Truth Magazine

By Don Potts

I have been asked to respond to Brother Walters’ reply to my article on “King Nicotine or King Jesus” which was published in the October 7, 1976 issue of Truth Magazine. If it were just a matter of responding to a preacher who wishes to serve as an advocate for the use of tobacco, I would not waste my time. However, I do feel a responsibility to Truth Magazine and to its good readers; for this reason I shall respond.

First, Brother Walters says, “Why should a writer waste his time defending tobacco?” That is what I would like to know. It is a shame that a preacher of the gospel would look at the use of tobacco as being on the same par with coffee drinking or gum chewing, much less offering a defense for it. He says that brother Potts is not trying to persuade brethren to use good judgment or to exercise moderation. He is absolutely right; I am not interested in the practice of sin in any kind of “good judgment or moderation.” Nor, am I interested in “personal convictions” as the sole reason for the divorcement of any sin. The sinfulness of “self destruction” is far more than just “personal convictions.” When Judas committed suicide, Luke said he went ” . . . to his own place” (Acts 1:25). In the Houston Press (July 21, 1959), Dr. Alton Ochsner, Director of Surgery at the Ochsner Cancer Clinic and Ochsner Foundation Hospital and Professor of Clinical Surgery at Tulane University, said, “A pistol would be easier . . . . Habitual cigaret smoking is suicidal. If one must commit suicide, it would be easier to put a pistol to the head and pull the trigger. It’s quicker, far less painful and far less expensive.” Like Judas, those who commit suicide with a cigarette will go to their own place regardless of what their “personal convictions” may be.

Brother Walters says that Jesus and the Apostles never gave such a commandment. Who was it that said, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16)? I believe an apostle wrote that and said, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Brother Walters declared that this is a terrible perversion of scripture to say that 1 Cor. 3:16 is the physical body. He says the temple of God is the Church of Christ. Really? He sounds like some of the liberal brethren in an effort to make James 1:27 and Gal. 6:10 church action rather than individual action. If Brother Walters does not agree with that interpretation, his controversy is not with Brother Potts, or “King Potts,” as he chose to refer to me, but with the apostle Paul. It was Paul that said, “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). No, Brother Walters, the major premise does not fall! Brother Walters seems to think that all he has to do is just jump up and down and scream `perversion” and, like the walls of Jericho, the major premise falls. Jump some more Brother Walters and when you are exhausted, sit down and see who perverted what.

Now to the minor premise, he says Brother Potts does not offer any scripture to prove that tobacco is harmful, and therefore it is just not so. Suppose I were to say that according to Isaac Newton there is a law of gravitation that says that everything that goes up must come down. If I did not give scripture to prove it, do you suppose that Brother Walters would think that it was false? If Brother Walters were to go to the doctor, assuming that he does consult doctors occasionally, and he were to give him his diagnosis, do you suppose he would demand Biblical, scriptural proof before he would believe him? He says that the same majority of doctors and scientists who say smoking is harmful also have concluded that man has evolved from an ape. How does Brother Walters know that? That sounds like a “Brigham Young Revelation!” The truth is, it is just an empty assertion. The fact is, you at least acknowledge that the majority of doctors and scientist do agree that smoking is harmful to your health. The majority of doctors, however, do not prescribe beer, wine and whiskey for their patients. I suppose doctors are much like preachers, there are some that might come up with anything. What Brother Walters needs, but cannot produce, is the evidence and proof that tobacco is not harmful to your health and until he does my minor premise continues to stand.

Again, he said, “Brother Potts does not say that the excessive use of tobacco is harmful . . . .” Right again, I am no more interested in discouraging excessive smoking or use of tobacco than I am discouraging excessive use of Alcohol. Different degrees of usage of tobacco may bring about lesser degrees of harm to the human body, but the fact is, to one degree or another it is harmful. Thus, the temple of the Holy Ghost is being defiled. He then brings up poor little Grandma and her nightly pinch of snuff which is one of her few sensual pleasures. And Brother Potts just will not make a distinction between cigarets, pipes, cigars, snuff or chewing tobacco, what a shame! I noticed he described Grandma’s pinch of snuff as a “sensual” pleasure. I wonder if that might be equal to what Paul describes as “hurtful lust” (1 Tim. 6:9)? Brother Walters needs to learn that there is no defense for the chewer, the lipper or the dipper! Any way you look at it, tobacco use is nasty and filthy to say the least. Paul commanded us to “. . . cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh . . .” (2 Cor. 7:1). Take a look at the man or woman with tobacco juice streaming down the corner of their mouth and, in many cases, splattered all over his clothes, and you tell me if this becomes godliness. It is a sheer filthiness of the flesh and sin before God. Try telling those who through its usage have been smitten by mouth or throat cancer that it is not harmful. Brother

Walters brings up white sugar, white bread, food additives, and fluoridation in our water, but what does all that have to do with disproving my minor premise? If these and a thousand other things are harmful to our health, my minor premise still states, “The use of tobacco is harmful to the physical body.” Brother Walters has made no effort to prove otherwise and yet he seems to think that all he has to do is just tell our readers that “. . . we conclude that our Brother’s minor premise falls flat . . . .” I cannot help but feel that Brother Walters underestimates the intelligence of our readers.

Then, he launches his attack on syllogism number two. He said, concerning the word sorcery, that it is well known that many of our English words have more than one meaning and that this is true with ancient Greek, to which no one disagrees. He then gives the three definitions of sorcery as given by Thayer (pg. 649): a. the use or the administering of drugs. b. poisoning: Rev. ix. 21. c. sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it: Gal. v. 20.” He complained that Thayer makes the meaning clear that the third meaning is the one used in Galatians and, therefore, Brother Walters ruled out the definition drugs or poisons. Adam Clark, in his Commentary on Galatians, says of witchcraft or sorcery in Gal. 5:20: Pharmakeia, from Pharmakon, a drug, or poison; because in all spells and enchantments, whether true or false, drugs were employed.” Both Thayer and George Ricker Berry say that drugs and poison are intended in the word sorcery in Rev. 9:21, and the Revelator says it is a thing that is to be repented of (Berry, pg. 104). A thing to be repented of is a sin and sin is the one thing, if not repented of, that will send your soul to hell. Sorcery falls into that category. Both definitions of sorcery in Rev. 9:21 are true of “King Nicotine. ” It is both a drug and a poison. Dr. Richard H. Overbolt, a Boston chest surgeon said, “The body of the long term smoker requires a replenished supply of nicotine for a feeling of well being. He is a victim of drug addiction. ” Dr. Alton Oschsner said, “Tobacco is a poison …. It is as harmful and addictive as any drug, perhaps even more so” (The National Insider, Vol. 7, No. 1, July 4, 1965). Some one has given us a list of some 49 known poisons in tobacco. For a fact, one does not need a “Brigham Young Revelation” to know the addictive powers of “King Nicotine.” Those who have tried to quit know its power (Rom. 6:16; 1 Cor. 6:12). Preachers have been fired, brethren alienated and churches split because some either cannot or will not forsake “King Nicotine.” As to my conclusions, according to Brother Walters, making all doctors and druggists guilty of sorcery is anything but the truth. While Brother Walters is looking all those words up with more than one meaning, he might look up the definition of the word “drug.” True, it carries the thought of any substance used as, or in a medicine, but it also carries the idea of narcotics, hallucinating and addictive drugs which faithful doctors and druggist are not administering. Brother Walters knows this, but muddy water helps his defense.

I am sorry our good brother has become so disturbed by my condemnation of the use of tobacco. His terminology tells us much about his attitude, for example his caption, “King Pans or King Jesus?” I do not intend to say anymore on the subject. I will leave yon, the reader, to act as judge and jury to decide where the truth lies. If Don Irons is in error, pray for him, but do not count him as an enemy. My only interest is in the truth and in the salvation of souls. Paul’s advice seems best to regulate such offensive and questionable habits; “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of G0d.. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (1 Con 10:31,32)

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 90-92
February 10, 1977

By Dan Welters

It is with a sense of reluctance that I reply to Brother Don Potts regarding his article, “King Nicotine or King Jesus,” (Truth Magazine, Oct. 7, 1976). Why should a writer waste his time defending tobacco in an age when the most basic moral virtues and, indeed, the right to life itself are in need of defense? I would as soon misuse the pages of this journal to defend drinking coffee or chewing gum. Nevertheless, a public exposure of Brother Potts’ type of thinking is unavoidable.

Brother Potts is not trying to persuade brethren to use good judgment or to exercise moderation. He is not merely offering for examination a strongly held personal conviction. He has usurped the authority of Christ, Himself, and has handed down an absolute law which states that anyone who uses, raises, or sells tobacco in any form or amount is lost and bound for hell! Jesus and His Apostles lived and died without giving us any such commandment. The church has existed for 2000 years without any such commandment. And now at long last Potts has received his latter day revelation and has issued his edict. So which will it be: King Jesus or King Potts?

Let us examine Brother Potts’ logic. His major premise is: “It is sinful to harm the physical body (1 Cor. 3:16-17).” This is a terrible perversion of scripture. There is nothing in the context to suggest abuse of the human body. The temple of God described in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 is the church of Christ. The old temple at Jerusalem was defiled when persons or things not sealed by blood were brought into it or when unauthorized practices were introduced. All items in the work and worship of the church have been sealed by the blood of Christ, and to bring in innovations of man’s wisdom is to defile the temple. So Brother Potts’ major premise falls, even though any reasonable person will admit that God intends us to take reasonable precautions about our health so as to sustain life.

His minor premise is: “The use of tobacco is harmful to the physical body.” Lacking any scripture on the subject, Brother Potts turns to the conclusions of modern medicine. According to this reasoning, our eternal salvation depends upon our acceptance of the conclusions of a majority of doctors and scientists who also have concluded that man has evolved from an ape. If one examines the medical profession from any unbiased viewpoint he will observe a bewildering confusion of opposing theories, and even more astounding, a colossal ignorance of proper human nutrition. He will observe drugs prescribed by doctors for minor problems which have caused deadly cancer as much as twenty years later either in the patient or his offspring. He will observe inoculations insisted upon by doctors and at times forced upon the population by law which kill more patients than would have ever died of the disease, and which may have horrible long-term side effects not yet fully understood by anyone. He will find doctors who prescribe beer, wine, and whiskey, and others who forbid their patients to touch coffee or tea. If my salvation depended in any way upon the medical profession, I would abandon all hope.

Note that Brother Potts does not say that the excessive use of tobacco is harmful, or even that the habitual inhalation of cigarette smoke is harmful. He says “the use of tobacco is harmful.” He takes the three-pack-a~day cigarette smoker with a hacking cough and a ruined appetite and puts him into the same category with Grandma and her nightly pinch of snuff which is one of hex few sensual pleasures and which harxns her net at all, He makes no distinction among cigarettes, pipes, cigars, snuff and chewing tobacco. All statistics, show that the rise in lung cancer did not occur among smokers until cigarettes became the popular method of using tobacco. He makes no distinction in amount of usage. He does nit desire to counsel on principles o# good health. He desires try make an ironclad law where God has made none.

Suppose we accept Brother Potts’ reasoning. Many of us know a fact of nutrition that he may neat be aware o#: that the use of white sugar by Americans is one of the leading causes of disease and mortality in the Twentieth Century. Some of us could write volumes on the subject, and more volumes on white bread, chemical additives in our food, and floridation in our water supply. A good case can be made, amply documented by authorities in the field, that all these things axe harmful to the body. At lest they can be harmful in large amounts. Shall we then issue a brotherhood diet like that o# the Seventh Day Adventists and force all church members to conform? Brother Potts’ reasoning will lead to just that.

So we conclude that our brother’s minor premise falls flat since that which proves too much proves nothing. Both premises being faulty, the conclusion is in doubt, to say the least. But let’s don’t be too hard on Brother Potts fox his first syllogism. There is still the second syllogism. And you ain’t heard nothing yet! All of you who smoke, or chew, or dip, or raise tobacco, or work in a store which sells tobacco are sorcerers! That’s right, a coven o# witches. Cotton. Mather, where axe you when we really need yoga?

The major premise is accepted, being a simple statement of scripture: “Those guilty o# sorcery ox witchcraft will be lost (Gal. 5:19r20).” The minor premise states: “Those who use or administer fox use, nicotine axe guilty of sorcery.” I find it hard to believe that such a statement ever found its way into print. Brother Potts’ authority is Thayer’s. A Greek-English lexicon and a loaded revolver are two things that ought never to fall into the hands of one unprepared in their proper use. It is well known that many of our English words have more than one meaning. This was also true with the ancient Greek. The Greek word for “sorcery” in Gal. 5:20 has three meanings: (1) the use or the administering of drugs, (2) poisoning, (3) magical arts. Thayer makes it quite clear that the third meaning is the one used in Galatians. If the first meaning is to be accepted, then all pharmacists, all doctors, and all who work in drug stores or who take any form of medication are sorcerers. Brother Potts shows that nicotine can be classified as a drug, and that one gets a “lift” from using it. Caffeine is also an alkaloid drug and it is found in coffee, tea, and some soft drinks. Are those who drink such beverages to be called sorcerers? The Mormon church has made a law against such drinks. Brigham Young had to have a special “revelation” to authorize such a law since he knew it was not to be found in the Bible. Has Brother Potts had a revelation? Is he going to present us with a Word of Wisdom type creed for the church of Christ?

If the only effect of Brother Potts’ article were to discourage someone from smoking, it would not be worth answering. It might be said to have a positive benefit in spite of its poor logic. But articles such as his are far from harmless. Here are some of the reasons why his article had to be challenged:

(1) An attempt to make a law where God has made none is an exercise in creed making, which leads to sectarianism.

(2) Such an attempt, if successful, should logically lead to disfellowship of those who do not obey Brother Potts’ law. Thus division in the church will result.

(3) A twisting of Holy Scripture to prove an opinion is a sin in itself. It is contagious, and will lead to other perversions to justify the first departure.

(4) Such an article as Brother Potts’, in spite of good intentions, brings reproach upon the church and upon faithful preachers of the gospel because of its ludicrous nature. It reflects upon other writers who burn the midnight oil in an effort to be accurate and precise.

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 89-90
February 10, 1977

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Controversy continues to exist over the scripturalness of making provision for the Lord’s Supper to be served at the second or evening assembly. Those who object do so for various reasons, one of which is the “Time Argument”. This position is broken down into the “Sundown-to-Sundown Day Theory” and the “Daylight Theory”. In our first article we dealt with the “Sundown Theory” and in this writing we wish to discuss the “Daylight Theory”. If space permits, and likely it will, we will also deal with the “One Assembly Argument”. We will then need to discuss the “Stumbling Block” argument. These are the three main objections made by those who object to Sunday night communion. It would be well to reread our first installment on the matter before us before proceeding with this presentation.

The Daylight Theory

According to this theory the Lord’s Supper must be observed during the daylight hours and some of the passages used are: John 11:9; Matt. 20:1-6; Acts 2:15, 42; 3:1, etc. These passages are supposed to prove that “day” means only a 12 hour period of daylight.

In response, let it be said that one strange thing about this is the seeming inconsistency. Some of the objectors will argue contradictory doctrines just so long as those doctrines agree in opposing the thing they are determined to oppose. Some will argue on one hand that we must observe the Jewish count of time, then turn around and offer the above scriptures to argue that the Supper must be taken during daylight hours. This appears to me to be hobby-riding.

Freely we admit that both in the Bible and in our modern speech, the word “day” sometimes refers to daylight. Among the Jews, much more than with us today, the daylight was the time of work, of commerce and business. The daylight was divided into 12 equal periods or hours. However, it is denied that “day” always refers to daylight in the Bible. It is also denied that the expression “first day of the week” refers to daylight only.

In both English and Greek “day” has various meanings. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, for example, defines the word “day” (1) the time of light, or interval between one night and the next. (2) the period of the earth’s revolution on its axis”. In defining the Greek hemera translated “day” in the New Testament, Bagster’s Lexicon says, “the interval from sunset to sunset; the interval of 24 hours, comprehending day and night’. In the light of this how could anyone possibly build a theory on the dogmatic assertion that “day” always means “daylight” or 12 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness. Jesus said to Peter, “I say unto thee, that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Mk. 14:30). Jesus obviously understood that “day” could include “night”. Other passages with this usage are John 20:1, Acts 27:20, etc.

It seems to this writer that if the time of day is the essential thing, then the reply could be made that the weight of scripture is in favor of night communion rather than daylight. The Supper was instituted at night. Every reference to it-where there is any indication of time suggests a night observance. The very fact that it is called Supper suggests in our common speech an evening meal. Based on these facts I suppose some would contend, in the extreme, on observing the communion at night. It would be interesting to put the Daylight contenders together with the night contenders and see the results.

When the Bible uses ordinals such as “first”, “second”, etc. in connection with the idea of a day, a 24 hour day is always meant. This rule is well established as a rule of Bible interpretation. The rule is suggested by Genesis 1:5 where we are told that “the evening and the morning” comprised the “first” day. All of these “days” of Genesis 1 are evidently 24 hour days. All students of the Old Testament realize that the Sabbath began at sundown one evening and lasted until sundown the next evening or a period of 24 hours. The Sabbath was the “seventh day”. If the seventh day was a 24 hour day, then the first day is also a 24 hour day. Our conclusion is that at any time within the 24 hour period declared by the law of custom to be the first day of the week, Christians may partake of the Supper. Let none bind where God has not bound.

The Stumbling Block Argument

This argument is very popular among those who object to Sunday night communion. The position runs something like this: having communion on Sunday evening encourages people to have a lax attitude toward worship. It encourages them to visit, to go fishing, to go to ball games, and have a general good time on Sunday morning. Then, they can drag into the assembly of the church for the communion Sunday night. One critic has framed his objection this way: “they have the idea that it makes no difference what they do on the Lord’s day, if they can get a little piece of bread and wine Sunday night they are all right.”

In my estimation this criticism reveals a very shallow understanding of what determines the attitude of people toward the Lord’s Supper and worship. Presence at the morning service is not proof of a high regard for worship, nor is presence at the evening service proof of little regard for worship. The fact is that teaching, not the hour of meeting determines one’s attitude. If a person has been taught little or nothing concerning his attitude, he will have a lax attitude regardless of the hour set for worship.

The assertion that evening worship encourages a lax attitude is limply someone’s opinion. The fact that some brethren and sisters seek to create an opportunity for worship after a day’s work, or at a time when some can relieve them in their care of the sick seems to demonstrate a very fine attitude and spirit. It certainly shows an unwillingness to let the day pass without making a special effort to worship despite the hindrances. Let the reader judge the interest and attitude of two common classes: Member “A” – No work on Sunday. He comes to the 11 a.m. worship period, but sits at home watching T.V. at the 7:30 p.m. worship. Member “B” – Must work to make a living and cannot come to the 11 a.m. worship. However, he does come at 7:30 p.m. One could attend worship twice on the Lord’s day, but does so only once. The other came the only time he could (see Jack Freeman’s Let Him Eat And Drink, Know the Truth Publications, Dickinson, Texas).

It certainly is agreed that the evening service can be abused. But so can the morning service. There is little if any difference between the one who abuses the forepart of the day and worships at night or worships in the forepart of the Lord’s Day and abuses the latter. Further, the Bible does not make rules governing our conduct on the first day of the week except the requirement that we worship at that time. We deplore a worldly spirit any day! The abuse that can be made of the evening worship cannot prove that service unscriptural. Can the abuse of the morning worship prove it unscriptural? The facts show a need for more teaching on how to take communion worthily.

Let us seek to do God’s will and refrain from the promotion of opinions and hobbies that confuse the brethren and threaten to divide the body of Christ. (More to follow).

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 87-88
February 10, 1977

By Cecil Willis

In our last editorial, we directed our attention to a study of Christ’s miracles as recorded in the Gospel according to John. We also saw that those who profess to be miracle-workers today cannot perform the kind of miracles that Jesus did. They only attempt to imitate the miracle of healing. Within the next article of so, we shall study the nature of New Testament miracles, and see how they differ from the so-called miracles worked by pseudo-miracle-workers of today. But in this editorial, we want to devote our lesson to a consideration of the purpose of Biblical miracles. This lesson should definitely be an asset to us when we come to study the duration of miracles. Let me encourage you to pay careful attention to the purposes of miracles.

Miracles: Evidence of Divine Power

First, miracles were performed as an evidence of divine power. It would be but natural for us to demand some proof of the divine origin of one’s message. If I confront an individual today who claims that God, directly from heaven, gave him his message, I want him to present some miraculous credential. God never sent His spokesman away empty-handed. He always gave them proof, or evidence of divine power.

When we turn to the Old Testament, we find God’s sending forth Moses to lead the people out of Egyptian bondage. But Moses said, “Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, Jehovah hath not appeared unto thee. And Jehovah said unto him, What is that in thy hand? And he said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it” (Ex. 4:1-3). God then told Moses to take up the serpent, and it became a rod again. He then told him to put his hand in his bosom and it became leprous. God then told him to put his hand back in his bosom, and it became clean. And if the people refused to hearken to either of these sign, God told Moses to take water of the river, and pour it upon dry land, and it would become blood. So these miracles were Moses’ credentials. They were to be proof that God had sent him.

The signs that Jesus did were unanswerable proofs that God had sent Him. When John the Baptist had been put in prison, he heard of the works of Christ, and sent his disciples to Christ where they asked, “Art thou he that cometh or look we for another?” John wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus answered by telling him of the signs that He did. He said, “Go tell John the things which ye hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them” (Matt. 11:3-5). So

when John asked if Jesus was the Messiah, Christ replied by telling of the miracles that were worked, and which were His divine credentials.

We also see an instance in which the effect of the miracles of Christ is stated: “Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him” (Jno. 3:1,2). The signs that Jesus did were overwhelming proof to Nicodemus that God was with Jesus, for no man, unaided by divine power, could work the miracles that Jesus did. Such is the Biblical purpose of miracles. It enables the hearers to determine who was inspired of God, and who was not.

Paul wrought miracles in the presence of the Corinthians, and then stated that the miracles which he did were proof of his apostleship. Paul says in 2 Cor. 12:11, 12, “1 am become foolish: ye compelled me; for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing was I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works.” Paul proved his apostleship by working miracles. So again the miracles performed proved to be indisputable evidence of divine power and authority.

Realizing that when God sends a man forth with a message, He gives him the power to work real miracles to prove that God has sent him, it is but right that we should inquire into the credentials of men today who claim to be speaking by inspiration, and working miracles to prove their inspiration. In the first place, these men show that God did not send them by the very essence of their message. When God sent forth the inspired writers, He told them what to say, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, they recorded it in the Bible. Today various men are claiming divine authority for their message, and yet their preaching is contradictory to the truths taught in the Bible. Certainly God did not send forth the apostles with an inspired message, and now send forth men to deny the previous message.

It is perfectly right for us to demand proof of the divine authority of these men who claim to be working miracles. If one will but think about it, it is nothing uncommon that these fellows claim to work miracles. They realize that God bore witness with His messengers by enabling them to perform the mighty signs which they did. Therefore, since they claim that God has also sent them, they attempt to work miracles. Yet these men act like they are insulted when they are asked for the proof of their divine authority. They feel that one is beyond hope if he questions their authority. But, if they had their divine credientials as they claim to have, it would be a simple matter to produce it. I have been to many of these miracle-working meetings, and have as yet to see anything that is miraculous. The New Testament miracles were not questionable cases, but were undoubtedly performed by supernatural power. Such we do not see today.

Miracles: Persuasions Toward Belief

But let us now notice a second purpose of miracles as stated in the Bible: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus in the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name” Ono. 20:30). What was the purpose of the signs? John said that he was recording the account of Jesus’ signs in order that those who read his account may be persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is a well known truth that faith comes by the presentation of testimony, or of evidence. So the Gospel according to John, as well as the other Gospel accounts, are books of testimony or evidence which are calculated to produce implicit faith in the heart of those who read of Jesus’ divine power.

But, again we have the same result. These men come along who claim to be sent directly from God with a God-given message, and they expect us to believe whatever they say is true simpl’ because they say it is the truth. God gave us evidence to prove Christ’s deity. Obviously, they believe that the miracles that Christ performed were inadequate, and that the Bible is not enough to make us believe in the Son of God, so they pretend to work yet other miracles. If the recording of Christ’s miracles can do what John said that it could do, we do not need the so-called miracle-workers of today. Once one is made to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he will acquiesce to the dictates of Christ. We call upon these people who denounce as an unbeliever everyone who is the least bit skeptical of their authority and power to tell us whether they believe that the Bible can do what it says that it can. It claims to be able to produce faith. If it can do that, then tell us what additional good can come by their claimed power to work miracles?

Miracles: Confirm the Testimony of God’s Speakers

We will have room to discuss but one other reason or purpose for the working of miracles. It was to confirm the testimony of God’s speakers. In a sense, we have already discussed this point, but previously we said it was an evidence of divine power. But now the Bible declares that miracle-working is an infallible proof of the message as well. I want to cite four verses from Hebrews 2: “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that we have heard, lest haply we drift away from them. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that hears; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold., powers, and, by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own Will” (vs. 1-4). Notice that this passage declares that God bore witness with “them” by signs, wonders, and manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit. God confirmed the word spoken by miracles. A statement of this truth is also found in Mk. 16:16-20. Later in this series we will devote time to that passage. Note that the Hebrew writer spoke of the great salvation which was first spoken by the Lord, but was confirmed unto us by them that heard. Who are “them that heard”? Remember that it was with “them” that God confirmed their word by the miracles performed.

To be one of these individuals that received the power to work miracles as stated in this passage, one would first have had to hear the Lord proclaim the great salvation. And I just have my doubts as to whether any of these fellows who claim divine power today were present when the Lord first made proclamation of the great salvation. Do you think they were on this earth when Jesus was? Certainly they were not! So they cannot use this passage as proof that God has inspired them and enabled them to work miracles. This passage mentions ways that God bore witness with “them” by enabling “them” to work miracles, but it says nothing about men today as being inspired by the Holy Spirit, and being enabled by God to work miracles.

Conclusion

Miracles were performed: (1) as an evidence of divine power; (2) to produce faith; (3) to confirm the word spoken. None of these reasons for the working of miracles will fit the men who claim to be working miracles today. If you doubt it, study them carefully to see for yourself.

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 86-87
February 10, 1977