Truth Magazine

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

By Ronald D. Howes

Have you ever heard a contradiction like this? There is one God, but there are two GODS. Such is the Deity invented by the overwrought Watchtower imagination. Their printers turn out volumes telling the faithful that the Word, the Son of God, is a created being, and that he is not equal to his Father in Deity .

. . . the Word was in the beginning with God and verse 18 says that ‘no man hath seen God at any time,’ yet men have seen Jesus Christ. For these reasons and in full harmony with the Greek text, some translations of verse 1 read: ‘The Word was with God, and the word was divine,’ or was ‘a god’, that is the Word was a powerful godlike one. (American Translation, Smith-Goodspeed 1935, and New World Translation)-(The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p. 24).

. . . In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (Jno. 1:1The New World Translation).

“. . . he is called ‘the only begotten Son of God’, for God had no partner in bringing forth his first begotten Son. He was the first of Jehovah God’s creations.” (Let God Be True, 1946 Ed., pp. 34, 35).

The Deity of Jesus Christ is one of the clearest claims of the New Testament. Chapter upon Chapter is expended to set forth his present position in great detail. There are many avenues of proof that could be pursued, but first let us answer the question of whether or not he was the first created being. Remember now that the Witnesses claim that he is a god, and the first created being. In a text the Witnesses themselves use to justify their name, God shatters their argument. “I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” (Isa. 30:10). But the Witnesses tell us that Jesus was a god, and formed after the Father. Who are we to believe? Micah 5:2: “out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose going forth are from of old, from everlasting.” The Micah prophecy has a two-fold importance. It tells us the birthplace of the Messiah, and also informs us of his eternal pre-existence. Because his goings forth are from everlasting, we rightly infer that He is not just the a god of the Witnesses, but the Mighty God of the Bible.

No clearer argument exists for the true divinity of Christ than his description as Jehovah. Both the O.T. and the N. T. agree that Jesus is Jehovah. The Witnesses claim that only the Father wears this name, but a comparison of the facts quickly demolishes this fragile distinction. Note: 1. (Eph. 4:8) It was Jesus who ascended on high and led captivity captive. (Psalm 68:18) But, David tells us that this is Jehovah who is ascending. 2′. (Isa. 44:6) Isaiah tells us that Jehovah is the first and the last. (Rev. 1:1-3) Another prophet of God, equally as authoritative, tells us that it is Jesus who is the Alpha and the Omega. 3. Jehovah is a stone of stumbling and rock of offence. (Isa. 8:14, 22:16) Will the Witnesses admit that “that rock was Christ?” (Rom. 9:33, I Cor. 10:4) There are many other arguments we could give, but let a short list of the more common suffice: 1. Isa. 9:6-the messiah would be “mighty God.” 2. Heb. 1:8-9-Jesus is called God by the Father. 3. Colossians 2:9-In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 4. John 9:35-38, Heb. 1:6-7-on more than one occasion Jesus accepted worship; no mere glorified angelic being could get away with taking this honor to himself. 5. Gen. 1:1-In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Who? All things were made through him (Jesus).

The unfortunate thing about a study limited like this in space is that we are only able to scratch the surface on these vital topics. Volumes have been written on the various aspects of the Deity of Christ and we have just presented a few paragraphs.

The Active Force of God

Coupled with their skepticism concerning the eternal spirit of man is a rewriting of what the Bible says about the Spirit of God. We learned in section 1 of this series that the Watchtower teaches the soul or spirit of man to be something like a car battery, supplying power, but non-intelligent. Just imagine if you can, a giant car battery, and this is what they teach about the Holy Spirit: “. . . As for the ‘HOLY SPIRIT,’ the so-called third person of the Trinity, we have already seen that it is not a person, but God .’s active force” (emphasis mine-rdh). (The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p. 24).

In his Bible Class Notes on the Scheme of Redemption, Homer Hailey answers these questions for all time. This outline is an abridgement of that outline found on pg. 15 of his work.

The Personality Of The Spirit

A. He possesses the characteristics of a person:

1. Mind-Rom. 8:27

2. Knowledge-I Cor. 2:11

3. Affection-Rom. 15:30

4. Will-I Cor. 12:11

5. Goodness-Heb. 9:20

B. The things which he does manifest personality:

1. Speaks-I Tim. 4:1

2. Teaches-John 14:26

3. Guides-John 16:12-13

4. Leads and forbids-Acts 16:6-7 5. Searches-I Cor. 2:10

C. He suffers slights and injuries, an attribute of Personality.

1. Grieved and vexed-Eph. 4:30, Isa. 63:10

2. Despised-Heb. 10:29

3. Lied unto-Acts 5:3

Only a person can do or feel these things, not just some non-intelligent, dumb, active force. The Witnesses mistake on the spirit of man, has driven them to do great dishonor to the SPIRIT of God. As the third member of the Godhead, He ought to be given the respect and honor due Him, for His

work in the redemption of mankind, not just brushed off as non-intelligent force.

Summary

I wanted to reserve part of this third and last section on the “Watchtower Gospel” for a summary and to mention some other oddities about the Witnesses. Their leaders claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Now, they will not come out and admit it, but whenever pressed about differences in translation between the NWT and most other translations, as for instance on John .1:1, they will put their trust in their Elder Brothers with the Spirit of God to guide them.

They teach a dual system of premillennialism. Supposedly, when Christ returns to the earth to set up his kingdom, he is going to take away 144,000 faithful servants made up of O.T. era Jews and upper level Jehovah’s Witnesses. The rest of us not-so-fortunate, second class spiritual citizens will be confined to a blissful existence on a paradise earth.

Any Jehovah’s Witness can explain their organization to you. It is smooth running and efficient-you do not get too far up unless you are a pretty smart cookie. In addition, they refuse to serve in the armed forces, salute the flag, or vote. They will not undergo blood transfusion. These topics however, should not be made the point of discussion with Witnesses. The best possible course to pursue is to discuss the basic problems and shake their faith in their system and spirit guided brothers. Once that confidence has been shaken by such topics as the Deity of Christ and the Personality of the Spirit, go on to other subjects like Baptism and the nature of the Kingdom of God.

Can Witnesses be converted? Let’s answer it this way. If we cannot convert them, let’s make sure they cannot convert anyone else. Reports of hardline Witnesses being converted are as scarce as hen’s teeth. However, there is room for hope. Two years ago, another brother and I were able to convince a young lady not to become a Witness, and we did that with the clear teaching of John 16 on the Personality of the Holy Spirit. I remain convinced that this approach will be our most productive field of work among the Witnesses.

Let me suggest that you go out into your communities on Saturday morning when the Servants of the Watchtower are pounding doors. Make up tracts and distribute them a couple of doors ahead of the Witnesses. Expose them for what they are. Buy up space to teach in your local paper, and preach it on the radio. Who has the courage to do it? Where is the Church that will stir up the Witnesses and force them to debate or suffer oblivion? The Witnesses succeed because we do not have the fortitude to fight back.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:26, p. 7-8
May 2, 1974

By W C. Sawyer

Often we hear people say they are tired of the constant fight put up by certain preachers of the church and that we should teach more on “love.” Possibly those who criticize strong negative teaching do not understand that Christ was the strongest teacher and practitioner of “love,” yet he rebuked anyone who departed from the plan of God. He believed it was necessary to engage in controversy, and when the Pharisees tried to entangle him in his talk (Matt. 22:15-18), he exposed their hypocrisy.

Throughout the old and new Testaments there has been controversy. David challenged Goliath. Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18. Christ came to send a sword as recorded in Matt. 10:34-38. Stephen made a great stand for truth in Acts 6:8-15 which cost him his life. Paul took the enemies of Christ to task daily in the temple (Acts 17:17). We are commanded today to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). Could anyone say that those who took the enemy of Christ to task did not have “love”? When our Lord exposed error, did he have love for the souls of men? We must be sure that as we expose error that we do it because of the love for the truth and the souls of men rather than any personal feeling we may have toward an individual or group of people.

Apostasy comes so gradually that people will sometimes accept error for truth. Just recently I have attended a number of weddings in the Christian church. I am amazed at how far they have left principles that were very strong many years ago when the split came over missionary societies and instrumental music. Several times I have seen on a Friday or Saturday the Lord’s Supper served to the ones getting married, their court and the preacher. These things are done to make the service impressive. There is no place in the scripture where the Lord’s Supper was authorized to be taken except on the first day of the week.

When the Scribes and Pharisees brought accusation against the disciples of our Lord for not keeping the traditions under the Law, Christ had something to say about their hypocrisy. Verse 8 says: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.”

It is very easy to see the error of others, but I am concerned about our own. I cannot see how those who ignore the plain teaching of Christ and His word can expect God to overlook their open rebellion. While we can see the mistakes of others, let us not lose sight of our own. There are things taught and practiced in the Lord’s house today that are just as bad as the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees under the law. Christ required them to repent and turn to God. Every member of the Lord’s church must repent of every sin in order to be saved.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:26; p. 6
May 2, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Inasmuch as some of our brethren have begun to advocate “unconditional grace,” at least for certain sins of Christians, it might therefore be helpful if we pause again to discuss the characteristics of God which made necessary the death of Christ, and made provision for the “word of his grace” (Acts 20:32). There are some brethren who now are teaching that Christians somehow can receive forgiveness of “sins of ignorance,” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh” without meeting the terms of what has been called “God’s Second Law of Pardon.” These brethren simply mean that a Christian can be saved in spite of his guilt of certain sins, and without obeying God’s law of forgiveness which entails repentance, confession, and prayer. Through this means, some of our brethren are maintaining that one can be saved, even though he may have died “with sin on his soul.”

These brethren have made up their own category of sins, much like the Catholics have their “mortal” and “venial” sins. Some of our brethren therefore are concluding that if men are ignorant of the fact that institutionalism and instrumental music in worship are sinful (and hence they have neither repented of these sins, nor confessed them), they nonetheless will be admitted into heaven in spite of the fact that they died with these sins “on their soul.” What these brethren have not yet spelled out explicitly for us, but which is the inevitable consequence of their position, is that these people who die with these “sins on their soul” are going to be saved in spite of their guilt of these sins. It therefore follows that if such sinners can still have fellowship with God, both now and eternally, then they certainly should be kept in our fellowship here on earth. Brethren: Do not ever forget that this is what all this theological maneuvering is about! This is why we are hearing so much about “sins of ignorance,” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh,” and then the “imputation of the perfect righteousness” of Christ is introduced. These brethren, who are either deluded or deceiving, have not been forced to state explicitly publicly that what they are getting at is that we should be fellowshiping the liberal brethren and certain ones in the Christian Church. But this is the inherent implication of their position, and I predict will eventually be the overt pronouncements which they will draw from these minute theological differentiations which they are making.

Such brethren do the nature of God no credit. Perhaps it is done without knowing it (maybe theirs is a “sin of ignorance”), but they have most severely reflected upon the character of God. They have indicted both His holiness and His justice, as we shall later show.

God’s attributes are those inherent qualities which make God to be God. The Bible in many places speaks of the importance of us knowing God (Ps. 100:3; Heb. 8:11; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:30). Very protracted lessons could be given on the characteristics of God. However, it is not my intention now to deal with all the characteristics of God which are revealed in His Word. There are some things that can be learned about God from observing His creation (Ps. 19:1, 2; Rom. 1:20), but Paul says those traits learned from nature are limited to “his everlasting power and divinity.” The Psalmist said we can learn of the “glory” of God from observing the heavens. However, Jesus taught that the person (i.e., His characteristics) and His will can only be learned by revelation through Christ (Matt. 11:27). But when we learn of God’s characteristics from His revelation, we then will be able to understand why Christ died for our sins, and why God cannot wink at sin or pass-by unforgiven sins. The affirmation that He can do either constitutes a very serious reflection upon His infinite holiness and justice.

God’s Holiness

The Bible speaks of the infinite holiness of God (Ps. 111:9; Isa. 6:1-3; Rev. 4:7, 8). Man is commanded to be holy, even as God is holy (1 Pet. 1:15; Lev. 11:44). We may speak of holy men, but we only speak of man’s relative holiness. But God is perfect; in Him is no sin at all (Ps. 18:30; Matt. 5:48). In fact, God’s holiness is such that if He sinned, He would not be God! Sinlessness is a part of the definition of Jehovah. Paul said that God “cannot lie” (Tit. 1:1, 2). The Lord Jesus Christ is the only person in the flesh who ever lived without sin (Heb. 4:14, 15; 1 Pet. 2:21, 22). Since Jesus lived a perfect life, some of our brethren have concluded that His perfect righteousness will be credited to our account. Implicit in this position being advocated by some of our brethren is the rankest form of Calvinistic “election” (partiality). The perfect life of Christ was that which qualified Him to be a perfect sacrifice for sin. The priests of the Old Testament had to offer sacrifices first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people. But Jesus was “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). If our Lord had not lived a sinless life, He would not have been qualified to die for our sins. Instead, He would have deserved to die for His own sins. The grounds of our forgiveness is the appropriation of that which He accomplished in His death. His perfect life merely qualified Him as a perfect sacrifice.

A profound thought inheres in the statement that God is infinitely holy. It implies that God is the standard of holiness, truth, beauty, etc. The thought of the infinite holiness of God causes one to reflect upon one of the profoundest thoughts that legitimately may be called philosophical. If God is not the standard of holiness, would you mind telling me what is? If God is not the standard of holiness, then there must be some standard external to Him. On occasions I have heard even brethren ask some questions that made me cringe. On many occasions, I have heard brethren say, “But how could an infinitely holy God do a thing like this?” Such a question implies that there is some standard of holiness external to God, and to which even He must conform. If there is, will somebody please tell me what it is?

Plato had in his philosophical system a “World of Ideas” which was above his god which he called the Demiurge. I sometimes have felt that some brethren may have borrowed this concept from the Greeks. For perhaps twenty years, I have been unable to “buy” the differentiation that some brethren make between “moral” and “positive” law, which differentiation was evidently lifted from Brother Benjamin Franklin. No doubt he borrowed it from some other source. When brethren talk about “moral” and “positive” law, they usually state that “positive” law becomes law simply because God has commanded it. But they tell us that “moral” law has always been right. What made it right? Who made it right? Is not “moral law” law simply because it comports to God’s infinite holiness? And are not violations of this “moral law” sin simply because they violate and contradict God’s infinite holiness?

Some atheists are “moral” in spite of their atheism. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that will make a man moral. Moral atheists have borrowed their standard of morality, whether they wish to acknowledge it or not. Why should one not steal? Why should one not kill? Why should one not commit adultery? Many rationalizations may be given, but all of these questions have but one answer: Man should not kill, steal, or commit adultery simply because God said not to do these things. The truth of the matter is that one cannot even meaningfully use the word “ought” without implying God. This “oughtness” is what man has termed “ethics.” The philosophers call it the “categorical imperative,” or the “divine imperative.” God’s will ought to be obeyed because God is God, the eternal and infinite standard of holiness.

But the tragedy in man’s history is that he violated God’s infinite holiness; man violated God’s will. From the Garden of Eden down to this moment, the Lord Jesus Christ is the only accountable being who ever lived on earth completely without sin. Paul concluded in Romans 3, “we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin” (3:9). Man has violated God’s holiness. But God’s holiness is such that sin cannot be tolerated in His presence. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden and cut off from the presence of God. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:1, 2). It is precisely for this reason, good brethren, that God cannot admit into His eternal presence those who “die with sin on their soul,” and it matters not whether these sins are “sins of ignorance,” or “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh.” And our brethren need to be made to see that they have compromised God’s eternal and infinite holiness by advocating that He will accept into His presence persons who “die with sin on their soul.” If He will, why did He banish Adam and Eve from His presence? If some brethren could be caused to see this point, it would stop some of the theological contortions through which some are going in their effort to get some who “die with sin on their soul” saved, even though they do not repent, confess, and pray . . . even though they do not comply with God’s “Second Law of Pardon.”

God’s Justice

God’s holiness having been violated, God’s justice demanded that these violators be punished. The Bible states that “Jehovah is a God of justice” (Isa. 30:18). Indeed, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne” (Ps. 89:14). But what is “justice”? Isn’t it a little uncanny the way we bandy words about, and assume that we all understand them . . . until some fellow stops us and asks us to give a definition of the word we have used? Take the word, “justice.” What does that mean? The courts of law may take a good while in order to give a comprehensive definition of that word. But it did not take the apostle Paul very long to define “justice.” While discussing the “righteous judgment of God,” Paul said that He “will render to every man according to his work” (Rom. 2:5, 6). To the faithful who have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, God will render “eternal life.” But to those who “obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness,” God will render “wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish” (Rom. 2:7-9).

Just as God is infinitely holy, so also is He infinitely just. God will “bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecc. 12:13). Sir William Blackstone is sometimes referred to as the “Father of English Law.” Blackstone said that where there is no penalty attached for the violation of the law, there is neither respect for the law, nor for the law-giver. Parents, you had better copy that down for future and frequent reference. Every time a parent permits flagrant disregard of his law, he not only is causing his child to disrespect his law, but the child likewise will disrespect the law-giver, who in this case is the parent. The failure to extract punishment when law is disregarded is basically what causes what we may call the ills of our society. Failure to punish those who disobey law is what causes chaos in our streets, disorder in our schools, defiance in our homes, and corruption in the church.

God’s law had been violated. The penalty stated was “thou shalt die” (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). Until the death of Christ, the full penalty for sin had not been paid, for there was no adequate sin-offering. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (Heb. 10:1-4), and God could not indefinitely “wink-at” or overlook sin. Something more had to be done, or else man was hopelessly and eternally ruined. God’s justice demanded hell!

God’s Mercy

But God’s justice was tempered by His great mercy. “Justice and Mercy met and kissed in the death of Jesus.” God was rich in mercy and love (Eph. 2:4). But God’s characteristics cannot work against themselves. God cannot violate His own character. Though great in love and rich in mercy, this love and mercy would not permit those who had defiled His holiness to escape His justice. The unalterable character of God is seen in His answer to the plaintive cry of Jesus as He contemplated the cross, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). But God’s nature was such that His saving mercy could not be extended to fallen man unless the penalty was paid for man’s sin. Thus Jesus became a “propitiation” (1 Jno. 2:1, 2), a “ransom” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) for our sins.

But God’s saving grace was not unconditionally extended. There were some terms that had to be met by man. These conditions are revealed in the gospel. But we must remember that there are not only conditions to be met by the alien sinner, but there also are conditions to be met by the Christian who has sinned. Those of our brethren who would step-forth and extend God’s mercy and His clemency beyond that which He has promised had better be careful, lest they put themselves “in the place of God” (Gen. 50:19; 2 Thess. 2:1-4). The person who has not obeyed the gospel is lost, not just because he did not obey the gospel, but because he has sinned, and God’s justice will not permit Him to overlook sin. The Christian who sins, but who does not repent, confess, and pray, is lost, not just because he has not repented, confessed, and prayed, but because he has sinned! And God’s justice could not over-look sin. If it could have, then God would have let the cup of suffering pass from Jesus. But because of God’s violated holiness, and God’s justice demanding hell, God’s great mercy provided His Son, a Perfect Sacrifice for man’s sins. Thus, with the joy of man’s salvation in view, Jesus endured the cross, and despised (set at nought) the shame (Heb. 12:1, 2).

Why Did Christ Die?

The apostle Paul, in the book of Romans, addresses himself precisely to the answering of the question, “Why did Christ die?” Paul’s answer is found in Rom. 3:21-26. All had sinned (v. 23), so God “by his grace” (v. 24) sent forth Jesus “to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood” (v. 25) to show “his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime” (v. 25). God’s way of making a sinful man righteous again in His sight is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:16, 17).

But precisely, “Why did Christ die?” Paul says it was for two reasons: “that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). But God’s justice would not permit Him to be the “justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” without Jesus’ death on the cross. Remember: This is the conclusion of Paul in the Book of Romans, the book which is so badly being abused and misrepresented by some brethren who are frantically trying to figure someway to get a man saved who “dies with sin on his soul.” Without any intention to appear irreverent, let me suggest that when these brethren get this figured out, they should advise God on how they did it.

Man violated the holiness of God. God’s justice demanded Hell. But God’s mercy and love interceded and tempered His justice, and provided Heaven and the way of escape revealed in the gospel. God’s justice could not proffer forgiveness unconditionally, but some of the brethren can. If God can forgive unconditionally a Christian who “dies with sin on his soul,” would somebody please tell me why this same God could not unconditionally forgive an alien who “dies with sin on his soul”? Now if God un(‘011ditionally forgives one, but does not unconditionally forgive another, then God is a respecter of persons. But the Roman letter denies that. Paul said, “for there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11).

If God’s nature will permit Him to accept a person who “dies with sin on his soul,” “then Christ died for nought” (Gal. 2:21). Men who seek to devise by theological maneuver some way for God to accept one who “dies with sin on his soul” actually are casting the most serious kind of reflection upon the infinite holiness, and the infinite justice of God, and they thereby vitiate the atoning death of Christ.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:26, p. 3-6
May 2, 1974