Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

It would be interesting to have a complete list of all the papers published by members of the churches of Christ. Several years ago, I heard Dr. Claude Spencer, who was then Curator of the Disciples of Christ Historical Society in Nashville, say that he had counted more than 1300 papers published by men connected with the “Restoration Movement.” Recently Mission magazine published a report on 66 journals and magazines that currently are being published by members of the churches of Christ.

Would you be interested in what Mission (the most liberal journal among us) said about Truth Magazine? In a way, they complimented us; and in another way, they slurred us. Having surveyed the field of 66 religious journals now being published by the brethren, Mission then narrowed the field to seven which they called “Some Recommended Journals.” Of course, they featured the very liberal papers like Integrity, Mission, and Mission Messenger. But they suggested that if you wanted to read the other side (which some of our brethren will not do, as I propose to show in this article), then they said that Truth Magazine “is a well written and attractive weekly journal which presents rational writings by an ultra-conservative denomination of the brotherhood (it believes the Gospel Advocate to be liberal), and can be ordered from Box 403, Marion, Indiana 46952.” (Mission, January, 1974). Of course, we deny belonging to any “denomination,” either within or without “the brotherhood,” but we do admit that we are very (ultra) interested in “conserving” all the truth that God has revealed, and in following the pattern laid down in the New Testament for the kingdom of His dear Son. Let them call us what they may!

Each magazine has its own specific purpose. If a magazine does not have a stated purpose, it should have. Several of the papers listed in Mission are devoted entirely to teaching non-Christians. Some are prepared especially for Bible class teachers. Others are newspapers, others devotional in nature, and some are published to promote some special effort. Truth Magazine is published to provide a medium for Bible discussions of live issues. It is not designed with the non-Christian in mind. In fact, we actually would prefer not to sell a subscription either to or for a non-Christian. Truth Magazine is designed with mature Christians in mind. It is intended to spotlight, and then to root out incipient errors that might seek to destroy or to damage the Lord’s church. Simply stated, Truth Magazine deliberately intends to be a controversial paper. We intend to controvert every error, and to be in controversy with every purveyor of pernicious error.

Some may think we actually get some kind of sadistic pleasure out of this type of work. I wish that every brother was teaching the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that such had always been the case and always would be the case. But to expect such an Utopian world would be a tacit affirmation that the Devil has broken off militant contact with the people of God. As long as the Devil exists and his servants are at work, there will be the need for preachers and papers that will “reprove, rebuke, and exhort.” When a preacher or a paper begins to criticize that which is done or taught by others, that preacher or paper had better be prepared for the counter-attack. It is inevitable. I think it was Harry Truman who said, AIf one cannot stand the heat, he had better stay out of the kitchen.” Those of us who write for Truth Magazine have received our share of the heat. I am not disposed to whine about it, or to beg for anyone’s sympathy. Instead, we knew it was coming and we are prepared to pay the price of teaching truth and controverting error.

But I must admit that some incidents have occurred in connection with the controversy in which we recently have been engaged with some of the Gospel Guardian writers over the grace-fellowship heresy which have appalled me. Certain men who now are on the staff of the Gospel Guardian have been either teachers of error or sympathizers of those who do teach error for about ten years now. That we were going to have a sharp conflict over this Ketcherside-instigated grace-fellowship error has been evident for at least five years. Historically, I suppose we would have to give Brother Carl Ketcherside the dubious credit for creating and popularizing today the error now being taught on fellowship. But to Brother Edward Fudge must go the unseemly accolade for initiating the particular brand of error on grace among us that now is associated with the grace-fellowship heresy.

Certainly not everyone who writes for the Gospel Guardian, or even everyone who is on the staff of the Gospel Guardian, believes Brother Fudge’s Calvinistic position on the imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer. Certainly there are men on the staff of the Gospel Guardian who would oppose the renewal of fellowship with those who use the instruments in worship, and with the institutionalists. But virtually nothing from these brethren on these subjects has been heard within the pages of the Gospel Guardian. Why not, brethren? Is the door shut, so that you cannot be heard? If it is, then I would sever my relationship with such a journal. But if the door is open to you to oppose this heresy within the pages of the Gospel Guardian, that would be the most effective place to expose this error.

William Wallace

Brother Bill Wallace and I have been very close friends for many years. He is a very likable man, and most congenial ordinarily. This past week I received a letter from a close friend of mine who said I had “a head of flint.” I take it that he thinks I am a little hard-headed. In my judgment, that is not too bad a trait, if a man is right. But if a man is wrong, that trait certainly can work against his own spiritual self-interest. Brother Bill Wallace also has a slightly hard head, and he has persistently set out to defend Brother Edward Fudge, and it appears that he is willing to sink with Brother Edward Fudge. He refuses. to see what serious error Brother Fudge is advocating, and refuses to cease to try to cover-up for a false teacher. Bill’s father, Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., made it very evident thirty or forty years ago that he had as little use for a sympathizer with a premillennialist as he had for the premillennialist himself. Brother William Wallace’s chief crime in this whole matter has been his continued determination either to cover-up for, or to exonerate by his ipse dixit, a false teacher. It grieves me to see a man who has enjoyed the respect of the brotherhood to permit his influence for good to be eroded and damaged so seriously by his effort to protect a false teacher, who in all probability will go further and further into the Calvinistic error to which he has committed himself. Calvinism is a system, and it is logically impossible to accept one part of it without accepting all parts of it, unless one is willing to stop in very evident inconsistency.

One of the little petty things that really disappoints me in my brother, Bill Wallace, is his complete refusal now even to receive Truth Magazine on a complimentary basis. From his Kentucky Bible Banner days down through the days of his association with Truth Magazine, Bill Wallace again and again chided prejudiced brethren who would not even read what those who disagree with them have to say. That precisely is the unenviable position in which Brother Wallace now finds himself. In a letter dated January 16, 1974, Brother Wallace wrote me:

“Dear Cecil: We are convinced that reviews we get in the pages of Truth Magazine will continue to be unfair, inaccurate, and misrepresenting. So we are cancelling our exchange arrangement with you and taking your name off our mailing list. We request that you delete our name from the mailing list of Truth Magazine and send us no more copies. If you want to continue receiving the Gospel Guardian we would honor your subscription at the regular rate of $6.00 per year. I do hope you will honor our request and not send your paper to us anymore. Yours fraternally, William E. Wallace.”

Now, doesn’t that take the cake? When I got the letter, I breathed a deep sigh of disgust, and dutifully sent in payment for the Gospel Guardian. I want to continue to read what those brethren have to say, whether their ears are open to what we have to say or not. About a century ago, a very disgusted Isaac Errett “wrote off” David Lipscomb, and said, “I’m done with David Lipscomb.” And then Errett proceeded even deeper into the digressive quagmire. It would be interesting to know what papers are still on the Gospel Guardian exchange list. If I were a betting man, I would stake a few dollars on the chance that Mission, Gospel Advocate, Firm Foundation, Mission Messenger, Restoration Review, Integrity, and perhaps even the Christian Standard are still on the Gospel Guardian exchange list. We have opposed the Calvinistic error taught by Brother Fudge, and so those who are at the helm of the Gospel Guardian do not want to read Truth Magazine any longer, even if it is sent to them free. I must confess that this disposition and this action on their part is a very “disappointing incident” tome. Quite frankly, I had thought all the men connected with the Gospel Guardian were bigger men than that.

The brethren who own and operate the Gospel Guardian told us some time ago that they intended to turn the Guardian into a “Twentieth Century Christian-type” family journal. I guess about the easiest way to bow out of a controversy is to cease to read what your opponents have to say. It seems that I remember that not too long ago, the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation felt toward the Gospel Guardian as Editor Wallace now feels toward Truth Magazine.

Edward Fudge

Nothing Edward Fudge has taught recently, or will teach in the future, will surprise me much. For about ten years, I have known that he was a badly mixed up young man. On three different occasions, Brother Bennie Lee Fudge (Edward’s father) talked with me about his concern as to where Ed was headed. Brother “Bennie Lee” told me that he nearly knew Edward would end up in the “Ketcherside camp.” Clifton Inman told me that “Bennie Lee” expressed similar apprehensions concerning Edward’s soundness when they met at a Chicago Book-seller’s convention several years ago. Several other brethren have told me that “Bennie Lee” expressed the same apprehensions to them about Edward. So what he has taught, and will yet teach, has not surprised me much.

But his attitude and actions in this discussion have been another “disappointing incident” to me. Some months ago, Brother Fudge told us that he did not have to worry much about Paul’s injunction that the Lord’s servant should not strive, because God endowed him by nature with a peaceable spirit; with a meek and quiet spirit. His statement reminds me of a preacher I heard in Tampa while I was a student. Someone asked him, “To what do you attribute your great success as a preacher?” He replied, “I attribute my great success as a preacher to my great humility!” Digressionists, from Isaac Errett on to the present, always have tried to impress their hearers with their super spirituality. You can get a good dose of that out of nearly any issue of Mission Messenger.

Brother Fudge also has tried to leave the impression of some kind of super piety. Study a little history, brethren. Nearly every modernist begins by trying to destroy our “formality” and by trying to increase our “spirituality.” They usually end up substituting some kind of a subjective religious experience for the objective Word of God. Brother Wallace has said publicly that Brother Fudge could not endure what he (Wallace) took in Louisville in the open forum as he sought to defend Fudge, without “blowing. his cool.” And I will have to give Bill plenty of credit. There are very few who could take the severe grilling he took, in Ed’s behalf, in Louisville, without “blowing his cool.” I marveled at how well William handled himself when he was being grilled and pressured by nearly everybody in the audience. Bill went through every kind of contortion imaginable in his effort to exonerate Ed from the charge of false teaching. But he was attempting the impossible.

Cled Wallace was a favorite writer of mine. I have enjoyed reading after him, especially during the Bible Banner days (1938-1948). Brother Cled was often engaged in controversial writing. He said on one occasion that he always had to suppress a strong desire to stick a pin in G.C. Brewer (one of Wallace’s adversaries), and let a little of the air out. Brewer was one of the earliest defenders of the sponsoring church and of church support of colleges. I sometimes feel the same urge to stick a pin in some of these super pious brethren, and let a little of the air (piety?) out.

To show you that Edward Fudge is not the super-cool, super-scholar, super-pious fellow he would like everyone to think he is, let me relate to you the following incident. Ron Halbrook and some other brethren (including Steve Wolfgang) passed through Athens on Friday, February 22, 1974. They went by the CEI Store, and visited a while with Edward Fudge. As they started to leave, Edward told Ron he wanted to tell him something. Edward began by saying, AI just want you to know that your quoting those letters from our Florida College friends was the lowest, dirtiest thing I have ever seen.” This was a reference to eight brethren who wrote Ron verifying that Edward had been a Ketcherside sympathizer since his Florida College days. Edward then charged all eight of his former schoolmates with lying about him, and stated that he almost engaged him a lawyer about the matter.

Ron said that Edward then continued Ain the most abusive language (in the context of a religious discussion) I’ve ever heard or been subjected to.” Edward’s boisterousness had made a first-class “scene” of the encounter, since they were in a public place and customers were coming and going . . . and watching and listening. Edward charged that Ron had spread “damn lies” about him all over the country, and then took off “on another string of abusive adjectives . . . . ” Ron asked Edward, “Do you still believe we have fellowship in Christ with those who use instrumental music?” And Edward replied, “Don’t you believe you have fellowship with those who disagree with you on some things?” Edward’s answer constituted a “Yes” answer to Ron’s first question. Ron went on to explain the difference between matters of faith, and matters of opinion. Ron sought to show Edward that there is a difference between issues like going to movies and wearing slacks, and issues like instrumental music in the worship.

This encounter ended by Edward saying, “Well, you just go on teaching your legalistic way to heaven instead of turning to the grace of God.” Steve Wolfgang heard most of the conversation, including the “damn lies” statement, but Steve said “its still hard to believe.” Wolfgang also said that he wanted to say a couple of things himself, “but he was so taken aback at the tirade of abusive language that he couldn’t get his thoughts organized.”

Two months have passed since this encounter occurred. I had determined that if Edward apologized for his conduct and his language, I would say nothing about it. But he has let this matter stand as is for several weeks now. Some brethren have thought that Brother James Adams and I were too hard in our dealing with these matters, but we have not used such crude language as “damn lies” in dealing with it.

Brother Fudge may feel that he does not owe anyone an apology. After all, he holds very broad views about the grace of God. He thinks that the personal perfect righteousness of Christ will be unconditionally applied to the Christian at the judgment, and that this imputed righteousness will cover sins such as instrumental music and institutionalism. He, and his proteges, teach that “sins of ignorance” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh” will not damn the soul of the Christian, even though these sins are never repented of, or confessed, or prayer made for their forgiveness.

Brother Fudge may think that his explosion that brought out the “damn lies” statement was a sin that resulted from the weakness of the flesh, and therefore does not have to be corrected. Perhaps the imputed perfect personal righteousness of Christ will cover for his “damn lies” statement too. Or, perhaps Brother Fudge thinks that he was using the expression “damn lies” like the apostle Peter used “damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). But that will not work either. Brother Fudge believes that “sins of ignorance” will not “damn” one. If we have misrepresented Brother Fudge in any way, it has been inadvertent, and at the worst ours could only be a “sin of ignorance,” and no one will be damned for those sins . . . as per Brother Fudge. So it will be very interesting to see what disposition Brother Fudge makes of this incident. It does not sound as though it was his God-given “meek and quiet” spirit that was showing through on February 22, 1974.

Such an incident as this just related disappoints me. We all would like to think that we can discuss doctrinal differences without the discussion reverting to an abusive tirade. Some of Brother Fudge’s most avid defenders believe that a Christian is “always in the grace of God.” In view of Brother Fudge’s recent action, indeed it would be “a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort” (in the words of the Methodist Discipline on “faith only”) if the Christian is “always in the grace of God.” This point we will have to explore later.

Doyle Banta

Brother Doyle Banta is a well-known preacher and was recently appointed Associate Editor of the Gospel Guardian. A gospel preacher reported recently that he heard Brother Banta say that he hoped an airplane would come crashing right through the roof of my house, and he hoped it was a big one too! My, my, Brother Banta! I certainly hope that does not happen. I might add, if Brother Banta should happen to be on-board that plane as it came crashing through the roof of my house, it would have to be a great big one! (Pardon the “pun,” but Brother Banta frequently refers to himself as the “biggest preacher in the brotherhood.” He refers to his physical size, and is not immodestly appraising himself as a preacher.) How childish can grown men get? So far as I can recollect, Brother Banta and I never have had a cross word about anything. Did he really mean that he would like for a big airplane to come crashing through the roof of my house? If he did not, he should not make remarks like that. Brother Banta sounds a little like the “Sons of Thunder” referred to in Mark 3:17 who wanted to call down from heaven fire upon the heads of the Samaritans (Lk. 9:54).

My wife and children said they certainly hoped that no big plane crashed through the roof of our house, for I would probably be off in a meeting somewhere, and they would be the ones that got “racked-up.” Brother Banta, do you remember who it is who has been writing in the Gospel Guardian on “Marks of Maturity” and the fine series on “Turning Stumbling Blocks Into Stepping Stones”?

Conclusion

No doubt there are some serious doctrinal disagreements among us. Do not ever lose sight of what this controversy is about: Some of our brethren, led by Brother Edward Fudge, desperately are trying to establish some ground upon which we can fellowship the institutional brethren and perhaps a few of those who use mechanical instruments in worship. When they start off with their, “Is there anything about the Bible you do not know?”, or “Is it possible that you may be wrong on a single point?”, or “What would happen to a fellow who was thinking about his sermon and his speedometer tipped over to 56 miles per hour, and one second later he dropped dead?”, just remember that they really are not concerned about the points raised in these questions. Their real concern is to establish some rationale that will permit them to fellowship brethren in churches which support human institutions or work through sponsoring churches, and to fellowship some in the more conservative Christian Churches. And don’t you ever forget it!!!

But while we discuss these issues brethren, can’t we do without prejudice that would prevent you from even reading Truth Magazine? Can’t we do without such vulgarism as saying someone is telling “damn lies” about you? And please, Brother Banta, quit hoping that a big airplane will come crashing through my roof. Reckon God might grant your wish? Reckon you should pray that God might grant your wish?

Such an outburst as this from Brother Banta reminds me of a letter Yater Tant, former Editor of the Gospel Guardian, received perhaps twenty years ago. Some “dear” brother wrote stating that he hoped Yater “had a rapid demise, so that I will get the privilege of spitting on your (Yater’s) grave.” Yater, in good hurrior, replied, “Now hold on, little buddy. A fellow does not get a rare privilege as that so easily. You will just have to wait your turn in line.” Then Yater commented that the more dealings he had with brethren like the one who had written him, the more possible it was for him to join in their prayer that he might have a “rapid demise.”

Incidents like these that I have called “disappointing” do not really upset me. They indicate to me that these brethren are frustrated in their effort to defend what they have espoused, and are lashing out in their frustration. It would be very interesting to read my mail from the “goody goodies” who think we are the “big bad wolf” if someone in Truth Magazine should react as some have reacted among the Gospel Guardian staff. It is not too difficult to make me angry, but flailing and thrashing incidents like these just mentioned do not make me angry. Actually, I guess I am more inclined to laugh, when I should be weeping over the deeds of these distraught brethren.

Brother Banta has made some good points in his articles on “Marks of Maturity” and “Turning Stumbling Blocks Into Stepping Stones.” It would behoove us all to quit our repeated stumbling, and to mature into the likeness of Christ. Even when evil was done to Him, instead of rendering evil for evil, He returned a blessing. As we have challenged the teaching of Brother Fudge, we have not done so with any evil intention. If we have to undergo ridicule (as in (Faith Magazine), or reviling as mentioned in this article, such shall not deter us from making a sincere effort to “continue in the grace of God” (Acts 13:43), and to “speak truth,” and to rebuke error and those who teach it . . . the Good Lord being our Helper.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:27, p. 3-7
May 9, 1974

By Morris D. Norman

A controversy between brethren emerges and inevitably someone will say, “Who is right?” Or, “Which side will you take?” It is just possible that no one is right. While it is desirable to walk in agreement with all brethren (this is what God pleads for) it is not always possible. In almost every controversy, the issue will come to involve personalities, and when such is the case, it is a strong person who does not, in some way, manifest an ugly attitude. When personalities and attitudes are inserted, they often becloud the issue and we “line up “with people. More than “Who is right, “we ought to be concerned about “What is right.”

We should be concerned for brethren in every controversy. Often we find ourselves on opposing sides to dear friends, or a dear brother is “attacked” because of his position on an issue. In either case we must try to be objective in our study so as to determine where truth is. We ought never to ‘line up” with any brother or paper but with the truth.

We should never be obligated to defend any man. We are urged to “contend earnestly for the faith”(Dude 3); to be “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17); and “strive together for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27). We are obligated to ‘preach the word . . . reprove, rebuke, exhort” (2 Tim. 4:1, 2). We are to be on guard against departures from the truth (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 4:1). As we fulfill this we will find brethren in error. As we oppose error we will see the necessity of opposing brethren who hold error. Even then, as we oppose our brethren, it must be for no other purpose than exaltation of truth. When Paul found it necessary to withstand Peter, it was because Peter’s actions were sinful, opposed to the truth of the gospel, and he had great influence among saints to draw certain ones away after him (Gal. 2:11-14).

Spiritual brethren are to restore erring brethren in the spirit of meekness (Gal. 6:1). The servant of Christ is not to strive, but teach with gentleness, meekness and patience (2 Tim. 2:24-2fi). But, “them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (I Tim. 5:20). Often we may be able to defend and teach truth and oppose error without dealing in personalities. This seems to be the case of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. He severely rebuked the false teachers at Corinth, describing and opposing their false doctrine without naming them. On other occasions it may be impossible, for we find Paul and John naming those who were subverting truth. It takes great wisdom to determine when brethren in error must be named and opposed, but when the time comes it must be done for the triumph of truth.

So as controversies arise among brethren over issues that are divisive and concern error, let each of us be set for the defense of truth, study as objectively as possible so as to determine “what is right,” not so much as “who is right. ” If this means we must part company with dear friends, then let it be, for only truth will triumph. If dear friends must be rebuked for error, let us not attack the one who does the rebuking (unless his attitude is wrong, then rebuke him for improper attitude) but rather exhort the gainsayer because of your love for him. Follow no man wherein he does not follow truth. Brethren, this is important and basic. Pray God for wisdom to apply it correctly. The soul you save may be your own; be objective to truth.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:27, p. 2
May 9, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

Early in 1970 there was a formal congressional seminar called the “Congressional Conference on War and National Responsibility.” The transcript of those talks was recently included in a book called War Crimes and the American Conscience (Ed. by Erwin Knoll and Judith N. McFadden. N.Y., Holt (1970). In this extremely interesting book were two revealing illustrations. At the end of World War II an effort was made by the allies to “Denazify” the German people. This effort included massive efforts to educate the German people about what they and their government had done. The theory was that a Germany ignorant of it’s history would be condemned to repeat it. The allies tried to make the German people aware of Nazi war crimes and German guilt. “The effort was a failure. Our propagandists found that it is almost impossible to induce people to think about something that they prefer to forget. With few exceptions, Germans interviewed during the Denazification campaign stood at a far emotional distance from the Nazi crimes, feeling personally and morally uninvolved and unconcerned, or they denied the facts, or they projected guilt on others, or they rationalized and justified the atrocities, or they simultaneously engaged in several or all of these mental maneuvers, little inhibited by logical consistency” (p. 120).

During W.W. II, as General George Patton pushed his troops deep into German territory, Aushwitz, the infamous Jewish Death Camp, was overrun. General Patton was shocked by what he saw, and enraged by the indifference of the German civilians that lived about the camp. In anger and frustration he forced all the civilians to walk through the camp. Only one man reacted, or expressed personal guilt: He hanged himself.

Christians in America are both human and very much American. Though it would be desirable that the majority of the people of God have a different moral outlook, and a more sensitive spirit of righteousness than those that are in the grips of Satan, this does not always seem to be the case. In conversation with different Christians throughout the U.S. I have been met with almost total indifference to such American atrocities as the destruction of American aboriginees at Wounded Knee, in Kansas, Wyoming, and Arizona, the interment and execution of the Nisea population after the outbreak of W. W. II. This same indifference is exhibited for contemporary atrocity in Viet Nam: The slaughter of over two hundred old men, women, children, and infants in My Lai, the indiscriminate destruction of My Khe 4 with the murder of at least a hundred civilians. Few Americans, and fewer Christians are familiar with the villages of Ben Suc or Son My, the provinces of Quang Ngai and Quang Tin, and the indiscriminate genocide of the civilians in those areas by American troops.

After returning from Viet Nam in 1969, a year and several months before the My Lai atrocities were publicly known by Americans, I made several efforts to tell Christians of the wide spread atrocity that I had witnessed in that country. The reaction of the brethren was the same as the German people – “morally un-involved and unconcerned.” The almost universal response was, “Even if what you say is true, what does it have to do with me?” In our efforts to avoid the abuses of the “Social Gospel” we have in many instances, gone too far in the other direction. Some brethren are so “Otherworldly” that the wanton destruction of hundreds of innocent people by our “boys,” and tacitly authorized by our government, will not even elicit a response of surprise. As one preacher in Florida said, “You have to expect that sort of thing in war.” One Christian, in fact, was not only unconcerned, but went so far as to say, “They had it coming. That is the only thing those orientals understand: Force.”

The gospel of Jesus Christ does not teach social indifference. Quite the contrary, Christians are the only leavening influence this world has. “Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13). Our first responsibility as Christians are to God and his righteousness (Matt. 6:33). If our loved ones, friends, family, or nation are in conflict with God’s righteousness we must still remain faithful to God even if our lives are forfeited (Matt. 10:34-39; Acts 4:19, 20). We must speak out and take a stand against all evil, lest God count us as accomplices of those that do evil (2 Jno. 11; Tit. 2:12, 15). Looking to and hastening the coming of the day of judgment (2 Pet. 3:11, 12) does not mean withdrawing all contact with this world or ceasing to attempt to influence it (1 Cor. 5:20). On the contrary, recognizing our place in the world, the paucity of time, and realizing that we have the only real answers to the world’s problems we must spend what time we have left “warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom” (Col. 1:28).

Our prayers are the only prayers that are answered by God, “For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers” (1 Pet. 3:12). Paul commanded that “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:1, 2). Without our active, concerned influence in this world through a forthright condemnation of all evil, a steadfast stance for right, and our prayers of love for this sin sick world, we will fail in our cause.

Jesus did not strike out at the murderer Herod with a sword, but with a stinging rebuke, “Go tell ye that fox . . .” Paul did not take up the sword or the bomb, but raised his voice against those in power that would do evil (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29). We look with disgust at the religious leaders and people in Nazi Germany, because their righteousness did not outweigh their sense of patriotism and self-preservation. How will History and the Lord judge his people in America? Geographical and political boundaries do not absolve the Christian from making a moral decision according to the Word.

My prayer for God’s people is not that they will view the world and their part in it with indifference and complacency, but with a sense of purpose for right, and outrage at that which is evil.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:26, p. 12-13
May 2, 1974

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

Introduction

Many things have been said in regard to the character of the apostle Peter. Such epithets as “impetuous,” “brash,” “impulsive,” “tempestuous,” “aggressive,” and so on, have been uttered with respect to Peter and his manner. Perhaps, however, the one term that fits him most properly is the term human. It has been observed that “the character of Peter is one of the most vividly drawn and charming in the New Testament …. His sheer humanness has made him one of the most beloved and winsome members of the apostolic band.1

There is much in Peter that endears him to one. His eagerness and aggressiveness at once command one’s attention; yet it is these very attributes that foster the inconsistencies of Peter’s behavior. Guided by quick impulse rather than logical reasoning, Peter was a man of action not a passive bystander. In his boldness he manifests the overwhelming self-confidence which made him an unconscious leader of the troupe which the Lord had appointed to be His apostles. Indeed it is significant that in the listings of the twelve Peter is always named first (cf. Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-16; Mt. 10:2-4; Acts 1:13-14). Thus, Peter was naturally the unofficial spokesman of the group when Jesus directed pertinent questions to His chosen messengers.

All these facts simply point out that the incidents and circumstances in which one finds Peter are natural outgrowths of Peter’s strong character traits; but this is yet another way to reiterate that Peter was human. One can identify with him more than any other apostle or evangelist in the New Testament. Paul, in all his accomplishments and eventful journeys, seems at times superhuman. Of what may be known of the other apostles there is little which might give one a true picture of their personalities. Consequently, the life of Peter serves as a stirring chronicle of the triumph of determined faith and love for the Lord over an unbalanced impetuosity and zeal.

As John records the first meeting of the Lord and His future disciple, one finds Jesus addressed him thus, “Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas;” John then adds a significant parenthetical explanation, “which is by interpretation, Peter,” meaning “rock or stone.” At this point Peter was far from being as stable and steadfast as a rock-but the Lord knows how to transform men for His service; “He (Christ) managed the tumultuous and fluctuating elements of his (Peter’s) character as a perfect rider does a high nettled horse. He transformed a nature as unstable as water into the consistency of a rock.” 2

In a sense, the life of Peter is an essay on the growth and maturation of the Christian. The story of Peter and his work as an apostle parallels the stormy life of every Christian whose faith is tried and tested. What the Lord worked in Peter can be worked in the life of every man who commits his life to the obedience of his Lord and Master. The purpose of this article will be to examine certain incidents in the life of Peter and determine their contribution to the development of the strong faith and hope he evidenced in his two epistles. Such incidents no doubt left indelible impressions upon the mind of one like Peter and thus their influences cannot be underestimated. It is thus affirmed that through the study of Peter and his evolution from an impulsive, vacillating disciple to an humble, mature Christian one may find greater strength and determination to serve the Master.

Peter and Faith

Peter addresses his second epistle “to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us . . . . ” His thoughts in the remainder of the paragraph (vss. 2-11) reflect the inward maturity and growth that the apostle had experienced through his life. Peter realized that a mature faith does not develop overnight, but rather in the patience of a life lived in obedience to Christ. In view of the “precious and exceeding great promises” that God has granted to His people, Peter exhorts those of “like precious” faith to add in all diligence virtue to their faith and “in virtue knowledge; and in knowledge self-control; and in self-control patience; and in patience godliness; and in godliness brotherly kindness; and in brotherly kindness love.” Thus, Peter realized the diligence required in strengthening and maintaining a mature faith, “Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble . . . .”

However, the strong faith Peter manifests in this second epistle was not always characteristic of his personality. Early in his discipleship, Peter’s impulsive devotion led him into innumerable situations which revealed his true deficiency of faith. In Mt. 14, we find the disciples adrift upon the sea during a strong wind. Their Master then began to walk out to them upon the sea at the fourth watch. When Jesus identified himself, impetuous Peter answered, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee upon the waters.” As Jesus beckoned him, Peter began his walk upon the water only to become afraid midway through his trek; at this point he began to sink and called out, “Lord, save me.” As Jesus took hold of him, He rebuked Peter, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” As the babe in Christ who struggles in his weak faith to please the Lord, Peter did not possess the mature faith required to finish his walk on the sea.

In this example, one may see the importance of exhorting and encouraging those who are not yet able to claim a strong, mature faith. Like Peter, such Christians need to be nurtured and admonished to the end that they may “grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15).

Peter and the Sense of Sin

Throughout Peter’s two epistles there is a manifestation of a profound sense of sin and the need for redemption. Peter knew what sin was, as he himself, through the weakness of the flesh, fell victim to the beguiling of Satan. In Luke 5:8, Peter, after witnessing the wonderful draught of fishes, fell at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Peter’s own awareness of sin and the necessity of salvation from that sin became more acute in his subsequent denial of the Lord. In Mark 14, the gospel writer records the utter repudiation of the Lord which Peter exhibited, even to the point of cursing and swearing. Here is boastful, exuberant Peter who earlier had told Jesus, “Although all be offended, yet will not I . . . . If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee” (Mk. 14:29,21), now denying Him. However, as the cock crew, Peter remembered the words of his Lord and went out and wept bitterly-he realized the grievous nature of his sin.

Consequently, there is no one better equipped to speak of the need or the preciousness of redemption than Peter. In essence, there is very little difference between the sin of Judas and the sin of Peter; the subsequent actions of the two men, however, illustrate the two possible roads one may travel: Peter repented, Judas did not. Against his background, Peter may well speak of the glorious nature of redemption, “knowing that ye were redeemed, not with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18, 19).

Much is made of the conversion of Paul and its traumatic effect upon him, but who may know the weight of sin better than Peter? Who may discuss forgiveness with more understanding than he who himself asked the Lord, “how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times?” (Mt. 18:29) It is thus shown that the apostle Peter was well acquainted with the destructive power of sin and the sweet salvation Christ wrought with His blood. This awareness helped to increase Peter’s faith and commitment to the Lord as it may well serve those who heed Peter’s words.

Peter and the Foundation of the Church

For centuries, Rome has laid claim to Peter as the first Pope in lieu of Mt. 16:18. Peter, they would contend, is the “rock” upon which Christ built His church, Peter was the foundation! Consequently, millions of Roman Catholics throughout the history of their apostasy have put their faith in no less than a “stable, tried stone” as impulsive, impetuous Peter! Peter was well aware of his limitations and himself put aside this absurd fallacy in the second chapter of his first epistle: ‘. . . unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Because it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame. For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; and, A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed” (1 Pet. 2:4-8). Peter’s faith was not grounded in the stability of any man- for he realized that there is only one true foundation of the church, “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Thus, the Christian who desires a strong faith, a firmly maturing faith places his trust in the true rock, namely Christ Jesus!

Peter and Humility

Peter exhorted his readers to “gird themselves with humility” (1 Pet. 5:5). He no doubt recalled the unforgettable lesson of humility which Jesus had taught them as recorded in John 13: ‘Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God, riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel, and girded himself. Then he poureth water into the basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded …. So when he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and sat down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me, Teacher, and, Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye also should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord; neither one that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them “(Jn. 13:3-5; 12-17). At this time neither Peter nor the other disciples fully understood the implication of Christ’s example; but later, upon mature reflection, Peter would realize the humility necessary to obedient faith. “Yea all of you gird yourselves with humility, to serve one another: for God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:5-6). Such is the humble attitude of submissiveness that breeds a maturing, ever-increasing faith.

Peter and the Sufferings of Christ with the Glories That Should Follow

Peter informs his readers that he was an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 5:1). Peter was there; he saw the pain, the humiliation, the agony of the forsaken Son of God. Such an experience would be forever etched in the mind of the apostle. His cognizance of the suffering of Christ for the sins of mankind led him to an ever-deepening, ever increasing appreciation of His sacrifice. Peter could not but strengthen his faith in his recollection: “For this is acceptable, if for conscience toward God a man endureth griefs, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye sin, and are buffeted for it, ye shall take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed” (1 Pet. 2:19-24). Upon the basis of this testimony, the reader may yet increase his own faith, but this is only one side of the canvas which Peter is painting. Peter speaks of the prophets who spoke “beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them” (1 Pet. 1:11). Peter saw more than the humiliation and apparent defeat of the Messiah-he also witnessed the transfiguration! Peter’s mature faith was not predicated upon a morbid contemplation of Christ’s sufferings, but rather a strong trust in God’s approval of His Son, Jesus: “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom 1 am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount” (2 Pet. 1:16-18).

Even in the transfiguration, however, the Son of God had not complete glory. The resurrection of the dead Savior confirmed His testimony, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Yes, Peter had seen His glory at the transfiguration and had witnessed the sufferings of his Master at the cross, but the crowning, faith-building incident that was the culmination of the Messiah’s part in the scheme of redemption was the resurrection.

What unforgettable memories Peter must have had concerning this stupefying event that changed the course of mankind! The angel that spoke to Mary made special mention of Peter who no doubt felt as an outcast for his betrayal (Mk. 16:7). When Peter heard that his Master’s body was missing, he and John ran to the tomb exuberantly; while John remained outside and carefully stooped to look in, Peter boisterously ran into the tomb to see for himself (Jn. 20:3-10). Characteristically, the Lord appeared first to Peter (Lk. 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5) before any of the other disciples. Thus, Peter had a vivid treasure house of memories from which to paint the complete picture of the Master and His work.

In pondering the things he had seen and heard, Peter grew in faith; in relating these things to others in sermons and epistles, he evokes a maturing faith in those who would believe: “. . . but insomuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s .sufferings, rejoice; that at the revelation of his glory also ye may rejoice with exceeding joy. If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye; because the Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God resteth upon you” (I Pet. 4:13, 14). As with Peter, the maturing faith of a Christian will ultimately enable him to be “a partaker of the glory to be revealed” (1 Pet. 5:1).

Peter and Civil Government

Part of the devotion of a Christian is to learn to accept and obey authority. A mature faith leads one to obey and submit whenever the edict of a man to whom one is bound does not conflict with the law of God. To this end, Peter exhorted his readers who faced a severe, “fiery” trial to be subject to civil government: “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s .sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well. For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free. and not using your freedom for a cloak of tvvckedness. but as bondservants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (I Pet. 2:13-I 7).

The principles which Peter pronounces here he learned by no less a source than his Lord and Master! Matthew records in his gospel the incident at Capernaum in which Peter was asked by the publicans whether his Master paid the temple tax. After replying in the affirmative, Peter returns to his Lord for the half-Shekel: ‘And when he came into the house. Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from ,strangers? And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him. Therefore the sons are free. But, lest we cause them to stumble. go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee “(Mt. 17:25-27).

Who had more right to disobey the civil and religious law concerning the temple tax than Jesus, whose Father owned the temple? Yet, Jesus would not disobey these authorities that no one should stumble. It is for the Christian “to do well” to fight against “the ignorance of foolish men.” To Peter, the mature, steadfast faith worked the very principle his Master had taught in His own life.

Conclusion

The early discipleship of the apostle Peter is filled with the sins and mistakes of judgment and reasoning which characterize all those who are born again into God’s family. Babes in Christ do not magically attain to a full realization and appreciation of God’s will; it is only through subsequent diligence in study, the full commitment of the heart to God, and a humble, submissive acquiesence to His will whereby one may obtain a mature faith.

Peter knew the trials of faith, the profound severity of sin, and the dire need of salvation; he found his security in a deep abiding faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ on the cross, the foundation of His church being His own claim to deity. Peter’s mature faith manifested itself in humble submission to God and man. He could be sympathetic, yet firm to the erring child, for he had known sin, “and the God of all grace, who called you unto His eternal glory in Christ, after that ye have suffered a little while, shall himself perfect, establish, strengthen you” (1 Pet. 5:10).

In the evening of his life, Peter could write to his brethren in Christ, then and now, and exhort them to a mature faith centered solely in Christ, that through obedience to the truth, the proof of their faith, “being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by fire, may be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:7).

Footnotes

1. D.F. Hiebart, “Simon Peter,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1967), p. 642.

2. W.S. Mc Birnie, The Search for the 12 Apostles (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1973). p. 45.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:26, p. 9-12
May 2, 1974