Truth Magazine

By Funda Mpanza

The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus promised to send his apostles the Spirit of Truth. He told them what the work of the Holy Spirit was going to be. The Bible tells us a lot about the work that the Holy Spirit came to accomplish.

Many people today have altered, changed or distorted the work of the Holy Spirit. Here I would like to write about seven things that the Holy Spirit was not given for.

1. The Holy Spirit was not given to make people brag. Simon, the ex-sorcerer, wanted the Holy Spirit so people would applaud him saying he was a great one. He was not given the Holy Spirit because he had a wrong motive – his intention was to boast (see Acts 8:9-11; 18:23). If Simon was not given the Holy Spirit, it is obvious that God cannot give anyone his Holy Spirit for the sake of boasting.

You will hear many people saying that the Holy Spirit drives them to do their mighty deeds – In denominational tent meetings you will hear someone saying, “I can perform miracles.” Usually if he claims it, his audience thinks he is someone great from God. This man does not have the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit was not given for boasting.

2. The Holy Spirit was not given to protect people from temptations. Those people who are running after the Holy Spirit believe that if they can get the Holy Spirit, he will protect or immunize them from temptations. I hear people testifying in pulpits that they have the Holy Spirit that guides them. He protects them from temptations and they don’t sin any more. But I find the very same people in immoralities and many other sins!

In Galatians 2:11-14 you will find that Peter and Barnabas were tempted and sinned. These men had the Holy Spirit. Peter was an apostle who had been with Jesus; Barnabas went preaching with Paul and there is no doubt that he had the Holy Spirit. This explains to us clearly that the Holy Spirit was not given to protect people from temptations.

3. The Holy Spirit was not given to keep people always well. Those who claim to have power from the Holy Spirit think he was given to heal everyone and keep everyone well. Some have even taught that if you go to the hospital you have little faith. Many people have died because they refused to go to the hospital.

In a place called Kwaceza in Zululand there is a so-called “Church of Christ” denomination. When I visited this denomination I wanted to know more about it as it called itself “The church of Christ.” The young man who was telling about it told me that its founder was already dead. I asked him how he died. He replied that he had died a few years ago because his feet were swollen up and he would not go to the hospital.

Almost all of their members believe that it is wrong to go to the hospital. This young man told me that they would not go to the hospital because the Bible does not let them do that. I tried to reason with him by the Scriptures but he would not listen because the founder and the teaching of his denomination were against taking medicine.

A preacher told me about an incident which took place in Mandini, south of Eshowe. Some people believed that it was a sin to go to the doctor or to immunize their bodies against any disease. It happened that cholera attacked our country a few years ago. These people who believed that it is a sin to take medicine were urged to be inoculated. These children died because of their false doctrine taught. False doctrine kills physically as well as spiritually.

What does the Bible say about medicine? Paul told Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach’s sake and his often infirmities (1 Tim. 5:23). Paul was an inspired man. He had power from the Holy Spirit but he did not say to Timothy, “You have little faith.” Instead he prescribed medicine. Wine was to be taken by Timothy as medicine as we sometimes take Coke as our medicine for stomach aches. I visited home one day and my mother prescribed salt and sugar mixed in water as medicine for my stomach ache. It helped me a lot.

Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). Why didn’t he pray for him? The answer lies clearly that the purpose of miraculous healing was not to keep everyone well. Even Paul himself became sick. In Galatians 5:13 he says, “Ye know how through an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.”

4. The Holy Spirit was not given to tell people whom to marry. This is a wrong idea believed by many people in this country, especially in black communities. They believe that you can’t get married unless the Spirit of God tells you to do so.

If the Holy Spirit was for telling people whom they should marry, those who get married before becoming Christians are not married at all! Therefore they would be committing adultery. If they are committing adultery they must repent. If they repent they must abandon their spouses until the Holy Spirit tells them the right partners. But that is not true. A married person is married irrespective of whether they married before or after their conversion to Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 7:2 Paul says, “. . . let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” In this verse he doesn’t tell us to wait until the Holy Spirit tells us whom to marry. In 1 Corinthians 9:5 he says, “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife?” From these verses there is nothing about Christians being told to wait for the Holy Spirit to tell them anything to do as far as getting married is concerned.

Some read Genesis 24:10-21 and say, “Aha! Isaac did not do any thing, but God did something for him.” The people who say that must open their eyes to the Scriptures. Isaac did not wait for the Spirit of God to tell him anything. The verses put it clearly that it was his spokesman who put something forward as a sign that God was with him. Therefore no one has a right to use this verse in justifying his practice.

A certain young man had a similar false idea about marriage. He liked a young lady but wanted to make sure that God had given him this young lady. As many people do, he did something that he thought was going to be a sign from God. He unfolded the collar of his shirt and said to himself, “The lady who will fix my collar nicely will be the one the Lord has chosen for me.” This young man began moving among the young women. By accident a lady who was not very pretty fixed his collar. When this unfortunate thing occurred he cried out, “Oh Lord, that is not the right one!” You see from this that he wanted what he desired to fall on him by chance.

5. The Holy Spirit was not given to roll people on the ground and make them dirty. Many denominational churches teach that if you receive the Holy Spirit you must fall down and become dirty. To them this shows that you are submitting yourself; therefore some people will fall down and roll if they think they are receiving the Holy Spirit.

A denominational preacher was busy preaching. One of those in his audience got excited and disturbed the preacher. Almost everyone got excited and thought the man in the audience was driven by the Holy Spirit. I was also in the audience as it happened in 1984 before I was taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. After the session finished my friend said to me, “Funda, that man disturbed the Holy Spirit (meaning the man who got excited). If he didn’t, we would have seen you under the seats and dirty.” Is it the Spirit of God that is making people fall down and dirty themselves? Certainly not!

On the day of Pentecost when the apostles were baptized by the Holy Spirit, they did not fall down or become dirty (Acts 2:14). Neither did Cornelius and his companions roll in the dirt when they were baptized by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-46).

6. The Holy Spirit was not given to harm or injure people. A woman was telling a certain preacher that if she receives the Holy Spirit she runs and harms herself with thorns and stones. But that cannot be the Holy Spirit. Her problem is either mental, psychological or some other thing which causes her to run out and hurt herself.

While we were having a weekend meeting in Vyrheid, Natal, a Zionist Church had its meeting. An old woma was standing at the door of the classroom where the Zionists were singing and running around, praying and hitting one another. We asked this woman why she didn’t join her people. Her answer was like this, “If they are like this, we who are old do not enter inside because they drag and hurt us.” Is it the Holy Spirit that drags people and hurts them?

If we examine these practices in the light of the Scriptures we will find that the Holy Spirit never hurt the people who received the Holy Spirit. Who hurts and injures people? The answer is found in Acts 19:13-16 and Mark 5:1-5. Demons hurt people. The Jewish exorcists who claimed to be doing things in the name of Jesus were wounded and prevailed upon by a man who had an evil spirit – not by the Holy Spirit. Mark tells of a certain man who had his dwelling among the tombs. In verse five he says, “And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.” This man was cutting himself because he was possessed by the unclean spirit, not because of the Holy Spirit. Therefore no one should harm himself and blame the Spirit of Jesus.

7. The Holy Spirit was not given to make people indolent and not read the Bible. Sometimes we are faced with the problem of those people who will not reason with us by the Scriptures. They claim to have the Holy Spirit so they will not let anyone reason with them in the light of the Bible. Some even say, “No, don’t keep on memorizing verses. Just be filled with the Spirit.” These people will not search the Scriptures; they receive anything that comes to their minds.

In Acts 17:11 we have an example of noble-minded people who searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things preached by Paul were true. Paul in Ephesians 3:3-4 emphasized reading the Bible. He said that if we read we may understand the mystery that was made known to him through revelation.

Conclusion

From these seven points we can all see that the Holy Spirit is not a toy to play with. He is God. In John 16:8 the Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit was given to Jesus’ apostles for three reasons: “to convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment.” Therefore do not run after the Holy Spirit. He has accomplished his work. We now have the New Testament to follow. It is inspired by the Spirit of God. It is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, pp. 656-657
November 1, 1990

By Edward O. Bragwell, Jr.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is God’s power to salvation (Rom. 1:15-16). Yet, I am afraid that many are not willing to let it stand on its own merits. Many feel that they must give it a boost in one way or another or it won’t get the job done. I am alarmed as I think of attitudes that I see expressed and exhibited by many brethren when it comes to the spread of the gospel. Many seem to have developed some carnal attitudes toward the preaching of the gospel.

When we look at Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, we see that the root of many of the problems that Paul addressed was the carnal-mindedness of the Corinthian brethren. Instead of thinking and acting in spiritual terms they were guided and motivated by carnal minds. This carnal-mindedness manifested itself in various ways. It caused them to overlook sin in their midst (chapter 5). It caused them to attempt to settle differences between themselves by appealing to the courts of the world (chapter 6). It caused them to engage in immorality (chapter 6). It caused problems in their marriages (chapter 7). It caused them to disregard the consciences of their weaker brethren (chapters 8-10). It caused them to make a sham out of public worship and the Lord’s Supper in particular (chapter 11). It caused them to have an improper attitude toward the spiritual gifts that they possessed (chapters 12-14). It caused them not to have proper love that they should have had one for another (chapter 13). It caused them to reject the resurrection of the dead and therefore the resurrection of Christ (chapter 15). But we also see the effect of their carnal thinking in the first three chapters, in that it affected their attitude toward the preaching of the gospel. We, too, need to be careful lest we allow our attitudes toward the preaching of the gospel to be corrupted by carnal thinking.

The Personality of Preaching

First of all, let’s watch our attitude when it comes to the personality of preaching. We must be careful not to develop an improper preference of one preacher over another as the Corinthians had (1 Cor. 1:12-17; 3:4). Some preferred Paul, others Apollos and yet others Peter. Each of these men possessed qualities that would cause brethren to admire them. Paul was a great apostle and one who established many churches. Apollos was eloquent in speech with a great knowledge of the Scriptures (Acts 18:24). And Peter was a great apostle who had been very close to the Savior while he was on earth. On the other hand, each of these men had things in their lives that, if one didn’t have the right attitude, he might find reason to criticize and refuse to listen to them. Paul was not the best of speakers, considered dull by some and hard to understand at times (2 Cor. 10:10; 2 Pet. 3:15-16). Trouble seemed to follow him everywhere he went. He even spent some time in jail. Apollos once held to the baptism of John (Acts 18:25; 19:1-7). If he were so mistaken at one point, how could anyone be sure that his judgment could ever be trusted again? And Peter – just think about all the problems that Peter has had. First, he denied the Lord at a time when he was most needed. Then there was the confrontation with our beloved brother Paul when he had to be set straight (Gal. 2:11-13). Although he seems to have repented of these things, how could he ever really be trusted again? Does any of this sound familiar?

We also might develop an improper preference for a style of preaching. It is easy to let our likes or dislikes for the way a sermon is delivered or the mannerisms of a speaker prevent us from hearing the message being delivered. Never mind what is being said, if we don’t find the sermon “interesting” then we won’t listen. Let’s face it, the problem with many is that they don’t find spiritual things interesting and unless things are dressed up in some way they are not going to receive it. It reminds me of when my mother used to put ketchup on our peas to get us to eat them. Many desire flowery speech and persuasive words of man’s wisdom (2:1-5). The message to many is not as important as the way in which it is delivered. Many seem to want the fireside chatterer who spins a good story, but care less whether he ever preaches anything of substance. Brethren, when we exhibit such attitudes are we not carnal and behaving as mere men?

The Content of Preaching

Another thing that we must watch is our attitude when it comes to the content of preaching. I am afraid many have developed a desire for preaching that is after man’s wisdom (1:18-31; 2:4-16). They want to be dazzled by philosophy and psychology. As a result, Bible content has become optional in many pulpits today and this kind of preaching is applauded by so many. So we as preachers give them what they want, instead of what they really need, the pure, simple word of God. This divine word is void of worldly pizzaz and therefore uninteresting in the eyes of many. If you do get around to some real Bible teaching then they desire that the preacher give them only milk and no meat (3:1-3). Indeed, in many respects, are we not carnal and behaving as mere men?

The Promotion of Preaching

We also must be careful about our attitude when it comes to the promotion of preaching. We are quick to condemn the denominational world and our “liberal” brethren for their use of such things as social programs to promote the gospel. These we say are “carnal means.” But I have observed a disturbing trend in the last few years among those who claim to be “conservative” churches in their promotion of the gospel. I suppose that there is nothing wrong with advertising a series of Bible classes as a “seminar,” but I often wonder if that is just a ploy to make the gospel more appealing to the world and make it sound more sophisticated. The question I’m asking is what is our motive? It also bothers me to see us advertise our speakers or speakers advertise themselves by their earthly credentials (M.D., PhD., Engineer, Chemist, Biologist, etc.). Again, what is our motive? Also, I am made to wonder what our motive is when we begin in the work of the church to make appeals to the young people through special programs. (We dare not call these special programs “youth rallies” because then people will know what they really are and accuse us of being “liberal.”)

Why not let the gospel promote itself and stand on its own merits? When we decide that we must dress things up and use the promotional gimmicks of the world, then we are saying that the gospel is not sufficient to accomplish what it is intended to without our interference. Again, are we not carnal and behaving as mere men?

The Results of Preaching

Finally, we must watch our attitude, when it comes to the results of preaching. I am afraid that sometimes we may be more concerned with the result that our preaching has on the tote board than the result it has one the hearts of men i 1 wonder if we are more concerned with filling pews and keeping them filled than with filling peoples’ hearts with sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:2-4). Are we more concerned with how many we can boast of “baptizing” than whether they are truly converted to the Lord? We then shy away from any kind of preaching that might in anyway be rejected by anyone and thus possibly decrease the number of seats occupied in our building. So what happens is that we tend to judge preaching that results in large attendance as better than preaching that results in not so large attendance and that is not necessarily so. Preaching may result in dwindling attendance because the preacher is a reprobate who doesn’t practice what he preaches or because he goes out of his way to be obnoxious and offensive. This ought not to be. Preaching, however, may result in dwindling attendance because some listeners are not willing to put up with sound doctrine. On the other hand, preaching may result in large attendance because the preacher soothes everyone’s conscience with fair words and never calls for them to correct their lives. I am afraid that many churches are overflowing because some have been led to believe that following Jesus doesn’t really require any sacrifice on their part and people tend to flock to a message like that.

Let us consider what the Bible says that the result of sound preaching will be. We are told that people will be converted to the Lord (Rom. 10:14-17). Notice, I said converted, not merely gotten wet. Also, Christians will be edified (cf. Eph. 4:11ff). But we are also told that some will reject the preaching of God’s word (Lk. 8:12-14). But we are not willing to accept the possibility of this rejection. So we do whatever it takes to remove any obstacles to anyone joining with us even if it means compromising what the Bible teaches. After all, we are told, we have to “accentuate the positive, and eliminate the negative.” So we turn the religion of Jesus Christ into a religion of convenience for the sake of numbers, instead of teaching the importance of total commitment to the Lord despite the cost, the way Jesus himself taught it must be. When we put this kind of over emphasis on numbers for numbers sake, are we not carnal and behaving as mere men?

Brethren, let’s not think carnally, but soberly as God would have us to think (Rom. 8:5-6).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, pp. 661-662
November 1, 1990

By Weldon E. Warnock

Has the Lord prescribed a formula that is to be said when one is baptized? Some say “yes” and quote Matthew 28:19 for scriptural proof. The passage states, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” However, in analyzing the passage we observe that it tells us what to do, not what to say.

The American Standard Version translates the verse, “baptizing them into (emphasis mine) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The preposition translated “in” (KJV) and “into” (ASV) is from the Greek word eis. The ASV is the more correct rendition.

A footnote on Matthew 28:19 in Williams’ translation says of the preposition “into” that it “expresses transfer of relationship.” Hence, in scriptural baptism we are baptized into a relationship with the Godhead – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Arndt-Gingrich say “the one who is baptized becomes the possession of and comes under the protection of the one whose name he bears” (A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 575).

Vincent states, “Baptizing into the name has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto denoting objector purpose. . . . 2. Into denoting union or communion with, as Rom. 6:3, ‘baptized into Christ Jesus; into his death;’ i.e. we are brought by baptism into fellowship with his death” (Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 149). Foy E. Wallace said, “Into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost denote the state, or relationship, the baptized person enters. This condescension of God to put the name of the Godhead on the act of baptism imparts to the institution the importance and the solemnity of the name it bears” (Bulwarks of the Faith, Part 2, p. 28).

The “name” into which we are baptized in Matthew 28:19 is not a designation, but is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being, namely, his characteristics and attributes. Such meaning is seen in the model prayer, “Hallowed be thy name” (Matt. 6:9). A. Lukyn Williams wrote, “So being baptized into the Name of God implies being placed in subjection to and communion with God himself, admitted into covenant with him. It is to be observed that the term is ‘name,’ not ‘names,’ thus denoting the unity of the Godhead in the trinity of Persons” (Pulpit Commentary, Matthew, p. 645).

To insist that “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is to be said over a person’s head just before baptism is to treat the expression as a charm and adds another prerequisite to baptism. Admittedly, we can say what we are doing, and I generally do, but I also recognize that in so doing I am following a customary practice that is arbitrary and optional. Whether we do what Matthew 28:19 teaches is not discretionary, but whether we say it or not, is!

Brother R.L. Whiteside wrote, “Any one who reads the Bible should know that the power of life and death is not in the mouth of the administrator of baptism. . . . The one who is being baptized may be thoroughly prepared in heart to render acceptable obedience; but if the preacher does not say the right words, the baptism is useless! Can any thoughtful person believe it? It is putting as much power in the preacher as any Roman Catholic ever placed in his priest” (Reflections, pp. 244-245).

In the book of Acts baptism is “in” and “into” the name of Christ. We notice:

Acts 2:38. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” The preposition “in” is from the Greek word epi, meaning “upon; on the ground of.” Thayer comments on epi in Acts 2:38, “so as to repose your hope and confidence in his Messianic authority” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 232). Hence, Peter says to repent and be baptized on the ground of Jesus’ Messianic authority.

Acts 8:16. “. . . only they were baptized in the name of Lord Jesus.” The Greek word for “in” here is eis. It is translated “into” in many other versions. It suggests relationship. The same is true in Acts 19:5 where “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is “into the name of the Lord Jesus.” This same concept of relationship is set forth in 1 Corinthians 1:13 where Paul said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in (eis, into) the name of Paul?”

J.W. McGarvey said that “into the name of the Lord Jesus” is but an abbreviation for ‘into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts, Vol. 2, p. 151). R.L. Whiteside wrote, “This (into the name of the Lord Jesus, wew) is the same as saying that they were baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Reflections, p. 247). Obviously, when we baptize into the name of Jesus we are baptizing into the name of the Godhead.

Acts 10:48. At the household of Cornelius we read that Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Here, the preposition “in” is from the Greek word en. It denoted “in the name” or “by the authority” of the Lord.

Observe there is no uniform pattern of expression in these passages in Acts. Acts 2:38 has “in (upon) the name of Jesus Christ,” Acts 8:16 and 19:5 have “in (into) the name of the Lord Jesus,” while Acts 10:48 has “in the name of the Lord.” Therefore, when we are baptizing a person in the name of the Lord, we are baptizing him into the name or relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Parenthetically, the “Jesus only” people make Acts 2:38 a necessary formula for baptism, totally missing the point of what “in the name of Jesus Christ” means.

Actually, to be baptized “in the name of the Lord” is the authority for baptism and “into the name of the Lord Jesus” or “into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is the result of baptism.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, pp. 654-655
November 1, 1990

By Don Partain

Church A meets on Thursday night instead of on Wednesday night as most others do. Church B partakes of the Lord’s Supper on Tuesday instead of on Sunday as most others do. Both Church A and Church B are doing things not practiced by the majority of other churches of Christ. Yet, Church A does not sin in meeting on Thursday instead of on Wednesday, while Church B does indeed sin by partaking of the Lord’s Supper on Tuesday instead of on Sunday. The difference? Church A is simply using an expedient not widely practiced by other churches, while Church B is “going beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

The problem some in the brotherhood seem to have is failing to distinguish between a practice that is sinful because it is without scriptural authority and a practice that is simply an expedient that differs from what most other faithful congregations use. Church C has a singing every fourth Wednesday of the month, while Church D has a literal prayer meeting every fourth Wednesday. Church C has never been questioned for having a monthly singing night. But Church D has indeed had to defend its right to have a monthly prayer meeting. Why the difference? Because monthly singings are well established expedients, while monthly prayer meetings – though also expedients – are rarely conducted by churches of Christ anymore.

So, it would be helpful to understand just what an expedient is, and what its relation is to practices the Lord has required, whether by direct statement or command, by apostolic example, or by implication of these. Basically (and ideally), an expedient is an advantageous or profitable method of carrying out the Lord’s directions. The Lord directed us to assemble on Sunday to partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). So, each congregation examines its own situation, then determines what time of the day, on Sunday, it would be most spiritually profitable to assemble to partake of the Lord’s Supper – whether it be 6:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 6:00 p.m., etc. The time of the day is a matter of expediency. And any time of the day is scriptural, regardless of the fact that most churches partake of the Supper around 11:00 a.m.

In the same way, the Lord directed us to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in our worship to him (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). So, we must sing (not use instrumental music) and we must sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (not secular songs) in our worship. But, whether we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in unison (for example, chanting them, as many early Christians did), or in 2-part harmony (for example, having the men sing one part and the women, a harmony part), or in 4-part harmony (as most churches in our country do today), etc. is all a matter of expediency. Any style, as long as it is orderly and reverent, is acceptable – whether or not most other churches today use it. Each congregation must simply determine which style (or styles) of singing would be most spiritually advantageous for it to use.

We all recognize that several names or designations for the local church are scriptural: “the church of God at ________” (1 Cor. 1:2), “the church of Christ” (Rom.16:16), “the church of the __________ in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 1:1), “the church of the Lord” (or “the Lord’s church”) (Acts 20:28), etc. Basically, any designation that describes our ownership by God or Christ and describes our location is scriptural. Which particular designation we use is a matter of expediency; that is, each congregation must analyze its own situation and determine – without interference or pressure from outside brethren – which designation is most expedient to use.

A key point: local church expedients are primarily just that – local in nature; they are not primarily brotherhood matters. If Church A determines it is expedient to meet on Thursday night rather than on Wednesday night, outside brethren might disagree – and even discuss why they believe Wednesday night would be more expedient. However, they must not treat Church A as unsound or “going liberal” simply because it uses an expedient not used throughout the brotherhood.

Can you distinguish between a requirement and an expedient?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, p. 659
November 1, 1990