Truth Magazine

By Jeff Asher

On the nights of August 9, 10, 12 and 13 brother James L. Zachary met Mr. Russell Henson in Mountain View, Arkansas on four propositions regarding miracles and the number of persons in the Godhead. The debate was well attended by both Christians and Pentecostals. Each of the disputants was well prepared and behavior during the debate by all was exemplary. This debate was conducted on the highest plain all week and made a favorable impression in the community by the Eastside church for truth among denominations other than the Pentecostals.

Monday Evening

The proposition Monday night was:

The Scriptures teach miracles are being performed today in the same way they were performed in the New Testament.

Mr. Henson set out to prove the proposition by affirming that God had performed miracles in ages past and was capable of performing miracles now. Then he undertook to enlist the assistance of the audience by asking that those who had received miraculous healing to stand. He also gave his own personal testimony concerning healing. Brother Zachary was quick to point out that the proposition did not have anything to do with what God had done in the past or with the unsubstantiated subjective testimony of the audience or himself. Rather, Mr. Henson was under obligation to prove that the Scriptures teach that miracles are being done today in the same way as God did them in the past.

The principle argument offered by Mr. Henson regarding miraculous healing today concerned Isaiah 53:4-5,

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our inequities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Henson argued that the atonement of Christ purchased for all Christians the healing of diseases, as well as the forgiveness of sins. He cited Matthew 8:17 as proof that the passage has reference to physical healing.

Zachary first pointed out that Henson’s proof text did not sustain his argument because in Matthew the miracles of healing under consideration were those of Jews under the law before the atonement was offered, not Christians under the gospel after the atonement was made. Thus, Matthew 8:17 could not possibly mean that Isaiah 53:4-5 has anything to do with the physical healing of Christians today.

Brother Zachary went on to give the inspired commentary on Isaiah 53:4-5 and Matthew 8:17 from 1 Peter 2:24,

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

It was shown that the “healing” in Isaiah 53 was the forgiveness of sins and not the removal of physical infirmity. Thus, Matthew 8:17 had in view the personal ministry of Christ which included miracle working as a part of the proof that He was the Son of God and the one who would bear our sins to the cross (see: Matt. 9:2-8). This truth was further demonstrated from New Testament examples of faithful Christians who had sickness (2 Cor. 12:7-10; 2 Tim. 4:20; Phil. 2:25-30; 1 Tim. 5:23).

Tuesday Night

The next proposition discussed was:

The Scriptures teach that miraculous gifts have ceased.

This proposition is a little unusual, since Pentecostals are generally unwilling to sign a proposition framed so closely to biblical language (cf. 1 Cor. 13:8). However, it states precisely the issue that exists between Christians and Pentecostals.

Throughout the first two nights Zachary pressed the issue of “in the same way.” Henson was presented miracles of healings, tongues, resurrections, snakes, poison, curses and nature along with the question: “Are they being performed today in the same way?” He was asked for a demonstration on Monday night; yet, on Tuesday evening the request was rescinded because “the Scriptures teach miraculous gifts have ceased.” Zachary made his case from two passages 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and Ephesians 4:11-13.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 was shown to teach that miraculous gifts would cease when the revelation of the mystery of the gospel was completed. This was done by making it clear that the thing which is “perfect” in this text is that which brings our knowledge to perfection (cf. 13:12). There is one perfect thing, the completed revelation of Jesus Christ (Jas. 1;25; John 16:13; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Jude 3). Mr. Henson was pressed on whether or not he believed the Bible was perfect.

The emphasis in Ephesians 4:11-13 was upon the proposition “till.” It was shown that the word demanded duration. Thus, the argument was made that all the gifts were to last as long as any of the gifts, and that duration was conditioned upon four things. These were: (1) unity of the faith, (2) knowledge of the Son, (3) perfection of the body, (4) the measure of Christ. Zachary showed quite well that it is the Word of God that satisfies each of these conditions (Jude 3; 2 Pet. 1:2,3; 2 Tim. 3:16).

The best argument that Mr. Henson could make in response to the affirmative material was to say, “If you have been born again, then you have experienced a miracle.” In response to Zachary pointed out that Mr. Henson and his people had not had the same experience that was manifested on Pentecost and Cornelius’ house which he claimed was the new birth, nor did Pentecostals practice what he was preaching relative to the new birth in that some water baptized members of his church had not received the experience of tongues. Zachary went on to point out how the Spirit works in conversion and why this is not a miracle. This was just another of Henson’s many blunders.

Wednesday Night

On Wednesday the debate was recessed. The brethren at Eastside have an assembly in the evening, and it was a very edifying time. The singing was wonderful.

Many brethren had come from all over the state and from out of state. Thus, the house was full of visitors. Among these was brother Ed Dye from Pine Bluff, Zachary’s moderator, and brother Keith Sharp who joined us at the table. These brethren were indispensable during the week in the study sessions. Brother Dye did a magnificent job in keeping order. This is one of the few debates with Pentecostals where there have been no points of order called. I attribute this in large part to brother Dye.

I had the pleasure and honor of addressing the assembly that evening on the subject “Divine Encouragement for Holy Living” taken from 1 Peter 1:13-2:5. This was my first time to preach at Mountain View though I have known several in the church for many years. It was certainly good to be with such a fine church who showed not only love for the brethren by their hospitality, but for the truth as well by their stedfast support of Jim during the debate.

Thursday Night

The subject changed on Thursday evening to the Godhead, and so did the order of speakers, Zachary moved to the affirmative with this proposition 

The Scriptures teach the Godhead is three persons, namely the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Zachary made it clear that he was not affirming that there were three Gods, but only that the one God exists in three persons. Frankly, this is a difficult concept even for our own brethren to grasp at times. However, Zachary got to the real issue at stake when the pointed out that the Pentecostal position denies the Son and brings the condemnation of 1 John 2:22-24,

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

The Bible teaches one must believe in the Father and the Son, not the Father who is the Son. This is why this issue merits being debated. Souls are at stake (John 8:24).

Zachary made several arguments that were very effective in showing the truth of the nature of the Godhead. First, he introduced John 8:16-18, which reads,

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Mr. Henson was asked, “Do you believe Jesus when he said that he was not alone and that there was a second witness?” The response was, “The flesh of Jesus was one witness and the Spirit of Jesus was the other witness.” Now, this left Mr. Henson with quite a dilemma for he was called upon to explain whether or not Jesus had two spirits, one human and the other divine. And, if having two spirits, that is, the Holy Spirit indwelling the man Jesus, why Henson himself was not “God” since he claimed to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in himself. Zachary then answered the question for the audience showing that Luke 23:46 teaches that Jesus had only one spirit, and necessarily, Mr. Henson’s problem was not resolved.

When Zachary introduced Ephesians 4:1-5 into the discussion to show that there was one Spirit, one Lord and one Father which necessarily indicates three persons, Mr. Henson replied that the text did not say “and” which would indicate addition would be proper. Brother Zachary thanked Mr. Henson for that and produced the following passages which had the “and” as required:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19).

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55).

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me (John 8:16).

Friday Night

The last night of the debate had Mr. Henson affirming:

The Scriptures teach that the Godhead is Jesus only, and the words “in Jesus’ name” must be recited at baptism.

This night was the best attended, I thank that the Pentecostals may have outnumbered the brethren this night. However, we had heard that they regarded this to be the proposition with which Mr.. Henson would do his best.

However, Mr. Henson did not escape the careful examination of his position in the negative. Brother Zachary was well prepared introducing again in every speech as he had done the night before, and that several times, a chart in which the “facts are overwhelming” in support of three persons in the Godhead. There were 43 passages which clearly distinguish between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These passages can only be understood when one accepts that there is one God who exists in three Persons.

Mr. Henson introduced twelve “one God” passages as he called them from the Old Testament. Zachary showed that in each case the text referred to one Deity and in eleven instances the context dealt with the worship of the true God over pagan deities.

Henson also had the obligation to show that a certain baptismal formula was to be used. He cited the various cases of conversion in Acts where men were said to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (e.g. Acts 19:5). Brother Zachary pointed out that no one can produce a passage that tells what the baptizer said at baptism. The passages produced by Mr. Henson only tell what was done, they were baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). Furthermore, only one time are we told what was said at a baptism by the baptized in Acts 8:37,38 

And Philip said, if thou believest with all thing heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The person being baptized confessed the name of Jesus Christ and not the person doing the baptizing. This is exactly what Christians practice. Mr. Henson’s proposition failed.

Brother Zachary did a wonderful work the week of the debate. His success was directly attributable to the fact that the was obviously well prepared by careful study of the Word. I commend brother Zachary for his work and heartily recommend that the churches use him in future discussions with the Pentecostals or in meeting work. He is certainly doing the work of an evangelist in Mountain View. I also commend the good Eastside church for their faithful sup-port of God’s servants during the debate. It is encouraging to see brethren rally to the defense of the Lord, his church and the Word in an effort to save souls.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 6-8
January 20, 1994

By Anonymous

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). This passage has been the center of controversy on the divorce and remarriage issue for many years. While I still believe this subject is very easy to understand, for the honest heart who desires to do the Lord’s will, I would like to address this passage from a different aspect.

Let me state clearly what I believe on this subject, to avoid any misunderstandings by the readers of this article. From a close study of this subject, attending numerous debates over the past four years, and living in a place where error on this subject has been preached for almost three decades, my conclusions have not been reached without much thought, study, and prayer. According to the scriptures the only cause for divorce is adultery (Matt. 19:1-12; 5:32). The doctrine of brother Homer Hailey concerning Matthew 19, I believe to be error. Olan Hicks, Jerry Bassett, and Jack Freeman all have different slants, but all are full of errors, according to the scriptures. I’ve listened to all three men defend their doctrines, without success. I love them as brothers, but must oppose what they teach because of my love for the truth. The doctrine of desertion, according to a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15, I also believe to be in violation of the sacred scriptures. My prayer is that these men, along with many others, may wake up to the damage their teachings are doing to the souls of men and women all across this country. I have witnessed first hand results of this error being taught unchecked for decades. It brings tears to my eyes, and breaks my heart; the results are devastating!

However, my purpose in writing this article is not to debate this issue. Let me explain more fully where I am coming from. In August of 1982, my first wife left me and moved in with another man. In December of that same year, she asked to come back home, and I took her back. In February 1983, she decided she “was happy but not con-tent.” After a meeting with this man in her home town, she left the second time that same month. What should I do? Following much prayer, tears, and soul searching, I divorced her in April 1983 for the cause of adultery. Later that year she sought to return a third time, for reasons I will fully explain later, but I could not take her back. Since this time I have remarried a woman who went through a similar situation (much more hurtful and public than my own) and also is a Christian. Ten years have passed, you have the background, and now the reason for this article.

Let me begin by telling you, I have the same attitude about divorce that God does. “For the Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16). Divorce is a terrible experience for anyone to go through, even when he has grounds from God for doing so. Still I well understand why God made this the only cause for divorce. When a mate has been unfaithful, it does something to the other mate. It is a deep scar that remains for a very long time. Speaking from my experience, it took me six months to get over the hurt. How did I feel? Numb! I cried for hours, blamed myself for everything, and yes I even hated my wife! I understand that God tells me very plainly that I have no right to hate anyone, but that is the way I felt. When you truly love someone, this process is much worse than losing a mate in death. Death is final, divorce is not! My life was an emotional roller coaster. My faith in God, was not weakened, but my faith in myself was. Do you know when it hurt me the most? At the services of the church! When I saw other couples, friends we had made over the years and their children who played with my kids, the emptiness gnawed at my soul! Now I was an outsider, a third wheel. I no longer fit in. I believe I was even a little jealous! What did I do? Unfortunately, I drew away from my spiritual family.

If you think this was bad, it gets worse. In this same process I lost something else, my kids! My daughter was five at the time and my son was almost four. In the state of my residence the mother retains custody of the children, unless she can be proven to be unfit. (Sexual immorality does not make one unfit in the eyes of the courts!) Going into those empty rooms was a pain I cannot begin to explain. Brethren I did not bring children into this world to watch them grow up from a distance! Family life was important to me, and I loved being a father. To be fair, it was nowhere as bad for me, as it was for them! God intended for parents to bring up their children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). This cannot be done properly in a broken home! Why? From my experience, when one home is not a Christian home and the other is, it teaches two sets of values. How does a young person cope? To this day, this is a situation I have great difficulty accepting. It is my “thorn in the flesh.” I was in the military at this time. When my wife’s “boyfriend” came down to move “our” belongings, I had to watch. Then this man came to me and told me he would “treat my kids kindly.” If not for being a child of God, I would have … I don’t even want to think about it!

How has my life been since? My wife is a wonderful woman, and I thank God each day we have each other. I have two step daughters whom I love just like I do my son and daughter. The girls live with us and my kids live with their mother. I see them two months in the summer, I call them often, and pray for and think of them always. Yet, the hurt is not over. My children are brought up in a home where God is not mentioned. Their mother has remarried, to a man who does believe in a Supreme Being, but does not see the need for religion in his life or theirs! On many occasions, he has told my children my values and teachings are “outdated” and just my opinions. Living together is not a sin, teaching kids to use condoms and such, is teaching them “personal responsibility.” I would like to quote a statement my daughter’s mother made tome a few months ago: “I have no false notion that our daughter will graduate from high school a virgin!” My dear friend I have more confidence in my daughter! Yet, with the values, examples, and teachings at home, it’s going to be an uphill battle. What can I do? Not one thing about what they are taught at their mother’s home. I have no say!

A few years ago my son was in my garage crying. “What’s the matter?” I asked. He said he didn’t want to talk about it. After some prodding he finally told me. “Dad I want it like it used to be, when we were all together.” Tears ran down my cheeks that day, and even now as I write. What answer can a person give a nine-year-old boy who loves both his father and mother? Sadly, there is no easy or comforting answer. Such is the lot of children from a broken home. How it hurts to have to make that statement, that my children are victims of a broken home. Truly they pay the highest cost of all. Grandparents are deprived of their grandchildren. Cousins and other close family members really have no relationship with them. (My step daughters visit their dad while my kids are here in the summer.)

Many people have told me, “You had grounds for divorce so you can start over. That will make it easier for you.” Please hear me carefully, divorce is never easy, and it causes many others than the two people involved to suffer. Today I cannot in good conscience tell anyone to seek a divorce  not even when they have scriptural grounds! Brethren, many other areas of your life will be affected by a divorce, scriptural or not! What’s the point of my article? Let me put it plainly, adultery is not worth the price you will pay for the pain that it will cause! Two people who have some moments of pleasures, will reap a lifetime of heartaches for others who neither wanted it nor made the decisions which brought this pain into their lives. Regrets? Not about how I handled the divorce or in remarrying. Yet, if you’re asking for what all four children must endure after the fact, the answer is a resounding Yes!

My prayer has always been that my children, all four of them, may never experience what my wife and I have had to endure. We try to teach all of them the importance of God in their lives, to put him first in all we do. Marriage is a lifetime commitment for one man and one woman. This is God’s plan. Time will only tell what affect all this will have in the future, but it has affected them already. No one can take the place of a child’s parents. Asking a child to choose between his father and mother is a cruel harsh lesson of life. If this article will save one person from stepping over the line or help and encourage others who have had similar Situations, it will have been worth my efforts.

One last comment: I cannot say enough of my Christian brethren who saw me through these darkest hours of my life. Honestly speaking, I would have never made it through without the love, concern, and patience they kindly gave me during these dark days. God never left me, yet, for a time I left him. Thankfully, the Lord allowed me time to recover. I no longer have hatred in my heart; no longer am I bitter or jealous. Yet, the scars still remain. Watching my children grow up two thousand miles away is very difficult.

Knowing that the “double standard” they are being taught could cause them to be lost is constantly on my mind. I may never fully understand the why, yet, I will always understand one thing. God knows much better what is best for man than he does. Please my friend, do not learn this lesson of life the hard way. I’m recovering, you may not be so lucky!

Additional Notes .. .

This article is “anonymous” for two reasons. To protect the four children involved and not to cause the “other” parties involved any more shame than has already been done.

I like to share some personal thoughts. What do other Christians say when a marriage is breaking up for a brother or sister? Can you understand? Do you know how they feel? To be sure, we need to be caring and concerned. How does a Christian handle a divorce and not lose his Christianity in the process? To be perfectly honest, the do’s, don’ts, and what “pattern to follow” are not even considered. My biggest worry? How am I going to get through this? Some of my brethren tell me, “You must get the divorce for adultery, and be the one who puts her away.” How does one get a divorce for the cause of adultery, when over forty states say it is not even grounds! My ex-wife’s lawyer refused to let her sign a paper admitting she was guilty, because she did not have to do so, according to civil law. Does this leave the innocent person with no recourse? Remember, we must abide by civil law, but God’s law is our main concern. Does God know what the cause is? Please read Hebrews 4:13. My cause for divorce is in the written court record. Some cannot be so lucky!

How bad does it get? Everyone is different, but I do believe some aspects are the same. Complete apathy! I did not care about anything or anybody, save my kids. All I wanted is the hurt to go away. How strong is your faith? Believe me, you are going to find out! Then you are angry, jealous, and even feel envy toward your friends who continue to be happily married! Yes, I still believed in God, and I did not blame him. How did I cope? Christian friends who gave me time and space helped me! If I needed them, I knew they were there. One’s mind is so confused it is difficult to think straight about anything! What did I need most from my brethren? Understanding and patience. Luckily, I have some wonderful brethren. Sadly, I must admit, some others I have known did not have this luxury! Explaining how it truly feels, is very difficult to put into words. Hopefully, you will never learn first hand!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 16-17
January 6, 1994

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Interpretation of scripture is critical to one’s relation to God. Jesus often interpreted the Old Testament and from him we learn how to handle scriptures. He also through the Holy Spirit had the writers of the New Testament interpret the scriptures. From all these, we can learn how to handle the scriptures. Likewise, the scriptures or the word of God is agreeable to the reason. In I Peter 2:2, the word of God is said to be spiritual (ASV); this term is from logikos which means reasonable, agreeable to the reason, or rational. God is the author of man’s rational nature and he addressed his word to this nature. In order that man might understand the word, God suited it to man’s rational nature. In passages that will be addressed later in the article, attention will be called to the use of the rational nature in interpreting the rational word.

This article addresses the issue of interpretation and relates to a question concerning implications of a passage dealing with Old Testament prophecy. Every person brings to the study of the scriptures a uniqueness of spirit, personality, experience, reasoning ability, prejudices, and accepted propositions. One must seek to cut through these and get to the heart of the scriptures themselves so that one is governed by what they say and not by what one might read into them.

Question: Please comment on Luke 24:44-49, especially regarding its ramifications upon interpretation of Old Testament prophecy.

Response: It is probable that the querist is concerned about this expression concerning what Jesus did: “Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures” (Lk. 24:45). Just what occurred here? Does one need the intervention of Deity directly to understand or can one understand by a proper analysis of a given passage and other corroborating passages? These are some of the questions that appear appropriate as one approaches such a study.

What occurred when Jesus “opened their mind” so that they might understand? The two men on the way to a village name Emmaus were discussing the meaning and significance of the report that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised and was alive (Lk. 24:13-24). As they walked, Jesus joined them but they did not recognize who he was (Lk. 24:15-16). He asked them what communications they were having and they responded about the remarkable events of the last three days (Lk. 24:17-24).

His opening words to them were most instructive in the context of the issue being addressed in this article. “And he said unto them, 0 foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken” (Lk. 24:25). Their problem was that they had not properly read and analyzed the word of God. Had they done so they would not be so perplexed about his resurrection. They would have recognized the Christ had they believed in what the prophets had spoken. This question was then put to them: “Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Lk. 24:26) At this point, Jesus “interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ” from Moses and from all the prophets (Lk. 24:27). He opened their minds by appealing to the scriptures and showing how the predictions about him had been fulfilled. Had they properly read and understood the scriptures, they would have already known what he pointed out the scriptures meant.

Later, when they came to know who he was, “they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Lk. 24:32) He opened the scriptures to them by referring to them and explaining what they meant. Had they not been so slow of heart to believe, they would have already understood them (Lk. 24:25). The ordinary rational powers they possessed are those by which they came to have an understanding which understanding they could have had if they had believed the scriptures. Jesus did nothing directly to their minds; their minds were addressed and with their normal powers they understood his explanation.

This case of the two on the way to Emmaus becomes very valuable to us in addressing the passage which is the focus of the querist. The word opened is translated from dianoigo which means “to open up completely” (Vine). Thayer says that it means to open. He points out that metaphorically it means in Luke 24:32 “to open the sense of the Scriptures, explain them.” With reference to Luke 24:45, he says that it means “to open the mind of one, i.e. cause him to understand a thing.” This same word is used in Acts 16:14 with reference to Lydia of whom it is said, “whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things spoken by Paul.” Of this use, Thayer gives the meaning “to open one’s soul, i.e. to rouse in one the faculty of under-standing or the desire of learning.”

Dianoigo appears in eight New Testament passages: Mark. 7:34-35; Luke 2:13; 24:31,32,45; Acts 16;14; 17:3. The passages in Mark refer to the healing of the deaf man with a speech impediment. Jesus implored, as he looked up to heaven, that his ears be opened and they were; he then also spoke correctly. The reference in Luke 2:23 is to every male that opens the womb, that is delivered from the womb of his mother. In Acts 17:3, Paul opened up and alleged that it behooved Christ to suffer and be raised again from the dead. These then leave the Luke and Acts passages for further consideration.

In Luke 23:31, the language is metaphorical referring to their seeing clearly that it was the risen Christ to whom they had been speaking, that is the women on the way to Emmaus. Likewise, there is a metaphorical use in verse 32 in reference to their listening while Jesus opened to them the scriptures. This he did by explaining to them what the scriptures meant as we have already seen. When Jesus showed how “the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day” (Lk. 24:46), he opened “their mind, that they might understand the scriptures.” What then had been “written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms” about the Christ was now clear to their understanding.

Their minds had been opened. There was no direct operation by Christ on their minds independent of the scriptures. Rather, there was an explanation of the sense of the scriptures whereby their minds were opened.

Directed by God precisely about where to travel and to bypass where he had intended to go, Paul arrived in Philippi where he found a group of women who were come together in a place of prayer (Acts 16:6-13). Paul spoke to Lydia about the Christ and his will; it is said that Lydia “heard them” (Acts 16:14). In the course of what she heard, her heart was “opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). This again is a case of the scriptures having been explained that caused the heart to be opened. The agency used by the Lord was his word; it was not a direct operation or intervention independent of the word of God. God had caused the preacher and the sinner to come together and he had given the word that opened the heart. Having learned what the message was and having understood, Lydia gave heed to that which was spoken. Without her heart’ s having been opened she would not have paid heed. She would have a closed mind to the Christ as did others who worshipped under the old Testament until such time as they clearly understood the message of the scriptures.

The ramifications upon interpretation of Old Testament prophecy that Luke 24:44-49 has are that when scriptures are properly explained and one is disposed to listen one’s heart or mind will be opened.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 5
January 20, 1994

By Mike Willis

Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him (James 5:14-15).

I have an observation that may or may not be accurate in every case. I have noticed that when we pray for someone who is sick, frequently the prayer goes something like this:

Our Father in heaven, we thank you for the many blessings you have given us. . . . We come to you in prayer especially at this time in behalf of our brother who is sick. We pray that you will bless the doctors and nurses who are attending to him. We pray that you will be with his family in this hour of crisis that they might minister to his needs and be a source of comfort, consolation, and strength to him.

There is nothing in this prayer that should not be prayed for. However, the prayer frequently comes to an end without the one leading it ever asking the Lord to heal the sick body of the person who is suffering. In my observations at the hospital, I see the doctor in pretty good health, not worried about how to pay his medical bills, and doing quite well. The nurses attending to the needs of my loved one also look cheerful, in good health, and generally doing better than the one lying in the hospital bed. The family and friends who come to cheer and comfort the sick also seem relatively in good condition. Any of these can properly be the objects of our prayer. But, in this situation, who is most in need of our prayers? Obviously, the sick person who is in such poor condition that he had to be admitted into the hospital. Why should anyone be so reluctant to pray for him?

Have we so studiously avoided the errors of modem Pentecostalism that we are afraid to ask the Lord to heal the body of someone who is sick? I hope that we have not reached a point in our faith that we no longer believe that prayer does any good. Before proceeding any further, let me close a couple of doors. There are two erroneous concepts of the present operation of the world:

(1) The Pentecostals are wrong when they promise miraculous healing to those who are sick. There are no miracles being performed today. Faith is not a condition to physical health.

(2) The naturalists are also wrong who teach that everything is governed solely by natural law. The deistic concept of the universe teaches that God created and empowered the universe; ever since creation everything has occurred as a result of natural law. The naturalists deny that God even created the world, but are agreed with the deists in believing that all things that happen are the result of the operation of natural law. Neither believes that God intervenes in the affairs of man. Neither of these concepts is true. God does work in the affairs of men, as is expressly stated in such passages as Daniel 4:32. I am afraid that some Christians may be approaching the deistic concept of the world. That would be the case if one were to conclude that prayer does not change things.

When Hezekiah became aware that he was sick with an illness that would lead to death, he prayed to God and wept (2 Kings 20:3). The Lord answered his prayer and ex-tended his life for fifteen years.

The 116th Psalm records the praise of a saint delivered from death. He described his condition:

The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.

Then called I upon the name of the Lord; 0 Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul (3-4).

The psalmist brought his plight before the Lord and asked for his divine assistance and aid.

If we cannot directly ask for God’s help when we are sick, how can we praise and glorify him when we are healed? If we believe that he has nothing to do with our recovery, why praise him for deliverance? Why not solely give thanks to the doctors, nurses, and natural laws that enable us to recuperate?

I plan to ask for God to heal me when I become ill. I am not asking him to perform a miracle, but I am asking him in his providence to heal my sick body. There is not a father or mother among us with a sick child who has not unabashedly taken his prayer directly to God and asked him to let the child live!

What we pray in private, why are we afraid to say in public? Let us not hesitate to ask God to extend the life of our loved ones, to heal their sick body that they might resume their role in the home, and to strengthen them during the hours of their sickness. Let us also recognize that the God who has the power to heal also has the privilege of saying to me like he did to Paul, “my grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Cor. 12:9). I will pray earnestly until I clearly see that the answer to my prayer is “my grace is sufficient for thee.” When I so perceive his reply, I will quit asking for healing and ask for the strength to accept what has come to me.

In the meantime, let us avoid the tendency of allowing our reaction to Pentecostalism to drive us away from asking God to heal the sick.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 2
January 20, 1994