himself a laughingstock (Prov. 23:29ff). The man he sees in the mirror is a fool, a fool who has confused and deceived himself by reaching for that which he imagines to be his friend. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1).

A comedian said there are no “inebriated souls; only the housing is stoned.” To the contrary, the soul itself is charmed, confused, deceived, and damaged by the use of intoxicants (though it is true the outward effects are the most readily, noticeable). And the damage to the soul occurs even when no obvious damage is done to the body! Therein lies the fallacy of compromise with the idea of using just a little intoxicants.

1 Pet. 4:3 warns against (1) “excess of wine,” or debauched drunkenness; (2) “revellings,” or merrymaking with the aid and stimulation of intoxication; (3) “banquetings,” or sipping intoxicants in a way not “excessive” (see Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament). What of you and your house (Josh. 24:15)?

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, p. 101
February 17, 1977

By Mike Willis

The disciples of Jesus were very much impressed by His practice and preaching regarding prayer. Frequently, Jesus resorted to some quiet place to pray (Mk. 1:35; Lk. 5:16). One of the most pointed passages in all of the New Testament pertained to the subject of prayer. Jesus related the parable of the unjust steward to teach men “that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart” (Lk. 18:1). As He brought the parable to a close, He asked, “However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Lk. 18:8). The question asked whether there would be men who had sufficient faith to continue to offer prayer.

Naturalism: An Attack On Prayer

Whether we are conscious of this or not, everyone of us has been affected to some degree by the philosophy of naturalism. Naturalism is the “belief that the natural world is the whole of reality and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, value, control or significance; it holds that scientific laws can explain all phenomena.” Many scientists cling to naturalism to the total exclusion of any supernatural phenomena; everything is explained by them on the basis of the present order of things. But, what does this have to do with prayer?

Elton Trueblood, in his book Philosophy of Religion, discussed the problem as follows:

“The greatest difficulty is felt in connection with petition and intercession. Men have long prayed for rain, but how can this be done with intellectual honesty when we realize something of the nature of meteorology? Men have long prayed for the restoration of the health of their loved ones, but how can this be done by honest persons who know something of the action of germs? When a patient has pneumonia what is needed, it would seem, is not prayer, but antibiotics. Such considerations do not, of course, prevent recourse to prayer, but they hinder it. Most parents, it is probable, pray for a child who is in danger of contracting infantile paralysis, but many wonder, in doing so, if they are acting rationally.

“The difficulty is most clear when the time factor is involved. If a person receives a letter and, before opening it, prays that the letter may not contain bad news, the prayer has no justification. Whatever is in the letter is there already, and nothing under heaven will change it. In other words, such a prayer is self-contradictory. It asks that what is be something other than what it is. But the same difficulty remains in less obvious situations. Prayer about the contents of the letter Is pointless at any time after it is written.

“Much of our uneasiness to regard to other areas, such as the physical and biological, arises from the conviction that the situation is already as fully determined by natural laws as the contents of the letter are already fixed by the writer. Whether there will be rain is already in the cards. But if this is true for one day, why not for a million? In the same way, the ravages of a disease seem to be already determined by the introduction of germs. In short, it is always too late. Perhaps, then, prayer is merely an irrational survival of a superstitious and anthropomorphic age. In that case, it will eventually cease with the growth of critical intelligence or continue as a sentimental gesture, but nothing more” (pp. 208-209).

If you think that what Trueblood described is unreal, ask yourself how long has it been since you prayed for rain or fair weather? Yet, the Bible explicitly teaches that God personally controls the weather (Job 37:5,6; Mt. 5:45; Amos 4:7; etc.).

Actually, prayer is based on a certain belief about God which is in conflict with many popular philosophies. One particular philosophy teaches that God has wound up the universe like a clock and has left it alone to run down. Hence, He is not personally involved in its activities. Obviously, such a philosophy will prevent meaningful prayer. “If our image of God is that of a once-active, but now retired owner of the universe, who governs it-if He does-in absentia, then prayer becomes little more than a formal recitation before a favorite masterpiece in a museum” (G. Curtis Jones, Patterns of Prayer, p. 15).

Doctrine Of God For Prayer

Belief in a God so totally removed from the universe that He is not involved in its daily activities destroys any usefulness to prayer. Prayer is designed to effect change or produce results; it is not a glorified siloloquy. Hence, belief in the power of prayer presupposes certain beliefs about God. Included among them are the following:

(1) God is personally involved in the operation of the universe at this present day. In classes which I have taught, I have frequently encountered people who believed that God used to be personally involved in this world but that He withdrew from it after Calvary and now watches its operation, although He is not personally involved in it. However, God is described as follows by Paul:

“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself glues to all life and breath and all things; and He made from one every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your poets have said, `For we also are His offspring”‘ (Acts 17:24-281.

Notice the facts affirmed regarding God in these verses: (a) He gives life and breath to all things; (b) He determines the times of people; (c) He governs the boundaries of the habitations of people (i.e., He controls the nations); (d) In Him, we live and move and have our being. Earlier, Luke recorded that Paul said that God was the One who gave us rain and fruitful seasons (Acts 14:17; cf. Mt. 5:45). Paul added that all things in the creation of God are held together by Christ (Col. 1:17); He upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). Hence, our doctrine of God states that God is, even unto this day, personally involved in the course of events in this universe.

(2) God is concerned for man. The God to whom we pray must be a God who cares for us; otherwise, there is no reason to pray. The Bible teaches that God cares for us. Jesus taught that God providentally watches over man; He said,

“For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life’s span? And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toll nor do they spin, yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these. But if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, 0 men of little faith? Do not be anxious then, saying, `What shall we eat?’ or, `What shall we drink?’ or, `With what shall we clothe ourselves?’ For all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things” (Mt. 6:25-32).

Again, He said, “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Mt. 10:29-31). The God of heaven loves me! Hence, He cares about the things which are on my mind. He listens to my prayers.

(3) God has the power to answer my prayers. An impotent God would be a God to whom it was useless to pray. Yet Jehovah is God Almighty (Rev. 4:8; 11:17). Jeremiah said, “Ah Lord God! Behold, Thou hast made the heavens and the earth by Thy great power and by Thine outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for Thee” (32:17). No wonder Paul marvelled, “Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly beyond all that ve ask or think . . . .” (Eph. 3:20). Our God has the power to answer our prayers.

(4) God’s will is altered by the prayers of man. Here the essence of prayer. I would not pray if I did not believe that my prayer to God could alter the course of events which God had previously planned for this world. On a number of occasions God had decided to utterly destroy Israel because of her rebellion. However, Moses intervened and persuaded God to change His mind (cf. Ex. 32:11-14). Moses’ prayer caused God to change His mind. Tennyson declared, “More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.”

Over Reaction?

I fear that many of us have over-reacted to Pentecostalism to such an extent that we have made prayer virtually impotent. Because God does not work miracles now is no reason to believe that God does not work! I have witnessed Christians raise their eyebrows as if to question a brother’s soundness because he told of how he prayed that God might keep his daughter alive she accidentally after she had drunk some poison. All night he was in prayer to God and the daughter lived. Have we become afraid to ask God in His providence to change His plans to allow our loved one to live? The church was not afraid to ask God to change the course of events so that Herod could not slay Peter as he had slain James (Acts 12).

There is no doubt in my mind that our over-reaction to Pentecostalism is what occasioned the recent Holy Spirit movement among us. There is no doubt in my mind that our over-reaction to Pentecostalism caused us to fail to attribute to prayer the power which God has given to it. Hence, our disbelief causes our prayers to go unanswered; James said, “But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord” (Jas. 1:6-7). The question which Jesus asked-“However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?”-is a pertinent question for the twentieth century church. Will men have enough faith to offer a prayer of faith to God?

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, pp.99-101
February 17, 1977