Truth Magazine

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

By Daniel H. King

In one of Christ’s frequent disputes with His critics, the Lord made a little remark that is treated parenthetically in the American Standard Version. It is this: “and the scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35). The argument itself is not important for our purposes here, but the little off-the-cuff statement that He made about Scripture is of great importance.

We view the Bible the way we do, as infallible, because of such biblical points as this. When we are today insulted and attacked because our view of Scripture seems to some to be naive and out of date, we rest assured in the faith that our trust in it has the stamp of divine approval upon it. Holy Scripture not only claims inspiration for itself, but goes beyond mere inspiration to argue that this product of divine activity, once written, is also completely trustworthy.

1. Jesus our Savior clearly thought of the Book of Books as totally dependable. He believed it could stand the test of fair and honest examination. We know so because He said so. Those Jews with whom He took up His contention would not have dared to question this assumption. They agreed with it. They could only have done what they did – to try to silence Him by other means (as verse 39 indicates).

2. The apostles of Christ also treated the Bible with an appropriate attitude of reverence and respect. When Peter preached on Pentecost, he identified the ancient words of the prophet David with the promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:25-33). Later, the author of Hebrews quoted from Psalm 95:7ff. and said those words were the words of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 3:?ff). They, thus, saw the words written in the Bible as the words of God Himself, not the words of mere men. Thus, they were not, like the words of mere men, susceptible to error.

3. Jesus also viewed a biblical answer as the solution to any refigious problem. His dispute with the Jews was settled, to His mind at least, by citing the Bible on his side of the issue. When the Devil misused the Word of God, though, the misapplication was refused as authority (Matt. 4:5-7).

4. Jesus saw the fallacious arguments of men as broken by Scripture. Far from the Bible being wrong, it was those men who refused to accept the truth-statements of God’s Word who were in error. It was this same faith which later inspired Paul to write, “Yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Let us today share the faith of Christ, not only in the God of the Bible, but also in the Bible itself. Much of the Bible had come through several centuries of history, having passed through many loving and some “not-so-loving” hands. But He still regarded it as “scripture unbroken.” We ought to do the same.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, p. 142
March 7, 1985

By Lewis Willis

At some point in every assembly of the church, some brother makes some announcements which are of interest to those who assemble. Usually these announcements consist of a welcome to our guests, an announcement of the hours of worship, a mention of the sick, possibly an expression of sympathy and such things as gospel meetings being conducted by area churches. The mention of these kinds of things is designed to elicit a response of some sort from those who hear the announcements.

One would think that such a thing would be more or less accepted and very little confusion would surround such a practice. However, in 25 years of preaching, I have observed a lot of controversy about this subject. Some of the questions are: Who is going to make the announcements? When will they be made? What will or will not be announced? I have attended many meetings where these things were discussed – sometimes hotly! I have heard brethren ask by what authority certain things were announced. For instance, by what authority do we announce the wedding of one of the members? It would seem that folks would finally come to realize that God did not legislate with reference to the practice under consideration. He would recognize that those of us who are members of the church have to have sufficient intelligence to obey the gospel and He apparently intended that we use that intelligence with reference to the practice of imparting information to each other such as is done with public announcements.

Throughout the Scriptures, we read of the gathering together of God’s people for worship. We read of their involvement with each other on a daily basis and how they treasured their association together. They shared a common faith (2 Pet. 1:2), and what happened to one of them seemed to happen to all of them. We are also aware that when these people came together, certain things were said that did not specifically pertain to acts of teaching. When Peter and John had healed the man at the gate of the temple, they were called before the leadership of the Jews and questioned to determine if charges might be brought against them for what they had done. The Jews determined all they could do was to threaten them not preach in the name of Jesus any more and they let them go. “And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them” (Acts 4:23). When Paul returned to Antioch after his first preaching tour, he “gathered the church together” and “rehearsed all that God had done with them” (Acts 14:27). It seems rather obvious to me that there was a practice in the early church of imparting important information to the church which it would benefit from knowing or which would arouse in them a reasonable response to that information. I should be greatly surprised in the early churches did not have announcements made to them that James had been murdered and that Paul had been imprisoned. I also suspect that announcements were made throughout the churches that Paul had been released. Specifically, these events had absolutely nothing to do with the acts of singing, praying, communing, giving and teaching. But while gathered together, reports were given about preaching and about the legal difficulties of the saints and I am rather persuaded some delight was experienced in knowing that some good things were happening to the disciples as well.

In fact, the principles set forth in the Scriptures teach that there are at least two responses that we ought to share with one another. They are happiness and sorrow. Paul wrote, “Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep” (Rom. 12:15). If the church is made aware of sadness experienced by some of the members, it can weep with them and possibly be able to support and encourage those members in their sorrow. Conversely, if the church is aware of some happiness being experienced by some of the members, they can rejoice with them and share their happiness. In spite of all of the charges and counter charges that are raised, most people understand that imparting information about the members has no other purpose than to inform so that we can react to each other as we are taught in the Scriptures to react.

My observation is that we have often been so afraid that we might do something that is wrong, that we frequently do not do some things that are right. We have been very careful to announce all of the sickness, the tragedy, the heartache and the death affecting the membership. And with these announcements, we have truly learned to weep with those who weep. We usually act as though we are afraid to announce the weddings, the births, the accomplishments and joys of the members. Are we afraid to rejoice with each other? Frequently people need someone to share their joy with as much as they need someone with whom to share their sorrow. We might want to be careful or we will become better weepers than we are rejoicers! The announcements can often leave us so depressed that it is difficult to focus attention on the worship in which we engage. There has to be a balance in these tings. Not all that happens to God’s people is bad. Some of it is good, and if we don’t want to be a people with a constant frown of distress upon our face, we are going to have to learn to share the good with each other as well as the bad.

It never had been right for the Lord’s church to divert its attention from its God appointed duty and spend its money to build fantastic fellowship halls and serve great feats to fatten the members. But, if brethren who recognize that unscriptural practice go out of their way to provide a social gathering that is right, I fail to see why it is wrong to announce it so that all of the brethren who wish to can participate in it. If some of the ladies are going to give a wedding shower, or a baby shower, in anticipation of the happy event, and the way they are doing it right, what principle of truth is violated if you tell everybody it in an announcement so they can participate if they wish? If we announce that a new baby has been born, why can’t we announce that the baby’s grandfather is 89 years old so that the members can remember him in some special way? IF we can announce the marriage of a couple, what principle is violated if we announce a 50th anniversary? Consistency says if you can do one, you can do the other. Yet many people have no problem with one, but have scruples of conscience about the other.

Now in all of these things that God leaves to our judgment, He expects that we use good judgment. Again, in some areas, we don’t have any problem decided what good judgment is. In announcing the names of those who are sick, we do not mention everyone who has had a headache in the past week, and everybody who had a tooth filled and everybody who stumped his toe. We just mention those who are sick enough that some specific attention might be needed from the membership. Nor are we going to announce everybody’s birthday. It would be a waste of time if we announced the 14th birthday of Jane and the 16th birthday of Tom. Also, it might be embarrassing to their mother if we announced that she will be 45 next Tuesday if she has been trying to convince everyone that she is 39! But, we can use good judgment in making a determination about that kind of thing. I announced a 40th anniversary recently and someone hastened to tell me that they did not agree with my going that and they thought it was wrong. I fail to see where the wrong is. If I had announced the 40th accident the couple had had, would there have been the same reaction? I think not. The information was presented so the brethren could rejoice with the couple over this significant achievement if they desired to do so. And that is exactly what the Scriptures teach us to do. I think that all of these announcements, good or bad, should be made without showing partiality among the members. I also think that the worship would not begin so morbidly if we would learn to balance these announcements of the bad with the good. I was just thinkin’, it might help if we would re-think this whole procedure.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 140-141
March 7, 1985

By Steve Wolfgang

The Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader for Saturday, 10-6-84 (p. C-8), contains a story which is triply tragic. The article reports the death at birth of an infant whose parents’ “religious beliefs dictated that they not seek a doctor’s help” during delivery. The parents, Shelbyville (KY) residents, are members of a religious group “with ties to Faith Assembly (which) shuns doctors and relies on divine intervention for medical assistance.” According to the AP news release, the couple’s “first child also suffocated during delivery in 1981.”

This incident is tragic not only for the most obvious reason (the death of an innocent child), but also for the fact that so many people allow themselves to be deluded by some charismatic preacher into gullibly believing things in the name of religion and the Bible which the Bible actually does not teach. Such cases as this not only give a false impression of biblical religion to the uninformed, but also provide grist for the mill of those who would increasingly involve the state in religious matters. (Parenthetically and ironically we note that some of these same crusaders for repression of religion breathe smoke and fire when religious people dare to express themselves politically.)

Surely people have a “right” to believe and practice whatever they please-within limits. Obviously, if one’s religious scruples dictate cannibalism, the public good is surely served by government restraint on the expression and practice of such activities. And so it is here should a parent’s right to believe take precedence over the right to life of an unborn child?

Before someone gets-too bent out of shape over the free-expression-of-religion dimensions of the case, we should think further about what seems to me the most ironic portion of this episode. The judge in this case reportedly said that “it was against his better judgment to dismiss the (reckless homicide) charges, but that he had no choice based on a (1983) Kentucky Supreme Court decision (which) – found that a child must be separated from its mother before it can be considered a victim of homicide.”

But think: If the mother had decided to abort the child (even a matter of weeks or days before birth), would this judge have said the first word about the deliberate slaughter of this innocent being? Certainly not if he is like so many others who profess righteous moral indignation over incidents such as this one, but who then hypocritically defend the “rights” of individuals to massacre a million and a half fetuses every year.

This is not written as a defense of false religion; nor is it meant to increase the anguish and pain of anyone facing such far reaching moral dilemmas as are bound up in these kinds of situations. But surely our nation’s values are distorted when a rare incident such as this makes headlines while virtually nothing is said of millions of abortions which are now occurring at the rate of one every thirty seconds (Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America, p. 187).

Is anyone listening? Does anyone care?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, p. 138
March 7, 1985