Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

In our previous article, it was pointed out that handling aright the word of truth requires that we make the proper distinction between miraculous phenomena and the permanent order which said miracles were instrumental in establishing. Examples given were the miracle of creation which brought the universe into existence, and the miracles of Christ during His personal ministry which were to prove his claim to be the Son of God (John 20:30,31). In this article we pursue the same line of thought as we discuss another miraculous phenomenon . . .

Holy Spirit Baptism

The baptism of the Holy Spirit was foretold by the prophet Joel (Acts 2:14-18). In the New Testament it was first spoken of by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11). During Jesus’ personal ministry He spoke in general terms of the coming of the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39; Luke 11:13). As the time for His crucifixion and subsequent departure from this world drew near, He was more specific with regard to the recipients of the Spirit and of the Spirit’s mission. John records Jesus as saying, “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (John 14:26). And again, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come” (John 16:12,13).

In a conversation with his apostles just prior to his ascension, Jesus said, “. . . But ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5). The context (verses 2-4) shows beyond doubt that this promise was made only to the apostles.

From the above scriptures the following salient facts are evident:

1. Jesus’ promise concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit was addressed only to the apostles.

2. The purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles was (a) To call to their remembrance the things He had taught them while with them. It would be impossible for the human mind to remember all this without supernatural help. (b) To guide them into truth yet to be revealed.

The Promise Fulfilled

The promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, fifty days after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, when “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Again the context (Acts 1:26-2:1-4) with its use of the pronouns, “they” and “them,”‘shows conclusively that it was the apostles on whom the Spirit came.

Since the stated purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the apostles was that of calling to their remembrance the things that Jesus had taught them during His personal ministry, and to guide them into truth yet to be revealed, it is thus we see that this aspect of the Spirit’s work was connected with revelation. Moreover they were to be guided not only into truth, but into all truth. This leads us to conclude that, (1) If all truth was not revealed to the apostles in the First Century of the Christian era, then the Holy Spirit failed in his mission. Or, (2) If all truth was revealed to the apostles in the First Century, that aspect of the Spirit’s work was completed and does not have to be repeated, for we have that truth today in a permanent record in that part of the Bible called the New Testament. Therefore for men today to pray for, or lay claim to the baptism of the Holy Spirit to guide them into truth is to pray for, and lay claim to something that was never promised to them.

Confirmation Of The Word

Another supernatural influence that was exerted upon the apostles was the ability to work miracles. While it is true that they worked miracles during the personal ministry of Christ (Matt. 10:8), it was after the Holy Spirit came upon them in baptismal form that “They began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 1:4). From Acts 2:43 we learn that “Many signs and wonders were done by the apostles.” And we are told in Acts 5:12, “By the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people.” Thus, up to this point, it is obvious that only the apostles were able to work miracles. These miracles were referred to by Paul as “the signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:13).

The purpose of these signs was the confirmation of the message preached by the apostles. Mark tells us that following the giving of the great commission to the apostles, “They went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed” (Mark 16:20). The writer of Hebrews asks, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his own will” (Heb. 2:3,4).

Since there were false apostles in those days (2 Cor. 11:13), it was necessary that the true apostles of Christ be identifiable. That was the purpose of the miracles wrought by the apostles. They were thus identified as apostles of Christ, and they confirmed the message they preached as being, “Not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth” (1 Cor. 2:13). They bore witness to the fact that the gospel which was preached was, “not from man . . . but by revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12).

A witness, once sworn in, in a court of law, does not need to be sworn in again. A message that has been confirmed does not have to be confirmed again and again. The New Testament message, having been confirmed by the signs and wonders wrought by the apostles, thus stands as a permanent record. The purpose of the miracles having been fulfilled, the need for them ceased. What further proof could miracles today offer that the gospel was from heaven than has already been given?

The Case Of Cornelius

Some eight or ten years after the events of Pentecost, another case of Holy Spirit baptism occurred. This was at the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert to Christianity. Up to his time the gospel had been preached only to the Jews. Because they regarded the Gentiles as unclean, the Jews had no social intercourse with them, not even to so much as eat with them. By means of a vision-a miracle-Peter was convinced that he should no longer regard the Gentiles as unclean (Acts 10:28). Moreover he was told to go to the house of Cornelius, who, in turn, had been instructed to “Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter: who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house” (Acts 11:13,14).

The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the house of Cornelius is recorded by the writer of the book of Acts in these words. “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” (Acts 10:44-46). It is thus seen that the effect of the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the house of Cornelius was to cause them to speak with tongues.

When later called to account by the Jews for going into and eating with uncircumcised Gentiles, Peter, in his defence, expounded the matter unto them in order (Acts 11:2-4). Verse fifteen records him as saying, “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them even as on us at the beginning.” The expression, “at the beginning” referred back to the baptism of the Holy Spirit experienced by the apostles on the day of Pentecost. From this we conclude that during the intervening years between Pentecost and the conversion of Cornelius no one else had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If it had been given to Christians all along, why did Peter go back to Pentecost for an example? The obvious answer is that the events of Pentecost was the only example to which he could refer.

The Purpose

But we are interested in the purpose of this miraculous event. Bearing in mind the fact that Cornelius and his house were to be saved by the words spoken by Peter, Acts 11:14, it thus becomes obvious that the baptism in the Spirit was not to save them. Nor was it to demonstrate that they had been saved, since it came before the saving words were spoken (Acts 11:15).

We can determine the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the house of Cornelius by the use that was made of it. Acts 10:47 records Peter’s asking the question, “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?” After Peter’s recital of the events as recorded in the eleventh chapter of Acts, verse eighteen says, “And when they heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying, Then unto the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.” In the light of these plain passages of Scripture is it not obvious that the baptism in the Holy Spirit at the house of Cornelius was for no other purpose than to convince the Jews that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews? Since that was the use that was made of it, that is obviously the purpose for which it was intended. That purpose having been accomplished, the miracle does not have to be repeated.

Holy Spirit Baptism And Water Baptism Compared

Since there are some who confuse Holy Spirit baptism with the water baptism of the great commission, it is pertinent to this study that we notice a few points of distinction.

1. Holy Spirit baptism was a promise. Jesus charged his apostles to “Wait for the promise of the Father . . . for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:4,5).

Water baptism, however, was a command. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). No one, however, was ever commanded to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

2. Christ was the administrator of Holy Spirit baptism. John the Baptist said of Christ, “He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire” (Matt. 3:12).

Water baptism, however, was administered by man. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:38); Ananias baptized Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:18).

3. Holy Spirit baptism conferred miraculous powers on the recipients (Acts 2:4; Acts 10:45,46).

Water baptism confers no miraculous powers (Acts 8:14-17), but does confer remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

In an article to follow we shall discuss other miraculous phenomena in the form of spiritual gifts.

Truth Magazine XXI: 40, pp. 634-636
October 13, 1977

 

William Barclay is a preacher and writer of some note in the Church of Scotland. His books should be read with discrimination, but they can be very refreshing and informative. I was impressed by his comment on the seventh beatitude. In part, here is what he said: “The blessing is on the peace-makers not necessarily on the peace-lovers. It very often happens that if a man loves peace in the wrong way, he succeeds in making trouble and not peace. We may, for instance, allow a threatening and dangerous situation to develop and our defence is that for peace’s sake we do not want to take any action. There is many a person who thinks he is loving peace, when in fact he is piling up trouble for the future, because he refuses to face the situation and to take the action which the situation demands. The peace which the bible calls blessed does not come from the evasion of issues; it comes from facing them, dealing with them and conquering them. What this beatitude demands is not the passive acceptance of things because we are afraid of the trouble of doing anything about them, but the active facing of things and the making of peace even when the way to peace is through struggle” (Daily Bible Study, Matthew, I, Westminster Press).

Everybody knows that what Mr. Barclay says here is true. Nations have lost their freedom because representatives sat around a conference table and let the smoke of a phoney peace pipe get in their eyes. We do not need to go back farther than World War II for a classic example of this. Some European statesmen wanted peace so much that they let the mad paper-hanger deceive them and the Nazi swastika became the symbol of bondage for most of Central Europe. The head of our president must rest uneasily on his pillow because his decisions may very well kindle a fire that could destroy half the world in a fortnight. I am glad I do not sit in his chair. In times like these, it must indeed be a lonely place.

The people of this nation want to live in peace. But peace has its price. Sometimes that price is high. What are we willing to pay? What risks are we prepared to take if the way to peace is through struggle? It has been said that the brave often do not live long; the fearful do not live at all.

Peace in Zion

What has been said here concerning peace is no less true as it applies to the church. Sometimes peace must come through struggle. The period of prosperity that began with the Roosevelt’s “new deal” and was accelerated by WW II created an atmosphere that has enabled the church to enjoy an economic growth unprecedented. With the economic growth came a corresponding numerical growth. Word got around that we were the fastest growing religious body in the country. I doubt that this was ever true, but it sounded good. Anyway we came from “across the tracks” out of modest church buildings into magnificent structures whose steeples and windows, in many cases, cost more money than the average church building a generation ago. Nice buildings are fine if they don’t cost too much. But the ones I am thinking about cost too much-not simply in money-but they symbolize a people who have largely forgotten who we are and what makes the church great. Money and expensive buildings didn’t do it. The greatest growth the church ever had, both in numbers and spiritual strength, was at a time when many of the leaders of the church spent a lot of their time in jails; at a time when the very name, Christian, was worth dying for. You cannot buy that with money. If you care about the church it makes your heart ache to see a once great people surrendering their glorious heritage for the fawning recognition of those who have always been enemies of the truth.

On the March

Big money attracts men with big plans. So when we began to feel our financial strength, plans began to materialize whereby money from hundreds of churches could be pooled in one treasury. This would be bigger than anything undertaken since the Missionary Society of 1849. The Missionary Society split the church. This plan would do what the society of 1849 was designed to do. So Broadway church in Lubbock became a “sponsoring church.” Money from churches throughout the country poured into the treasury of this big church. “Missionaries” were sent abroad under the “oversight of the Lubbock church.” Other things were done. A church building was erected in Frankfurt, Germany costing $190,000.00 It has since been sold or taken over by the University of Frankfurt.

Another plan made its appearance that was designed to finance a nation-wide and eventually a world-wide radio broadcast. This too would require money from hundreds of churches, perhaps thousands eventually. Protests from all over the country were heard, butthey fell on deaf ears. The church was on the march. I do not doubt that a sincere desire to save souls was a major factor in their determination to continue this program. The same was true of those who established the Missionary Society. But, whatever their motive, the Herald of Truth is nothing less than an effort to activated the church universal, and it cannot be scripturally defended. Not only that, but it has done more to split the church than any other project. Moreover it is the most overrated of all the projects. I may not get around as much as Brother Cawyer from Highland in Abilene, but I have preached in meetings in 22 states since the Herald of Truth made its debut. I have read what is said about it. I have been where it was broadcast.

Peace at any Price!

But, whether scriptural or not, I think that the Herald of Truth will continue for some time, and likely get bigger. Many people accept it without question. These would accept most anything that some “leading preachers” endorse. Others. have gone along with it, but with considerable misgivings. That is their idea of keeping peace among brethren. Still others know that it cannot be defended scripturally, but they, too, console themselves with the thought that it is better to have peace by compromise than by struggle. Let me say with Mr. Barclay: “What this beatitude demands (blessed are the peacemakers) is not the passive acceptance of things because we are afraid of the trouble of doing anything about them, but the active facing of things and the making of peace even though the making of peace is through struggle.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 40, pp. 633-634
October 13, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Unity through Pietism

Pietism is related to mystical, inward, or intangible unity. Pietism is also related historically to the Quietist movement which promoted unity on the basis of saintly character-all who manifested good character were one regardless. of religious affiliation. The Pietists spoke much of an inward rebirth resulting in fellowship within “an invisible, ‘spiritual’ Church.” So, both rebirth and unity were experienced within the individual; he was united with others who knew this inward rebirth, though he and they might follow different forms of worship. As the inwardly reborn person grew, he was moving toward inward perfection. The idea that inward perfection could be reached led many to entertain millennial hopes-i.e., when enough individuals were inwardly perfected, visible perfection and unity would appear. Philipp Jacob Spener (1635-1705) is considered the father of Pietism. His personal work centered in Frankfort-on-the-Main, Dresden, and Berlin; but from Germany, his impact reached all over Europe. Pietism spread to the Netherlands, France, and England. It had a definite influence on the early Methodist and Revival movements. Its emphasis on unity on the basis of “Christian character” is still current in many quarters.

Unity through the “Holy Spirit”

Invisible unity through the so-called “Holy Spirit” .has a long history, and certainly overlaps with mysticism. But its more modern history would include Valdimir Soloviev (1853-1900). In his Russia and the Universal Church and Story of the Antichrist, Soloviev said that the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox Churches have in Christ a unity which “transcends history,” through the Holy Spirit. Some of the frontier revivals in America promoted the concept of unity through strange experiences supposedly caused by the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostal movement of the early 1900’s gave great emphasis to certain works of the Holy Spirit such as “speaking in tongues.” In this Pentecostal movement can be seen elements of Pietism, Methodism, and Revivalism; in all these, subjectivism is prominent. Since the 1960’s, a resurgence of Pentecostal-type ideas and sentiments has occured. This is called the Neo-Pentecostal movement. It is not the old frontier or early-1900’s pentecostalism, but it shares significant features of those older movements: much subjectivism, “speaking in tongues,” and unity through some experience of the Holy Spirit.

Unity through Cooperation

An early form of this approach to unity can be seen in religious societies organized for individuals of diverse religious backgrounds. One of the most notable efforts was made by Johann August Urlsperger (1728-1806). He established the German Christian Fellowship at Basle, Switzerland. The concept caught on in England, resulting in the Bible Society and the Religious Tract Society. Beginning with the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (1810), a great host of these religious cooperation societies were formed. Through these organizations, men who would not normally do so would call upon each other to lead prayer, would combine their resources in religious work, and would even get differing denominations to contribute moral or financial support.

Unity through the “Union” Movement

Our brief notice will not do this movement justice. In the early 1900’s, the effect of industrialization, urbanization, and other social changes began to be felt more and more by rural churches. Very small towns might have several small religious groups, even two or three varieties of the same denomination. The lack of money and manpower to keep these groups going led to the Union Movement. There were men who promoted this outright, but frequently it happened “by itself.” The members of the different denominations would agree to meet in the representative meeting houses (for instance) one time per month, i.e. one week at the Methodist Church, the next at the Baptist, and so on. “Union” meeting houses were erected in some communities and the various groups would “get the building” one week in the month. A good deal of “cross-fertilization” occured this way. Perhaps this was a contributing factor to the atmosphere in which more concrete union movements have taken place; the last several decades have seen several church mergers within certain denominational lines-as a number of separate Methodist groups uniting under one name and organization.

Episcopal Plan of Unity

The Episcopal plan was proposed by William Reed Huntington (1838-1918) in 1870 and is known as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. The four planks in this plan are (1) the Bible should be recognized as the Word of God, (2) the primitive creeds such as the Nicene Creed should be used in place of more modern ones, (3) only two sacraments should be used: baptism, the Lord’s Supper; (4) “the historic episcopate” should continue to exist. At first only the Presbyterians responded in any serious way to this call, but actual union did not occur. Obviously, the emphasis on “the historic episcopate” tends to make this plan popular among Episcopalians and unpopular to others; but the plan has been discussed, debated, and modified, with some interest in it being shown, in the modern ecumenical movement.

Draw Arbitrary Lines as the Basis of Unity

Erasemus (1469-1536) reviewed the historic creeds and confessions in an effort to sort out some articles of faith “necessary for salvation” from others which might be secondary. Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614) identified the “indispensable” doctrines as being contained in the Bible and the early creeds. Seeking to reduce the ground to some essential kernal, Fausto Sozzini (15391604) proposed the Unitarian idea as the basic “saving truth.” On the other hand, Matthias Hafenreffer (15611619) affirmed that belief in the Trinity is the one necessary fundamental. Johannes Hulsemann (1602-1661) reduced the essential to the Reformation doctrine of “justification by faith.” W. Carl Ketcherside-a writer and speaker recognized mostly among Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, ‘ and Disciples of Christ-proposes “one fact, one act.” By this, he means faith in Christ and baptism; reducing the absolutely essential further, he affirms those who accept the “one fact” but have not submitted to the “one act” may still find grace in the eyes of God. In a similar vein, Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Edward Fudge seem to think that after one accepts the “one fact” and “one act,” he can be excluded from fellowship only on one of three grounds: (1) outright denial of Christ, (2) immoral conduct, (3) divisiveness. The thing which all these approaches have in common is the drawing of arbitrary lines for the determination of unity. Of course, each line drawer would deny this and claim some concept of divine authority for his lines. As already presented, it is this writer’s conviction that all the Bible reveals and binds-in faith or practice-is necessary :or grace and unity. The Bible does not submit what it reveals and binds in faith or practice to arbitrary reduction on the part of men who seek some lowest common denominator for people who do not accept what the Bible binds.

Unity through Federation

The proposal of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was a forerunner to modern federation. He suggested a common confession to reach across many lines, but did not require men, to give up their separate creeds. In this spirit, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America was formed in 1908 so that many denominations could act jointly upon their common beliefs without abolishing their separate creeds, clergies, and organizations. The next step came in 1948 with the founding of the World Council of Churches. The F.C.C. was replaced by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. in 1950. These major federated groups were dominated by “progressive” or liberal Protestantism; more “fundamentalist” Protestant groups eventually established counterpart organizations on the federal model, since they could not be comfortable in the W.C.C. and N.C.C.

Ecumenical Unity

The idea of federal union increasingly gave way to its logical extension in the later 1950’s and the 1960’s. If “Christians” in separate denominations were brethren and could co-operate, why should they belie their true inward unity by outward division in separate camps? Why not let inward unity be seen by the world through outward unity? The Consultation on Church Union began meeting in 1962, with some denominations sending serious representatives and others sending only observers. C.O.C.U. did not have the power to form one great church by inherent authority, but was to work out a plan of union which each separate denomination might approve at will. After generating much enthusiasm for a time, the C.O.C.U. approach has fallen out of favor in many quarters. The problem of truly combining, submerging, and eradicating all the separate denominational machines is mammoth! But the ecumenical spirit is just as alive as ever, perhaps more alive than ever. The ecumenical spirit today says that while we recognize we may never remove our outward separations and even doctrinal differences, still we are “one in the Lord” and can feel free to “cross over the lines” for many joint activities. Some are even affirming the Lord never intended “one big universal church” and that C.O.C.U. was a misguided effort in the first place. The real solution is seen as defining some sort of inward unity in spite of outward disunity: “Love unites, not doctrine.” “We are one in the Spirit.” “Love unites, doctrine divides.” “Free men in Christ.” C.O.C.U. is not entirely dead and the spirit of ecumenicism is aflame, so anything can still happen. Future developments will be interesting to watch. More on these Councils in weeks to come.

Restoring Bible Unity

We dare not close this article without brief mention of the efforts made in the early 1800’s to get away from all human plans and back to the divine plan of unity. Independent efforts were made in many parts of this country to clear away the accumulated rubbish of many centuries and to return to the fountain of living waters. In most cases, the men making these separate efforts did not even know of one another. There were missteps and stumblings, but they all had their eyes on one goal: the Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. They reasoned that if the ancient gospel could be restored to the lips of men in place of human creeds, then the New Testament church and original unity would have to follow. Human creeds, clergies, and churches could be deserted for the inspired Word of God, the simple priesthood of all believers, and the New Testament pattern for the church. For instance, Barton W. Stone and co-laborers in Kentucky issued the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery in 1804, and determined to be New Testament Christians only. In a sermon to a small gathering, Thomas Campbell expressed this rule of faith and practice, “Where the Scriptures speak, we will speak; where they are silent, we will be silent.” He published the Declaration and Address in 1807 elaborating upon this concept of restoring the original gospel, church, and unity.

LET US EMPHASIZE WITH ALL THE MIGHT OF OUR BEING THAT THIS WAS NOT JUST ANOTHER HUMAN PLAN. IT WAS PRECISELY THE REJECTION OF ALL HUMAN PLANS. IT WAS A RETURN TO THE BIBLE PLAN! The letters written by inspired men were meant to be preserved, read, and obeyed even after the death of those men (2 Pet. 1:13-15; 3:1-2). These letters of the love and law of God were holy scripture, written under the superintending guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:13). The things written were meant to instruct the church even to the detail of its organization (1 Tim. 3:116, esp. 15-16). This Word of God is complete and eternal (Jude 3; 1 Pet. 2:24-25). In explaining “the kingdom of God” in a parable, Jesus told of a sower sowing his seed in order to reap the harvest, then added, “the seed is the word of God.” Wherever that seed and no other is sown, God’s will is done-whether in the First, Nineteenth, or Twentieth Century. That is the restoration plea-put the original seed in the hands of the sowers. That plea is scriptural to the core!

And, now, dear reader, each one of us must choose . . . between the way of God and the ways of men. “How long halt ye between two opinions?” “Choose you this day whom ve will serve.” (To be Continued)

Truth Magazine XXI: 40, pp. 631-633
October 13, 1977

By Elam B. Huykendall

This article is based on a statement found in 2 Peter 1:1. Here Peter addresses those to whom he is writing this letter. He says of them that they had “obtained like precious faith with us.” The “us” here refers to Peter himself and the other apostles and other faithful Christians. We who have that same faith today are also included. If we are to determine the kind of faith Peter had we must notice what he says about his faith.

First of all, Peter refers to himself as “a servant . . . of Jesus Christ.” The Greek word used here means not merely one who is serving another but one who is a bond servant-one who was bought. In Acts 20:28 the writer, Luke, tells us that Paul said to the elders of the church at Ephesus, `Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Notice that the church was purchased with the precious blood of Christ. We who are Christians are bond servants of Christ because He has purchased us with His blood. This we must recognize if we are to have the “like precious faith” that Peter had.

But Peter said that he was “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” We cannot be apostles because apostles had to be eye-witnesses of Jesus (Acts 1:20-22), but we can have the “like precious faith” which they had.

It should be noticed that Peter did not call himself the chief apostle, or the head or foundation of the church. Jesus is the Apostle and High Priest. “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High’ Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus” (Heb. 3:1). “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Jesus is also the “chief Shepherd.” “And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Pet. 5:4). Jesus is also the foundation of the church. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).

Some people believe and teach that Peter is the foundation of the church, and quote Matt. 16:13-19 as proof of their teaching. Notice these verses. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Some people say that the word Peter means a rock and that when Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build my church” He meant He would build His church on Peter. The word translated Peter (Petros) does mean a stone, but “a large detached fragment” that can be moved about. It is masculine in gender. The word translated “upon this rock” (petra) is feminine in gender and means “an immovable ledge of rock.” Jesus was showing a contrast here instead of a comparison. In 1 Cor. 3:11 we read, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” With these things in mind we can see that Jesus was referring to the great fact that Peter had just confessed as the foundation upon which the church would be built – “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus is also the head of the church. “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22,23).

To have the “like precious faith” that Peter had we must believe as Peter believed, teach what Peter taught, and do as Peter did except when he sinned. His first recorded sin was that on the night of Jesus’ arrest he followed “afar off,” denied that he even knew Jesus, and even cursed and swore. This was, of course, before Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. But after Jesus was raised from the dead and established His church, Peter sinned again (see Gal. 2:11-13). But Peter repented of his sins. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Peter and the other aposltles (except John) lost their faith in Jesus when He was crucified. But their faith was revived when Jesus arose from the dead. Peter’s life and preaching indicate that he repented. Three times he confessed that he loved Jesus, and once Jesus said “feed my lambs,” twice He said, “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).

The newly begotten faith, mentioned by Peter in 1 Peter 1:3, is the same as the faith mentioned by Jude. “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Notice that in this same verse Jude mentions the “common salvation.” This is the salvation that was shared by all Christians just as was the “like precious faith.” “Common” as used here does not mean something that is low in value but that this faith and this salvation were shared by all Christians. There is not a plurality of faiths authorized by God just as there is not a plurality of Gods. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6).

Peter’s faith came by his association with Jesus, even seeing Him after His resurrection, and by direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. Our faith comes “through the righteousness of God” (2 Pet. 1:1). We are told that “All thy commandments are righteousness” (Ps. 119:172). We are also told that “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Further we are told, “So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). If we are to have the “like precious faith” we must all obtain that faith from the same source-the Word of God. There is no other way that we can obtain faith today.

The Lord has given us warnings about departing from the faith. “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teachings, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). From this verse we can see that it is just as bad to “go onward” and abide not in the teachings of Chrsit as it is to fall short of His teaching. Sometimes we hear people say, “I’d rather do something and do it wrong than to do nothing.” The folly of such a statement as this is seen in this verse. Why fall short or go beyond either one? Why not find what Christ has said and do exactly that and avoid leaving the law of Christ in either direction? After all, He has “given us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The truth is there if we will only find it.

Another warning is, “For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungoldly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Throughout the ages there have crept into the church, men who have turned the grace of God into a work of the flesh. As mentioned in the above Scripture, some men have turned “the grace of God into lasciviousness.” Webster defines lasciviousness as “That which is 1. Wanton; lewd; lustful. 2. Tending to produce lewd emotions.” Thayer, in his Greek-Lexicon of the New Testament gives this definition of the word that is translated lasciviousness: “…unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, . . .wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, isolence. . .wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc.” I do not know a better way to describe dancing than this definition of the word translated lasciviousness given by Mr. Thayer. Two parts of his definition are especially appropriate: First, “. . .unchaste handling of males and females.” This is done in the waltz and other similar types of dancing. But sometimes people say, “But in many of the modern dances this is not done.” This is where Mr. Thayer’s other definition applies-“indecent bodily movements.” Many of these modern dances are a revival of pagan fertility dances-designed expressly to stir up the passions-therefore they are indecent bodily movements. Then the definition in Webster’s dictionary indicates another danger: “Tending to produce lewd emotions.” One does not need to do things that are lustful to himself to be guilty of lasciviousness. If an individual dresses in such a way, acts in such a way, or talks in such a way that it produces lewd emotions in others, he is guilty of lasciviousness-his actions have tended to produce lewd emotions in others.

Some people claiming to be doing the Lord’s work have dances in their “fellowship halls” or elsewhere and literally “turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.” One denominational church in Texas featured a strip-tease dancer to do her act in one of their services, claiming to be doing God’s work. But others who would not think of sponsoring dances will sponsor various types of recreation that appeal solely to the physical desires. Where is the Scripture for doing this? This is one of the facets of the “social gospel” that is replacing the gospel of Christ in many places even in the Lord’s church.

If these warnings are not observed and obeyed we cannot have the “like precious faith” that Peter wrote about.

Truth Magazine XXI: 40, pp. 629-630
October 13, 1977