Truth Magazine

By Fanning Yater Tant

The morning sun was just beginning to drive darkness from the eastern skies when the ringing telephone brought me awake. The message was brief: “Roy died of a massive heart attack about midnight last night.” That was all that could be said at the time. But it was enough to flood my heart and mind with memories of the great and good man whose earthly life had now come to a close.

I recalled the first time I had ever met Roy Cogdill. I was visiting in the home of my uncle, Dr. Tolbert Fanning Yater, in Cleburne, Texas. It was during the Christmas holidays, 1930. Cogdill had just recently come to preach for the Central church of Christ. Although he was still in his early twenties, his name was already widely known as an extremely talented and effective gospel preacher. I was anxious to meet him. From the reputation he had acquired, I had assumed him to be at least middle-aged, or perhaps even past that mark. When I knocked on the door (only a block or two from the Yater home), a slender, blond girl answered the knock. I supposed she was the preacher’s daughter, and asked, “Is your father home?” She replied, “My father doesn’t live here, but would you like to meet my husband?” (Roy often told me I had made a life-long friend of Lorraine by the very first words I ever spoke to her!)

Little did I dream then that I was destined one day to become a fellow-worker and business associate with the man whom I met. Our contacts through the 1930’s were infrequent; but when he moved to Lufkin, Texas, in 1945 and organized the Cogdill Publishing Company, we began an association and a strong friendship which continued through the years. In 1947 1 became editor of Ancient Landmarks, a monthly journal published by the Cogdill Publishing Company. Two years later, at the urging of both Cogdill and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., I took over the editorship of The Gospel Guardian, and continued in that capacity for the next twenty-two years.

These were the troubled years during which the Lord’s church was dividing over “institutionalism”-in reality the same basic problem which a hundred years earlier had divided the church over the “missionary societies.” Roy Cogdill stood unflinchingly in the forefront of this battle “contending earnestly for the faith.” His role in the division this time was much the same as that played by Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb in the earlier battle. He became the target of an unbelievable torrent of abuse, slander, and vilification. To read the things written about him during those years, one could almost believe that Satan himself might have taken lessons from him in villainy and depravity. None of this moved him. He was simply incapable of compromise, evasion, or subterfuge when a principle of truth was involved. He was blunt, direct, and could be abrasive in opposing the teachings and projects of those who, in his judgment, were leading the church into denominationalism. His commitment to the Savior and to the church so dominated his life that no ties of friendship, or even family, could sway him from the course he believed to be right.

Yet this hard-nosed, uncompromising aspect of his character was only one facet of a very strong and sensitive man. I went to hear him preach in Florence, Alabama, some time in the late fifties, and when we were alone he asked me, “Yater, do you ever cry?” I replied, “Only rarely perhaps at the death of a family member or some very dear friend.” To which he responded, “Well, sometimes I get so heart-sick and depressed over what is happening to the church that I will get Lorraine in the car, drive way back into the ‘big piney’ woods of east Texas, lay my head in her lap, and cry like a three-year-old child!”

This was a side of Roy Cogdill which few people ever saw-or would believe! I have often thought of this when I recall the words of Fitz-Greene Halleck which he wrote on the death of his friend, Joseph Drake:

Green be the turf above thee,

Friend of my better days!

None knew thee but to love thee,

Nor named thee but to praise.

I would certainly have to revise the last line of that quatrain, but the, first part of it is profoundly true-those people who were privileged really to know Roy Cogdill, his strength, his compassion, his sensitivity, were bound to him by ties that were unbelievably strong. He, himself, was capable of strong emotions, and he evoked powerful loyalties among those who were close to him-and equally strong (and often bitter) opposition among those who clashed with him.

I went with him once to Tyler, Texas, for a confrontation with Otis Gatewood. (Gatewood had persuaded the Grove Avenue Church in San Antonio to cut off support for Dick Smith who was in Germany, but who was in conflict with Gatewood’s approach to evangelizing the German people.) The conversation between the two men was heated, and finally Gatewood stuck out his chin and said, “Go ahead and hit me, Royl Just hit me on the chin. I know you want to!” Roy was simply livid with anger, but his voice was completely under control, and did not even quaver as he replied, “No, I will not hit you, Otis, though you deserve a whole lot worse than that for what you did to Dick Smith. I will simply hold you in utter contempt!” And with that he turned and walked away. I have never seen a man so angryor one with such total control of his anger.

It was during these turbulent years that Athens Clay Pullias, president of David Lipscomb College, sent word to Roy that he must not ever again set foot on the campus of that school! Cogdill was vastly amused at the effrontery and arrogance of the man, and ignored the order with complete unconcern. Pullias later forsook the Lord, and joined the Presbyterian church. He was referred to in Nashville as “Pullias the Apostate.” Incidentally, he preceded Roy in death by only four or five weeks.

After Lorraine’s death, it was my happy privilege to speak the words which united Cogdill with his second wife, Nita Faulkner. She was a lovely widow, with two children, whom Cogdill adopted. In many ways these last twenty-five years of his life seemed happier and less demanding than the earlier years. The horrible fight over “institutionalism” had reached its peak, and the tensions were easing off a bit. The division over which Roy had so agonized had finally come and it appeared to be irreversible. Cogdill accepted the fact with profound sorrow, but did not cease to plead for unity on the basis of God’s truth. Nita was a constant source of strength and encouragement to him, and cared for him with infinite tenderness during the final years when he was fighting a losing battle against cancer. He was immensely proud of her total commitment to him and to the life he had chosen to live. He told me once of being stopped by a highway patrol car in Florida on some sort of minor traffic violation. He did not believe he was guilty, and argued with the officer about it. The officer lost his temper and said, “I ought to punch you in the jaw right now.” To which Cogdill replied, “You lay one finger on me, young man, and you’ll be in more trouble than you ever dreamed of!”

It was at this point that Nita entered the fray. Chuckling over the incident later, and with very obvious pride, Roy said, “That red-headed woman of mine lit into him in a fashion that almost made me sorry for the poor guy! She told him off in a way I’ll guarantee he will never forget!”

Yes, Roy Cogdill was indeed “a man to be remembered.” And the words of the melancholy Hamlet as he spoke of the death of the king might well describe him:

He was a man, take him for all in all,

I shall not look upon his like again.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 14, pp. 431-432
July 18, 1985

By Steve Kearney

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church. “

To every informed Catholic, this verse is the answer to all questions about the teaching and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This is so because of what Matthew 16:18 means to them. It means that Peter was made the first Pope, Vicar of Christ, foundation and head of the Catholic Church. It means that Peter has all of Christ’s authority on earth. It means that Peter passed this authority to his successors, the Bishops of Rome even to the present day Pope. It means that every tradition sanctioned by the Popes is equal in authority to the Sacred Scriptures.

Little wonder that the cumulative effect is faith in the Catholic Church as the one true church, infallibly right in all of its teaching. In the light of such claims, it will be the purpose of this article to find out if the Bible supports these unique privileges.

The Argument In The Biblical Context

Would you not agree that the teaching which makes Peter the foundation of the church and Christ’s Vicar on earth is of such consequence that one would naturally expect to see it mentioned-directly or indirectly-in almost every book of the New Testament? You may be surprised to learn that it is not mentioned in any of these epistles. That means that the supremacy of Peter is not corroborated by the 27 books of the New Testament. On the contrary, the weight of evidence is against Peter being the foundation and head of the church.

To illustrate, in Luke 22:24-26 Jesus teaches that no Apostle would ever dominate or be officially recognized as head. He said, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But not so among you.” Surely Jesus knew that Peter was the head of the church since He appointed him such sometime earlier at Caesarea Philippi. As head, Peter of necessity must lord it over all and be seen as a benefactor in bestowing God’s gifts and favors.

In truth Popes are the ecclesiastical replica of the Gentile kings. Why did Jesus say, “But not so among you”? The only legitimate answer is that in the church of Christ no Apostle would ever dominate or be officially recognized as head. The Peter-Pope belief contradicts this teaching of Jesus.

No, Peter is not the head of the church and neither is he the foundation. In 1 Corinthians 3:11 we read, “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” This affirmation is too clear to misunderstand. Since it is so simple it becomes useful in the application of this fail-safe principle of biblical interpretation: that difficult Scriptures be understood in the light of simple ones. By this we mean we will let 1 Corinthians 3:11 explain Matthew 16:18. Undoubtedly then, the rock foundation refers to none other than Jesus Christ, in Matthew 16:18.

Moving along we will now consider the position of Chief Shepherd in the context of the New Testament. Interestingly, the title Chief Shepherd is used only once and that by Peter himself. In 1 Peter 5:4 he says, “And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” The Holy Spirit through Peter makes it known who the Chief Shepherd is; it is Jesus Christ. In His own lifetime Jesus prophesied, “And they shall become one flock with one Shepherd” (Jn. 10:16). Therefore, it is unscriptural to speak of Peter as another Chief Shepherd.

The whole theory of the supremacy of Peter crumbles under the weight of such revelations. Even the Apostle Paul could assert his equality with the Twelve, “For in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 12:11). Peter was content to call himself, “an apostle of Jesus Christ,” nothing more. All of the apostles were equal in rank and authority with each other, as the following two points will also show.

(1) Peter shared in common the power of “binding and loosing” given to him by Jesus in Matthew 16:19 with the rest of the apostles who were given the same promise in Matthew 18:18.

(2) When the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent them Peter and John (Acts 8:14). Jesus tells us, “neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him” (Jn. 13:16). For this reason, Peter, who was sent, could not be greater than the others who sent him.

The Peter-Pope idea is unsupported in the greater context of the New Testament revelation. Moreover it is positively refuted by the Scriptures we have just considered.

The Bible: Assumptions And Fact

The primary assumption made by those of the above persuasion is that Jesus made Peter a Pope. The verse does not mention Pope, nor could it without creating a contradiction with another passage of Scripture. The reason being “Pope” means “Father” and, as a religious title, father was forbidden to be worn by Jesus. “And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in Heaven” (Matt. 23:9). Here Jesus is teaching, that no one on earth is your father (spiritually). That no one on earth is to be called your father (spiritually). Obviously then, Peter was not made our Holy Father by Jesus in Matthew 16:18; otherwise there would be two Holy Fathers, one in heaven and one on earth. Jesus cannot contradict Himself; He said, “For One is your Father, He who is in heaven.”

Another thing that is taken for granted is that the church mentioned is the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus did not say “I will build the Roman Catholic Church.” He said, “I will build My church.” In 1 Corinthians 1:1, the Holy Spirit refers to what Jesus built as “the church of God.” In Colossians 1:18, He calls it simply “the church.” In Hebrews 12:23, the writer described the church as “the general assembly and church of the first-born.” Not one verse in the Bible mentions the Roman Catholic Church; it is conspicuous by its absence. Not only is the name not there, but neither is its organization, worship or doctrine. Those who claim it is must first prove it is before they take it for granted that the church in Matthew 16:18 is synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church.

There are so many assumptions made about the Peterrock passages that it would be impossible to review them all. What follows is a short list of assumptions on Matthew 16:18-19:

a. That Peter was made a Catholic Priest.

b. That Peter was appointed Bishop of Rome.

c. That he was given infallibility.

d. That he would have successors.

All of these “facts” need to be proven before it can be established that Peter was made Pope. For too long people have been allowed to assume what cannot be proved by these verses.

The Immediate Context And Related Matter

Please read carefully the immediate context of the Peter-rock comparison which is in Matthew 16:13-20. Here the Holy Spirit is disclosing the most marvellous news about the man Jesus, which was expressed so accurately in the words of Peter, “Thou art the Christ the son of the living God. ” That this is the focal point of the Caesarea Philippi story is easy to see by checking the accounts in Mark and Luke. Both climax with Peter’s confession, which goes to prove that Jesus is the central figure, not Peter.

Undoubtedly then, Jesus being the Christ the Son of the living God is the main structure of these verses. What is said to Peter is only an extension of that superstructure. Jesus said, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church.” “This rock” is not a new building enshrining Peter. It is, as was stated, an extension of the main building which is Christ the Son of the living God. This will be better understood when you see a comparison between the words Peter and rock as used in Matthew 16:18. The name Peter is translated from the Greek word petros. Petros is masculine gender, and is defined in W.E. Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words, as “a detached stone or boulder.” On the other hand, the word rock is translated from the Greek word petra. Petra is feminine gender, and is defined in W.E. Vine as “a mass of rock.”

The difference should be plain as we read this information back into Matthew 16:18 as follows, “You are petros and upon this petra I will build My church.” Evidently Peter is not the rock foundation, and the only other thing that could be is that “mass of rock” in the confession of Peter, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.”

It is interesting to note that most of the early Fathers agree with this interpretation. Here is Dr. Kendrick’s breakdown of what the early Fathers believed about the rock in Matthew 16:18,

(a) 17 Fathers designated Peter as the rock.

(b) 8 Fathers taught that the whole apostolic college is the rock.

(c) 44 Fathers designated Peter’s confession of Christ’s divine Sonship as the rock.

(d) 16 Fathers taught that Christ Himself was the rock.

All the evidence in the immediate context, in the Greek and from the early Fathers points to Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God” as the rock foundation on which the church of Christ was built.

That conclusion harmonizes with the rest of the New Testament which categorically states, “Other foundations can no man lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.” Peter is not the foundation of the Church; therefore, he is not the Pope.

You can work out all the other implications for yourself!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, pp. 398-399
July 4, 1985

By Larry Ray Hafley

A number of years ago, I was shocked and appalled when I attended a “rally” conducted by the ultra liberal Darby Drive church in Florence, Alabama. There were, “Let’s see who can shout, ‘amen,’ the loudest” contests, and there were laughter and applause for “soul stirring,” “keynote” addresses. I was startled-“clapping and applause for the cause,” I suppose.

Well, they cheer and clap for Oral Roberts and Jim Bakker, so I guess we can cheer our brethren. If we can borrow other denominational hoopla-clowns, parties, games and such like-then we ought to be able to clap for sermons. Would I dare to suggest modestly clad cheerleaders? Could we chant, “two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate?” Would exciting cheers prime a preacher to soar to the alps of oratorical resplendence?

But what if the preacher blows it? I mean, what if he fans on his face? What if he misquotes his texts? What if he cites the wrong passages to sustain his points? What if he is dry, dull and boring? What if he really messes up? Since we can clap and applaud, can we also hiss and boo? If we can smile and laugh at a good sermon, can we jeer and sneer at a bad one? Can we heckle?

And 1, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:1-5).

“But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine . . . . In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity” (Tit. 2:1,7). “For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of” (1 Cor. 9:16). “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God which trieth our hearts . . . . Not of men sought we glory, neither of you” (1 Thess. 2:4,6). “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Could we now have a nice round of applause for the verses above?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, p. 394
July 4, 1985

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare an not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience Is fulfilled (2 Cor. 10:3-6).

We Are At War

When one becomes a Christian, he declares war on the forces of Satan. He wants to be able to say, “I have fought a good fight” (2 Tim. 4:7). He struggles with his own fleshly weaknesses to keep doing what he believes to be right. He has fights against systems of thought that make one feel justified in doing wrong. He must expose these systems for his own benefit and for the benefit of those whom he is trying to teach. I like to be positive in my teaching and preaching (oral and written), but I can’t always be. There are thoughts that must be “cast down” and “pulled down” before we can “bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”

There is no place in the Lord’s army for cowards; the “cowardly” will be in hell (Rev. 21:8). But, carnal minds have warped views of things. Carnal-mindedness, characteristic of spiritual immaturity, had been a long standing problem at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 3:3). They had a carnal view of strength and weakness — courage and cowardice. Paul deals with this in our text. His opponents measured strength by outward or fleshly appearance (v. 7) and so influenced the Corinthians. In effect, they accused him of being a weakly coward — one who talked big away from them, but would fold up with timidity when face to face (v. 10). He ironically identifies himself to them as the one “who in presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you.” If that had really been so, then he would have fought after the flesh, making bold statements against sin from a distance, but melting when having to face them close up. It is easier to be bold from safety of distance or even from behind a curtain of anonymity than to look the accused in the eye. Such is beneath the dignity of those who war after the Spirit and characteristic of those who war after the flesh.

As the immature carnal minds often do, they also mistook longsuffering for weakness. They said, in effect, “If Paul is strong and we are wrong, why does he not do something about it?” Paul was “ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.” (The only punishment that I know that Paul had a right to give would be that of “deliver(ing) one unto Satan”– cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2.6; 1 Tim. 1:20.) Those who “war according to the flesh” are quick to issue an ultimatum to the opposition, demand immediate compliance, or face immediate consequences. They see any other course as being weak-either unable or unwilling to take action. Delay did not mean weakness. Paul could and would act in due time, but he had good reason for delay-to give those who could be salvaged opportunity to “fulfill their obedience” (v. 6). He had the authority. But, it was “for building you up, and not for casting you down” (v.8, ASV). He would use his authority to punish (or discipline) the disobedient (as had already been done in the case of the immoral man — 1 Cor. 5) when he came (v. 11), after he had salvaged those that could be persuaded to obey.

“Carnal Weapons”

“Carnal” weapons are used by those who “war according to the flesh.” In context, “carnal” likely refers to tactics used, rather than having reference to swords and the like. It is from sarkikos. “from sarx, flesh, signifies (a) having the nature of the flesh, i.e., sensual, controlled by animal appetites, governed by human nature, instead of by the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 3:3; having its seat in the animal nature, or excited by it. I Pet. 2:11, ‘fleshly;’ or as the equivalent of ‘human,’ with the added idea of weakness, figuratively of the weapons of spiritual warfare, ‘of the flesh’ (A.V. ‘carnal’), 2 Cor. 10:4; or with the idea of unspirituality, of human wisdom, ‘fleshly,’ 2 Cor. 1:12” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine).

Those who “war after the flesh” use various fleshly devices to win a commitment to their side. Misrepresentation, gossip, slander, cheap verbal shots, intimidation, innuendo, flattery, sophistry, overstatement, officious meddling, prejudicial statements, base appeals to the fleshly side (fear, passion and pride), careful concealment of real cost of commitment, may be powerful weapons-but they better serve the purposes of those who war after the flesh than the Lord’s church.

In earthly conflicts, men may say, “My country, right or wrong, still my country”-so, the country’s position must be defendedright or wrong. Such a partisan spirit can be found in the church. Brethren can be more interested in preserving “our position,” maintaining a “united front” and forcing folks to get in step with that, rather than searching for, defending and propagating truth and bringing people intofthe with Christ. This, too, is warring after the fiesh. Yet, one has to watch that he does not let fleshly pride of independence,the desire to show that “he is his own man,” to govern his spiritual warfare. He may abandon good scriptural reasoning that has proven to be sound over the years because he does not want to appear to parrot “the party line” or “church of Christ position.” He wants all, especially the brotherhood, to know that he is not one of those weaklings who cannot think for himself. He wars after the flesh just as much as the man who blindly follows a “brotherhood tradition.”

We should not use carnal tactics because: (1) they are not right, (2) they do not work, (3) they are counter-productive to our goal, and (4) we have a more powerful and effective weapon — in the persuasive power of truth openly and simply presented.

The Strongest Weapons Of All

Paul said the “weapons of our warfare” are “mighty in God.” He did not need fleshly tactics to gain advantage over opposition; he had the advantage in the persuasive power of the gospel with its ability to “pull down strongholds, cast down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.” There is no stronger way of stopping the mouths of those who “teach things that they ought not” than “by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers” (Tit. 1:9-11). This is hard for the immature, carnal mind in the church to understand.

The mature Christian chooses weapons carefully. He understands “he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules” (2 Tim. 2:5). He knows that he must “walk in the flesh,” while resisting the ever-present temptation to “war after the flesh.” This is not easy, because fleshly means often seem more direct and faster in getting at sin. If the opposition uses such means against us, why should we not be allowed to use the same weapons in a good cause? So, sincere and zealous, but immature brethren often find what appears to be the quickest and most direct attack on the problem of internal sin and error very attractive — without stopping to consider whether or not the “weapon” is the kind a Christian ought to use. The fact that one’s objective is righteous does not justify trying to achieve it by unrighteous means.

I would like to wipe out abortion. I believe the Scriptures condemn it. But, bombing abortion clinics and/or harassing their patrons are not “weapons” that 1, as a Christian, have at my disposal.

I would like to see every mechanical instrument of music removed from the buildings of those professing Christianity. But, I cannot recommend the methods of a good sister in Kentucky that I read about. In the 1800s when one was brought into the building where she attended, she slipped in after dark and took a chopping axe to the thing!

I would like to see all religious error and sinful conduct removed from the church. I believe I must keep fighting to that end (cf. Jude 3; Heb. 12:3,4). But, I must be careful that I do not allow my hatred for sin — and I must abhor sin — to provoke me into methods that more befit Satan’s army than the Lord’s.

What Are We Trying To Do?

The best way in the world to wipe out sin and error is to make faithful Christians of those who are caught up in it. That is the first objective of the faithful spiritual warrior.

The objective of our warfare is “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” It is changing the thinking of people by “casting down arguments” of error with good scriptural answers. Carnal tactics may change outward behavior, but they will not bring one’s thinking into harmony with the will of Christ. If we cannot persuade those who may be wrong that they are not obeying Christ and that what we present is the will of Christ that they must obey, we need not try other tactics. Even if we succeed in changing behavior, we will not really have changed any convictions. One would not be acting for sound reasons.

Carnal tactics work against us in that they are repulsive to many fair-minded people of this world. They see the “carnal weapons” used in the name of Christ for what they are and become prejudiced against genuine Christianity. In their minds such tactics are a part of our religion. If they are going to reject the gospel, let us do all we can to see that they are rejecting it for what it really is-rather than what we may have misrepresented it to be. Further, it may pressure one into acting in harmony with truth without really being convicted of the truth-thus producing, at best, a half-baked Christian; at worst, a hypocrite. Also, reaction to carnal means (especially those designed to intimidate) often harden the very ones we are trying to change. If people are going to be hardened (and some will be) we want it to be a reaction to the truth handled aright and not some carnal tactic we may have used in the name of Christ.

Carnal weapons often get more immediate and visible results with less effort. It may take longer to change a person’s attitude and thinking about spiritual matters by rooting out his errors and replacing them with truth through the teaching and learning process. Then there is the time and effort to learn what the Scriptures teach well enough to “reason with (those in error) from the Scriptures” (cf. Acts 17:2). Because of this we are tempted to go the shortest route to get action-carnal means of persuasion (cf. 1 Cor. 2:4). It takes less effort to go directly to man’s fleshly side-to try to entice, excite, shame, or scare him into line by carnal means than it does to persuade him by taking Bible in hand and reasoning him into obedience to Christ. One of the dangers of impatience is that of trying to force the desired results by undesirable means. It matters not whether it is carnal means of enticement, excitement, or coercion. It is still a carnal weapon that should be abandoned by the Christian in favor of the most powerful weapon of all — the truth of the gospel boldly or confidently presented (v. 2; Eph. 6:19,20).

Lest someone think that we are saying that fear, shame, and/or other emotions have no part in the Christian’s arsenal; maybe we need to say more.

The gospel produces its own enticement, fear, shame, and excitement. We do not have to help it out with those we can create or borrow from men-be they theologians, philosophers, orators, or salesmen. When one has been reasoned with from the Scriptures and convinced by the evidence of the nature of Christ, the extent of His love, what He expects us to do and the blessings of obedience that will entice and excite him to conform. When one is convinced of the truth about the wrath of God and the reality of hell, that will produce fear. When one is convinced of sin, its nature and consequences, that will produce shame.

Yes, there are right ways to produce fear and shame in our fight against sin. “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). “And if anyone does not obey our word by this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). But, these (rebuke and discipline) must be used in the framework of adequate scriptural teaching, reasoning, and persuasion or they will become nothing more than carnal weapons to bully brethren into line. We may by carnal means excite, entice, scare and/or shame one to get into step with us but we can never get him in step with Christ without “pulling down arguments” and teaching him so that his “every thought is brought into captivity to Christ.”

When we come to the end of our journey here, let it be said that we fought a good fight against sin rather than taking a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak (against) no evil stance that we observe in all too many in the church today. But, let us be able to say that we have “fought a good fight” — not just merely fought.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, pp. 392-393, 409
July 4, 1985