Truth Magazine

By David A. Lanphear

Editor’s note: Brother Lanphear is a faithful member of the West End Church of Christ in Bowling Green and a practicing attorney. He has represented the Guardian of Truth Foundation on more than one occasion. When the problem developed regarding the Collinsville, Oklahoma lawsuit, I asked brother Lanphear to write this article for this special issue of Guardian of Truth.

Just a few weeks ago, many of us read in the headlines that an Oklahoma jury awarded a divorced mother $390,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against a congregation near Tulsa as a result of its effort to discipline her for fornication. The action arose after a statement was read to the congregation explaining the imposition of and reasons for the disciplinary action, although she had earlier withdrawn her membership from the church. She filed suit against the congregation and its elders for $1.3 million alleging invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and recovered on each claim.

While the Oklahoma case will apparently be appealed and possibly set aside, the fact that the law tolerates such a claim is as perplexing as it is dismaying. It is significant however, that this is not an isolated case inasmuch as at least two similar lawsuits are pending in other states. As a result, elders and congregations must be aware of and prepare for the legal dangers posed in matters of discipline.

First, you must be aware that all statements of law included herein are general rules which may differ in some detail from state to state. Therefore, while they are generally applicable to the matters discussed, they may or may not vary in your jurisdiction. Consequently, what may be actionable in Oklahoma, for example, may not be in Kentucky, and vice versa.

Additionally, there may be statutes in your state of which I am unaware which codify or alter these general rules or have some bearing on these issues.

Also, due to topical considerations and space restrictions, discussion of legal rules and theories will be limited to that which is pertinent here, and is by no means to be understood as exhaustive on the general subject.

Finally, if it is not yet apparent, lawyers sometime find it difficult to speak in absolute terms since most adhere to the principle that there is an exception to nearly every rule. Therefore, it is imperative that you remember that “Every case turns on its own facts,” and, if you are confronted with a specific legal problem, you should consult an attorney for specific legal advice.

From its inception, the law in this country was designed and has grown to accommodate and promote the exercise of religious freedom. In so doing, rules have developed to fairly and equally deal with a large number of varied religious beliefs, practices and societies. Generally stated, the law recognizes that one accepted as a member of a religious group continues as a member in good standing unless he voluntarily withdraws or is properly expelled. Should the group choose to expel a member, it is under a duty to substantially comply with its rules governing such matters. The courts ordinarily have no jurisdiction to review the action taken, and the sentence may be read publicly to the congregation without constituting an action for libel or slander.

However, the claims which have recently arisen and need to be addressed involve the impact of church discipline on an individual’s right to privacy and the emotional distress one may suffer under certain circumstances.

Right of Privacy

The “right of privacy” was not recognized as a separate theory of recovery and cause of action until this century, and therefore, its development is of fairly recent origin. It is actually a categorical designation for four distinct legal theories whose common denominator is the “right” to be let alone. Although only two of these sub-categories are important to this discussion, the four are: (1) intrusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts; (3) false light in public eye; and (4) appropriation of name or likeness for benefit. The two theories to which attention will be given here are intrusion and public disclosure.

Intrusion. This rule has developed to protect one from and permit recovery for intrusion into his solitude or seclusion. Its elements require an actual invasion into matters which are private and are entitled to be private, and the invasion must be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person. The wrong is committed when the intrusion takes place and there is no requirement for subsequent publication (to divulge or repeat to another). Thus, subject to the defenses and suggestions mentioned herein below, an attempt by elders or concerned brethren to pursue discussions with an errant Christian may constitute an intrusion and invasion of their right to privacy.

Public Disclosure of Private Facts. Similar in several respects to intrusion, public disclosure of private facts involves the disclosure of facts which are private and not a matter of public record. The disclosure, or publication, may be either written or oral, but the facts must be disclosed to someone other than the complaining party. Finally, the facts disclosed must be of the type which would cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation and be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities.

The application of this legal principle to church discipline is clear. A determination of whether the disclosure is offensive and objectionable however, would depend upon the nature of the sinful conduct for which discpline is imposed. For example, a jury may not find objectionable the disclosure that one is unrepentantly divisive, but at the same time be outraged at the announcement tht one hs continued in an illicit sexual relationship. Obviously however, those whose duty it is to impose discipline do not have the “luxury” of choosing the sins brethren may commit, and as a result, must fulfill their scriptural responsibilities despite the legal ramifications.

Defenses. Neither truth nor absence of malice (ill will) are defenses to invasion of privacy claims. However, one may waive his right to privacy either expressly or by his conduct. Thus, it appears to me to be entirely reasonable that when one becomes a member of the church and associates himse~f with a congregation, he thereby consents to the invasion of privacy which may be suffered by scriptural discipline. Of course, this states the matter simply, and it may be affected by other facts (such as prior withdrawal of membership by the errant party). In any event, the merits of this application of the waiver defense will be determined as more cases are practiced and the body of law develops.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a claim which may result from intentional conduct aimed at the complaining party which is extreme and outrageous, or from that which amounts to an aggravated insult or indignity to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. In order to be actionable, the conduct must cause serious mental suffering and distress, not just an affront or hurt feelings. Once again, the application of this theory of recovery to church discipline depends on the nature of the offense for which discipline is imposed, and whether a reasonable individual of ordinary sensibilities would suffer such distress under the circumstances.

Defenses. It is unlikely that a defense claiming proper motives and spiritual concern would bring much success. Besides a direct attack on whether mental distress was in fact suffered, a more plausible approach (though perhaps no more successful) may follow the waiver defense discussed hereinabove, that is, that when one voluntarily associates himself with the church and submits to its lawful authority and style of life, he does so consenting to this proper expulsion and the consequences thereof.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are certainly not unique or exhaustive, and amount to nothing more than simple, common sense suggestions one may follow to reduce the dange of the legal problems discussed above or complications of the same or similar problems.

(1) Make sure that discipline is not rooted in personality differences, or the product of ill will or hard feelings.

(2) Make sure that discipline is based on conduct and doctrine that is clearly defined and/or proscribed in Scripture, and not that which may fall in the gray realm of judgment or is the proper object of toleration.

(3) Make sure that discipline is based on factually established circumstances. Care should be taken if such matters are investigated to avoid a possible claim of defamation of character.

(4) Strictly adhere to Scripture. This is important not only because God requires it, but also because in co urt the church must explain and prove what procedure it follows in exercising discipline. Therefore, strict adherence is a significant factual and legal matter.

(5) During private conferences with an errant party, emphasis should be given to scriptural duty in these matters, and that the purpose is to bring one back, not drive him away.

(6) Keep a record of private conferences with the party involved-date and time, where it was held, who was there, length of conference and a brief memorandum of what was discussed. If at all possible, these meetings should be held at the church building or similar, independent meeting place because it evidences that both parties met voluntarily for the purpose of discussing the problem.

(7) Treat discussions with the other party confidentially.

(8) Determine whether an umbrella or other insurance policy is available. In most instances, insurance policies do not cover intentional conduct (such as these claims) so specific inquiry should be made.

It is not within my province or ability to discuss the merits of the necessity of withdrawing from those who have disassociated themselves from the local church. However, were one able to adopt the view that it is unnecessary, obvious legal problems would be avoided. Likewise, if one is able to adopt the view that statements of discipline read publicly to the congregation need not specifically detail the sin involved, but rather state generally that one has continued in sin and failed to repent, then the factual basis upon which a claim can be predicated may be substantially reduced.

Finally, there is no substitute for thoughtful deliberation, careful consideration and the exercise of sound judgement in matters of church discipline, both from the standpoint of obeying God and in order to avoid, to the extent possible, the pitfalls which could lead to liability in a civil claim. None of these suggestions wil prevent someone from filing a lawsuit against a congregation or its elders, but they may in some degree prevent its successful prosecution. In no event however, should a fear of the law or lawsuits impede one from fulfilling his scriptural obligations regarding church discipline. In the words of the Apostle Peter: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 590-591
October 4, 1984

By Aude McKee

When I saw the overview of the special on “Church Discipline,” I was impressed with the completeness of the assigned topics, and I look forward to reading the other articles in this issue. At the same time, I observed that, probably, of all the topics to be considered, this one on “The Joy of Restoration” has been neglected more by those of us who preach than any other. Recently, I heard a speaker say that “we often hear Paul quoted on discipline: ‘Put away the wicked man from among yourselves’ (1 Cor. 5:13); ‘Mark them that are causing the division and occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and turn away from them’ (Rom. 16:17); ‘Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly’ (2 Thess. 3:6). But we seldom hear 2 Corinthians 2 applied to the same subject. This passage is essential because if our attitude is not right, our action will not be right! “

Those Who Take The Action

This quote just taken from a speech made by Peter Wilson, and the impact of Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 2, has to do with the attitude of those who have withdrawn their fellowship from an erring brother or sister. Unless the action has been undertaken with the proper motive and in the right spirit, fervent, sincere joy cannot follow when the sinner repents. We recognize, of course, that Paul wrote by inspiration (1 Cor. 2:6-16), but how consistent it was for him to speak to them in the second chapter of the second letter about their attitude toward the erring brother who had repented. The whole of the first letter was directed toward correcting mistakes. Sharp rebuke was aimed at these Corinthians regarding a number of things. But the rebuke and the plea for correction came from a heart filled with love. It is interesting to note that after the first letter was written, Paul left Ephesus and came to Troas to preach the gospel, and in his own words, “A door opened unto me of the Lord” (2 Cor. 2:12-13). But he was so disturbed over the reception of the letter that he “had no rest in his spirit.” He didn’t know if the Corinthians would rebel or be humble and repent. But he was so deeply concerned over their spiritual welfare that he couldn’t even preach the gospel until he learned of their attitude. What we are saying is, when an action is taken against a sinner with the love Paul had for the Corinthians, nothing but fervent, sincere joy can follow in the wake of repentance.

1 Corinthians 5 deals with a terrible moral problem within the Corinthian church. One of the members was living with his father’s wife and the church had taken no action against the erring brother. The Holy Spirit’s command is “deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Furthermore, instructions were given “not to keep company” and “with such an one no not to eat” (v. 11). The Corinthians obeyed the Spirit’s instructions – they delivered the erring brother to Satan by withdrawing from him, and the action had the desired effect. The erring brother repented, and this occasioned the teaching of 2 Corinthians 2. “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many, so that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him” (vv. 7,8).

Five words in this passage need emphasis. First, the action taken was “sufficient.” It was enough! Any time we do what we are told to do in God’s Word, that is sufficient. Doing more than we are told brings sin (2 John 9-11). These Corinthians could not (with God’s approval) do anything that would add to the man’s burden. The second word worthy of special consideration is “contrariwise.” This word indicates a 180 degree turn from the idea of inflicting more “punishment” on the sinner who had repented. The New King James Version says, “on the contrary.” Now, the direction these brethren are to take after they had completely turned from the idea of inflicting even more censure is to “forgive” and “comfort” and these two words need emphasis. Does the Lord, when He forgives us, then lay extra burdens on us? Does He, when we try to get up, knock us down another time or two in order to impress the gravity of the sin we committed? The truth is that “as far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us” (Psa. 103:12). In defining the word “comfort,” the dictionary says, “to soothe in time of grief or fear; to console . . . help, assistance.” The sinner who has repented needs help, assistance and consolation. And if he does not receive it, it may be, as Barclay says, “the last push into the arms of Satan.” Then the word “confirm” or “reaffirm” (NKJ) is important. Let our action toward the sinner who has repented be such that our love for him is proven. Let there be no doubt in his mind that we are deeply concerned for him, and certainly the joy we manifest at his restoration will be one of the confirming signs of our love.

Matters of Judgment

At this point in our discussion of the erring child of God, his repentance and confession of sin and our joy at his restoration, comes a difficult problem that occasionally results in differences of opinion and confusion. If he is not immediately given back all of his former responsibilities in the local church, does that mean that those responsible have not really forgiven? Is this an indication that their joy at his restoration has been hypocritical?

To make a concrete illustration, suppose it is discovered that the treasurer of a local church has been skimming the contribution and about $10,000 has been stolen. When he is confronted with his sin, he repents, confesses before the church, and makes arrangements to gradually replace the amount that was stolen. If the elders then decide to give another deacon the responsibilities of being treasurer, have the elders committed sin? Are they duty bound to let the erring brother retain his “job” in order to obey the command to “forgive,” “comfort,” and “confirm their love”?

We believe the story Jesus told in Luke 15 certainly has a direct bearing on “The Joy of Restoration,” and there may be some implications in the story that would help us with the problem under consideration. The joy that heaven has “over one sinner that repenteth” is made clear in the story of the lost coin, the lost sheep, and even more impressively in the return of the prodigal son. And our attitude must not be that of the older brother. Our love must come out of a pure heart and our joy must be unfeigned. When the prodigal son “came to himself,” his attitude was, “I will arise and go to my father, and I will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.” This boy was humble! He did not come home looking to be given the responsibilities he had when he left. To him, being taken back by his father with outstretched arms, and being restored to his home as a son and not a servant, was surely beyond his fondest expectations! He could have cared less what jobs his father would see fit to give him. Would not his humility have demanded that he be grateful, rather than his restoration being the basis for demands on his father? And would not the jobs or responsibilities his father gave him upon his return be a matter of judgment? No one can read these lines without seeing the reasoning involved which, if we be correct, simply illustrates that these matters involve judgment decisions resting on the elders.

The Joy of Being Restored

There is not a Christian reading these lines but what knows personally the joy of restoration. None of us may have stolen from the church treasury or killed in the heat of passion, but all of us have sinned. And what greater joy can one have in this life than to feel the load of guilt lifted and replaced with a close communion with God? What child of God has not at one time or another, gone to bed at night sick at heart over some thing, said or done, unbecoming to a Christian? And then comes the decision to make it right with the person involved and with God. Following this, a prayer reminiscent of David’s plea in Psalms 51, and the result is joy unspeakable and a peace that passes understanding. The story of the wayward son in Luke 15 does not mention the joy of this boy when his father took him back, but it was unnecessary. It will come as surely as day follows night. What we need to learn and continually have impressed on our hearts is that there is no communion with God in a “far country,” that the way home must be preceded by the decision to go back and confess, that the good intentions must be put in action, and finally, that once we start back, God is there to welcome us, and every saint with a pure heart will rejoice in our return.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 588-589
October 4, 1984

By Weldon E. Warnock

To decide whether one church may withdraw fellowship from another church, we must determine whether there is any fellowship that exists between churches. Fellowship cannot be withdrawn if there is no fellowship. Defining “fellowship” and showing how it is used in the New Testament will help us resolve the matter.

Definition of Fellowship

There are four original Greek words that are equivalent to the English word “fellowship.”

The first Greek word is koinonia (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 8:4; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:9; Phil. 1:5; 2:1; 3:10; 1 Jn. 1:3,6,7). It is translated “fellowship” 12 times in the New Testament, “communion” 4 times, “distribution” 1 time, “communication” 1 time, and “contribution” 1 time.

Thayer states that koinonia means “fellowship, association, community, communion, joint-participation, intercourse; 1. the share which one has in anything, participation. . . . 2. intercourse, fellowship, intimacy. . . . 3. a benefaction jointly contributed, a collection, a contribution, as exhibiting an embodiment and proof of fellowship. . . ” (p. 352).

Ardnt-Gingrich define koinonia: ” 1. association, communion, fellowship, close relationship. . . . 2. generosity, fellow feeling, altruism. . . . 3. sign of fellowship, proof of brotherly unity, even gift, contribution. . . . 4. participation, sharing . . . in something” (p. 440).

The second Greek word is koinonos. It is translated “partaker” 5 times, “partner” 3 times and “companion” I time. Harper states, “a fellow, partner, Matt. 23:30; Lk. 5:10; 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phile. 17: Heb. 10:33; a sharer, partaker. 2 Cor. 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:4” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 235). Thayer says, “a partner, associate, comrade, companion . . . . a partaker, sharer, in anything. . . ” (p. 352).

The third word is koinoneo. It is translated “be partaker” 4 times, “communicate” 2 times, “be made partaker of” 1 time, and “distribute” 1 time. Thayer states, “to come into communion or fellowship, to become a sharer, be made a partner . . . . to enter into fellowship, join one’s self as an associate, make one’s self a sharer or partner. . . ” (pp. 351-352). Other Greek authorities say the same, in essence, as Thayer.

The fourth Greek word is metoche. This word is translated “fellowship” 1 time. Thayer defines it to mean, “a sharing, communion, fellowship. . .”(p. 407. Ardnt-Gingrich say, “share, have a share, participate” (p. 515).

From these definitions, we can readily see that “fellowship” is a participation, having a share, giving a share, a common interest and intimacy of association. Instances of these diversities of meanings in the Scriptures are: (1) sharing or participation (1 Cor. 1:9; 10: 16; 2 Cor. 8:4; 13:13; Eph. 3:9; Phil. 2: 1; 3: 10); (2) common interest and intimacy of association (Acts. 2:42; 2 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 2:9; Phil 1:5; 1 John 1:3,6,7) and (3) collection or contribution (Rom. 15:25; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13; Heb. 13:16). These three divisions fully reflect the word “fellowship” in its noun form as used in the New Testament.

Scope of Fellowship

It is ascertained from the preceding Scriptures and definitions that fellowship exists between or among:

(1) Individual Christians. The disciples at Jerusalem continued in fellowship with one another (Acts 2:42). Heinrich Meyer says fellowship in this passage “is to be explained of the mutual brotherly association which they sought to maintain with one another” (Acts of the Apostles, p. 68).

(2) Individual Christians and congregations. Philippi had fellowship with Paul in the furtherance of the gospel (Phil. 1:5). They contributed or communicated with Paul in providing his necessities as he preached the gospel. “Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated (had fellowship) with me as concerning the giving and receiving, but ye only” (Phil. 4:15).

(3) Individual Christians and the Godhead. A Christian has fellowship with God the Father. “And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ…. If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie. . . . But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another. . .” (1 Jn. 1:3,6,7).

A Christian has fellowship with Jesus the Christ. “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9).

A Christian has fellowship with the Holy Spirit. “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit. . .” (Phil. 2:1).

Hence, a Christian shares in the benefits and blessings which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit provide.

(4) Congregations. Congregations have fellowship with each other in ministering to the needs of the saints. Paul wrote concerning the churches in Macdeonia, “Praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints” (2 Cor. 8:4). Compare 2 Corinthians where koinonia is translated “distribution.”

Observations And Deductions

In light of the foregoing authoritative definitions, statements, and declarations, the following observations and deductions can be made:

(1) Churches may have fellowship with one another in the sense of sharing, that is, giving and receiving of funds for the relief of needy saints. This fellowship was only practiced when there was a need and terminated when the need was satisfied. Under some circumstances, a congregation might cease sharing its abundance with another congregation, thereby severing fellowship.

For example, if the receiving congregation would be improperly using the funds for the destitute, or if the church began practicing error, fellowship should stop. Of course, these hypothetical cases are envisioned as possibilities where there would be a prolonged need of benevolence.

(2) Churches may have fellowship with one another in association and common interest. For instance, the elders of congregation A might decide to dismiss the Wednesday night service, and all of them go to congregation B to support the brethren in their gospel meeting. This is intimacy of association and would be fellowship as defined above. If congregation B became digressive in doctrine and practice, then congregation A could (and, should) withdraw fellowship (association) from congregation B and no longer recognize it as a faithful church.

(3) Churches should not withdraw association from another church simply because of some isolated act of which they do not approve. For example, there is no basis or reason for church A to refrain from association with church B simply because church B accepts a brother into its membership whom church A deems unfaithful. The elders in church B believe the brother to be faithful. Are they to bow to the request and pressure of church A? The Bible teaches self-rule of each congregation, and we need to respect this principle.

Too, when a congregation withholds association from another congregation for the preceding reason, as several churches have done, they may be withholding association from some of God’s most faithful children who help compose that church. This is wrong!

When churches start withholding their association (fellowship) from another church that does not meet their expectations, it will not be long until they find themselves in total isolation. In their eyes they are the only sound church in the community. Such is a self-righteous attitude that has no place among New Testament Christian.

(4) Churches should honor another church’s scriptural withdrawal and not use or receive into membership the brother who has been disciplined until he or she repents and confesses his sin. Individual members of all faithful churches should have no company with them. “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). This divine injunction would have applied whether the erring brother was a member at Thessalonica or not. All in Christ have a common relationshp with one another, and when scriptural disciplinary action is taken by one church, all churches should respect it, and all indvidual Christians should stop having social intercourse with those who have been chastened.

(5) Churches should mark and avoid all false teachers, regardless of where they are members. Paul teaches this in Romans 16:17-18. A false brother (Gal. 2:4) who is sowing discord and spreading heresies among God’s people should be rejected and repudiated publicly in every faithful congregation which may be threatened. Such person would never be used in any capacity in the worship and work of the church. Of course, this is a church dealing with an individual and not another congregation.

(6) Finally, churches have no fellowship with one another in the sense of joint-participation where autonomy and equality are surrendered. There is no authority for organic ties of fellowship among churches. The New Testament knows nothing about such arrangement, and if congregations establish fellowship under such order, they sin.

From this viewpoint one church cannot discipline or withdraw fellowship from another church, as they do individuals among themselves, because no fellowship exists. The only fellowship which can be withdrawn is distribution of funds and intimacy of association.

We trust this study has been helpful and beneficial to you. Let us all continue to study this vital theme with forbearance and love toward one another.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 593-594
October 4, 1984

By Frank Jamerson

In the Great Commission, Jesus taught that a person must believe, repent and be baptized in order to be saved (Matt. 28:1820; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:47). When men who believe in salvation by faith only hear these passages, they usually ask, “What about the thief on the cross?” They never consider the chief of sinners. Let us take a look at some facts about both.

First, the thief on the cross did not live under the law of Christ. “For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth” (Heb. 9:16,17). The thief was blessed by Jesus before His testament, or will, went into effect. After the death of Christ, we must conform to the conditions in the testament in order to be blessed.

Second, the thief did not believe in the resurrected Lord. Paul said: ” . . .because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10: 9, 10). The thief did not believe that God had “raised Jesus from the dead,” because He had not! If you can be saved like the thief, you can be saved without believing that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Third, the thief could not be “buried by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Jesus had not died or been raised when the thief was saved. The teaching of Romans 6:3-5 did not apply to the thief. It does to you!

Now, look at the “chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15).

First, he lived under the law of Christ. The first mention we have of Saul is when he was keeping the garments of those who stoned Stephen to death (Acts 7:18). This was after the Lord had arisen from the dead and ascended into heaven. In the ninth chapter of Acts we read of his journey to Damascus, the appearance of the Lord to him, and his conversion. Saul lived under the law of Christ; so do we.

Second, Saul became a believer in the resurrection of Jesus. He wrote the Corinthians: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Saul had been a persecutor of Christians, because he did not believe in Jesus, but when the great light shined on him, and he heard the voice of the Lord, he changed his faith! He was not saved on the road to Damascus, but he certainly became a believer in the resurrected Lord at that time (Acts 9:1-6).

Third, Saul, who became the apostle Paul, was baptized into the death of Christ. When Ananias went to him, he said: “And how why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16). When Paul wrote the book of Romans, he included himself among those who had been baptized into Christ. “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3).

The conversion of Saul shows that he believed in the resurrected Lord, repented of his sins, and was baptized “to wash away” his sins, or into the death of Christ. We cannot be saved like the thief on the cross, for he lived before the law of Christ went into effect, did not believe in the resurrected Lord, and could not be buried by baptism into Christ’s death and raised in the likeness of His resurrection. We can be saved like the chief of sinners if we will be believe in Christ, whom God raised from the dead, repent of our sins, and be baptized into the death of Christ, that we may be raised to walk in newness of life.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 567
September 20, 1984