Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

In a recent letter a respected preacher and reader of Guardian of Truth asked me to write something on Psalms 19:12-13. Neither of us believe David was asking for an unconditional forgiveness of sins of ignorance. Both of us believe one may sin in ignorance (Lk. 12:47-48) — but we both believe sin is still sin, and must be forgiven if we are to be acceptable before God (cf. Lev. 5:17). This was a simple and direct request for exegesis and thoughts on David’s prayer-like statements in the Psalm cited, and we will so treat it.

The ASV reads, “Who can discern (his) errors? Clear thou me from hidden (faults). Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous (sins), “Let them not have dominion over me, Then shall I be upright, and I shall be clear from great transgression.”

Let us first consider David’s question. In preceding verses he praised the virtues of God’s law, testimony, precepts, commandments, and ordinances. “By them is thy servant warned” (v. 11). David is not questioning the adequacy nor the clarity of God’s law. The intense sincerity evident in the psalm, and the fact that “clear” or “cleanse” (KJV) means “absolve” or “set free of guilt,” forbids our thinking David sought an excuse for his sins. He asks,” Who can discern (his) errors?” in a rhetorical manner, implying none can know himself so perfectly. The “his” is supplied, but removing it only broadens the question. This is a cry of despair. Coming from one like David, in the context of a plea for mercy, it seems rather to be an asking for divine assistance in knowing his sins, that he may avoid them in the future. At the same time he recognizes man will never know either himself or the law in an absolute sense.

“Clear” (forgive) me of hidden (secret) faults – follows, and rests upon the previous rhetorical question; the hidden sins being those not perceived, those none can discern. Yes, the language (“secret sins”) could apply to sins David knew, but kept hidden from others; but would David pray for such sins? This interpretation injects brazen gall into a psalm to God by one who repeatedly recognizes Him as Pure and All-Knowing; who in the next breath prays, “Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins.” Hold the writer and his context clearly in mind, and you will reject such an anomaly-Pulpit Commentary is concise: “Who can understand his errors? rather, who can discern (or, perceive) his errors? i.e., all of them. Who will not overlook some, try as he may to search out his heart? Cleanse thou me from secret faults. Those which are hidden from me, which I cannot discern.” This is fair and clear exegesis.

The “presumptuous sins” of verse 13, are in contrast to sins of verse 12, and help to define them. From a word meaning “to seethe, boil over,” the term signifies “willful, deliberate, insolent” sin; Delitzsch says, “opposite of sin arising from infirmity.” It seems unlikely that one of David’s disposition would “insolently” ins’ yet, he prays “keep back” thy servant from such. Note David’s use of “keep back” in 1 Samuel 25:33, 39, to appreciate its use here. David knew the subtlety of temptation and sin, and wanted to stay as far from it as possible. Only by so doing could he avoid the ultimate end of total apostasy. As he says, “Then shall I be upright, and I shall be clear from great transgression” (v. 13b). It is difficult to understand how anyone, keeping these verses in context and fairly interpreting them, could conclude that David was excusing sin, or seeking to justify himself. It is far out indeed, to say they teach “unconditional forgiveness.”

But we should not close this article without warning about misuse of Scriptures “to justify a good cause.” If we believe one man teaches error on a certain text, this does not justify our misuse of that text to answer him. May one sin without being aware of it? Few, if any, deny this. Then we should not allow David’s secret sins,” however interpreted, to lead us away from the heart of claims regarding unconditional forgiveness? And even if we deemed it necessary to question “secret sins,” we should avoid mechanical arguments that “play” with words, ignoring the context.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 24, p. 743
December 19, 1985

By Keith Pruitt

Christ declared His intention to establish the church (Matt. 16:18). Built upon the premise of Christ’s deity, the church was to stand as the fulfillment of ancient prophecy regarding an eternal kingdom (Isa. 2; Dan. 2; 2 Sam. 7). On the first Pentecost after Christ’s death, the prophecy and promise became a reality as three thousand souls obeyed the gospel and were “added unto them” (Acts 2:41). A few verses later finds saved ones being added together (v. 47). The King James Version renders this concept from Greek as being added by God to the “church.”

Modern theologians have redefined “the church.” Some define the word in relation to some structure. “They have a nice church,” they will say when speaking of a building. Yet, the word says that God does not make His abode in temples made with hands (Acts 17:24). Paul states, however, that the church is the temple of God and that His Spirit en-dwells the saint (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:19, respectively). Paul addressed letters to the “church of God at Corinth,” and sent greetings to Rome from the “churches of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:1; Rom. 16:16).

Still others redefine “the church” in a denominational sense. They mean by “the church” the same thing Catholics mean by the term. Their understanding is of a super structure with earthly headquarters, leader and human creed. We refer to this as the institutionalized church. The institution in denominationalism serves as judge, legislator, and accomplisher of all of God’s will as such is viewed by the leaders. The “institution” builds and maintains hospitals (most operated for profit), schools (that train men and women for ordination as clerics), and various other branches to perform specific duties. They own printing houses that pipe the official line and radio networks that are used to promote their pet doctrines (as well as raise funds to cushion the pockets of their clerics).

A master’s degree is not required in order to comprehend the message. Even some who claim affiliation with the Lord’s people have come to think of “the church” in the above manner. One should not think it strange to hear of church of Christ schools, hospitals, missionaries, radio stations, orphan homes, etc., ad nausea. These things are merely a result of denominational thinking. They do not represent “better” ways of doing the tasks assigned, but they are “new” ways to think about the Lord’s kingdom.

It is this institutionalized concept of God’s people that has brought about the “talks” between “representatives” of the church of Christ and the Christian Church. Only institutional thinking could allow such a perversion of truth.

The desirability of union with the Christian Church is only possible if the church of Christ is “just another denomination” as some have suggested.

But the true Bible believer is interested in union with God. Perversions of His word are condemned as is also division of His people (Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Cor. 1:10). There is a great need in our day to understand the proper application of biblical truth in regards to the nature of that which was established on Pentecost, A.D. 33. Our efforts, though they be feeble, shall be in that direction.

There is one manner in which the church is an institution. Webster defines an “institution” as something instituted. The Lord’s Supper was instituted. By this we merely suggest an origin. It has a beginning. Yet, the Lord’s supper is not an institution in the structural concept of the term. The same point is to be understood as touching the church. It had an origin, but the universal church, spoken of in many of the aforementioned verses, lacks the structural foundation required of institutions.

A man asks, “what is the church of Christ?” What shall’ we answer? The truth is the church of Christ is the body of believers or disciples or saints who are in a reconciled relationship to the God of heaven. The church describes this relationship as it has to do with our former lives in sin. The church consists of those called by the gospel out of sin into service to King Jesus (Col. 1:13; Eph. 2). This relationship is based solely upon one’s obedience and reception of God’s grace. It is a spiritual relationship with spiritual, qualities (Rom. 14:17; Gal. 5:22-24). This relationship is that connected with the great commission of Matthew 28:19.

As Christians, and in accord with this new relationship, there are responsibilities that God has given to be carried out by local assemblies of believers. These may properly be referred to as local churches. They are not branches or members of the church universal. The church of Christ is made of Christians not congregations. The phrase “congregations of the church of Christ” suggests again the institutionalized concept of Christianity. The local church and the universal church are made up of the same elements: Christians.

While there is no structure to the universal church, there is in local congregations. In Philippians 1:1, Paul speaks of “the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons. ” The bishops, elders, pastors, presbyters, or overseers are men appointed to oversee a local congregation (Acts 20:28). The scriptural oversight of these men (a plurality in each congregation – Tit. 1:5) never exceeded the flock. The elders at Ephesus never had oversight of any other work. Nor were they answerable to any but their own and God. The work of the local congregation was never performed through separate organizations. They did their own work. The deacons attended to the physical needs of the local church while the elders were guarding the souls of the flock (Acts 6:1-6; Heb. 13:17). These men were not responsible for the work or problems of others as they were “leaders” of an autonomous work. There was no organization or society or association that tied New Testament congregations in any manner.

These congregations had evangelists that worked among them preaching the word of truth such as Timothy, Titus, Paul, Peter, etc. (Eph. 4:11). There was no special qualifications for this work other than being a man (1 Tim. 2:12), being faithful and able (2 Tim. 2:2). Preachers of the New Testament were not required to attend the University of Jerusalem or some “Preaching School,” nor were they required to be married or have obtained a certain age in order to preach. Preachers were supported for their labor (Phil. 4:15-18). There were no societies or alliances for preachers to join.

When one obeyed the gospel call for repentance and baptism, he was added to the universal church (Acts 2:37-41). After this, Christians labored together, under the instruction of the apostles in local congregations doing the work God had given (Acts 2:42-ff; Acts 20:17-ff; Rom. 1:1-7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; Rev. 1:4). They joined no denomination, for there were none to join. I would such were true today. This is the simple plan of God.

As to the universal church, there is but one (Eph. 4:4; Eph. 1:22-23). The words church, body, and kingdom are but descriptions of the saved as it pertains to certain aspects of the relationship with God. The simple phrase “church of Christ” is merely showing possession. It is Christ’s Church or the church of Christ. Human names were never exalted above Jesus (Acts 4:12). Thus, today faithful Christians profess merely to belong to Christ. As a body, they are subject to the head, Jesus Christ (Col. 1:18). As a kingdom, they are willing slaves of King Jesus (Heb. 12:28; Rom. 6:18; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9). As the church, they are “called out” (ekklesla) of sin into Christ. As the bride, they are wed unto Christ and are subject to His leadership and care (Eph. 5:22-33; Rom. 7:4).

These that have been bought with His blood (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20), have hope. They await the resurrection at His coming so that they may be delivered to the Father in the haven of rest (1 Cor. 15:24).

As the gospel of Jesus is shared with those in sin, we plead for people to consider New Testament Christianity. If being just a Christian, a part of the blood-bought body, and worshiping with other New Testament Christians as God’s word dictates is alluring to you, then why not hear in order that faith might be produced (Rom. 10:17) and act upon that faith to repent of sin (Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3,5), and upon a confession of Jesus as the Son of God (Matt. 10:32; Acts 8:37), be buried with your Lord in baptism to cleanse you of sin (Acts 22:16)? Heaven bids you come.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 24, pp. 752-753
December 19, 1985

By Frank Jamerson

In Hal Lindsey’s speculative book, The Late Great Planet Earth, he says: “God’s kingdom will be characterized by peace and equity, and by universal spirituality and knowledge of the Lord. Even the animals and reptiles will lose their ferocity and no longer be carnivorous” (p. 165).

The error in the last sentence comes from a misunderstanding of Isaiah 11:6-9. The context of the verses shows clearly that this has a spiritual fulfillment. Verse ten says, “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek; and his rest shall be glorious.” “That day” refers to the day he has just discussed in verses 6 through 9. “The root of Jesse” refers to Jesus and Romans 15:8-12 quotes this prophecy and shows that it has been fulfilled. Gentiles can seek after the Lord, therefore the peaceful kingdom described in this passage is in existence.

The spiritual peace prophesied in Isaiah 11 has been proclaimed through the gospel of Christ. Paul said: “For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself one new man, so making peace” (Eph. 2:14,15). The gospel has its effect upon the hearts of men, not the bodies of wild beasts and reptiles!

Not only does the gospel bring unity between Jews and Gentiles, but it tames the “wildness” in men. James said that the venomous part of a man is his tongue. “For every kind of beasts and birds, of creeping things and things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed by mankind: but the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God” (Jas. 3:7-9). To think of man in the figures of wild animals or poisonous snakes may not bolster our egos, but the failure of man to tame the wildness within causes “biting and devouring” (Gal. 5:15), and destruction (Jas. 3:5). Once you have been attacked by a “wild beast” or “poisonous viper” you can appreciate the need for the application of Isaiah’s prophecy to men!

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). As our thoughts and actions are brought under the control of Christ, through the gospel, the “wild beasts” of Isaiah are being tamed. To the extent that the thoughts and passions of man are not brought under control the ferocity and venom remain.

It is not enough to say that the premillennial interpretation of these passages is wrong, we must also interpret them in our lives by being what God would have us be. When God’s truth is applied in our hearts, those formerly hurtful and destructive characteristics are replaced by a peaceful and loving disposition.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 23, p. 725
December 5, 1985

By A Concerned Father

There is an increasing incidence of so-called “shotgun weddings” among members of our Lord’s church. It is apparent that the primary cause of this is fornication. In fact, statistics show that more than I million teenage girls get pregnant each year! But does fornication that leads to conception necessarily demand a wedding? Or do parents (because of social pressures and embarrassment) force young people to get married under such circumstances? It is my conviction that the latter is the case most of the time when there is a shotgun wedding.

I have chosen to write this article without including my name or situation in life to say something that I never heard anyone say before. You see, I was married at an early age because I committed fornication, and she became pregnant. My parents didn’t know about this until the baby was due, and we were not forced by anyone to go ahead with the marriage. But, we felt the social pressures that prevail among “respectable people,” and so we were married. Since that time, I have seen a multiplicity of cases like ours which have ended in divorce. This has caused me to wonder how wise it is to encourage (yea even force!) young people to go ahead and get married when they get “caught” in fornication.

It may be that we are forgetting a very basic, biblical fact: fornication can be forgiven, but a marriage cannot! Perhaps the lax attitudes among some so-called “gospel preachers” these days, would cause some to take issue with this statement, but I firmly believe that the Bible so teaches! Is it not better to endure the shame of bearing a child out of wedlock, than to face the possibility of spending the remaining days of your life alone because of an unscriptural divorce? These are serious questions that are seldom considered by those who are “caught in fornication,” but I am convinced that they should and in fact must be considered by those who truly love the Lord.

I would also like to give attention to some of the cases (many which I know of personally) where God-fearing young people do marry as a result of fornication, and stay together! There can be no doubt that in most of these cases, one or the other partner has felt that he was trapped into the marriage – especially when things aren’t going just right! It is true, that those who care about their souls will work it out, but some will simply throw in the towel and get a divorce!

There is the possibility that some will feel a sense of resentment toward the child conceived in fornication! This can lead to an unwholesome atmosphere in the home and result in emotional problems for the child. I am thankful that this has not been the case in my family!

Then, there are the problems that come from “mathematicians” (even now I can see some with their calculators checking their preacher’s wedding anniversary against the age of his oldest child!). Couples who were married because of fornication, and who have made public acknowledgment of their sin (which I believe is necessary, 1 John 1:9; James 5:16) often live in fear that someone will “add-it-up” and say something about it! This has never happened to us, but we have never said too much about our anniversary date in an effort to avoid such a problem! Again, this does not encourage happiness in a marriage! A wedding anniversary should be a happy time, not a time to dread each year!

And of course, there is the fear of the time when your children reach an accountable age, and you must explain the situation to them. I don’t know how others have deaft with this, but I am thankful that our children have not held this against us. I would like to think that our attempt to live the life that God directs has caused them to respect us for what we are now, and not for the sins we have committed in the past. But this is something that few if any who force marriage on young couples, ever think about!

Without any doubt, the solution to this problem is to avoid fornication! And I am thankful that our children are striving to live after God’s divine plan! But would I force one of them to marry if they were “caught” in fornication? No! And in fact I would discourage it — even if they thought they were hopelessly in love! Why? Because they can always repent of fornication and be forgiven, but they cannot repent and be forgiven of a marriage!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 24, p. 737
December 19, 1985