1. Free As Sons
   
2. Does "Go Ye" Mean "Go Me?"
   
3. Are We Really Born Again?
   
4. The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel
   
5. Silence Says Something
   
6. Body Language
   
7. Repentance Before Faith
   
8. I Wonder
   
9. Can I Know?
   
10. Ultimate Logical Conclusions
    
11. Errors in Peter's Sermon
    
12. Did Timothy Need Admonition?
    
13. Jesus' Youth Sermon For Adults
    
14. Why Didn't Paul Reform?
    
15. Christmas
    
16. Let The Unmarried Marry
    
17. A Dialect of Division
    
18. Our Traditions
    
19. Adding Our Safeguards
    
20. According To The Pattern
    
21. A Creed In The Deed
    
22. Samuel Did Not Know The Lord!
    
23. Response From Our Readers
    
24. Cries Of A Troubled Church
    
25. Sharing Without Fellowship
    
26. I Joined A Church
    
27. Open Membership
    
28. Another Last Will And Testament
    
29. Sad Thoughts About Church Growth
    
30. My Four Retirement Homes
    
31. Hook's Points: A Potpourri
    

ERRORS IN PETER'S SERMON

Those who assert themselves in teaching, whether by speech or writing, make themselves vulnerable to the opposing critic. Most of us welcome discussion of what we have taught, and we try to answer honest questions and objections. But often the critic is so intent on refuting the message that he becomes unscrupulous and irrational, and he employs all sorts of prejudicial and misleading devices to accomplish his purpose.

To illustrate my point, I will play the part of the over­zealous critic of Peter's sermon on Pentecost. I will number my objections to his speech for a purpose to be seen later. So, let's look at Peter's errors.

1. Peter was drunk. Can we believe a drunk man, especially in spiritual matters? Of course, like most drunk persons do, he denied that he had been drinking, but can all those good people who were close by and detected his drunkenness be wrong? He even had the audacity to attribute his drunken babble to the working of God's Spirit! He was under the influence of the spirit all right, but it was the spirit of alcohol.

2. We have ample witness to this man's boasting, lying, cursing, and even denying that he knew Jesus. Only gullible fools would trust their eternal welfare to such an unscrupulous man and his shocking teaching.

3. Peter was a shrewd opportunist, knowing "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em." He was plainly seeking to grasp the fallen mantle of Jesus and to ride on his popularity with the common people to make a name for himself and money also.

4. Just read the gospel accounts to see how unstable this man was emotionally. He would jump out ahead of the crowd in exuberance, impetuously going off half­cocked to the embarrassment of Jesus and everyone else. Then he would retreat to the pit of discouragement and tears. He was manic­depressive. Who can trust his soul to the incompetence of an emotionally unstable person like that? He's of the kind who see flying saucers or think they are reincarnated heroes of ancient history.

5. Peter was the same type as Theudas, Judas, and Barabbas. He just came at a more opportune time. Those, and other radical leaders, actually helped to pave the way for Peter. No doubt, he learned some helpful lessons from them. They were all zealots grasping for leadership and power.

6. Just as our politicians drop time­honored names with quotations from men like Jefferson and Lincoln to support their declarations, Peter quoted, or misquoted, from David and Joel as though they had the same thing in mind that Peter was contending for. It was actually a form of nationalistic flag waving.

7. If God were changing his system of religion for all men, as Peter claimed, God would have spoken and worked through his authorized channels of the High Priest, the priesthood, and the rabbis rather than through an unschooled fisherman with no credentials.

8. When Peter quoted David and Joel, he actually misquoted both of them. He changed the Scriptures! Can we trust a spiritual guide who deliberately changes the Scriptures to prove his point?

9. Peter plainly misapplied the words of Joel, for Joel spoke of drastic things like blood, fire, vapor of smoke, a darkened sun, and a bloody moon. All flesh did not receive the Spirit as he supposed, nor did women prophesy. If all that much of the prophecy was not accomplished, how could he say that Joel's words were fulfilled then?

10. Peter considered himself superior to all of the great teachers among the Jews. Why had none of them come up with the same interpretation? Peter would prove all the respected scholars to be in ignorance and error and overthrow the long­established religion of Moses in one short discourse when his tongue was loosed by new wine. What bigotry!

In the foregoing, I have made no effort to be fair or logical. I did not even stay with the proposed discussion of the errors of Peter's sermon, but I slandered the man, as most critics are inclined to do. My effort has been to show the techniques used by irresponsible critics. Let us now look at the kinds of devices used. The numbering will match the previous numbering.

1. Attack the teacher's credibility. Accusations and insinuations need not be proved for they serve their purpose unproven. Let the burden of proof be on the defense.

2. Attack the character of the teacher. Never mind that he has repented, changed, and matured. Can a leper change his spots?

3. Impugn his motives. Even the good one may do or the truth that he may teach is invalidated by his evil motives.

4. Question his competency. No one wants to be proven to be a fool for his following an impetuous lunatic.

5. Associate the teacher with other well­known despicable characters. He cannot be teaching the truth if he is associated with unpopular people.

6. Indicate that the teacher is using manipulative tricks to win the audience.

7. Use the old "he's just a carpenter's son whom we all know" technique. He is not a recognized man of letters.

8. Accuse the teacher of the most deliberate of crimes changing the very word of God to prove his point.

9. Accuse the teacher of misapplication of the Scriptures. Perhaps, this is the handiest tool of all in proving that someone is teaching error. The accuser makes this method effective by his own misapplication of Scripture!

10. Paint the teacher into the ugliest picture possible by insinuations, slurs, accusations, catchy expressions, and prejudicial assertions.

In the devices illustrated above, I ignored the whole context of fact and truth which surround Peter's discourse. I made no effort to be thorough, consistent, reasonable, or fair. I was only looking for ways to substantiate my preconceived notions. A skilled teacher can adapt these methods to appeal to either the ignorant and simplistic or the schooled and sophisticated. Smooth speech can make truth seem to be error or error to appear as truth.

Recently, I had a brief conversation with a man whom I had not met before, but, evidently, he had heard of me and was on guard! Very quickly, defensively, and with finality, he explained, "I am very conservative." I am glad that he has convictions, but what was he saying? He was protecting himself by letting me know that any new thought that I might present would be judged by his preconceived notions. His critical machinery would be thrown into automatic against anything that I might introduce which would be different from what he already believed. He would be looking for my errors, not my truths. By my repeating and reinforcing his accepted views, we could have carried on a lengthy, friendly Bible discussion.

All who have taught have faced unfair criticism. But are you ever unfair in your appraisal of the teaching of others? Do you ever employ any of the techniques which I used against Peter and his sermon? Be honest about it! Some of the mechanics of unfair criticism are so much a part of our reactions that we grow unaware that we are using them. Let me challenge you to become aware of these prejudicial devices in your speech so that you may become truly objective in evaluating the message of others.