Overreactions to Calvinism
Kerry Duke

Extremes beget extremes.  This trend appears in politics, in philosophy, and in religion.  A reaction easily becomes an overreaction, and it often does so without our intending it or realizing it to be such.  When we oppose a false view, we can quickly become so focused on refuting the error that we make statements that are intended to give a death blow to the falsehood but which may contain subtle seeds of implication of error themselves.  Or we may in combatting error so emphasize the truth being denied that we tend to emphasize it to the neglect of other equally or even more important issues.  We may also coin phrases and expressions that become pat and fixed but at the same time unexamined answers.  Sometimes we go too far in refuting error, then a later generation, unfamiliar with the pressures that gave rise to the conflict, takes that position even further.  The trend continues until people critically examine the whole dispute and challenge the overreaction.

The American frontier in pre Civil War days was full of trials.  The Restoration Movement in this country faced great obstacles.  One of its most formidable foes was Calvinism.  Calvinism then was closer to the original teaching of Calvin than the diluted Calvinism scattered throughout much of American Protestant religion today.  Many of the pioneer gospel preachers fought this doctrine with their heart and soul.  They hated the theological system which taught that babies are born in sin, that God and not man chooses who will go to heaven or hell, and that God is the author of every human act, good or evil.  These preachers were godly men.  Their work in debating and preaching against Calvinism was tireless.  We are indebted to them and we should regard them highly.  But they were men.  They were uninspired, imperfect men liable to mistakes in reasoning and in expression as well as in action.  They did well in refuting Calvinism, but their arguments against it sometimes went farther than what the Scriptures actually teach.

Calvin's doctrine of election was strong in the 1700s and 1800s in America.  This doctrine states that all men are not created equal, but God has ordained some to eternal life and some to eternal damnation.  God makes this choice, Calvin said, for reasons only He knows.  Thus Calvin taught that man can do nothing to be saved.  He cannot even believe by a decision of his own; God must do this for him.  This decision about the elect has been set from eternity.  Gospel preachers fought this view, citing Scriptures which teach that God wants all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4; II Pet. 3:9).  But they made a mistake in trying to refute this doctrine.  That mistake was assuming that Calvin's doctrine of election was based upon God's unlimited foreknowledge of the future.  These preachers thought that if they could disprove the idea of the unlimited foreknowledge of God, they would thereby disprove Calvin's idea of election.  They asserted that if God knows what man will do in the future, then man is not free, but is only acting out what God knows he will do anyway.  Thinking that the removal of this idea would be the death of the doctrine of election, they proceeded to set forth arguments denying that God knows everything in the future.  These arguments are repeated to this day even in discussions having nothing to do with Calvinism.

The denial of God's absolute foreknowledge was thus born out of a controversy that occurred generations ago.  This view is an overreaction.  Just because a person does not understand how God can know future acts without causing them to happen does not mean He is unable to do so.  God foreknows what man will freely choose to do in the future.  We do not understand such knowledge.  We are in time and God is outside of time.  We have to wait and see what will happen in the future, but God already knows.  Yet His knowledge of the future no more takes away free will than His knowledge of the past does. The Bible shows that God knows the future, and there is neither need nor justification for limiting this knowledge.  Even more regrettable is the fact that the whole attack on divine foreknowledge to refute Calvinistic election was a waste of time and effort.  Calvin never said that election was based on God's foreknowledge.  In fact, he said the reverse is the case:  God foreknows because He elects; He does not elect because He foreknows.  He explicitly denied that foreknowledge was logically prior to election.  But once arguments against divine foreknowledge were perceived as powerful arguments against Calvinistic election, they gained momentum and found a place in teaching on the topic that has survived to this day.

Calvin's view of providence was also widespread.  According to this doctrine, everything that happens, good or bad, is the work of God.  Loyal Calvinists taught that every calamity and every fortune is an act of God.  When a man does good, God is doing it; when a man does evil, God is doing it.  Calvin's view of God was one of a God in total control of everything that happens.  Calvinists then and now call this the sovereignty of God. Calvinists say that God does not  merely permit all things good and bad to happen; He causes them.

It is true that God sometimes sends misfortunes as well as blessings.  But Restoration preachers knew that God is not the cause of all adversity.  They knew that time and chance happen to all (Ecc. 9:11).  They taught that tragedy is not always sent by God as punishment for sin (Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-3).  Some of these preachers had been taught Calvinism and had even preached it themselves at one time.  But they could not live with themselves and hold this doctrine.  American life was fraught with dangers and trials.  Many of these preachers experienced disease and death in their families.  The idea that God was behind every one of these heartaches was a burden too heavy to bear.  Besides, the belief that God causes the drunk and the thief to commit sin was ludicrous.  The more their resentment toward Calvin's view of providence burned, the more fiercely they preached against it.

Somehow this opposition to Calvin's view of providence eventually paved the way for an extreme view of providence.  Brethren began to analyze God's operations in the world and gradually explained everything that occurs in terms of natural law.  Calvin said God caused everything to happen without exception.  Preachers said in response that God only works through natural laws.  Whatever happens in this life happens because we either respect or violate those laws.  If we act in accord with the laws of nature, we will be blessed by them.  If we violate those laws, we will be cursed by them.  The providence of God was thus reduced to God merely sustaining these observable and regular principles of the creation.  The universe according to this view is fixed and static in its operations.  God in this belief does nothing more than provide the energy to maintain these operations.  Ironically, this reasoning amounts to physical predestination, as contrasted with Calvin's spiritual predestination. This view denied Calvinism, but it also denied Scripture.  If all that happens is nature's observable and predictable response to our actions, then why should we pray to God?  If God does nothing but sustain the observable laws of nature, then there is no point in asking Him to do anything, since what nature does is all that will be done.  Our petitions to God become nothing more than acknowledgments of what happens anyway whether we pray or not.  Though the preachers of this thinking may have prayed earnestly in spite of it, the fact remains that this view of providence really denies the need to pray.

When we add to this historical overreaction the current retreat from Pentecostalism, it is no wonder that brethren are hesitant to believe that God really does anything in answer to prayer.  It is sad that the only teaching that some brethren have ever received on the subject of providence is "God works through natural laws" and "God doesn't work miracles today."  Brethren have been taught so much about what God doesn't do today that they have little belief or expectation that He does anything in answer to their prayers.  Pentecostals interpret everything that happens to them as a sign from God or a miracle; brethren run to the opposite extreme and say God really does nothing.  Thankfully, they continue to pray such prayers as that God will help the preacher to remember what he has prepared to say.  When a brother prays this in a prayer before the sermon, can God answer this prayer?  When He does, He must do something to the preacher.  There is no way around this.  This help comes from something in addition to the Bible, since the preacher normally does not pick up his Bible and study it for a few more minutes after this prayer is uttered.  "But God answered the prayer through the laws of nature."  Let the one who makes this response explain what he means.  If he means by the laws of nature the observable processes of nature, then let him point to the one responsible for helping the preacher to remember his lesson.  If he cannot, then let him acknowledge that God works in a hidden way to answer prayer. This working of God is not Calvinism.  It is not Pentecostalism.  It is the providence of God.  Brethren have become so afraid of Pentecostalism that they are afraid to mention that God might do anything in the world today!

Of course we should not make knowledge claims about what God does in providence.  If providence is God working behind the scenes; then we should not talk as if we are behind the curtains with Him.  The best we can do is to say with Paul "perhaps" (Philem. 15) or with Mordecai "who knoweth" (Est. 4:14).  We should pray to God with all of our soul and then leave the answer of the prayer to Him.  But if we believe in our minds as we pray that God does nothing except maintain the laws of nature, how fervent will our prayers be?  Could this be the reason for the dead, lifeless praying in some congregations?  Could it be that some brethren have been paralyzed in regard to their praying because they fear that once they admit God really does something to answer a prayer, then they may slip into the thinking that God does anything, even perform miracles?

This extreme view of providence has given the liberal wing of the church an excuse to rebel.  It has given fodder to their attacks.  They have pointed to the cold, lifeless prayers and worship in some congregations.  They wrongly blame this condition on the corrective and firm doctrinal stance held to by the same people who effectively deny providence.  Their actions are unjustified and their depiction of the problem  may be exaggerated.  But there is truth in their charge that some members of the church of Christ are sound in doctrine but dead in their spiritual life, and some of this deadness is due to an extreme view of how God works in the world.  Brethren have thus swung back and forth over the last two centuries from Calvinism, Pentecostalism, and liberalism on the one hand to an extreme form of deism on the other.

Another overreaction to Calvinism originated in response to Calvin's view of illumination.  Calvin taught that because man is born in sin, he has no capacity of his own to comprehend or to obey divine truth.  He said that the only way for this spiritual blindness to be removed is for the Holy Spirit to remove the blindfold of sin and impart faith and spiritual life.  According to Calvin, a person cannot believe on his own in response to the gospel; the Holy Spirit must create faith in his heart.  The sinner has no choice in this.  No matter how much he reads the Bible, he cannot be saved unless the Spirit regenerates him.  Denominational churches in Restoration days were full of this teaching.  Sinners looked to the mourner's bench and preachers looked for a call from God instead of searching the Scriptures and being content with what God said.  These churches and their preachers in particular taught conversion as an experience one has instead of a learned and volitional process based on Scripture.

Restoration preachers denounced this idea of "getting religion."  They emphasized that conversion comes when one obeys the Word.  Salvation is a matter of learning, believing, and doing the will of God, not of receiving a vague feeling supposedly caused by the Holy Spirit.  These pioneer preachers emphasized the Word in the conviction of a sinner.   Eventually brethren sought to show the difference between the Scriptures and the Calvinistic doctrine of illumination by drawing the line as sharply as possible with expressions such as "separate and apart from the Word" and "direct operation of the Holy Spirit."  Such phrases were especially useful in debates.  They served a purpose in this setting, but when those statements began to be lifted out of their historical context and applied universally, problems arose.  Thus in the latter part of the 1960's brethren entered a fierce debate over whether the Holy Spirit "personally" dwells in the Christian.  Both sides agreed that the issue was not over a miraculous activity of the Spirit.  Both sides agreed  it was not a matter of fellowship.  But some were alarmed at the suggestion of a personal indwelling because it implied Spirit-to-spirit contact, yes, a direct "contact" of the Holy Spirit and the human spirit.  Part of this alarm was due to the impression left upon the minds of brethren by the phrase "direct operation of the Holy Spirit."  Brethren who disagreed on the issue continued to work together until recent years.  Now the issue has been resurrected, and the controversy is so bogged down at some points semantically that onlooking brethren are confused and disinterested.  Part of the semantical problem lies in the expression "the direct operation of the Holy Spirit."  The same is true with the phrase "separate and apart from the Word of God."  If we take this expression without qualification, then a person can never know anything about right and wrong or be motivated in any way other than through the Bible.  But a man can know that homosexuality is wrong because it is against nature even if he has no Bible (Rom. 1:26-27).  And what about incentives to do good?  A man who almost loses his life in a car wreck opens his eyes and begins to search the Scriptures.  Who would deny that the tragedy moved him?  Who would be so bold and foolish as to say that God cannot bring about tragic events to cause sinners to think about eternity?  God never saves a man separate and apart from the Word (Rom. 10:17), but to say God never acts to motivate men in any way other than the Scriptures is ludicrous.

There is an extreme form of deism in the church that is partly the result of  overreacting to false teachings generations ago.  But we must be sensible in responding to this overreaction lest we overreact ourselves.  We can give so much time and attention to an issue that we leave the impression that it is the most important of issues, when we know it is not.  We can so emphasize that God does work in the world that we fail to teach brethren about their responsibilities.  There is only one way to maintain a level head about this: keep your head in the Bible and teach the whole counsel of God.

Editorial

Michael Light, Assistant Editor of Contending For The Faith, sets forth the writings of Z. T. Sweeney about what the Word of God accomplishes.  He agrees with Sweeney and so does David Brown who is the editor of Contending For The Faith.   At least both of these men gave endorsement to Sweeney's work.  We agree with the material written by Sweeney but we do not agree with the idea that God does not work in providence and prayer.  I want to ask these brethren to answer some questions based on the material published by Sweeney which they gave endorsement to.  I shall quote from their material in Contending For The Faith, February, 2004, issue and number my work exactly the same as theirs.  The material they gave has to do with what the Holy Spirit does.  I shall quote it word for word from Contending For The Faith and then give my comments and questions.

1. He might give us faith.  But through the Word He does that (Rom. 10:17).  My comments:  Is it Scriptural for me to pray that God will give me strong faith after I have studied the Bible?  Can I pray, "help thou mine unbelief" (Mk. 9:24) after I know Bible teaching?  If not, then what someone needs to do is hand me a Bible and say study more.  Should I pray for God to help me believe the Bible?  Should we pray this in the assembly of the saints?  What about it brethren Light and Brown?
2. He might enable us to enjoy a new birth.  But through the Word He does that (I Pet. 1:23).  My comments:  Can I pray for God to help sinners find out about the new birth?  Should I pray for missionaries?  Should Christians pray for the lost of earth?  Does God answer this prayer and does He use providence in doing so at times?  What about it brethren Light and Brown?
3. He might give us light.  But through the Word He does that (Psa. 119:130).  My comments:  Can I pray for preachers to do a good job preaching and to remember what they have prepared to say?  Will God and does God answer this prayer? What about it brethren Light and Brown?
4. He might give us wisdom.  But through the Word he does that (II Tim. 3:14; Psa. 19:7).  My comments:  So we should not pray for wisdom even though the Bible says we should (James 1:5-7)?  If wisdom is only accomplished by studying the Bible, then we should read the Bible and not pray for it.  What good would prayer be if this is the only way that God gives us wisdom?  Should we pray for wisdom brethren Light and Brown?  I have asked God to help me through some trouble--some times when I did not know where to turn nor what to do.  According to brethren Light and Brown I should have taken the Bible in hand and read more.
5. He might convert us.  But He does that through the Word (Psa.19:7) My     comments: Should we pray for lost sinners to be converted? Does God help this to take place in some way and somehow other than through the Bible?  Tell us, brethren Brown and Light.
6. He might open our eyes.  But He does that through the Word (Psa. 6.  He might open our eyes.  But He does that through the Word (Psa. 19:8).  My comments: Can Christians pray for God to open their eyes that they might see the light of the gospel?  Does God do this in some way and somehow outside the Bible?  Please tell us brethren Light and Brown.
7. He might give us understanding.  But He does that through the Word (Psa. 119:104).  My comments:  Should Christians pray for God to help them understand the Bible?  We often pray for God to help us understand the Bible where I worship.  Should we stop doing this?  Does God answer this prayer outside the Bible?  Tell us brethren Light and Brown because we are eager to know.
8. He might quicken us.  But He does that through the Word (Psa. 119:50).  My comments:  Can we pray for God to make us alive in the work of the church, in converting the lost, in living for the Lord, etc?  Does God answer this prayer outside the Bible?  Tell us brethren Brown and Light.
9. He might save us.  But He does that through the Word (James 1:21).  My comments:  Can Christians pray for sinners to hear and obey the gospel?  Should they pray this prayer?  Does God answer this prayer in some way?  Tell us brethren Light and Brown.
10. He might sanctify us.  But He does that through the Word (John 17:17).  My comments: Should we pray for God to help us be sanctified and will He help us to be sanctified outside of what the Bible does--can God work providentially to bring this about?  Tell us, brethren Brown and Light.
11. He might purify us.  But He does that through the Word (I Pet. 1:22).  My comments:  Is it right to pray that sinners might be purified?  Is it right to pray that God will help us save as many sinners as we can?  Will He answer this prayer?  Should we pray this prayer?  Should we pray for world missions?  Should we pray that the church will be evangelistic?  Does God answer this prayer in any way or is it totally a matter of the Bible and the Bible only?  Tell us brethren Light and Brown.
12. He might cleanse us.  But that He does through the Word (John 15:3).  My comments: Is it right for Christians to pray that every sinner will be saved by obedience to the gospel that can be saved?  Is it right for Christians to pray that God will help us stay cleansed?  Will God answer this prayer?  Is this prayer any good?  Does it have any power in it?  Tell us, brethren Light and Brown.
13. He might make us free from sin.  But He does this through the Word (Rom. 6:17-18).  My comments: Is it right for Christians to pray that sinners will be saved in obedience to the gospel?  Does this have any bearing on God and what God will do?  Tell us, brethren Light and Brown.
14. He might impart a divine nature.  But He does this through the Word (II Pet. 1:4).  My comments:  Can we pray to God to help us to have the divine nature?  Does He help us to do so along with the Bible or is it the Bible and the Bible only?  If it is the Bible only, then what good is a prayer asking God to help us have the divine nature? Tell us, brethren Light and Brown.
15. He might fit us for glory.  But He does that through the Word (Acts 20:32).  My comments:  Should we pray that God will help us become fit for eternal glory?  Can God help us to do so and does He do this along with the Bible?  Is it only through the Bible's influence and it alone that God does this for the Christian?  If so, then why pray to God to help us become fit for eternal glory?  Please tell us, brethren Light and Brown.
16. He might strengthen us.  But He does that through the Word (Psa. 119:28).  My comments:  Can and should the Christian pray for God to strengthen Him in living the Christian life?  Should we pray for people to have strength when in trials and tribulations?  Many of us have prayed for folks in the hospital to be strengthened during some terrible sickness or disease.  Should we do so and does any good come from such?  Tell us, brethren Light and Brown.

These brethren say they believe in providence and prayer but do they really?  I believe this material I have answered shows they do not believe in providence and prayer.  They make the Bible the sole answer to all of God working in the affairs of men and this is raw deism.  The reason these brethren have landed where they are, relative to prayer and providence is because they do not want to allow me and others the opportunity to believe in the non-miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  You see, if we allow God working through the Holy Spirit in prayer and providence, then why such a rejection of the Holy Spirit working with a Christian?  These Word only brethren want to allow for God working through the Holy Spirit in prayer and providence but they do not want the Holy Spirit anywhere around the Christian.  Why such feverish disposition to oppose the Holy Spirit working with the Christian?  They have run all the way from Pentecostalism to deism and some are going to see the day they wished they had not done so.

Thank You, Brethren
Malcolm L. Hill

I want to say thanks to many brethren from across the country both north and south, east and west for your encouraging words and statements about the writing I have done on prayer and providence and the small amount of work done on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  I think it a small matter to labor and toil as to how the Holy Spirit works with the Christian.  I cannot explain this and I know of no person that can explain it.  So why create trouble over something we cannot explain to start with?

One thing that does bring great concern to my heart is prayer and providence.  If we remove God's work in prayer and providence, we are left with ice cold deism.  Who on earth could live happily and with great courage thinking God is off out yonder and has nothing to do with the Christian and the affairs of men?  Which one of us has not received great strength and courage from Romans 8:28?  In our journeys for the Lord we have all claimed the promise, "Lo, I will be with you always" (Matt. 28:20).  In time of turmoil and heartache we have remembered, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" (Heb. 13:5).

My wife and I have lived almost 36 years with a daughter that I believe was born with diabetes.  We found out about her diabetic condition when she was six months old.  She almost died at that time but we prayed earnestly for God to let her live if it was His will.  He did let her live and I am convinced that the prayers of faithful Christians brought her through (James 5:13-18).  Thank God for such Christians and thank God for answering the prayers of Christians.

Our daughter, Tammi, has gone through some hard times.  She has lost her left eye and also lost her kidneys.  She almost left this world a couple of times while she was on dialysis.  But thanks be to God that He heard our prayers and the prayers of hundreds of Christians around the world and across the nation.  Did God work in some way with the doctors and through providence to let her live until this good time?  Sure He did, and I am ever ready to give Him the praise and glory.  Tammi has had a kidney transplant and a pancreas transplant and is doing fine at the present.  She is not a diabetic anymore, thanks be to the Good Lord.

During all the trouble we have had we could not have made it without God's providence and His answering prayer.  My wife and I have spent many sleepless nights with Tammi but through it all we knew God was with us.  My heart is so heavy with thanksgiving as I write this material that tears swell up in my eyes.  I know the Lord has been with us and helped us through it all.

Let us never take away God's providence and His answering prayer.  None of us can afford a loss like this.

Prayer and the Christian
Ronald D. Gilbert

Just about every great Bible character we read about in God's Word was a person of prayer.  Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our perfect example, spent much time in prayer and taught his disciples to pray (Matt. 6:5-15; Matt. 26:36-46; John 17:20-26; I Thess. 5:17; James 5:16).  We, no doubt, miss out on many spiritual blessings because we do not ask our Father (Matt. 7:7-8; James 4:2; I John 5:14, 15).

Perhaps some in an effort to combat Pentecostal ideas in regard to prayer have swung to a Deism position.  One dictionary of philosophy defines Deism, "By many writers the term covers the view that God has no immediate relation with the world; God indeed is responsible for the world but for reasons unknown or conjectured God has no commerce with it; accordingly, the supplications and hopes of men are illusory and fruitless..."

Has God just wound up the world and He sits by watching and what will be, will be?  Does He operate through natural laws only?  Or, is there such a thing as God working in providence today?  We know from I Corinthians 13 and other passages that the age of miracles has ceased.  The apostles who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit were able to lay hands on men and impart spiritual gifts (Acts 8:15-17; Acts 19:6).  Men cannot work miracles today.  What is the difference between a Bible miracle and the providence of God?  A miracle was something that could be seen and known that it was performed.  Providence, however, is God working behind the scenes.  Does God work today in providence in answering our prayers?  If so, how does He work?

Some take the view that God only works through natural laws today.  Consider David Lipscomb's statement from Questions Answered in writing on Providence, Special and General, page 518.

"The Bible draws no distinction between special and general providence, as these terms are usually understood.  There is no such idea as that God changes or interferes with the operation of the laws he has put in force to punish or bless man in any special case.  The general provision is that all the laws of God work to the end of blessing all that are in harmony with them and destroying those who violate them.   The idea of a special providence outside of the general laws of God arises from a failure to see that God's laws are perfect in their operations and meet all possible contingencies that arise to punish and to bless without the intervention of special laws or interferences.  If there are special interferences and manisfestations of power to bless or to punish, it must be because the general law fails to reach such cases..."

If I am understanding what brother Lipscomb wrote, he was saying that God operates today in providence only by natural laws He has put in place.  Would not such a view today, if believed and followed, lead men not to pray?  If the sick are going to recover whether we pray or not, why should we pray?  James 5:16 tells us "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."  Does Daniel 4:17... "that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men..."  have any application to today or was it true only during the Old Testament?

Does Psalm 75:6-7 "For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south.  But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another," have any application today?  For many years Christians prayed that changes might occur in the former Soviet Union so that the gospel could be preached there.  Did natural laws bring this about or could it have been through God's providential care? Are miracles being worked today?  No.  Are the following prayers scriptural to pray?

1. For safety as we travel
2. For doctors as they perform surgery
3. That elders might lead the church in truth
4. That we might elect a president that will work to bring the nation back to the Bible
5. That laws might be put in place to overthrow abortion and gay marriages
6. That God will help us to find good and honest hearts so we can teach and convert them
7. That God will bless and protect our troops in war

Some have taken the position that if God does anything outside of natural law then it is a miracle.  Are those the only two options, natural law or miracle?  Could there not be a third answer and that is that God through His providence is active in the kingdoms of men and the lives of Christians today?

Christians should see from God's Word that there is power in prayer.  We need more Christians spending more time in prayer to the God who is the supreme Ruler of this universe.

Providence and Prayer
Glenn B. Ramsey

In a recent article I set forth my firm convictions concerning the work of the Holy Spirit in teaching and converting sinners and in helping and instructing Christians in the Way of Life.  As long as I can remember I have believed that the Holy Spirit does act in conversion and sanctification, but that He does this through His Word, and only through His Word, the inspired Scriptures, the Bible.

Is this "all" the Holy Spirit does today?  And since the Holy Spirit is a part of the Godhead, and since Christ and the Father comprise, along with the Holy Spirit, this Godhead, does this mean that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit act in other matters "only" through the Word?

If it is the case that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit act only through the Word, today, (in matters other than conversion and sanctification) then how does God answer prayers?  Indeed, how does God cause things to "work together for good" to those who love Him?  (See Romans 8:28).

If God (and this usage of the name "God" includes God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit), cannot respond to man's needs except through the Word that has been revealed through the Holy Spirit, then there is no use in praying because God has just left us to our own devices--and the fervent prayer of a "righteous man" actually does not avail! (See James 5:16).  So when we are in desperate need of help with spiritual or physical ills, we should just go back and read the Word some more!

There would be no need to pray for the sick, since, as some imply, the sick are only helped through natural means and God has set these things in order and does not produce an effect on them in any way now!

There would be no need to pray for wisdom because all one needs is the Word of God and any wisdom that he obtains must come from that Word of knowledge!  Is this what some folks believe?

There would be no need to pray for the Gospel preachers and teachers to be strong in the Lord.  All they shoul be doing is just studying more!  And we could not pray that they study more, but just insist that they study more!

Does this mean that God, in order to help us through answering our prayers or acting to bless us providentially, must perform a miracle (a miracle is an event that contravenes natural law)?  Of course not!  Who believes otherwise?

Disfellowship
Malcolm L. Hill

We believe firmly in Bible discipline even to the point of disfellowship.  It is obvious that many churches of Christ have not restored church discipline as found in the New Testament.  Church discipline is taught very plainly in the Bible (See I Cor. 5:1-11; Rom. 16:17-18; II Thess 3:6, 14-15).

A troubling thing to us is that some who believe in church discipline get things out of order and they are mixed up.  For an example, some believe that schools have a right to disfellowship false brethren.  While I am opposed to false brethren it is not the business of Tennessee Bible College to withdraw fellowship in a formal way from false teachers.  While I believe we must not use false teachers and condone them, at the same time Tennessee Bible College has no Bible right to serve as a review Board and withdraw fellowship as a congregation should and can do.

Withdrawing fellowship is left up to each congregation.  Churches have no right to withdraw fellowship from members of another congregation.  If it is the responsibility of elders to shepherd the flock of another congregation, then they must be held accountable for all the members of the church everywhere throughout the world and who can accept this?  Now, elders have the right to mark false teachers and false brethren (Rom. 16: 17-18) as they see fit to do but there is a difference in this and trying to oversee the worldwide church of Christ.