Truth Magazine

By Bill Reeves

In this article we take up 2 Pet. 3:1-13, and elements. So obviously is this passage against Kings Preterist View that he labors hard to “explain it away,” as he utilizes his favorite devices: ignoring of contexts, and running different ones together as if they applied to the same thing, play-on-words, and misuse of authoritative works.

When asked at Mansfield what he did with his Preterits View in the light of 2 Pet. 3: 10, he replied: “I apply it to this passage all the way, word for word, absolutely! … Everything to be on fire, yes! When he came in his personal ministry he lit the fire.” (referring to Lk. 12:49-BHR). Lk. 12:49 represents an entirely different context. But, on 2 Pet. 3 he surrenders his “spiritualized” and “allegorized” exegesis by saying, “Yes, it has a secondary application. I have every reason to believe that some day this physical heaven and earth will melt away … because it is a type of the heaven and earth (the kingdom as of A.D. 70-BHR) that he said he would create.” King has “every reason” but he does not name any and he gives no Scripture reference, because he has none. His so-called “secondary application” is an assertion without proof. In my second article I quoted him as saying, “I dont know what the destiny of this physical world is that were living in.” Some quotes from him now will show that he “spiritualizes” 2 Peter 3: 1-13, but leaves the door open for escape by means of an invented “secondary application.”

He makes the “world” of 2 Pet. 3:6 mean “people or age,” and the “heavens … and the earth” of v. 7 mean the “Jewish world.” He says. “How did the Jewish world burn with fire? Dont get back in the flesh; stay in the spirit! Lets see the spiritual significance of these fleshly symbols. King “spiritualizes” a literal passage and calls you fleshly if you do not accept his “allegorizing.” This he does throughout his book. That is why he insists on his opposites: spiritual versus literal. It is for effect. See my first article.

“Thus, the world reserved unto fire against the Day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men (1 Pet. 3: 7) was the Jewish world . . . Fiery judgment was going to fall on Judaism. Jesus said. “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled (Luke 12:49). The fire of 2 Pet. 3:10 is no more literal than the fire of Luke 12:49. (Why, the fire of Lk. 12:49 is not literal at all! Theres no comparison! -BHR) Other passages involving symbolic fire in the destruction of Judaism are: Matt. 3:12; 13:40, 42; and 2 Thess. 1:8.” A-131

In the previous quote we see King at his old trick of running distinct contexts together. He wants “fire” symbolic in 2 Pet. 3, as it is in an entirely different context, Lk. 12:49. But the fire of 2 Pet. 3 is just as literal as the water of vv. 5, 6! We see King playing with words, as he slips in his “Jewish world,” which is nowhere to be found in 2 Pet. 3:1-13. Peter is speaking of the literal, physical heavens and earth in vv. 7, 10, just as he is back in v. 5. King sees the word “world” (kosmos) in v. 6, and then tries to make the heavens and the earth (ge) a “world, and finally the “new heavens and a new earth” (ge), v. 13, another “world,” too. On page 130 he affirms: “. . . we find three worlds in 2 Pet. 3,” and goes on to identify them as the world that perished in the days of the flood, the “Jewish world,” and the third one which was that perfect, complete something that followed “after Judaism fell.” But King can find “world” (kosmos) only once in 2 Pet. 3!

Let us see what Peter actually did say: (1) Ungodly men, who walked in their lusts (identified by this passage, by 2 Pet. 2: Iff; Jude, and 1 John, in particular, as the Gnostics), mocked the fact of Christs coming in a “day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men,” v. 1-7. (2) Their claim of uniformitarianism (v. 4) was given the lie by the fact of the Noachian flood. Gods word brought a literal, physical heaven and earth into existence. Out of chaos He brought an ordered arrangement. That ordered world (kosmos), v. 6, perished in the flood. A cataclysm destroyed that existing order of life on the earth, including the death of living creatures and the change of the earths topography, leaving a new surface and a remnant of righteous people. It was a worldwide judgment! (3) The heavens that now are and the earth represent the order of things since the flood, and are just as real and literal as the antediluvian order. These are reserved by the same Word of God for a cataclysm of fire, and this fire is just as literal as that water! (4) Three things are mentioned in connection with the “day of the Lord,” v. 10: (a) the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, (b) the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and (c) the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Now, look at Kings “thought for the literalists elements ascribed to the heavens rather than the earth? Peter said, . . . wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. (2 Peter 3: 12). It would seem more natural to speak of the elements of the earth rather than of the heavens, if the material world were the subject.” A-186, 187 Again King engages in word-trickery! Peter did not ascribe the elements to the heavens, as distinct from the earth. Peter said nothing about the “elements of heaven.” Thats Kings insinuation. See again, v. 10, the three things mentioned there. The expressions “dissolved with fervent heat,” “burned up,” “being on fire,” and “melt with fervent heat,” are used interchangeably in reference to the heavens, elements and earth.

King desperately needs some word to play on in order to get peoples minds off of a literal, fiery destruction of the material universe, and onto the destruction of Jerusalem, and for this he uses “elements.” Listen to him: “The word element in the scriptures means the rudimentary principles of religion . . . the elementary principles of the O.T., as a revelation from God, Heb. 5:12, R.V. This same word is found in Gal. 4:3,9 where it is used in reference to the rudimentary principles of the Jewish system. Since law or government is involved in the meaning of heaven, it follows that the rudiments or elements of Judaism properly belong to the region of heaven. These were the elements that would melt with fervent heat, fire being a symbol of destruction.” A- 187 “Does elements of the world in Gal. 4:3 refer to the literal heavens and earth? None would dare so affirm. Could it not have the same application in 2 Pet. 3:10? It is also found in Gal. 4:9; Col. 2:8, 10. Yes, this was the world Christ was coming to destroy.” A-42

King says that the “the word element in the scriptures means. . . ” King, does it mean that in every Scripture? Is that the only meaning of the word? You know better! Because you quote part of what Vine says and purposely omit the part against you. I shall quote all of what Vine says on the meaning of the word in the N. T.: “In the N.T. it is used. of (a) the substance of the material world, 2 Pet. 3:10,12 (King conveniently omitted this! -BHR); (b) the delusive speculations of Gentile cults (King mentions only Judaism!-BHR) and of Jewish theories, treated as elementary principles, the rudiments of the world, Col. 2:8, spoken of as, philosophy and vain deceit; these were presented as superior to faith in Christ; at Colossae the worship of angels, mentioned in ver. 18, is explicable by the supposition, held by both Jews and Gentiles (emphasis mine-BHR) in that district, that the constellations were either themselves animated heavenly beings, or were governed by them; (c) the rudimentary principles of religion, Jewish or Gentiles (King mentions nothing about Gentiles in defining “elements,”-BHR), also described as the ,rudiments of the world, Col. 2:20, and as weak and beggarly rudiments, Gal. 4:3, 9, R.V., constituting a yoke of bondage; (d) the elementary principles (the A.B.C.) of the O.T., as a revelation from God, Heb. 5:12, R.V., rudiment, lit., the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God, such as are taught to spiritual babes.” So, the reader can see how King deceitfully uses authoritative works on Greek words! The words which suit his theory he employs and conveniently leaves out all others!

Vincent, in his Word Studies in the N.T., p. 336, 337, tells us that the Greek word for “elements” is applied “to the four elements fire, air, earth, water; and in later times to the planets and signs of the zodiac. It is used in an ethical sense in other passages; as in Gal. 4:3, elements or rudiments of the world. Also of elementary teaching, such as the law, which was fitted for an earlier stage in the worlds history; and of the first principles of religious knowledge among men. In Col. 2:8, of formal ordinances. Compare Heb. 5:12. Also, commenting on 2 Pet. 3:11, he says, “The world and all herein is essentially transitory.” Commenting on v. 12, “melt,” he says, “Literal. Stronger than the word in vv. 10, 11. Not only the resolving, but the wasting away of nature.”

Thayer, in his lexicon, P. 589, says on this Greek word, as used in 2 Pet. 3: 10, “the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe.” He includes Heb. 5:12; Gal. 4:3,9, and Col. 2:8, 20 under his fourth definition: “the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles (cf. our alphabet or abc) of any art, science, or discipline.” On Gal. 4:3,9 he adds that these “elements” refer to “ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles (emphasis mine-BHR). So, Vine, Vincent, and Thayer all say the same thing about “elements,” as used in 2 Pet. 3, and not a one agrees with King. King takes one specific definition and applies it at will. This is his “long suit,” throughout the book. Truth is not served by such tactics!

Lastly we notice one more play-on-words as respects Kings teaching on 2 Pet. 3. Commenting on v. 10, “the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up,” he says, “The works that were to perish or be destroyed in the fiery judgment of that world were the works of the law. ” A- 187 He had just quoted Gal. 2: 16, because there Paul refers to the “works of the law.” Of course there is no contextual connection, but so what? (to King, that is!) Peter said nothing about works of the law of Moses; he said the earth and the works in it!

Theres the Preterist-View for you: when the Romans burned Jerusalem, 2 Pet. 3 was fulfilled! If you think that is bad, wait until you see his treatment of 1 Cor. 15, which we take up in the next article. -Rt. 3

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, pp. 7-9
February 1, 1973

By Larry Ray Hafley

The apostle Paul once ardently advocated and passionately pursued “the traditions of my fathers,” but in the grace of Christ, he could hold only to the guaranteed gospel, the revelation of Jesus Christ. All else was a perversion to be accursed (Gal. 1:6-12). But what will men, what will family and friends say if I cast aside the heirlooms of pious tradition? “For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). This constant choice confronts sincere hearts anew in every generation. A central point, therefore, looms like the shadow of a giant oak across the path of pure truth-what shall one retain of traditions both old and new? How can he decide what to accurse and what to espouse?

The Baptism Of John

The baptism of John had not always been of God, that is, it had not been part of the law and the prophets. So, John came with a new innovation. The question of whether it should be snubbed or submitted to revolved and turned on the issue of its source, hence, Jesus inquired, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” The answer to that question directs and determines ones attitude and action with respect to any teaching or tradition. It matters not whether it is a tradition of your fathers. Is it of God, or is it of men? When tile problem of source is solved concerning any belief or practice that is the end of all controversy.

Common Or Unclean

In Acts 10, Peter was commanded to raise kill, and eat all manner of beasts. Peter objected in abhorrence, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” Certain deeds, once common and unclean, have been cleansed. Peter learned that God had cleansed tile unlawful acts of keeping company or coming unto one of another nation (Acts 10:28). What dissolved and resolved the question in Peters mind? “God hath shewed me” (Acts 10:28). In no other way could Peter rightfully alter his faith and habit. Hath “God sliewed” you your course and the traditions of your fathers?

Things once common or unclean were cleansed under the New Testament order. But the reverse is equally true. Things once cleansed are now “common and unclean.” Circumcision, Sabbath keeping and mechanical instruments are examples of this. Though once authorized of God, they are no longer cleansed. “God hath shewed” us this in Galatians 5:1-4. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” And again in Colossians 2:14,16. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. . . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.”

What then prevents us today from instituting new tradition comparable to the baptism of John, or what precludes us from now cleansing things formerly held as unclean? Those are excellent questions. The answer is found in the finality and authority of the revelation of Jesus Christ. The apostles were guided into “all truth” (Jn. 16:13). The faith, tile traditions, have been “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 31. Tile Scriptures completely equip us unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16. 17), and all that is new or that differs is to be accursed and assaulted (Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Cor. 10:3-5).

Therefore. we cannot (1) account traditions instituted since tile New Testament as cleansed, nor can we (2) call things common or unclean that were cleansed in the teaching of the New Testament. Consequently, one who clings to such doctrines and deeds as infant sprinkling or baby baptism is cleaving to an unclean human tradition or teaching. Conversely, those who scoff at the New Testaments mold or pattern for the work, worship and organization of the church are guilty of calling common and unclean that which God has cleansed. Both postures, however piously they stand, must be reverently and indignantly despised and disposed of by those who love and hold the truth as it is in Jesus.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, pp. 6-7
February 1, 1973

By Roy E. Cogdill

It is amazing how little honor some brethren demonstrate in their dealing with those who disagree with them or who oppose what they want to do. Yet it should not astonish us too much when we look back at New Testament scriptures and see the same results and attitudes manifested when the truth was preached in New Testament days. It was demonstrated by the Jews in their treatment of Jesus. They either believed in Him or wanted to kill Him for opposing their traditions and plans. When Paul preached, some who were disposed to eternal life believed and others blasphemed and disputed what he taught and persecuted him. Some even wanted to kill him.

We need not be too much surprised when convictions and conscience impel us to differ with brethren and oppose them and they resent our opposition to the point of hatred, lying about and against us, and seeking any opportunity to disparage and destroy.

In the present day digression of thousands of brethren and churches over the question of institutionalism, such disposition has been demonstrated again and again. In fact, it has been so generally the attitude and practice of those who have made “idols” out of human benevolent and educational societies and intercongregational promotions that it seems sometimes to be almost unanimous. It has been said that there is no honor among thieves and we are nearly persuaded that the same is true of brethren when you stand up in opposition to what they have determined to do.

W. Curtis Porter was a gentle man in spirit and not given to violent or rash statements. You rarely provoked him to an extreme statement, but during the Porter-Woods debate at Paragould, Arkansas, where he met Woods for the second time, he said before one session, … The biggest disappointment in this whole matter to me is the fact that I have yet to find one liberal preacher who will not lie when it will serve his purpose.” I know what he meant and how he felt.

Guy N. Woods wrote a letter to a Filipino liberal preacher telling him of “The State of the Division.” The letter was published in part in the liberal Filipino paper and James Miller, in the last debate with brother Woods rebuked him for the false statements it contained. According to Woods, there were no longer any “anti” preachers who would debate him on the Herald of Truth and the “Orphan Home” question. He had been so victorious in wielding the liberal hatchet that all of us had been vanquished and had taken out and were no longer willing to defend what we believe, preach, and practice. Moreover, he represented the “antis” as dying out and dwindling away. The hope was the mother of that falsehood. No one knows this to be a falsehood better than Guy Woods, and it is not an isolated case of telling them. They have become quite common. None of us has ever refused to meet him and in the last debate I had with him, I presented more than a dozen invitations from churches located in various cities for us to repeat the debate and he refused every one of them. We were invited by both his brethren and mine to discuss the same propositions in Bellflower, California, and he refused unless I would sign other propositions than the ones we had discussed before. I replied that if he would sign an acknowledgement that he had enough of the ones we had debated; I would talk to him about trying to agree on others. I have the correspondence to verify this.

Then the self-esteemed Ruel Lemmons wrote an editorial in the Firm Foundation, which is badly miss-named, in which he related how brother Cecil Willis and I had gone to the Philippine Islands and had gone among the liberal brethren and churches, splitting the churches and deceiving the brethren, doing much harm. He described it as “butchering” the cause of Christ. Brother Lemmons was butchering the truth. There was not a word of truth in it. Brother Willis and I did not visit a single liberal congregation – not one. We did not contact a single liberal preacher. The only liberal preachers we were privileged to see were a few that came to the Mlang meeting and tried to defend their position. This the “American Missionaries” refused to do. But the facts would not keep brother Lemmons from saying what he wanted to say. I do not know his source of information, but he was not over there and could not speak of his own knowledge, so be was repeating some hear say or he was hatching it all up by himself.

He put out the statement about three years ago that the Firm Foundation Pub. Co. owned the copyright to my book, The New Testament Church. He said they had printed the first edition of the book and that when the division came along I began to print and sell the book myself in disregard of their ownership of it. According to him, they had been magnanimous enough to give me no trouble for doing so. I called his hand face to face on this falsehood in the presence of the brother to whom it had been told. I pointed out to him that I published the book first in 1938, paid for it and the binding out of my own pocket and that the Firm Foundation had nothing to do with the first edition or any subsequent edition. They have never even submitted a bid on printing it and have never been asked to do so and have no claim on it whatsoever in any way. He meekly said that George Showalter had told him what he had repeated. Isnt it amazing?

In recent issues of the paper published by the liberal brethren in the Philippines they have been consistent with the spirit of liberalism by filling their publications with falsehoods. They not only falsely accuse those of us who have been over there, but slander every faithful preacher of their own race that does not agree with them on the institutional issues. They are not courageous enough to call names but used fictitious designations – n.n.; v.v.; etc. They have learned well from the American brethren, and the way they tell it every faithful preacher in the Philippine Islands is a scoundrel morally, preaching for the money, bought to preach, etc. This kind of lying is cowardly and vicious. A man is simple who thinks he can convince intelligent people that everyone who opposes their missionary society, benevolent society, and educational society, and other innovations is a scoundrel, while all who accept and defend them are saints.

Such character assassination needs to be indulged in only by those who have no scripture for what they do. Nothing is more apparent than that those who advocate and try to defend their human benevolent and missionary societies have no scripture to stand on.

If one could prove that all on either side of the division over human institutions are vile in character, how would it establish the scripturalness of anything? Why then engage in so much dishonorable misrepresentation? Very evidently they operate on the theory, “If you cannot disprove a mans testimony, discredit the witness.” Honor in dealing with one another seems to be a forgotten principle.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, pp. 3-5
February 1, 1973

By Earl E. Robertson

James says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5)

God is the giver of all things (James 1: 17), and lie must be so recognized by his servants. The child of God who cannot feel this dependency upon God is sorely lacking. He cannot go far in the spiritual life. Like the trusting child, who realizes his limitations and wants, goes to his own parents with petitions with confidence and without embarrassment, Gods children, too, are to come boldly to the throne of God for gifts. (Heb. 4: 15,16).

James says that God gives “Liberally,” and “upbraideth” not. Jesus had taught this beforehand (Matt. 7:7). The term translated “liberally” in the King James Version is from aplos, and is defined “simply, openly, frankly, sincerely” (Thayer, p. 57). This lexicographer further said parenthetically, “Led solely by his desire to bless: All who have scripturally tried him know this to be true to the fullest! Yet, the great point of emphasis is, the beggar may ask with confidence of receiving and know that God Will not upbraid, i.e., he will not remind you later on of what he has done for you. This genitive singular participle is present active, meaning the word carries continuous action. The Lord does not reproach or disgrace us over and over by reminding us of the blessing he gave. This word is used in the New Testament about sixteen times in various forms. Other English words which translate this Greek word are: revile,” Matt. 27: 44; “suffer reproach, 1 Tim. 4: 10. These usages help us to see the import of the word in James 1:5.”

This is a good lesson for all Christians to learn. When we have had the opportunity to help others along the way, do not use this against any of them later. And, too, when the Lord forgives us, he remembers that sin “no more” Heb. 8:12). When we forgive brethren their trespasses, let us too remember them no more.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, p. 2
February 1, 1973