Truth Magazine

By Aude McKee

I. Last week we gave attention to the factors and people who were responsible (at least in part) for the reformation:

A. Corruption within the Roman Catholic Church.

1. Wicked popes.

2. Internal strife.

3. The Inquisition Courts.

B. External factors.

1. The Renaissance.

2. Bible translations.

3. Invention of the printing press.

C. People.

1. Albigenses.

2. Waldenses.

3. John Wycliff – “Morning Star of the Reformation.”

4. John Huss.

II. In this lesson, we notice the formation of the first Protestant denomination and some general things about the reformation.

A. It needs to be pointed out that the men involved in the Reformation did not intend to begin new churches.

B. The aim of these men was to reform the Roman Catholic Church.

1. Heb. 6:1-6 is speaking of individual apostasy; however, the principle might be applied to the situation under discussion. The writer said, “It is impossible to renew them again to repentance.”

2. The Roman Catholic Church had gone too far to be reformed.

3. Viewed from this standpoint, the reformation was a failure. But good, as well as evil and error, came out of it as we shall see.

Discussion:

I. Luther’s Experiences (1483-1546).

A. Son of a poor miner but was given a good education.

1. In higher education began a study of law.

2. In 1505 the death of a close friend caused Luther to enter the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt.

3. In 1507 he was ordained a priest and assigned to Whittenburg, Germany.

B. Luther then began a serious investigation of the Bible – his troubles began.

1. In 1512 he was awarded a Doctor of Theology degree and began lecturing at the University.

2. About this time he was sent to Rome on a special mission and the corruption he saw helped crystalize his convictions.

II. Luther’s Break With The Roman Catholic Church.

A. John Tetzel came into Germany selling indulgences.

1. Luther preached against such and on October 31, 1517, nailed his 95 thesis to the church door of the All-Saints church in Whittenburg.

2. Luther did this, not to fight against the Catholic Church, but to preserve the honor of the Church.

3. Copies of the propositions spread all over Germany and Luther’s name became a household word.

B. Out of this, John Eck branded Luther as a heretic.

1. This led to a 23 day debate between Luther and Eck. Eck’s purpose was to draw out Luther enough on his doctrines so that the Pope could be persuaded to excommunicate him. Eck was successful.

2. The Papal bull of condemnation was then issued against Luther. When it was delivered to Luther, he made a public display of burning it on the streets of Whittenburg. He was then excommunicated.

C. In April 1521, Luther was summoned to appear before the Diet of Worms.

1. Before this tribunal he was offered the opportunity to recant. His reply was: “Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason, . . . I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honorable to act against conscience; I can naught else! Here I stand! God help me!”

2. On May 25, he was declared an outlaw.

3. As he returned to Whittenburg, his friends “kidnaped” him and for about a year he remained in Wartburg Castle.

4. During this time he translated the New Testament into the German language.

III. Formation of the Lutheran Church.

A. As an outgrowth of all these events, groups of people began to meet together who were in sympathy with Luther’s teaching.

1. The movement was given added direction by Luther with his publication of two catechisms in 1529.

2. In 1530 Philip Melanchthon published the Augsburg Confession which helped form the doctrinal foundation of the Lutheran Church.

3. Lutherans hold to the so-called Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

B. Interesting facts about the Lutheran Church.

1. Doctrines.

a. Two Sacraments – baptism and the Lord’s Supper (“sacrament” unscriptural).

b. Baptism is “by washing, pouring, immersion and sprinkling” (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:4).

c. Infants born totally depraved; therefore must be “baptized” (Ezek. 18:20; Matt. 18:3; 19:14).

d. The body and blood of Christ are “in, with and under the bread and wine of the Supper” (this is close to the transubstantiation doctrine of the Catholic Church).

e. Direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart of the sinner; faith is “wholly and solely the gift and work of God”; salvation is by faith alone (Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 1:16; 10:17; Jas. 2:24).

2. Organization.

a. Locally – congregationally governed by a “church council” consisting of the “pastor” and elected “lay officers.”

b. Synod is the next higher body, composed of “Pastors” and “lay representatives” elected by the congregations.

c. Highest level of Lutheran government is the general body. It may be national or even international and meets annually, biennially, or triennially.

d. See Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3; Heb. 13:17; Eph. 4:11; Phil. 1:1.

3. Division.

a. At one time there were no fewer than 150 different Lutheran bodies in this country.

b. Today that number has been reduced to less than 20.

IV. Fundamental Principles On Which The Reformation Movement Was Based.

A. The Bible was accepted as the only rule of faith and practice.

1. This was in opposition to the Catholic position that tradition is equal in authority with the written Word.

2. This position, if it had been completely believed and respected, would have resulted in the restoration of the Lord’s church instead of the establishment of Protestant denominations.

3. But this truth was modified (its power destroyed) by the following:

B. “What is not contrary to Scripture is for Scripture and Scripture for it.”

1. These are Luther’s words and the idea remains an important one in all Protestant denominations.

2. Simply stated, it says that anything may be accepted in religion which does not expressly contradict the Scriptures!

3. When Luther left the Catholic Church, he carried many false teachings with him such as instrumental music and sprinkling.

4. He, and other reformers, justified their unscriptural practices by this appeal to the silence of the Scriptures.

5. How many volumes would it have taken for the Lord to have included every specific prohibition? How many catalogues would Sears have to publish to list all the prices they are not asking for the items they sell’? How many woods did God tell Noah not to use? Can we put steak and coke on the Lord’s table? When you send your child to the grocery, do you put on your list all the things he is not to purchase or the items you want?

C. The doctrine of justification by faith only.

1. This extreme was produced by the Catholic doctrine of salvation by faith and works of human merit.

2. God’s order, from Adam down to the close of the last New Testament book, is this: Man believes (through the evidence God provides); God commands; Man obeys; God blesses.

D. The principle of the priesthood of all believers.

1. This was in contrast to the special priesthood of the Roman Catholic system.

2. When carried to its logical end, this would destroy:

a. Infallibility of the Pope.

b. The special powers of the Cardinals and all other Catholic officials.

c. Auricular Confession.

d. “Ordained officials” baptizing, serving the Lord’s Supper, etc.

3. See Peter 2:5,9.

E. The removal of obstructions placed between the believer and Christ.

1. This does away with intercession of saints, praying to Mary, veneration of relics and images, etc.

2. 1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:6.

Conclusion:

1 . People reared in the 20th century have problems just as those people did who lived back in the 16th century.

2. With all the religious confusion about me, what should I believe? Whose doctrine should I follow? What church should I join?

3. The answer is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

a. Believe nothing but God’s word – it alone is inspired!

b. Follow no teaching but Christ’s – he has all authority (Matt. 28:18)!

c. Join no church! The church is God’s house or God’s family (1 Tim. 3:15).

d. Obey the gospel of Christ – the Lord will save and add to his church (Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 2:36-47; Heb. 5:8-9; 1 Pet. 4:17).

4. Remember that the decision you make will face your at the judgment!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 16, pp. 488-489
August 18, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote John Augustus Williams, The Life of Elder John Smith (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, n.d.), pp. 412-413.

He [Smith) was once discussing the question of spiritual influence in conversion, with a worthy Baptist preacher who lived in Lincoln County, near Stanford. His opponent had denied that the sinner could believe the gospel on the simple testimony of the inspired witnesses, contending that in his natural (which meant his unconverted) state, he could not receive the testimony of such witnesses, for the Scriptures plainly declare that the natural, or unconverted, man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. But he claimed that the Spirit wielded a sword, with which he opened the sinner’s heart; and he founded a specious argument on that metaphor of Paul. In reply to this argument Smith said:

If the brother’s position be correct, then it follows that no man will ever be converted while the world stands. No sinner can be converted by the Spirit alone, for Jesus declares that the world cannot receive it; neither can he, according to the brother’s theology, be converted by the words and testimony of the Spirit; for the unconverted, he says, cannot receive these things of the Spirit. If, then, the poor sinner can receive neither the Spirit, nor the words of the Spirit, by what sort of hocus-pocus is he to be converted at all?

True, there is a sword of the Spirit, but so called because the Spirit made it, and not because he wields it. It was made for the Christian warrior, who is commanded to take it in his own hand, and to go forth and right against Satan and error. Now, that very sword is the Word of God itself this blessed book – which my brother says the unconverted man can neither understand nor believe!

The discussion having closed the Baptist announced to the audience that, on the following Sunday, he would speak on the subject of Campbellism, at another place in the neighborhood, which he named.

Smith informed him that he could not be with him on that day, but proposed that some brother, then in the audience, should go along with him and reply; but to this his opponent would not agree. “Then,” said Smith, “I will select one of these good sisters, who will, I know, be more than able to defend the truth against all you may say.”

A deist, who was present during this discussion, and who had long rejected the gospel on the ground that while the preachers declared it to be good news, it was impossible to believe without supernatural aid, now confess that his infidelity had been only the disbelief of an error, and he now saw that the gospel was a rational thing worthy of all acceptation.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 16, p. 490
August 18, 1988

By Vestal Chaffin

“Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:22). These words were spoken to Simon, an erring child of God. They emphasize the fact that our heart must be right in God’s sight in order to be acceptable to him. Many of our problems as Christians can be traced back to “heart trouble.” Our spiritual health depends on the condition of our heart, therefore, we should see that our heart functions properly.

In the physical realm we are constantly reminded to take care of our heart, to keep it healthy by eating the proper kind of food, getting the proper kind of exercise, etc. We have been educated to the degree that we realize that the fleshly heart is very essential to our physical well being; consequently, we try to keep it healthy. It is unfortunate indeed that many who profess to be Christians, give but little attention to their spiritual heart. What is the heart that must be right in God’s sight? It certainly is not that lobe of flesh that pumps the blood through the physical body. It is said that, “Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (2 Sam. 15:6). Certainly he did not steal the physical, fleshly hearts of those men. The Bible heart, the heart that must be right in God’s sight, has to do with our intellect. We think with the heart (Matt. 9:4); we love with the heart (Matt. 22:37); we believe with the heart (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9- 10); we purpose with the heart (Acts 11:23; 2 Cor. 9:7); we obey with the heart (Rom. 6:17-18). From this then, we can see that the heart involves our mind, our emotions, our will, and our conscience. This is the heart that so often gives us trouble. The wise man said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life. ” The apostle Paul told Timothy, “Now the end of the command ment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned” (1 Tim. 1:5).

In conversion the heart must be changed, or purified before God will accept us (Acts 15:9; 1 Pet. 1:22). But the heart is not only involved in our conversion, it is involved in all the service we render to God. It is often said when a man commits a sin, “But he is a good man at heart,” but that is not so, for Jesus said, “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things” (Matt. 12:35). The heart is right in God’s sight only when the intellect, the emotion, the will, and the conscience are right. Again the wise man said, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). After creating man and placing him upon the earth, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). The apostle Paul speaks of bringing every thought into captivity and to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). Some so-called Christians let their thoughts dwell on dome dirty, foul, vulgar, smutty story they have heard; but true Christians should not let their mind dwell on such, but they should be meditating on God’s word (Psa. 1:1-2).

If one’s heart is not right he does not enjoy the Lord’s work. He looks upon Bible study as a boring task that takes time that he had rather spend engaging in some sport or some pleasure. He does not enjoy worshiping the Lord, but he engages in it to please his family or his friends. He gives to the Lord begrudgingly; he does not enjoy serving the Lord in any way, for his heart is not in it. He is not, “doing the will of God from the heart” (Eph. 6:6). He has heart trouble.

The church member that has heart trouble, never renders or gives his best to the Lord. Their service falls far short of his abilities, and far below what the Lord expects of him. But after rendering a half-hearted service, they are so often like the Israelites to whom the prophet Malachi wrote, “Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness it is. and ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of host; and Ye brought that which way torn, and the lame, and the sick, thus ye brought an offering. Should I accept this of your hand? saith the Lord” (Mal. 1:13). If you do not give the Lord your best, and rejoice in the opportunities to serve the Lord, then you have heart trouble. What we render unto the Lord must be done “heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Col. 3:23).

When members of the church constantly entertain unclean and evil thoughts in their mind, it is because they have heart trouble. Our Lord said, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts” (Mk. 7:21-22). This is the reason we need to heed the admonition of wise man when he said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Since we speak from the abundance of the heart, we hold the key of life and death within our power! “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt. 12:37). The apostle Paul said, “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

In the language of the poet who wrote the song entitled, “Is Thy Heart Right With God?”, “Have thine affections been nailed to the cross; is thy heart right with God?” (Songs of the Church, p. 226). There is balm for the soul who has heart trouble. The great physician can heal you, if you will only do his will (Mk. 2:17; Matt. 7:21).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 16, p. 493
August 18, 1988

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way win save a soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sin.” (Jas. 5:19-20, NASV).

A straying Christian is not a pretty picture. He is as a dog returning to his own vomit; and a sow that was washed returning to her wallowing in the mire (2 Pet. 2:22). He is as an animal that strays off and needs rounding up.

Straying Christians place tremendous responsibilities upon themselves and their spiritual brethren.

Responsibilities of the Straying

A straying brother must repent. Sorrow is not repentance, though one must be sorry to produce repentance (2 Cor. 7:19). Quitting a sin is not enough, though Strays one must quit it as fruit of repentance (cf. Acts 26:20).

He must confess his sins (1 Jn. 1:9). Confessing is not revealing one’s sins. “Confess” is from homologeo meaning “to speak the same thing’ . . . ‘to assent, accord, agree with’ . . . ‘to confess by way of admitting oneself guilty of what one is accused of, the result of inward conviction'” (W.E. Vine). It is assumed that the sin is known by the one to whom it is confessed. God always knows all our sins. He accuses us of sin, we agree and repent. Sometimes others know, so we need to confess to them (Jas. 5:16).

“Confess your trespasses to one another” does not mean reveal your trespasses to one another. Those who encourage confessing even secret sins to one another, are without scriptural foundation. It may even do much damage. If brethren know about the sin, then that is another matter. The sinner then stands accused by them as well as the Lord and should confess the sins to both.

Failure to confess one’s sins leaves a problem. How can the offended person(s) know of his repentance and forgive him? One is to forgive his brother, if he repents. So, one needs to tell the offended one(s), “I repent” (Lk. 17:4). Quitting the practice of sin does not say that one has repented. There are other reasons for quitting a sin.

Often men forsake assembling for months or years, a sin that is known by the whole church, then ease back in taking up where they left off without a word being said. This is not right. Neither is the passing of time and/or mere reformation a substitute for confessing sins. I have never found the Scripture that places a “statute of limitations” on sin.

One who sins must ask the Lord for forgiveness (Acts 8:22). One may, along with his own praying for forgiveness, have brethren pray on his behalf (Acts 8:24; Jas. 5:16; 1 John 5:14-17).

Responsibilities of the Spiritual

As we have seen, the unfaithful must repent (cf. Rev. 2:5,6,16,21,22). The faithful must, commensurate with their abilities and opportunities, try to bring these brethren to repentance. When we succeed, we save a soul from death and “cover a multitude of sins” – the right way. The sins are not swept under the rug, but pardoned. The Psalmist shows how sins are to be covered. Psalms 32:1,2 refers to the forgiveness of sins in three ways: forgiven transgression, covered sin, and unimputed iniquity. The man without imputed iniquity is the same as the one whose sin is covered and whose transgression is forgiven. His sins are not ignored, but forgiven. In a similar passage, covered sins and forgiven iniquity are paralleled (Psa. 85:2). There is no man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity or whose sins are covered without repentance. So, our first order of business is to try to bring the erring to repentance.

We are to deal with each one according to his circumstance. Jude says, “And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh” (vv. 22,23).

Barnes makes some interesting observations about these verses:

The direction then amounts to this, that while we are to seek to save all, we are to adapt ourselves wisely to the character and circumstances of those whom we seek to save.

Making a difference. Making a distinction between them, not in regard to your desires for their salvation, or Your efforts to save them, but to the manner in which it is done . . . . The young, the tender, the delicate, the refined, need a different kind of treatment from the rough, the uncultivated, the hardened. .

And others. Another class; those who were of such a character, or in such circumstances, that a more bold, earnest, and determined effort would be better adapted to them.

Save with fear. That is, by appeals adapted to produce fear. The idea seems to be that the arguments on which they relied were to be drawn from the dangers of persons referred to, or from the dread of future wrath. It is undoubtedly true, that while there is a class of persons who can be won to embrace religion by a mild and gentle persuasion, there is another class who can be aroused only by the terrors of the law. . . .

Pulling them out of the fire. As you would snatch persons out of the fire; or as you would seize on a person that was walking into a volcano. Then, a man would not use mild and gentle language of persuasion, but by word and gesture show that he was deeply in earnest (Barnes on the New Testament, James-Jude, p. 403).

There is a time for gentleness (Gal. 6:1) and a time for sharpness (2 Cor. 13:10). All straying brethren are not alike. Failure to recognize this often causes us to handle cases unwisely. It also causes some to have sharp words for those who feel it necessary to use a less gentle approach at times. Isn’t it amazing how sharp some of these “above-all-else-and-always-be-gentle” fellows can be against one who dares rebuke anyone sharply? It is equally amazing how they can look right into the hearts and see the joy they can hardly contain as they do what must be done.

Paul mentions three classes in 1 Thessalonians 5:14: The unruly, the fainthearted, and the weak. He prescribes a different treatment for each. The unruly are “certain church members who manifest an insubordinate spirit, whether by excitability or officiousness or idleness” (Vine). The fainthearted are the discouraged. The weak are likely those who are still weak in the faith or weak in knowledge; who still need time and opportunity to become strong. Each may be doing the same sin.

Let us say each regularly misses worship service, when they should be there. The unruly obviously misses, not because he has reason to be discouraged or needs more teaching about his obligation, but that he prefers to be other places and do other things.

The fainthearted has many things to discourage her from attending. She has to walk out of the house over the protest of a objecting husband. She has to struggle for every opportunity to assemble. She is ridiculed by her family for her “fanaticism.” The weak misses, but obviously needs more time to let the teaching concerning his responsibilities as a Christian sink in.

All three are sinning – without excuse. They are neglecting the same duty. However, their circumstances are different, so different treatment is called for. The unruly need more than gentle persuasion, they need a sharply worded warning. The fainthearted need milder words of encouragement. The weak need to be upheld or supported with patient teaching until they can become strong.

Patience is to be shown toward all classes. Patience is not the same as gentleness. It is longsuffering and persistent perseverance. We are not to give up easily in whatever approach is called for Galatians 6:1 does not deal with every brother in error. It deals with one “overtaken in any trespass.” The margin in the New King James Version says, “caught.” Thayer says it means “to take one before he can flee, i.e., surprise.” This is not the premeditated or persistent sinner but one caught or surprised by a temptation and overcome before he can flee. He needs the gentle help from the spiritual to overcome the effects of his sin. The spiritual could easily be surprised and overcome in similar fashion.

Not all transgressors have been caught or surprised by sudden temptation. They study and plan their trespass and persist in it. They have carefully (or carelessly) charted their course. Some try to persuade others to follow their lead. These are not the same as those in Galatians 6:1 and do not require the same treatment. These calf for sharp words of warning and exposure (see Tit. 1:13). They should be given time to heed the words of warning (cf. Rev. 2:1). If words fail then sharp action must follow. Paul told the Thessalonians to warn the unruly (disorderly) in his first letter (5:14) to them. In his second letter (3:6,14) after the warning had gone unheeded, he tells them to withdraw from and not to keep company with them. A heretic or factious man is to be warned twice then rejected (Tit. 3:10).

Circumstances dictate whether a brother’s sin is dealt with privately or openly. Again it amazes me how openly some criticize those who occasionally publicly rebuke brethren for their good and to warn others. Some openly chastise them for not first “telling him his fault between you and him alone” – many times with no way of knowing if they have done this or not. Besides, if public rebuke is a fault, why the open criticism of the public rebuker without telling him his fault between the two alone? It is kind of hard to be consistent, isn’t it?

The sin of Matthew 18:15-18 begins as a private matter – one brother sins against another. The objective is to regain the sinning brother while keeping the knowledge and damage of the sin as limited as possible. Other brethren do not know about it and, hopefully, they will never need to know. All too often, the offended one tells nearly every one how he has been sinned against before telling the brother who did the sinning. This helps neither the sinning brother nor those who have been told. If, after reasonable effort to privately regain the brother, he does not repent, one or two other brethren need to be brought in to help. If this fails, then the matter is told to the church. It is now a public matter. If the church fails to bring him to repentance, then “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector” that is, cease fellowshipping him. This is not the passage for dealing with brethren whose sin is already well known to brethren in general. The church does not need to be told, it already knows. Yet, a great many brethren think we should start back peddling until we reduce it to a private matter and then formally follow the steps of Matthew 18.

Peter openly violated the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-21). He was influencing others to do the same, Barnabas among them. Paul did not follow the three step formula of Matthew 18. This thing was not merely a matter of Peter sinning against Paul. It was a public matter influencing good brethren to do wrong. Paul says, “I withstood him to his face. Did he do this between him and Peter alone. Let Paul tell us: “I said to Peter before them all.” Paul’s approach must have gotten the job done. Peter later referred to him as “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet. 3:15).

Sometimes it is wiser to take a mistaken public teacher aside privately and teach him further as Aquilla and Priscilla did to Apollos. But to say that one must always tell a brother his fault privately before openly rebuking him or exposing his public error simply is not taught in the Scriptures. There are things done and said so openly and so damaging that they need to be dealt with as openly as they are said and done – as soon as possible to minimize the damage done to the cause of Christ.

Ottis Castleberry, in his biography of John T. Lewis, relates a story by Leonard Johnson that illustrates how strong brethren in the past have handled such damaging public errors of brethren:

Brother Lewis went back to David Lipscomb College to give the commencement address. His subject was “Compromise,” and in his lesson, he went back, as I recall, and took biblical examples of men and women who compromised. He addressed the students and said, “Young men and women, I want to give you some modern examples of compromise. (Well, there had been a Christian Church preacher, who was well known in his day and he had been holding a meeting in one of the Christian Churches in Nashville; and several of the brethren including Brother Pittman, A ‘ B ‘ Lipscomb, F.B. Srygley, and a host of others – I don’t know how many more had gone out to hear this man, and each one of them had been invited to lead prayer and had done so.) All of these men were present for the commencement address. Brother Lewis began to tell the young people about the Christians Church preacher having been in town not long ago. He said, “S.P. Pittman, A.B. Lipscomb, F.B. Srygley,” and he named several others, “were present and they participated in this worship and led the prayer – now that’s a modem example of compromise” (He Looked For A City).

We need more like that today. It would not be popular, but it might save more souls from the influence of compromising brethren.

Once a brother has repented we must forgive him – no strings attached (Lk. 17:3; 2 Cor. 2:7). It is not only in his interest that we do this – it is in ours. Jesus said, “For if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:15).

Indeed, the picture of one who falls into sin is not pretty; but how beautiful it is when one repents, confesses and asks forgiveness. A soul has been saved from death. Ugly sins are covered. A stray has been rounded up.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 16, pp. 496-498
August 18, 1988