Truth Magazine

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: In Second Peter 3:13 it is said, “we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. ” I have never heard anyone comment on this Scripture before. I would like to hear what you have to say on this.

Reply: In the verse preceding the passage in question, Peter has revealed what will take place at the second coming of Jesus. In verses 10-12 he had written: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?”

In view of the fact that this present universe (including our world) will be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, we look for “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” What are the new heavens and earth referred to by Peter?

To properly understand the meaning of the phrase under consideration, we must look at the word “new” which is translated from the Greek word kainos. This word does not mean simply that which is young in contrast to that which is old, but rather, it has reference to quality – “the fresh, unworn.” It is defined: recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T., p. 317). In the new heavens and earth, righteousness will dwell. There will be the residing place of righteous people.

Where the “new heavens and earth” will be, we are not told. Many guesses could be made as to the composition of the new heavens and earth, but they would only be speculations. We have no divine revelation as to those and similar questions. That there will be “new heavens and a new earth” after this present earth and heavens and dissolved, there can be no mistake.

The premillennialists expect a future reign of Christ upon this present and literal earth. But we are told that when Jesus comes again, this earth and its work will be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10). It is impossible, therefore, for Jesus to return to this literal earth at His second coming. Furthermore, the reign of Christ (which is present) will terminate when He returns (see 1 Cor. 15:23ff). This passage (2 Pet. 3:13), therefore, gives no comfort to the premillennialists, whose future speculations are confined to this literal earth.

Where is the final abode of God’s people? Is it not heaven? In view of this truth that God’s people will dwell in heaven (as taught in other Scriptures), we conclude that since the “new heavens and earth” will be the abiding place of the righteous, the passage must refer to heaven – the future home of the righteous.

Since the word “new” conveys the meanings of “fresh” and “unused,” as we have learned, the “new heavens and earth” for which we are looking will not be this old literal earth renovated by fire, as some believe. The expression in 2 Peter 3:13 is found in other passages (see Isa. 65:17-20; 66:22-24) where it refers to a new order, specifically, the restoration of God’s people from Babylon. In the sense it is used there it is symbolical. So, merely because the word “earth” is used in the passage by Peter, does not have to mean this old literal earth. Heaven will be the new dwelling place for the people of God.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, p. 70
February 2, 1984

 

(Editor’s Note: I am producing below an exchange between Larry Hafley and Arnold Hardin which occurred as a result of an article which brother Hafley wrote in Guardian of Truth. The exchange is revealing because it demonstrates the weakness which the grace-unity advocates have in the area of baptism. Those who start off stating that the Lord forgives a man of sins which he commits of which he might be ignorant or which he commits inadvertently are logically compelled to make the same application on the subject of baptism as they make in other areas. The result is-that men begin to question whether or not one must be baptized for the remission of his sins in order to be saved. I think our readers will profit from reading these letters.)

Hafley’s Controversial Remarks

(5) Design. What is the aim, the object, the purpose of New Testament baptism? Remember, we shall answer the question by appealing to the word of God. There are numerous, diverse responses from the creeds and churches of men, but we are going to be guided by the Bible. But, first, why was Christ’s blood shed? Jesus said it was “shed . . . for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Now, if you were asked for the design, the purpose, for the shedding of the blood of Jesus, you could correctly say that it was shed “for the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38, the apostle Peter said that one is baptized “for the remission of sins.” Would you deny that the precious blood of our Lord was shed “for the remission of sins”? No! By the same token, then, you will admit that baptism is “for the remission of sins.” Suppose I said that the Lord shed His blood because we are already saved; or, suppose I said He poured out His blood to show that we were saved before His death on the cross? You would not like it if I advocated that. Well, baptism, like the shedding of the blood of Christ, is “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38). Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Ananias, a preacher sent of God, told Saul to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). On two occasions, Paul said that we are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Peter said that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 2-11). What do you say? (Guardian of Truth, September 15, 1983, page 562)

Brother Arnold Hardin’s Letter

9/25/83
Scyene Church of Christ
2920 Prairie Creek Rd.
Dallas, Texas 75227

Dear brother Hafley,

I have read your article, “Five Components of Baptism,” and I am concerned about point five – Design.

I did not desire to write anything about it until I had an opportunity to ask you about it. What you had to say seems typical; yet going even farther than others. As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of baptism and the blood of Christ as being “for the remission of sins.” How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? There is only one thing designed or for the purpose of washing away sin. How can baptism be equated with the blood of Christ for the purpose of washing away sins?

Baptism is essential to one’s reaching the blood as it is faith objectified or embodied and just as it expresses a sinner’s repentance and confession. But to say baptism is for the remission of sins just as the blood is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?

I would appreciate it if you would clarify this matter.

Sincerely,

Arnold Hardin

Brother Larry Hafley’s Reply

September 30, 1983
Northside Chuch of Christ
P.O. Box 1187
Pekin, IL 61554

Dear Brother Hardin,

Thank you for your letter.

You stated that my article “seems typical.” First, will you please explain what you mean? Of what is it typical? Second, you state that my comments went “farther than others.” Farther than what? And who are the “others,” and what did they say that I exceeded? Your answers to these questions will give me more insight to answer your queries.

Now, your questions:

(1) “As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of baptism and the blood of Christ as being ‘for the remission of sins.’ How can you remotely draw such a conclusion?”

Reply: Christ’s blood was shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). It is the basis, the grounds, of our salvation. Repentance and baptism are said to be “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). They are the terms or conditions salvation.

(2) “How can baptism be equated with the blood of hrist for the purpose of washing away sins?”

Reply: Jesus “washed us from our sins in his ow blood” (Rev. 1:5; 7:14). Ananias told Saul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Christ sanctified and cleansed the church “with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). We art sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb. 10:29). We are sanctified by the truth (Jn. 17;17). We are sanctified “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (I Cor. 6:11). The blood of Christ is the basis, the grounds, of our sins being washed away. Baptism is one of the conditions we must meet in order to have our sins washed away (1 Pet. 1:18,19,22; 3:21; Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16; 2:38; 3:19).

(3) “Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?”

Reply: Brother Hardin, what is water baptism for? What is its purpose or design, according to Acts 2:38? 1 say it is “for the remission of sins,” do you?

A few parallel propositions may assist you in reaching an understanding of my remarks.

I. At least three things are said to justify.

(A) “Justified freely by his grace” (Rom. 3:24).

(B) “Justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1).

(C) “Justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9).

I preach justification by grace, but when I say we are justified by grace, I am not negating or equating either faith or the blood of Christ. I preach justification by faith, but when I say we are justified by faith, I am not negating or equating either grace or the blood of Christ. I preach justification by the blood of Christ, but when I say we are justified by the blood of Christ, I am not negating or equating either grace or faith.

Suppose you were to write an article on faith, as I did on baptism. Suppose you mention that we are justified by grace, faith and the blood of Christ. Then suppose I write you a letter and inquire, “As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of faith and the blood of Christ as being that which Justifies.’ How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? But to say faith justifies just as the blood justifies is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?”

Brother Hardin, how would you respond to that hypothetical letter? Perhaps your response to such a given circumstance will serve to “clarify this matter.”

II. Further, imagine that you have preached a sermon as per Acts 2. At the conclusion of your lesson, you exhort the audience of sinners, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). At this point, a man from the audience replies, “No, we cannot save ourselves. Jesus is our Savior” (Matt. 1:21). The respondent continues, “What you had to say seems typical; yet going farther than others. As stated, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating man with Jesus as his own Savior. How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? There is only one Savior from sin. How can a sinner be equated with Christ as Savior? To say man can save himself just as Christ saves is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say? I would appreciate it if you would clarify this matter.”

Brother Hardin, perhaps your clarification and explanation of such it situation will answer your reservation regarding my article.

Brotherly,

Larry Ray Hafley

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 68-69
February 2, 1984

By Don Martin

When we refer to the “Lord’s church,” we have reference to the church you read about in the New Testament. By “different” we mean unlike, separate and distinct. I submit that the Lord’s church is radically different from all the numerous man-made churches. What makes Jesus’ church different?

The founder of the Lord’s church? The church of the New Testament does have a unique founder – the sinless Son of God. “And I say also unto thee,” Jesus stated to Peter, “that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Charles Russell, Henry VIII, or John Wesley did not build the New Testament church; the Lord did! Certainly, then, the Lord being the founder of his church makes the Lord’s church separate and different from the many human originated churches. However, I do not believe this is what really makes the Lord’s church different.

The origin of the Lord’s church? Jesus’ church had her beginning in Acts 2 about the year 30 A.D. Jesus had promised that He would build His church and that the church or kingdom would come into existence in the life span of those whom He addressed in the setting of Mark 9: 1. When we consider the origins of current denominations (1520 A.D., 1534 A.D., 1607 A.D., etc.) we are made to appreciate the separateness of Jesus’ church. Nonetheless, I do not believe this is the thing that really distinguishes her.

The designations applied to her? The church Jesus founded did not and does not wear human names or designations. For example, there was the church of God at Corinth (I Cor. 1:2) and the churches of Christ referred to by Paul (Rom. 16:16). Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Methodist were designations unknown to the apostolic period. Admittedly, scriptural designations set Jesus’ church apart from the others. Notwithstanding, I still do not believe this is the distinctive characteristic.

The public worship in which she engaged? As you study your New Testament you find the Lord’s church partook (1) of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; every week, cf. Acts 2:42), (2) engaged in singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19), (3) gave of their means (1 Cor. 16:1,2), (4) engaged in prayer (Acts 4:31), (5) and had unadulterated preaching (Acts 20:7, cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-5). The members (Christians) worshiped daily by leading a life of holiness (2 Cor. 7: 1). 1 do not, however, believe ,_this is the primary difference which makes her unlike other religions.

The way the church financed her work? As we study denominationalism we f1hd most denominations financed by a number of carnal, secular methods. There are pie suppers, bingo games, raffles, distilleries, real estate investments, ad infinitum. The church of the New Testament, beloved, was only financed by the Lord’s Day offerings of the members (I Cor. 16:1,2). Nevertheless, I do not believe we have found the paramount difference.

Guarded fellowship? Unquestionably, the first century church practiced guarded fellowship (1 Jn. 1:6,7; 2 Jn. 9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6). We acknowledge that guarded, controlled scriptural fellowship is peculiar to Jesus’ church, but we still are not persuaded guarded fellowship is the decided difference.

The plan of salvation which she teaches? The plan of salvation as presented in the word of God – belief, repentance, confession, baptism for remission of sin – is only taught by the Lord’s church (Jn. 8:24; Acts 17:30; Rom. 10: 10; Acts 2:38). The denominations teach faith only, baptism because of salvation, etc. While the plan of salvation the church of Christ taught and teaches makes her radically different, I do not believe this is the unique peculiarity which separates her.

While all of these foregoing characteristics of the New Testament church set her apart, there is one feature, actually an idiosyncrasy, which is more directly responsible for her separateness than anything else – her insistance upon having a thus-saith-the-Lord for everything she believes and practices (cf. Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17; 1 Thess. 5:21; Acts 3:22,23; 2 Jn. 9-11). “And hath put all things under his feet,” Paul teaches regarding Christ and his church, “and gave him to be the head over all things to the church . . .” (Eph. 1:22).

Beloved, the reason Jesus’ church wears scriptural designations, teaches the true plan of salvation, and practices guarded fellowship is because of her conformity to the doctrine of Christ. Denominationalism, quite plainly, is not concerned about New Testament authority. They believe what they do and practice what they do because it is convenient, feels good, or simply what they want to do! Conversely, the church for which our Lord shed His blood seeks to do all they do in the name of the Lord (by His authority, cf. Acts 4:7,12), and speak as the oracles of God (Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:11). This determination to have book, chapter, and verse for everything believed and practiced makes her peculiarly and radically different. What happens when she ceases to demand authority? She ceases to exist and simply becomes another “sectarian order” like all the others around her!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 67, 69
February 2, 1984

By Mike Willis

No one can deny that the Holy Spirit leads God’s children. Paul wrote, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18). The direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit is something which should be desired and followed by all of God’s children.

God Led Miraculously

As one contemplates the idea of being directed or led by the Spirit of God, he remembers the manner in which God led the children of Israel during their wandering in the wilderness. “And the Lord went before them in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night” (Ex. 13:21). As the children of Israel marched from Egyptian bondage to the promised land of Canaan, the Lord directed their travels by means of the cloud and fire.

The temptations and problems which Israel faced under the direction of God were not without purpose. “And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no” (Deut. 8:2). This was the manner in which God led the nation of Israel. However, the Lord did not always lead His nation or particular individuals in a miraculous manner. This guidance and direction was not the ordinary means God used in directing His children.

From time to time, God miraculously directed men. God miraculously directed Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). On the second missionary journey, Paul and his companions wanted to preach in Bithynia, but the Holy Spirit did not allow them (Acts 16:6). Soon thereafter, Paul had a vision in the night in which a Macedonian pleaded with him, “Come over into Macedonia, and help us” (Acts 16:9). The Holy Spirit was miraculously directing Paul’s preaching journey. This miraculous direction was not God’s ordinary means of directing men’s lives.

God Led Providentially

God also leads men providentially. The providential leading of God is implied from several statements of Scripture. Jesus taught us to pray, “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13). The psalmist praised God saying, “He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters” (Psa. 23:2). Both of these verses indicate that God providentially directs my life. God works in a manner which cannot be observed in the providential direction of men’s lives.

God Leads Through His Word

Another way in which God leads His people is through His revealed word. The psalmist prayed, “O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me” (Psa. 43:3). “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psa. 119:105). Through the revealed word of God, we learn what pleases and displeases God.

The Holy Spirit revealed the Scriptures to us. He searched the mind of God and revealed His mind to us (1 Cor. 2:10-13). The writers of both the Old and New Testaments wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21; 1 Tim. 3:16-17). As one reads and follows the revelation given to us by the Spirit through inspiration, he is being led by the Spirit.

This is clearly the method by which the Spirit did th work of leading in Galatians 5. Read the following verses.

This I say then, Walk in the Spirt, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:16-21).

The one who is led by the Spirit does not follow the lusts of the flesh. Instead, he pursues the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).

Modern Ideas Of The Leading Of The Spirit

When one reads much of the modern literature re ing the work of the Holy Spirit, he is introduced to the oncept that the Holy Spirit personally directs men miracu usly today. Typical of such a concept is the following”:

It is natural, therefore, that in the leading of God’s child, the Holy Spirit will use the Scriptures He has Himself inspired. These Scriptures were given to train and direct God’s people. They are still the principle instrument He uses. He will guide through circumstances, through the counsel of Christian friends, through the worship of a believing fellowship, through the inspired utterance of a preacher, and through many other ways. But the classic mode of direction is still through the holy Scriptures (William Fitch, The Ministry of the Holy Spirit, p. 159).

While recognizing that the primary means through which the Holy Spirit leads man is through the revealed word, the author quoted above believes that the Lord miraculously directs his life. Later, he wrote, “Sometimes the Holy Spirit will prompt you to speak words you could never have imagined. At other times, He will guide you to prepare the ways in which you can best begin a conversation about Christ” (p. 208). A few pages later, this preacher told how the Spirit told him that he should move from the church with which he was laboring:

Yet after eleven years in Glasgow, by the strange intuition of the Spirit we began to sense that the time might have come for us to be moving on. We committed everything to God and waited. One Sunday night I drove my assistant to his home and we sat and talked for a while when we reached his residence. I told him then of the incipient thoughts that were rising in our minds about possibly not being there much longer and I was surprised to hear him say: “That is exactly how I am feeling. As I have prayed for you I have felt that the time was drawing near for your departure.” The next morning when I picked up my mail the first letter that caught my eye was from Knox Church, Toronto. It contained an invitation to cross the Atlantic and preach with the possibility of being called. Surprised? Yes and no (pp. 219-220).

There are several things wrong with these ideas. Please consider the following:

1. The thoughts of man become the words of God. Any strong intuition that a person has becomes the commandment of God for him. However, the mind of man is not the word of God (Prov. 16:25; Isa. 55:8-9).

2. A man has no means of determining when God speaks to someone else. If God communicates His will in this way, how am I to determine that God has truly spoken. Jim Jones asserted that God spoke to him. Oral Roberts reported that God spoke to him giving him instructions to write to various people to tell them to send him $25 per month. How do I know whether or not God actually spoke to these people? If he speaks to me in this fashion, perhaps He also spoke to them in this manner. In the New Testament era, inspired men confirmed their message by bonafide miracles. These miracles authenticated the message. What authenticates the message today?

3. Every man becomes a law to himself. Once one has taken the position that God speaks directly to individuals in the leading of the Holy Spirit, every man’s intuitions, thoughts, and strong opinions become the word of God the law of God – to him. The conclusion which results from this doctrine is religious subjectivism with no objective stand to determine right and wrong.

Conclusion

God’s will is communicated to us in the Bible. He leads us by the word. I have found direction from the Bible to guide me in my marriage relationship, rearing my children, my business affairs, my work as a gospel preacher, my relationship to our civil government, how to pray, moral decisions, dealing with my neighbors, and other areas of my life. I am deeply indebted to God for the direction He has provided in my life.

Nevertheless, in the twenty-four years I have been a Christian and the eighteen years that I have been preaching, I have never had a single occasion in which God audibly spoke to me. He did not audibly speak to me when I became a Christian or when I decided to preach. In the period of trial in my life, not once has He given me a vision or an inspired dream. He never told me when to move to work with another church, miraculously directed me to a contact to whom I taught the gospel, or otherwise gave me miraculous direction in my life which might be compared to the manner in which God directed and guided Israel in her wilderness wanderings or the manner in which He directed Paul in Acts 16. God leads men through His word.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 66, 88-89
February 2, 1984