Truth Magazine

By Mike Wilson

The general consumption of intoxicating beverages and consequent drunkenness is not met with divine approval in the Bible. God’s attitude toward “strong drink” is expressed in terms of condemnation. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; and whosoever erreth thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1). “And even these reel with wine, and stagger with strong drink; they are swallowed up of wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment” (Isa. 28:7). “Be not among winebibbers . . .” (Prov. 23:20). “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, When it sparkleth in the cup, When it goeth down smoothly; At the last it biteth like a serpent, And stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange things, And thy heart shall utter perverse things” (Prov. 23:31-33).

Part of the confusion arises by the translation of “wine” of some words in both the Old and New Testaments which can refer to fresh juice from the vineyard, with no measurable alcoholic content. The common word for “wine” in the New Testament, oinos, can bean either fermented wine or fresh grape juice. The context must determine the meaning.

A second factor involves the potency of the alcoholic content. “Wine was the most intoxicating drink known in ancient times. All the wine was light wine, i.e. not fortified with extra alcohol. Concentrated alcohol was only known in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation (‘alcohol’ is an Arabic word) so what is now called liquor or strong drink (i.e., whiskey, gin, etc.) and the twenty percent fortified wines were unknown in Bible times. Beer was brewed by various methods, but its alcoholic content was light. The strength of natural wines is limited by two factors. The percentage of alcohol will be half the sugar in the juice. And if the alcoholic content is much above 10 or 11 percent, the yeast cells are killed and fermentation ceases. Probably ancient wines were 7-10 percent” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 376). The same Wordbook defines “strong drink” thus: “strong drink, beer. Most likely not ‘liquor’ for there is no evidence of distilled liquor in ancient times. It denotes not just barley beer but any alcoholic beverage prepared from either grain or fruit” (Vol. II, p. 927).

When we read the word “wine” in the Bible, we should not immediately equate it with the beverages sold in the modern bars, supermarkets, and liquor stores. Whiskey, gin, brandy, vodka, and even fortified wines are all more potent than the “strong drink” which the Bible condemns.

A third factor which must be considered when comparing modern beverages to ancient ones is the manner in which wine was used as a common table drink. Notice the following quotes from Everett Ferguson, “Wine as a Table-Drink int eh Ancient World,” Restoration Quarterly (Vol. 13):

– The ordinary table beverage of the Mediterranean world in Roman time was wine mixed with water (p. 141).

– At Greek formal banquets the guests elected a president who determined the proportions of water and wine (p. 141).

– The ratio of wine to wine varied considerably. One of the earliest references gives the most diluted mixtures – twenty parts water to one part wine (was the wine really that strong?). Other references tend to stay within less extreme proportions, but nearly always the quantity of water predominated” (p. 142).

– Plutarch himself says, “We call a mixture ‘wine’, although the larger of the components is water” (p. 144).

– But to drink wine unmixed was regarded by the Greeks of the classical age as a Barbarian (Scythian) custom. It is to be noted how in ordinary usage, even as “wine” meant “wine mixed with water,” so if one wanted to say straight or neat wine, it was necessary to add the adjective “unmixed” (p. 145).

– One might even call the ancients “water drinkers” in view of the preponderance of water in the drink. In most cases, however, it was safer and more hygienic to drink wine. Somehow the ancients had discovered that mixing wine with water had a purifying effect on the water so that it became safe to drink (p. 146).

Writing on the same theme, professor Robert Stein of Bethel College says, “To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine, one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts of water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.”

Even still, the ideal for early Christians was abstinence. In relation to intoxicating beverages, excessive drinking and drunkenness are not the only vices the New Testament condemns. “Carousings” (or, “drinking parties,” from potos) in 1 Peter 4:3 is a general word for “drinking.” R.C. Trench, in Synonyms of the New Testament, says the term is “not of necessity excessive,” But is related to words of excess in that it gives “opportunity for excess” (p[. 211). Elders (1 Tim. 3:2), women of influence (1 Tim. 3:11), and older men (Tit. 3:2) are commanded to be “temperate” (nephalios), a word implying freedom from all wine (see Thayer, p. 425). “This word shows strongly that the New Testament ideal is total abstinence” (Joseph Free, Archeology And Bible History, p. 355).

Considering God’s attitude toward intoxication and strong drink, the comparative potency of ancient wine to modern liquor, the ideal of abstinence from the weaker beverages of the time practiced by early Christians, and the danger of ungodly influence in a world full of alcoholism, can there be any justification of modern “drinking”? We think not. After denouncing the partying sins of reveling and drunkenness, the apostle Paul commands, “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:14).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 145, 148
March 7, 1985

By Billy Ashworth

All informed, sober-minded, God-fearing people today are alarmed by the national disgrace that is blighting this once-great land of ours, causing her to lose the place of moral leadership in the world. It is one of many evidences that this once great country is now in decline and will become just another former great civilization in history books. I am speaking of the heinous crime of abortion”legalized abortion.” The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a woman has the (constitutional) right, by and with the consent of her doctor, to abort an unwanted “fetus” (baby). The word “fetus” is a “medical term of our own devising, which may serve a legitimate purpose, but has a way of depersonalizing in many minds, the baby before birth.”

The modem population explosion, sexual revolution, and humanistic philosophy have brought many problems to our beloved country, but no solutions to the problems of the most essential areas of life. Many of these problems (including abortion) are called by worldly people “social issues,” but they are in reality moral issues. The world attempts to investigate and solve such problems by human wisdom, including civil government, thereby showing contempt for the moral law clearly defined in the Bible. The humanistic philosophy, Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics, is just plain rationalism; it has been in full sway concerning the enormous problems we face, with no appreciable effect. In fact, the loose, liberal philosophy of these various codes has only compounded the problems, since none of them has any moral standard by which to deal with them.

But God-fearing, Bible-believing people know that the apostle Peter wrote,: “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as his divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to glory and virtue. . .” (2 Pet.1:2,3). Therefore, we who are faithful children of God can deal more effectively with such problems as abortion and related ones, because we have the revelation of the God who made us in His image and knows what is best for us. Therefore, as a loving Father, He has given as all things that concern life and godliness. We can know what is right and good by what the Lord has revealed to us.

However, not all specific acts or problems are cited specifically by name in the Bible. Consequently, an intelligent searching of Scripture to apply to our problems is an absolute necessity to, our approach to a solution of these things. What are the principles that apply to the various problems?

The Bible does not mention specifically abortion. The word is not found in the Bible. And, as far as I can determine, the act of abortion as used herein is not mentioned in the Bible. So what is the issue as far as we who abhor abortion are concerned? Obviously, abortion involves the termination of life-human life! The act that terminates human life is called murder in the Bible. The command “Thou shalt not kill” (lit., “do no murder”) is found in Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17. In the early history of the human race, we find God’s condemnation of murder: “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). This passage, incidentally, is the first mention of capital punishment in the Bible.

The issue that we must deal with in the matter of abortion is life and death, murder! When is the “fetus” a person? When does it possess a soul? (Of course, a majority of the militant pro-abortionists deny that anyone has a soul.) When can abortion be performed and not be murder, if it can? Is it safe to assume that the fetus has no life, no soul, until the baby breathes at birth?

Before I deal with the matters above, I call your attention to the magnitude of the problem of abortion. The Agency for International Development (AID) is an organization authorized by the Congress of the U.S. to administer U.S. Aid abroad. it is “pushing world-wide population control programs, including the use of abortion and sterilization. ” This world-wide society produced at least 34 million abortions in 1971, according to statistics of the United Nations. Dr. Gallon believes the world-wide total of abortions is closer to 100 million. Exact figures are not possible since many abortions are “legal” and many more “illegal.” In the United States in 1972, there were 700,000 known abortions, 310,000 of these in New York. The Nashville Tennessean (November 24, 1980) had the following stats concerning abortion in Tennessee: During the first six months of 1980, doctors performed 12,174 “known” abortions. In Nashville, there were 7,020 abortions during 1980 (Nashville Tennessean, Feb. 23, 1982).

What are the consequences of abortion? (1) Some prefer an abortion every year to a pill every day, an evil form of “birth control” (2) Promiscuity. Abortion removes one of the greatest deterrents to immorality (3) Doctors who perform abortions violate the Hippocratic oath (4) Psychological effects. Abortion leaves a “time bomb” that is frequently more severe than that which accompanies an unwanted pregnancy. A feeling of guilt rises up to torment the woman who has compounded one serious error with a worse one! (5) Abortion is the murder of an innocent being.

Now, what arguments can be made to condemn abortion as far as the Bible is concerned? Obviously, the issue turns on the point of killing the “fetus.” The question to be determined is whether the “fetus” is a human being. If it is, then abortion is murder! The Bible nowhere refers to the “fetus” or uses the term “abortion.” But, God’s word does refer to the child in the womb as a “babe.” In Luke 1, there is the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth after an angel appeared to her that she would “conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus.” Mary went to visit Elizabeth. “And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb . . .” Here we find the child called “the babe” while in the womb. This does imply personality. Since the babe in the womb is identified as a human being, it must follow that to kill this human being is murder! If a person who professes to believe the Bible denies this conclusion, I would say at the very least, he will always have doubts about having an abortion approved of God. The evidences are too great against such a thing.

But, I have an interesting point to make concerning whether the “fetus” is a person-a human being. Even some atheists have a conscience against abortion, including a medical doctor. Several months ago I heard a program on the Donahue Show in which Dr. Bernard Nathanson appeared in defense of a book he had written, titled, Aborting America, subtitled “A Case Against Abortion.” Opposing Nathanson were two feminists who were promoting “self-help” clinics, asserting “that our abortion rights are being very seriously attacked right now.”

Dr. Nathanson revealed that he had been guilty of aborting several thousand babies. But he also affirmed his complete reversal relative to abortion. He said, “I’m responsible for about 75, 000 (abortions) in my own private life . . . I performed about 5,000 in my own private practice, supervised about 10,000 others with residents doing them, and I ran for about two years the largest abortion clinic in the world . . . We did about 60,000 abortions in two years there.”

Donahue asked Nathanson why he wrote the book, A Case Against Abortion. He replied, “Well, over about four years, during which time I was running a perinatology unit at a major hospital in Manhattan, I was working with the fetus, with the newest technologies that we have, and in day to day intimate contact with that fetus, diagnosing it, treating it, transfusing it, I became absolutely convinced, beyond any question of doubt, that a fetus is a person (emphasis mine, ba), a patient and should be accorded all the rights that any of us have.” Donahue asked, “From the moment of conception or whenever that might be?” Nathanson replied: “From the moment of conception or ___” Donahue: “So you think abortion should be illegal then?” Nathanson: “Absolutely except in the case where the mother’s life is in jeopardy.”

A member of the audience said: “It sounds to me, Dr. Nathanson, that you are trying to get right with God.” He replied: “Let me set the records straight. I am not a believer in God, and I am an atheist . . .” Consequently, Nathanson did not condemn abortion strictly on a moral basis, but he did condemn it on the basis that the “fetus” is a person and “should be accorded all the rights that any of us have.”

So we have an atheist affirming that a fetus is a person and has rights. On the other side, the feminists affirmed the “right” of a woman to abort the innocent little baby, asserting that “a woman has the right to determine what happens to her own body, including the baby in her womb.” I flatly deny that she has that “right” from God or civil authority. I deny that the Constitution gives a woman the right to murder her own baby; this I hold in spite of the fact that “nine old men” on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise. I challenge any person to give answer to that affirmation. It has become painfully obvious that the Supreme Court often rules in accord with what they perceive to be the popular mood of the country. But I resent their playing God and handing down “decisions” that fly into the face of God’s divine revelation. And, I warn any professed Christian that to practice or condone abortion is a crime in the sight of God and all God-fearing people. Lord, help us to be pure in heart and life.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 6, pp. 168-169
March 21, 1985

By Dick Blackford

I receive the Sword Of The Lord, a Baptist publication which claims to be the largest religious weekly in America. In a recent article on the new birth, the above caption was highlighted in the middle of the article. It jumped out at me. Never have I seen so much false doctrine taught in such a small space. That is the nature of error, especially since one need not (cannot) list Scriptures which teach the views expressed.

Some of my best friends and favorite relatives are Baptists. By examining the five short statements made, it is certainly not my intention to hurt them. This is not an attack on people but an investigation of a view that affects our eternal salvation. We should not fear investigation and we cannot afford to be wrong on this issue.

1. The New Birth Is A Miracle

A miracle is a supernatural, instantaneous occurrence that supercedes the normal. It is an open, obvious thing for which there is no earthly explanation. In the vegetable kingdom God created the first plants. He then set in order the law of reproduction, whereby God does not need to keep creating plants full-grown. By merely sowing the seed a plant is reproduced. God’s law of reproduction is a marvelous thing, but it is not a miracle.

In the animal kingdom and the human kingdom, it works similarly. God created the first animals and the first humans. But when we want additional animals or desire children in the family, we do not expect God to miraculously make another dog or cat, nor do we expect Him to create another baby from the dust or from a woman’s rib. Instead, God’s law of reproduction is that when the male seed is sown in the womb of a female, offspring is produced. It is a marvelous thing, but it happens according to law.

In the spiritual kingdom, miracles were involved in the beginning of the age (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 12:28). Some had miraculous knowledge and ability in the infancy of the church. But God set up a law of reproduction which involves the sowing of the seed (the word of God, Lk. 8:11) into good soil (the mind of man, Lk. 8:8,15). The good seed in the good soil germinates, producing faith, repentance, confession and baptism. Through the teaching of the Spirit, a man is led to obey. “Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom. . . .” Just as we cannot see what causes the seed to germinate in the plant, animal, and human kingdoms, neither can we see this in the spiritual realm. But it happens according to God’s spiritual law rather than miraculously.

2. The Mind Cannot Comprehend It

This is partially true, if one means we cannot comprehend the knowledge and the power of God which brought about the new birth. But by “being rooted and grounded in love,” we may be “strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth all knowledge. . .” (Eph. 3:17,18). There was a time when it was needful for Jesus to speak in figurative language about the new birth (Jn. 3), since some wanted to take Him by force and make Him a king and others wanted to take Him by force and crucify Him. However, Jesus later taught that being “born into the kingdom” meant the same as being “converted” (Mt. 18:3) and “doing the will” of His Father (Mt. 7:21). His apostles taught that being in Christ made one a “new creature” (born again, 2 Cor. 5:17). One is said to be “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). They also taught that one is raised from baptism to walk in “newness of life” (born again, Rom. 6:4).

If this cannot be comprehended, why did Christ and the Apostles explain it? Why are we admonished to study it (2 Tim. 2:15)? Such would be an exercise in futility and reduce the biblical exhortations to absurdity.

3. The Tongue Cannot Tell It

Jesus told it, as we have previously shown. The apostles also told it. If we tell the same thing they told, then we are telling it.

4. One’s Vocabulary Cannot Express It

Certainly the tongue cannot tell what the vocabulary cannot express. And there are some things that fit in that category. For example, the “peace of God passeth all understanding” (Phil. 4:7). But if the tongue cannot tell it and the vocabulary cannot express it, then how can we preach it? Men are not preaching the new birth when they say these things about it. Jesus and the apostles had the vocabulary to express it. If we study what they taught and say what they said, then we can express it. But how many denominational preachers are willing to say what Peter said in Acts 2:38 or 1 Peter 3:21?

5. But The Heart Can Feel It

The Bible never says this. Very little emphasis is put on feelings in connection with conversion. From the Scriptures and from experience, we should be-overwhelmed with the knowledge that feelings often mislead. Saul of Tarsus felt saved. He thought Christ was an imposter and Christianity was a hoax. The followers of Jim Jones felt right about what they were doing. We are impressed with the devotion of Paul and others for wrong causes. The way we can know we have been born again is not by a “good feeling” but by whether we have taken all (not part) Christ and the apostles taught about salvation and obeyed it. If you have taken faith but have neglected obedience to the Lord in baptism (Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5), regardless of how you feel, you have not been born again (“new creature,” “newness of life,” etc., 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6:3,4).

Rejoicing (good feelings) were mentioned in some cases of conversion, after baptism (Acts 8:39; 16:34). This is not evidence, but a byproduct of salvation. Measure your actions by the word, not your feelings.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 144, 149
March 7, 1985

By Herschel Patton

A brother recently published a brief outline on things bound and loosed in heaven that contained a section on the above title. Knowing who wrote the outline is not important. He is a highly respected, faithful, gospel preacher. I believe an issue is involved, and issues should be settled by reason and Scripture, not by who and how many believe this or that. I have no question about any of the outline presented, except for part of the section “C” under “Conditional Free Salvation. Here is the paragraph I want to examine.

The alien must be immersed into Christ — as a penitent believer — but when be does so, he has paid no price at all. But Jesus “loved as and washed as from our sins In His own blood” (Rev. 1:5). The Christian most not “live in sin” (Rom. 6:1,2), but be must “walk not after the flesh but after the spirit” (item. 8:1). Thus, while faithful to the Lord, and though still not sinless (1 Jn. 1:8) “he is a continual recipient of conditional free salvation-by the amazing grace of God.

Notice in the above paragraph, with reference to the alien, the conditions are stated in order for him to enjoy conditional free salvation, but no conditions are mentioned for the sinning Christian to enjoy conditional free salvation, other than refraining from a continuous walk after the flesh. Is there a basis for conditional free salvation for sins of Christians other than that specified-repentance and prayer? This is implied. There should be a parallel in what is necessary for both the alien and Christian if both obtain conditional free salvation.

A parallel would be the alien (1) believes, (2) repents, and (3) and is immersed (as stated in the paragraph under study) to receive conditional free salvation; the Christian is commanded “not to live in sin” (Rom.. 6:1,2), not to “walk after the flesh but after the spirit” (Rom. 8:1) and to “sin not” 0 Jn. 2: 1); he is told “and if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” “If we (1) confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9); (2) “Repent” and (3) “pray” (Acts 8:22), and he will receive conditional free salvation by the amazing grace of God.

The statement, “The Christian must not five in sin (Rom. 6:1-2) but he must ‘walk not after the flesh but after the spirit’ (Rom. 8:1), thus while faithful to the Lord, and though still not sinless (1 Jn. 1:8), he is a continual recipient of conditional free salvation-by the amazing grace of God” (emphasis mine-H.P.) implies (1) that one may be “walking in the light” or “faithful to the Lord” even when engaged in sin, and (2) that for such sins on the part of this otherwise faithful one, there is a continual cleansing by the blood of Christ, apart from the conditions mentioned in the Scriptures. These implications have caused some to go further and embrace the grace-fellowship doctrine which condones institutionalism, the social gospel, etc.

We are told that in the life of a faithful Christian there may be sins-things that God does not approve, things that are not acts of faithfulness-but because of the general life of faithfulness, which is approved of God, He simply forgives and does not reckon such sin to one. Romans 4:7-8 is thought to teach this.

Admittedly, we do sin (1 Jn. 1:8) and “if we do sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2: 1), but does this advocacy the Christian has, who occasionally sins, involve a forgiving and non-reckoning on the part of God, or confession, repentance, and prayer which are the conditions for receiving forgiveness? We are told that it is both … that even these occasional, inadvertent sins must be repented of, but the confessing and repentance had in mind is general in nature: “If I have sinned . . . When I sin (unawares) . . . I pray, ‘Lord be merciful to me a sinner,” and the Lord will forgive.

The natural consequences of this suggests that the brother in Christ who “walks not after the flesh but after the spirit,” manifesting faithfulness to every command and obligation according to his knowledge of Scripture, but does not understand that singing in worship with an instrument, supporting institutionalism and being in an adulterous marriage, are sinful can pray this general prayer, “Lord be merciful to me a sinner,” and the Lord will forgive and not reckon this one a sinner.

Which Way Is It?

I do not deny that our Lord, through His blood, provided for continuous cleansing (one offering-one time, Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 1 Jn. 1:7). The question is how does his blood continually cleanse? (1) By God forgiving and not reckoning on the basis of general purpose and faithfulness, or (2) by conviction of sin, repentance, and prayer?

I cannot find Scripture that says to Christians don’t worry or be concerned about occasional, inadvertent, unknowledgeable sins in your fife for God will forgive and not reckon these to you, but I can find many admonitions to watch, examine, test, prove, and take heed lest you fall. But, we are told that there are sins of which we may be guilty that do not result in falling. Just what might these sins be?

Sin is defined as transgression of law (1 Jn. 3:4), failing to do what we know to do (Jas. 4: 10), and unrighteousness (1 Jn. 5:17). Just what transgression of law, act of unrighteousness, or failure to do what we know to do will not result in falling? Is there a passage, an example, in the Scriptures of guilt in such realms that does not call for repentance of “it”? But, we are told, if every “it” has to be repented of, then unless we die with a prayer upon our Ups we may indeed die lost and every hour of every day and night would be a day and an hour of misery and fear. This statement completely ignores the mercy and providence of God in providing for the enlightenment of honest, sincere seekers and servants of truth,. and, implies that sincere, dedicated service will keep you continually forgiven and cleansed of all inadvertent, secret, and moment of weakness sins.

Two Ways

Two ways of cleansing for the sinning Christian are being suggested, (1) by confession, repentance, and prayer, and (2) by a penitent attitude, manifested by general repentance-“Lord be merciful to me, a sinner.” It is denied that a second way is being advocated because there must be repentance (general) even for inadvertent, unknown sins. May I ask, is this prayer of general repentance, with no particular sin in mind, a condition for being forgiven of sins already committed or those yet to be committed? If only those already committed, then what if one commits a sin after he last prayed, “Lord be merciful to me a sinner” and dies before repeating that prayer? Wouldn’t this one be in the same situation as is attributed by the advocates of this “continual cleansing” idea to the one who believes every sin must be repented of so far as living in fear is concerned? If it is said that this general repentance prayer covers sins yet to be committed, then you have a cleansing based on attitude and without repentance, for how can one repent of something not yet done? This clearly reveals the second way of cleansing for the Christian, based on general faithfulness and a penitent attitude, rather than repentance, confession, and prayer-conditions that the Lord laid down in order for Christians to be cleansed by the blood of Christ.

What Sin?

We are told that this continual cleansing, conditioned on faithfulness-“walking in the light,” and a penitent attitude does not apply to following a false doctrine, practicing works of the flesh, or unfaithfulness but to sins of weakness, ignorance or inadvertence by people whose hearts are right with God. Again, I ask, what sin can you list of this nature that would be a transgression of law, unrighteousness, or a failure to do what you know to do (the Bible definition of sin)? We are told that following false doctrine (institutionalism, instrumental music in worship, etc.) is not one of these continuously forgiven and not reckoned sins, even though committed by a conscientious, in ignorance, honest Christian who regularly prays, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” A work of the flesh (drunkenness, adultery, etc.) is not one for this is unrighteousness (though some teaching this “continuous cleansing” doctrine have gone so far as to say adultery might, under some circumstances, be so forgiven and not reckoned). Forsaking the assembling, knowing you should and could but just don’t, would not be forgiven and not reckoned sin for this would be unfaithfulness, something that one would need to confess, repent of, and pray to be cleansed. So, what kind of things are in the mind of those who speak of forgiven and not reckoned sins?

Here are some examples of sins continuously cleansed, given by one who holds this belief.

(1) You offend a brother. He never tells you. You never know you have offended, and die without knowing it.

Is such sin? Does God regard me a sinner because someone took offence at something I said or did, when there was no intent on my part and I never knew any one took offence? If I purposely offend someone or live and act in such a way that someone loses his soul because of me, sin would definitely exist because I would have transgressed God’s law both in purpose of heart and in such actions as would cause one to be lost. Surely this is not the kind of offence in the mind of those who say it will be forgiven and not reckoned. On what grounds does one call sin an unintended and unknown offence, or regard such an offender a sinner? One who does this may be of an attitude that would cause him to regret, and be sorry, if such ever happened, which God would admire and respect, but he would stand in need of no cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ.

(2) Telling a lie, unknowingly, and never finding it out. A lie is “to utter falsehood with an intention to deceive, or with an immoral design; to say or do that which is designed to deceive another…” (Webster). It is impossible to be guilty of lying unknowingly. One may utter an untruth unknowingly and never find it out, but this is not the sin of lying. God has nowhere revealed such to be lying, or that one who unknowingly states an untruth has committed the sin of lying. If no sin exists, there is no failing or need for cleansing.

(3) Using a euphemism that actually is profanity without knowing what is its meaning. Who says such is profanity? Taking God’s name in vain is a direct transgression of God’s law, but using an expression that some people refer to God, a thing unknown to the user and used with no intent to show irreverence, could not constitute profanity that is sin. If God does not regard one a sinner, then there is nothing to be cleansed. If it is truly a euphemism that is profanity, then it would simply be an ignorant sin to be forgiven upon repentance.

If this is the kind of thing that is called sin and is continually cleansed by the blood of Christ on the part of a faithful Christian, the words “sin” and “cleansed” are misused, resulting in misunderstandings. When one talks about sinning while still faithful, it is natural for people to think of transgressing some law (instruments of music in worship, institutionalism, etc.), committing some act of unrighteousness in a moment of weakness or under great temptation (adultery, drunkenness, etc.), or knowingly missing services because they are faithful “most” or the time. Surely we -can see how the “grace-fellowship” issue and various Calvinistic concepts can evolve from this teaching.

Failing To Reach Perfection Is Not A Sin

True, we all have weaknesses and are lacking in knowledge, so there is always room for growth. Realizing this should increase our watchfulness, examining of self, and a humble feeling of unworthiness, which the Lord requires as we grow toward the mark of perfection. When we learn that one of these weaknesses has caused us to sin, we should repent of it. But failure to reach the mark of perfection as we purposefully endeavor to serve God is not transgression (sin), for God has not demanded perfection of us. In this realm, God’s mercy, longsuffering, and grace is manifested in not charging us with sin; hence, there is no need for cleansing.

When a Christian commits sin, conditional free salvation or cleansing is always available when the conditions are met, but I know of no passage that teaches some sins will be forgiven and not reckoned apart from repentance, confession and prayer. I see no scriptural grounds for making conditional free salvation mean something different for “some” sinning Christians than for “others.”

Some of us have used the word sin in referring to weaknesses and failures, involving abilities, opportunities, situations, etc., that God considers in judging us sinners or not sinners, but only from the standpoint of missing the mark of perfection-a thing that God does not require. His requirement is that we sincerely do the best we can. Weakness and blundering in developing patience, courage, longsuffering, love, etc. (unless they lead us to commit sin), do not make us sinners in need of cleansing. “Be ye angry and sin not” (Eph. 4:26). Consciousness of such weakness will cause us to confess that when we “have done all commanded, we are still unprofitable servants,” and ask for God’s help and grace. When these weaknesses cause us to transgress, be unrighteous, or knowingly fail to do, we commit sin and must repent and pray for forgiveness. When the word sin is, or has been, used with reference to these things, the nature of what was so being branded has always been pointed out. This clarification is made lest one think we are talking about what the Bible calls sin and conclude one can transgress, be unrighteous, or knowingly neglect duty and remain in God’s favor.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 139, 150-151
March 7, 1985