Aric Stickfort

• About this site

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

 What is a Church?

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

The Work of Christ

• About this site

 Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

• About this site

Is going to the doctor a sign of weak faith?

No.

Some forms of faith-healing teaching states that since God is capable of healing the body as an answer to our prayers it would be sinful or at least showing a lack of faith to go to the doctor. Such teaching is seriously flawed.

Do Christians eat healthy food and call it a lack of faith?  Of course we don’t.  We believe that a healthy diet, vitamin supplements, exercise, adequate sleep, avoidance of toxic substances such as tobacco and alcohol contribute to a long-life and disease-free lifestyle.  Why would going to the doctor be any less of a sound and healthy choice? The fact that God can and does perform miracles of healing does not mean we should always expect a miracle instead of seeking the help of individuals who possess the knowledge and skill to assist us.

If the water pump in your car breaks, do you wait for God to fix it and keep driving until the engine overheats?  No.  You get a mechanic to replace it right away.

The Bible speaks of health care in a positive light but with the knowledge that it is limited. Isaiah 1:6" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 1:6 talks about binding up wounds.  James 5:14" TARGET="_blank">James 5:14 speaks of anointing the sick with oil.  The Good Samaritan poured in oil and wine to the wounds of the man on the side of the road in Luke 10:34." TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:34.  Timothy took wine for his stomach infirmity in 1 Timothy 5:23." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:23.  Revelation 3:18" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3:18 says that the blind should anoint their eyes with eye salve.

Luke is the best-known doctor in the Bible.  His vocabulary and mention of various illnesses mentioned in his gospel show us that he was very aware of the meager technology of his day.  Although the Great Physician, Christ, was capable of healing what earthly physicians cannot, he does not condemn the use of medical treatments.

The numerous miracles that Christ performed are evidence that God can, and is willing, to heal when all humanly known remedies fail.  Mark 5:25-30" TARGET="_blank">Mark 5:25-30 is the story of a woman who spent all that she had on doctors for a bleeding disorder.  Her faith in Christ linked her to the power that was in him.

Should a believer go to the doctor?  Yes.  Should we view medical science as superior to God’s ability to heal?  No.

The elders who visit the sick man in James 5" TARGET="_blank">James 5 anoint him with oil and pray for him that he would be raised up again.  Although we have much far superior medicine available than mere olive oil, we should have the same prayerful attitude toward healing in our prayers.

The answer to the above question is from the examples of scripture.  I’ll now relate a story from a friend from Guatemala who now lives here in the United States.  One morning while living in Guatemala my friend Cupertino awoke to see his son with a severe eye infection.  Both eyes were “as red as tomatoes and swollen closed.”  A simple antibiotic treatment would likely have healed the infection.  However, Cupertino had barely enough money to feed his son, let alone visit a doctor.  He spent the day working with his hoe out in the fields.  Half of the time he worked the soil.  The other half of the day was spent in prayer beneath a nearby tree.  He poured out his heart in tears to God: 

“Lord, you know that my son is at home and very sick.  Please heal him.” 

When he arrived home, his son ran out to meet him with bright eyes. 

After immigrating to the United States, my friend had a severe case of stones in his gall bladder.  After suffering a sleepless night with severe pain, he agreed to go to the hospital. After a successful surgery, he was back at work 7 days later.  If he had been in Guatemala, he likely would have prayed, just as he did the night he was in pain.  The visit to the doctor would not have been an option, let alone surgery.  In both instances, he prayed and availed himself of the best help he had available.  The lesson is that if you have access to good health care, you should not consider it a lack of faith to take advantage of it. 

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is it scriptural to appoint Elders and Deacons in our assemblies by a system of voting amongst the brethren and sisters, the number of votes being counted up and determining the result?

Surely such a question only needs to be asked, to be answered in the negative, for what possible basis could be found for such proceedings in the Scriptures? If there be an instance or direction for such a thing in the New Testament, we do not know it, and should value the citation of chapter and verse.

The nearest approach to such a thing that could possibly be alleged would be the words of the apostles to the multitude of the disciples in Acts 6:3," TARGET="_blank">Acts 6:3, and yet even here, there is not a word about voting by the saints or even appointment by them—the word of the apostles was to the brethren: “Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”

It is to be noted that it was a question here of the appointment only of a certain kind of ministers, namely, managers of the daily distribution of monetary help to the widows in the assembly. They are usually called “deacons,” though the word is not actually used except in the substantival form, “diakonia,” in verses 1 and 4 (“ministration,” “ministry of the Word”). In verse 2 we have the verbal form, “diakonein”—to serve—(from a verb “diökein,” to pursue a course).

These seven were chosen to distribute the gifts of the saints to the needy widows, as the givers of the gifts had a right to a little part at least in looking out suitable men, to act as their almoners. But when it is a question of spiritual “deacons” (v. 4, “ministers of the Word”), such as evangelists, pastors and teachers, who are the gifts of the Risen Christ, only He, the Giver can “look out” and “appoint” such men.

As for elders, they come under a different category. They are quite distinct from deacons, it not being a question of exercising gift, in the technical sense, but of godly care, oversight, feeding and guiding the flock. In Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: Paul exhorts the elders, “Feed the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.”

We never read of a church appointing its elders, any more than of a flock appointing its shepherds. But we do read in Acts 14:20-23," TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:20-23, that when the Apostles Paul and Barnabas returned on their second visit to Lystra, Derbe, Iconium and Antioch, then and only then, “they ordained (or pointed out) elders in every church.” Why was this only on the second visit? were they not needed on the first? Surely, but it naturally took a little time for these men to come to the front, whom the Holy Ghost was fitting and calling to the work. The apostles, I take it, only recognised His work and endorsed it. In writing later to Timothy and Titus, the apostle gives the description of men called to the work of oversight or eldership. These chapters (x Tim. 3, and Titus i) form part of the sacred canon, and are to-day for the guidance of men, themselves leaders, who are to be on the look out for younger men, who are aspirants to eldership work, and encourage those who manifest the divine calling and qualification.

It seems clear, however, in all this that there is not the smallest precedent or direction for canvassing a church and registering the votes of the saints for certain men who are to take the place of “elders” and “deacons” of the church. Such a church will never fall “from its excellency,” it has already fallen. It has exchanged dependence on the Lord to give the needed gifts to His Church, for the carnal methods of a degenerate Christendom. May the Lord so encourage us all in the path of faith as that such devices of the flesh should not be so much as once named among us, as becometh saints!

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is there help when I fail in my thought life?

Failings need not produce hopelessness, for "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 4:13). Therefore, despite our failure, we have a Savior who can deliver us from sin's power. Resolving the problem through human determination or methods is inadequate. If the means is not spiritual, the result won't be spiritual.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9). Immediate confession of wrong thoughts restores communion with the Lord, which provides the strength needed to withstand temptation. Confession is not a process that strengthens our resolve; it is an immediate return to normal Christian living.

Trying to force wrong thoughts from the mind only makes the problem worse, reinforcing wrong thinking. Replace wrong thinking with right thinking. Turn to Christ. Enjoy the wonderful contrast He is to all our miserable failures.

D. Oliver

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

“BROKEN” OR “GIVEN”?

Is it right or wrong to say, as we find in some hymns, “Thy body broken”?

With us, some substitute the word “given,” on the ground that “broken” contravenes the prohibition, “A bone of Him shall not be broken.”

The expression in the said hymns is based on the A.V. of 1 Corinthians 11:24" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:24: “This is My body, which is broken for you.” Whether or not this is correct, it is difficult dogmatically to decide, but I think we are safe in refusing “given” as a substitute for “broken” in the Corinthian passage, for there is no serious manuscript authority for it, and it is only supported by three versions—the Latin Vulgate, the Egyptian and the Ethiopic, and the editor of the 4th or 5th century—_Euthalius. This reading, however, has the bulk of authority in Luke 22:19." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19. The choice then lies between “broken” and simply, “This is My body for you” (lit, the one on behalf of you), though one cannot help feeling that this sentence seems to need completing with some verb.

However, although some good authorities like Drs. Tregelles and Christopher Wordsworth, refuse to give up “broken,” which has a considerable body of weighty authority behind it, there seems still more authority for omitting. Then again there is the prohibition: “A bone of Him shall not be broken.” which some quote as conclusive against our reading, “broken,” as the verb in 1 Corinthians  11:24. It is perfectly true that the bread is broken, but surely this is not as a symbol of anything that occurred at the cross, but simply for purposes of distribution. It is the breaking of bread which stands for the communion or sharing of it by those participating. Whether again the breaking of the body, i.e. of the skin and flesh, as was undoubtedly the case at Calvary, might take place, without the unity of the body being compromised, is a question. It is the bones which matter, for they are the foundation of the bodily frame, and alone preserve its unity. I have sometimes wondered whether the prohibition as to breaking a bone of the Paschal lamb (Exododus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12)" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 9:12) did not mean that the carcase should preserve its entirety, the bones being not only unbroken, but unsevered. The flesh would be carved off, the bony frame remain intact. It seems as though nothing short of this would represent the unity of the Body of Christ symbolised by the Lamb. Our Lord’s prophetic words in Psalm 22:17," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22:17, “I may tell all my bones,” no doubt refer primarily to His physical bones, but they go further to those whom He in His omniscience even then knew as His members, and as being crucified with Him. In Psalm 34:20," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 34:20, we have the assurance, “He keepeth all His bones, not one of them is broken”— where “broken” might well bear the sense of “severed.” In the next Psalm we have the testimony of each and all of these “bones”—”All My bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto Thee, which deliverest the poor from Him that is too strong for him” (v. 10).

Our conclusion must be on the whole that while “given” is doctrinally correct (Luke 22. 19)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 22. 19), it cannot be upheld by the textual authorities of the Corinthian passage as what Paul wrote by the Spirit. As for “broken,” though well supported, it certainly has the general understanding of the prohibition of John 19:36" TARGET="_blank">John 19:36 against it, as well as the larger bulk of manuscript authority. I think we are safer then in accepting with the R.V. the version of the words in question as, “This is My body, which is for you,” though we may not be able to do so with absolute conviction.

W.H.

• About this site