Truth Magazine

By Greg Litmer

The single, most powerful and influential person in the religious world today is the Pope. He reigns as head over the largest denomination in the world that worships Jesus. Catholics look to him as the infallible guide in all matters of religion. He claims to be “The Vicar of Jesus Christ” and the successor to Peter, the first Pope. In order to prove the authority of the pope, three things must be shown, essentially. Number one is that there was a papal office in the New Testament. Number two is that Peter was the first pope, and number three is that Peter had successors in that office. I do not believe that any of these can be proven; the Bible teaches that these things are not so, and that Jesus said they would not be so even before the church was established.

In Matthew 20, the mother of Zebedee’s children came to Jesus asking that her sons be given positions of authority and power in His kingdom. Jesus said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (vs. 25-27). However, by believing in the pope, Catholics deny the very words of Jesus in the attempt to exalt Peter. They claim for Peter the position and the preeminence which Jesus said “shall not be” among His apostles and disciples. This passage shows that the office of the pope, the exaltation of one human being above others, is something neither taught nor intended by the Lord.

Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope, and that the office has been handed down by right of succession from his days to the present. They will usually base this assertion on three passages of scripture. We must note, however, that their main contentions are not based on the scriptures, but rather on secular history and tradition. The reason for this will be obvious after we view the scriptures.

The first is in Matthew 16:18, but let us begin with verse 13. There we read.

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 1 say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind pn earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. “

Paying particularly close attention to verse 18, let us ask ourselves whether or not that passage teaches that Peter was first among the apostles, whether or not he was to be lord and ruler over the others, and whether or not he was the very foundation of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ? That is what the Catholic position says.

When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church, “He simply was not talking about Peter. The word “Petros,” referring to Peter, simply means “a pebble or a stone, a small rock.” The word “Petra” was the word Jesus used referring to rock and it has a different meaning and a different gender altogether. Petra means “a solid mass of stone.” Vine explains it this way. He says that petros means a stone that might easily be moved, while petra shows a sure foundation, We can illustrate in this way:

 

 

The large granite mountain is the petra – a solid mass, immovable. The small rocks along the base of the mountain are the petros, easily picked up and carried.

The apostle Peter is like one of these little rocks at the foot of the mountain, but the “petra” or rock, on which Christ built the church was like that huge mass of granite. The rock on which the church was built was the truth that Peter had confessed back in verse 16, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.

That it was upon Christ Himself, and not Peter, that the church was built is clearly seen from Paul’s reference to the matter. He said in 1 Cor. 3:11, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ” Peter, himself, said that we are like living stones built upon Christ as the chief cornerstone in 1 Pet. 2:4-8.

The second passage often referred to by Catholics as they attempt to prove the supremacy of Peter is Luke 22:31-34. There we read.

“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. “

In this passage, Christ said to Peter “to strengthen thy brethren” and this is taken to mean that Peter was to be the strongest and most established on the group. But I think that it is clear that if the other apostles had been about to do the same thing that Peter was about to do, the Lord would have prayed for them in the same way that He prayed for Peter. Certainly, Jesus placed an obligation upon Peter, that he was to “strengthen thy brethren, ” but that is an obligation that rests upon every single Christian. Hebrews 10:24 tells us that we are to “consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works. ” Surely we have the same obligation to consider and strengthen our brethren. No special significance can be placed upon the instruction that the Lord gave Peter at that time as pertaining strictly to Peter in some special way, for it is demanded of all Christians in other places.

The third passage that is used in support of Peter’s papacy is found in John 21:15-17. After the resurrection of Jesus, some of the apostles and disciples had gone fishing, Peter included. They had worked all night and had not caught a thing. Then Jesus came and told them to cast the net on the right side of the boat. They did, and they caught so many fish that they were not able to pull them in. So they came into shore and began to eat. We pick up now in verse 15: “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.” The Catholic position is that Jesus was saying, Peter, do you love me more than these other disciples love me? Others think that he was saying, Peter, do you love me more than the nets and the boats and the fish and the sea? I do not really think that it makes that much of a difference how you view that passage. Even if Jesus is saying, Peter, “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” it still does not give Peter a superior position, as far as authority is concerned.

Three times the Lord asked Peter the question concerning his love for Him. And in verse 17 we see, “Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. ” After the questions, the Lord instructed Peter to feed His lambs, feed His sheep, and again, feed His sheep. Now the Catholic position is that those instructions the Lord gave Peter implies the primacy of Peter, that he, above all others, was given the task of “feeding” the flock. But when we read the New Testament, we find in Acts 20:28 that the elders were given the task of “feeding” the flock, as well as Peter was. Now Catholics will try to make a distinction between the feeding of the lambs and the feeding of the sheep. They will say that the “lambs” designate the flock (or the laity), while “sheep” designates bishops (they do not mean bishops as the Bible uses the term). But Jesus did not tell Peter to “feed the bishops” or to “feed the clergy.” He commanded him to feed the sheep, using the same terms that He used in John 10, and it is really the same commandment that Paul gave the Ephesian elders when he instructed them to take the oversight of the church, the flock.

Brethren and friends, the whole New Testament is filled with passages which contradict the idea that Peter was the pope. Cornelius, for example, in Acts 10, was told to stand up when he had fallen down at the feet of Peter. Peter said, “Stand up: I myself also am a man. ” Do the popes of today practice such? Not on your life. You come into the presence of the pope on bended knee in an attitude of worship. When I was a child being confirmed into the Catholic church, the confirmation was performed by a bishop, not even the pope. And we were told that if the bishop came up to us and extended his hand, we were to kneel and kiss the ring on his finger. Is this the attitude that Peter exhibited? No! The whole thing, including the office itself, was conceived in the minds of men. To Peter, the idea of one worshipping before him was repulsive.

There is another passage in the Bible which contradicts the idea of the popism of Peter. Turn to Gal. 2:11-14. There we read,

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

Now, if Peter was the pope, why was it necessary for Paul to withstand him to his face, and rebuke him for- his wrongful attitude toward the Gentiles? This was not merely some slip on Peter’s part; this involved the position of the Gentiles as far as the Gospel of Christ was concerned. Peter made a mistake, he was wrong. Will it be admitted by the Catholics that an infallible pope could have erred like this in a matter concerning doctrine?

Friends and brethren, the Bible simply does not teach us that there was to be an office of the pope. But, as we said in the beginning, the main Catholic position concerning the pope is not really biblically based; rather, it depends on tradition. The Catholics assume that the church in Rome was the center of Christianity and that it was such because Peter established the church there and made the headquarters of all Christianity there. The Catholics say that Peter sat as universal bishop of the church, in his headquarters in Rome, beginning in 43 A.D. They say that he continued there for 25 years in all, and that he was martyred by being crucified upside down in 68 A.D.

But there is nothing on which to base this claim. In fact, it is made with much evidence to the contrary:

(1) It is not stated anywhere in the scriptures that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. For that matter, it is not stated that he ever even set foot in Rome.

(2) In approximately 58 A.D., Paul wrote the epistle to the Roman congregation. In that letter, he sent salutations to 27 people in the congregation, whom he named by name. But Peter was neither named or greeted. He simply was not there.

(3) Around the same time, 58 – 65 A.D., Peter wrote his first epistle. No mention is made of Rome in this epistle, and Peter claims no superiority for himself or for the church at Rome. Is this characteristic of one who was recognized as the universal head of the church? Certainly not!

(4) Paul wrote many letters from his prison in Rome Philemon, Phillippians, Ephesians, and Colossians. He named many people in these letters, but not Peter! If Peter was in Rome, if he was indeed the pope at this very time, why did Paul completely ignore him in all of his references to the congregation in Rome.

(5) In the last days of his life, Paul wrote to Timothy saying, “only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. 4:11). Where was Peter? Did the Universal Bishop of the church, the Vicar of God on earth, the supreme and holy Father of the faithful, desert the aged Paul as his noble life began to come to a close? According to the Catholic position, he would have been in Rome at the time as the pope. Where was he?

Conclusion

Friends and brethren, the Catholic position concerning Peter being in Rome is not based on fact; it is pure conjecture. It is assumed in the face of much evidence to the contrary. The claim for the office of a pope simply has nothing upon which to rest.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, pp. 505-507
August 7, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

One of the favorite ploys of brethren who are wandering off into the wastelands of liberalism is to cry, “Brother Somebody teaches the same thing I do, but no one challenges him. This proves that those who oppose me are sectarian in their opposition and are just out to `nail’ me in a personal way.” Early,, in 1977, we wrote Edward Fudge about his repeated u$~of Romans 5:19 (b) – “by the obedience of one shall !many be made righteous” – in his literature attempting to ‘prove that the perfect obedience of Jesus is imputed to Christians. Part (1) of this passage says, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners . . . .” Paul sets up a parallel: (1) Adam’s one act of sin introduced death, not the imputation of his personal disobedience to others. (2) Christ’s one act of obedience in death on the cross introduced righteousness, not the Imputation of His personal obedience rendered during the whole of His life – the so-called ~”doing” in addition to the “dying” to the account of other men.

As to 5:19 (b), Ed said that by imputation “the consequences of His perfect obedience are graciously given us, ” but he offered not one comment on part (a). He did say that my questions reminded him of a “sectarianized” and “closed-system religion!’ in which “there is always a self consistent answer . . . .” Methinks that translates that he cannot find any way out of his inconsistency on 5:19 since he is unwilling to affirm thoroughgoing Calvinism. If part (b) is the imputation of Christ’s personal obedience to others, then part (a) must be the imputation of Adam’s personal disobedience to others.

Not to be defeated so easily by sectarianized, closed system, self-consistent religion, Ed ended his letter by claiming that his views on “the security of the true believer” were stated very well by Leslie Diestelkamp’s writings. Anyone who has read much of Fudge’s and Diestelkamp’s writings will be as surprised as we were at this claim, except for the fact that this is a common ploy of false teachers. Ed was hoping to use as a cover for the rank error propagated by the new unity movement the slight differences in the way brother Diestelkamp and some others of us express the believer’s security. Ed conveniently overlooked the overriding consideration that not a particle of difference exists between Diestelkamp and others of us in final applications and practical conclusion! Ed’s claim compares to a Pentecostal Holiness preacher claiming that differences among brethren in expression or explanation of the Spirit’s indwelling Christians today proves that some of us are Pentecostal holy rollers.

To show Ed how grossly Diestelkamp’s writings must be twisted to say that they “state the case well” for the new unity concept of security, we asked brother Diestelkamp to answer the following questions. We then sent Ed the answers which reflect Diestelkamp’s final applications and practical conclusions.

1. Does Romans 5:19 teach that the “doing” (i.e., the life or righteous acts of Christ as-distinct from his “dying” or death) of Christ is put to our account or imputed to us or transferred to us in some way? His answer: “No. “

2. Does the Bible teach that gospel is one thing (facts about the life and death of Christ – plus, perhaps, such commands as faith, repentance, and baptism) while doctrine is another (involving such things as the proper relationship of the church to Christ in worship, mission, organization, etc.)? His answer: “No. “

3. On account of Bible teaching on the security of the believer, can we be assured that we share unity and spiritual life in Christ with instrumental, institutional, and social-gospel brethren? His answer: “No. “

4. On account of the security of the believer, should we (can we scripturally) call on Christian Church preachers to lead prayers in the assembly? His answer: “No. “

5. On account of the security of the believer, could you write 34 articles for the Firm Foundation without specifying the sinfulness of the various institutional, centralized, and social-gospel practices constantly promoted therein? His answer: “No. “

Having cleared Ed’s ploy off the boards, we returned to attempting to discuss Romans 5:19 with him. Illustrating with charts, we showed that Ed was making the consequences of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience an imputation of their actions to other people, which is thoroughgoing Calvinism. But the Holy Spirit is showing that sin and death entered our world through Adam and that our hope for justification and life entered through Christ.

We invited Ed to deal with the difficulty imposed by the imputation theory, or to give it up. He did neither. If brother Diestelkamp is teaching the peculiar tenets and making the peculiar applications characteristic of the new unity movement, we promise to eat our ten-gallon hat and this issue of Truth Magazine for dessert. All of us believe that truth is truth no matter who teaches it, but the next time you hear some false teacher cry, “Brother Somebody teaches just as I do,” do not jump to any conclusions or eat any hats before you check a little farther!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, pp. 502-503
August 7, 1980

By Leslie Diestelkamp

In Truth Magazine issues for March 27, April 3, 10, 17, 1980, I had articles discussing grace from a positive point of view. The following three responses have come to my attention: (1) Some brethren of unquestioned reputation have commended the articles without reservation, either in conversation with me or in letters. Some have expressed the idea that such positive material was long over-due. (2) One faithful brother and friend of many years took exception to the last article (on the matter of continuous salvation and consideration of sins of ignorance). (3) Brother Arnold Hardin of Dallas, Texas, has reproduced some of my material in his bulletin, The Persuader, expressing complete agreement with it. In this regard I am conscience bound to commend as follows:

Happy Agreements

When I write that which I believe is truth, I am happy to have it reproduced anywhere so long as it is not mis-quoted or taken out of context. For instance, if I write on morality and some denominationalist copies it, I am glad. If I write on the inspiration of the written Word and it is copied by sectarians, I rejoiced. If I write on the authority of Christ and brother North would publish it in the Gospel Advocate (please do not hold your breath until he does this), I would stand up and clap! So, having written some things that I believe are important on the subject of grace, I am happy to see that brother Hardin agrees.

If other editors would publish what I write on morals, authority or inspiration, no one would expect me to respond by pointing out every disagreement I have with such editors on other matters not discussed in that which they reproduce of my material. So it should seem unnecessary that 1 respond now by pointing out every item in which I disagree with Brother Hardin. However, in view of the fact that he proclaims that what I wrote was what he had been writing, some may think that means what I wrote agrees with everything brother Hardin writes related to salvation by grace. Such is definitely not true, and I must stipulate somewhat as follows:

Unhappy Disagreements

I understand that Brother Hardin has been writing on this subject for several years. But I do not ordinarily receive his bulletin and was only aware of his teaching as I have seen excerpts of it in other publications. Just the last few days someone has favored (?) me with a large quantity of his bulletins and after some scanning of them I must point out these matters:

1. Brother Hardin teaches that we are saved by the “doing and dying” of Jesus. I agree wholeheartedly that the life Jesus lived – sinlessly – was essential to our redemption. Only a sinless sacrifice was sufficient. Only by His sinlessness did He become the adequate price for our pardon (Heb. 9:14). But Brother Hardin teaches that the sinlessness of Christ is “imputed” to us – that God credits true believers with the perfection of Jesus. This I do not believe at all. I find nothing in the scripture to justify such belief and I have found nothing in brother Hardin’s material that proves it. In fact, his efforts in teaching this doctrine contain. little effort at proof but a great deal of assertion.

2. The above doctrine actually involves the idea that when the Christian sins, God “looks the other way” and does not impute sin to us, but rather imputes to us the sinlessness of Christ. This is indeed a dangerous and destructive doctrine, providing a false security, and that discourages repentance. Why quit sin if God does not count it against me? Why be anxious about sin if God counts me sinless because of the “doing” of Jesus? The Bible says that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). The Holy Spirit does teach us that we can receive forgiveness of sin (Rom. 3:24, 25; 1 Jn. 1:7) and when he has forgiven He will have forgotten and will not charge us again regarding the same sin (see Heb. 10:17, 18; Rom. 4:7, 8). God will forgive the sins of the Christian who “walks in the light” B. and He will never charge those forgiven sins against us.

3. Brother Hardin quotes another author who says that we are not under law but under grace (see Rom. 6:14). But the impression may be left that we are not under any law at all. Rather, we are indeed not under a law of human works, accomplishing merit on our part, but we are under the law of faith – the law of Christ (see 1 Cor. 9:21). He says, “Law (merit) and grace do indeed exclude one another.” Yes, merit and grace exclude one another, but law and grace do not, if it is the law of Christ, which is truly the instrument of God’s grace.

4. Brother Hardin writes scores of pages about imputed righteousness. In one breath he says that the imputation of righteousness is “nothing but salvation given as a gift.” With this I agree. But then in another breath he says that it is the imputation (crediting) to us the perfect life that Jesus lived on earth., That I do not believe, nor did he produce a sentence of proof. Let us briefly study righteousness:

A. Primarily righteousness means being right. Vine says it is the character or quality of being right. God is righteous in that He is always right, wise, just, fair and faithful. Jesus, while He had the human body, was righteous because He never sinned; He always did that which is right. Mankind is never thus righteous – he is not always right. He cannot merit God’s favor. God cannot impute righteousness to him because of merit on man’s part.

B. But by His amazing grace, by which He provided a ransom price for our redemption, and thus through the shed blood of Jesus God forgives the sins of those who come to Him in obedient faith (Eph. 1:7; Rom. 6:17, 18). Paul calls this action on man’s part, “obedience unto righteousness” (Rom. 6:16). In other words, when our faith brings us to obedience, God forgives our sins and credits us with righteousness, not by merit at all, for when we have obeyed we have earned nothing and God is still obligated to us none at all. He pardons us by grace and counts that quality of guiltlessness as real righteousness.

Miscellaneous Matters

Brother Hardin says that Rom. 10:4 which says that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness . . .”, means that Christ ended the old law. But rather, I believe it means Christ is the objective, the goal of the old law – to bring righteousness by the grace of God to forgiven sinners. Brother Hardin says that our sins were reckoned to Christ -they were reckoned as His (see 2 Cor. 5:21). Macknight translates the verse: “For him that knew no sin, He bath made a sin offering for us, that we might become the righteousness of God through him.” If I understand that verse it does not mean that Christ was counted as guilty in bearing our sins, but He was counted as a sin offering for our sins and was adequate for such because of His sinlessness. Thus He became the “price paid,” indeed “Paid in full” for our salvation.

I have no ill-will whatever for brother Hardin, whom I do not know personally. I regard him as a dearly beloved brother in Christ, but I fear he has allowed himself to be caught up in an obsessive defense of many speculative and dangerous concepts that are only remotely related to the true “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24).

I plead with all gospel preachers to teach more on the true grace of God for it is absolutely essential that all people realize the futility of merit and the necessity of grace as the source of the salvation (righteousness) they seek.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, pp. 500-501
August 7, 1980

By Mike Willis

From time to time, new involvements demand different uses of one’s time. This is not to say that one’s devotion to the Lord is thereby minimized; it only explains why some changes must be made. Several weeks ago, Larry Hafley informed me that he would no longer be able to do the work required to write our question-answer column for Truth Magazine. At that time, I began to search for a new writer for this column.

For the sake of clarity, let me emphasize that I had no dissatisfaction with the quality of Larry Hafley’s work. Through the years, he has done an excellent job of hand ling the question-answer column. Furthermore, because he has decided that he must give up the question-answer column does not mean that he will quit writing for Truth Magazine as a staff writer. Larry is a prolific writer; not only is there abundance in the number of articles which he writes, he also turns out quality material. We expect his labors in this area to continue and expect to publish many more good articles from his pen in Truth Magazine. To my knowledge, I have never known of one of his articles to have been returned because of poor attitude or poor research. That is quite a compliment to any writer!

As I began to search for someone to take Larry’s place, many different men were recommended or considered. Repeatedly, the name of Hoyt H. Houchen was mentioned as a qualified man to handle such a column. He is highly respected all over this nation for his work’s sake. Hence, we proudly announce the addition of him to our staff.

Biographical Sketch

Hoyt H. Houchens was born in Cordell, Oklahoma, December 28, 1918. In 1921, the family moved to Calexico, California and resided there a few months before moving to Ontario, California, where he attended elementary schools, and graduated from Chaffey High School in 1937. He was baptized into Christ by S.E. Witty, April 21, 1929. He preached his first sermon in August of 1936 and did part-time preaching at Ontario during his senior year in high school.

In the fall of 1937, he enrolled in George Pepperdine College (now Pepperdine University) and graduated from that institution in 1941 with a B.A. degree. He was a member of the first four year graduating class. He met Doris Ruth Wilson of Jacksonville, Florida, while she was also a student at Pepperdine. They were married on July 9, 1940. To this union were born three sons: Ron, Dennis, and Larry, all graduates of Florida College. Ron, an audiologist in Fort Worth, Texas, married Sammie Carter (niece of Granville and Leonard Tyler); Dennis, who is employed in fabrication work in Denver, married Karen Duncan whose father was an elder at the Tenth St. Church in Columbus, Indiana, for several years; and Larry married Linda Buck whose father serves as an elder in Sepulveda, California. All three of the boys preach when called upon, but Larry is preaching full-time, presently preaching for the church in Tustin, California. The Houchens have seven grandchildren.

Hoyt Houchens has done considerable writing through the years and formerly served as a staff writer for the Gospel Guardian and Vanguard. He is the author of, a compilation of sermon outlines, Sermons Inside and Out, published in 1954 but now out of print. He has compiled several Bible courses which he hopes to publish sometime in the future.

He has had a few debates. In 1950, while preaching at Central in Amarillo, Texas, he met Ray Tatum (Fundamental Baptist) in a debate which was held in the Municipal Auditorium in Amarillo and was attended by about 1800 people on the last night. This debate is published in book form but is also out of print.

His father resides in Ontario, California, where he had served as an elder for some forty years. Hoyt Houches preaches for the Boston St. church in Aurora, Colorado, and is now in his twelfth year of work with this church. He also serves as one of the elders. He preaches in about eight meetings per year throughout the nation.

A Regular Column

The question-answer column in Truth Magazine is designed to be a regular column. We would hope that a question-answer column could be carried in every other issue of Truth Magazine. That depends upon you, however. Consequently, let me encourage you to send your Bible question to brother Hoyt Houchen, 1838 S. Fairplay St., Aurora, CO 80012. We hope that our reading audience will use this column to contribute to the greater success of Truth Magazine.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, p. 499
August 7, 1980