Truth Magazine

By Mike Wilson

There are millions of people in this world who harbor deep feelings of guilt for wrongs they have committed. Without the proper remedy for sin, many undergo severe emotional pain and anguish. Feelings of remorse gradually build up like a tremendous weight inside a person, especially when he sees no logical outlet for these innermost anxieties. The Psalmist David mentions some very real physical and emotional symptoms of harboring unconfessed sin: “When I kept silence, my bones wasted away through my groaning all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture was changed as with the drought of summer” (Psa. 32:3-4).

Behind all this guilt is an inborn sense of moral responsibility–a “moral law within” or a moral sense of “ought.” We all have a built-in mechanism called a “conscience,” and that conscience may be deadened by long indulgence in things we know that are wrong. But all of us draw the line somewhere! We exonerate predatory animals of all guilt, but we are outraged when a Korean jetliner is shot down. Why is this so? Because human lives were at stake, and we somehow sense the sanctity of human life. We know from deep within that something is inherently wrong with taking the life of another human being. God has instilled within us the capacity to know that some things are right and other things are wrong (cf. Rom 2:14-15).

But what happens when the guilt that disturbs us is personal? We all know, or should know, that each one of us has done some things that are wrong–not just unwise or inappropriate, but wrong. How can we deal with the personal guilt that confronts us and plagues us?

Some Perversions

Coping with guilt is a basic human need that must be satisfied. If this deep-seated longing is not satisfied in a legitimate way, it will be satisfied in an illegitimate way. There is a void that must be filled. Unfortunately, Satan has devised a number of counterfeit means to fill that void in his effort to overthrow the power of Divine forgiveness.

One such method is that sin is nonexistent. Modern psychologists have been saying for years that sin is a product of the human imagination. The Bible says differently! “There is none righteous, no, not one . . . for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:10,23). “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8).

Even apart from Divine revelation, good sense should tells us that if there are no moral absolutes, then there is no moral restraint. The terms “right” and “wrong” become meaningless, and the enforcement of order in society is based on relativistic law. Morals become entirely situational, and anarchy is inevitable. If there is no God who will ultimately judge us in accordance with moral prohibitions and requirements imposed upon us, life here on earth suddenly becomes very cheap. The Bible presents a far more glorious view of life than that; it depicts us as human beings with moral responsibility are created in the image of God Himself! We may say our guilt before God is fictitious, but God says otherwise.

A similar way in which men cope with guilt is to minimize its severity, even to the point of replacing those words that imply moral responsibility with nonjudgmental substitutes. This was impressed upon my mind in a fascinating article by B. Russel Holt.(1) “Premarital sex” does not sound as ugly as “fornication.” “Extramarital sex” or “an affair” are much more soothing than “adultery.” “Homosexuality” has gone from being considered a “perversion” to a “deviation” to a “variation” and has at last become an “alternate life style”! The opposition to “pro-lifers” in the abortion debate are not called “pro-death.” They are “pro-choice.” Dirty movies are for “mature” or “adult” audiences, not dirty-minded ones. People obtain “no-fault” divorces. Instead of saying he “stole” something, someone will say he “acquired” it. Mr. Holt says of all these word changes, “The object of all this verbal alchemy is to reduce sin from a felony to a misdemeanor, and the final goal is to get it off the books completely.” It is true that words are powerful vehicles of thought in shaping our conceptions, but they cannot change reality!

Perhaps one of the most subtle methods of minimizing guilt might be called the principle of displaced blame. This involves “putting the shoe on the other foot.” It happens whenever we shift the attention away from ourselves and magnify the faults of others. Adam blamed the woman, and the woman blamed the serpent (Gen. 3). When King Saul was confronted with the unfulfilled task of utterly destroying the Amelekites, he blamed the people (1 Sam. 15:15,21). The “prodigal son” was a loser until he “came to himself” (Luke 15:17). He finally saw himself as the real source of his problems. The Bible teaches freedom of choice, but it also teaches that we must be willing to accept the consequences of the choices we make. We cannot blame our families, friends, or circumstances for the sins we commit. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:4, 20). We must learn to say with David, “For I know my transgressions; and my sin is ever before me” (Psa. 51:3). We must accept the blame rather than “pass the buck.”

The Extent Of Divine Forgiveness

Forgiveness on the part of a merciful God is the only option that meets all of man’s complex psychological spiritual needs. More importantly, it is the only option that insures salvation! A Christian should have a much healthier attitude toward the handling of his own sin because of the biblical doctrine of forgiveness. In order to establish a right relationship with God, a person must first recognize that he is a sinner (Rom. 3:23; Lk. 5:31-32). Rather than minimizing his own guilt, a lost soul must come to grips with his crimes against heaven, and beg God for mercy by meeting the conditions for forgiveness that God has established. For that reason, the Lord’s church is filled with reformed criminals. But how sure can we be about the extent of God’s forgiveness?

The Bible informs us that the pale of Divine compassion knows no end. Read Luke 7:36-50 and underscore verse 47. There Jesus described a very sinful woman to a proud Pharisee, saying, “Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loveth much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” The Savior was not encouraging anybody to “sow his wild oats” just so he could appreciate God’s grace later on in life (cf. Rom. 3: 8; 6: 11). What He was saying is that a person who is deeply aware of his own condemnation before God is the person who will feel an acute need for God’s plan of salvation. And even if he has committed ten times the sins, he will be able to love and thank God that much more (Lk. 7:41-43). No one is “too sinful” to receive God’s grace . . . if he is willing to repent and obey! Paul was the “chief” of sinners in his own words, but he said in the same paragraph, “. . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering for an ensample of them that should

thereafter believe on him unto eternal life” (1 Tim. 1:16).

But not only is the quantity of divine forgiveness immeasurable, the quality of God’s mercy is equally infinite. A redeemed soul is completely restored to a state of purity and innocence. God’s attitude toward the saved is expressed in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son, in which the Father tells his older son, “But it was meet to make merry and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found” (Lk. 15:32). There is no half-hearted forgiveness with God! Isaiah 1:18 says, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. ” Not only does God fully acquit the Christian, pronouncing and treating him as righteous, but He also promises to completely forget his transgressions. Hebrews 8:12 recites the words of God under the new covenant system: “For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins I will remember no more.”

A child of God, then, needn’t worry or fret over past occasions of disobedience like many in the world do. He has the guarantee of the greatest source of grace the human race has ever known or can know: Divine forgiveness through the blood of Christ. The extent of this mercy is all-inclusive. The burden can be removed. Jesus confidently invites you: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). “For as the heavens are high above the earth, So great is his loving kindness toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, So far hath he removed our transgressions from us. Like a father pitieth his children, So Jehovah pitieth them that fear him” (Psa. 103:11-13). “If thou, Jehovah, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, That thou mayest be feared” (Psa. 130:3-4).

Endnote

1. A Sinner By Any Other Name,” Ministry November 1983, p. 25.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 20, pp. 620-621
October 18, 1984

By Daniel King

Newspapers in West Tennessee have been buzzing recently over a dispute between certain of the churches there and local government. The Paris Post-Intelligencer for Thursday, September 6, 1984, reported that State Attorney General Mike Cody ordered eight Jackson, Tennessee churches to file financial disclosure statements. They were ordered to do so after they made financial contributions to a group called Citizens Against Drug Abuse (CADA), which campaigned successfully against liquor-by-the-drink in a referendum August 2.

Cody pointed out that, as he reads the state’s campaign disclosure law, a political action committee is any combination of two or more individuals who financially support a candidate or cause. “We realize that such groups do not ordinarily consider themselves to be ‘political action committees’ and in some cases have not thought that they were obligated to file campaign financial disclosure statements,” Cody said.

The comment offered by the local paper was this: “Although any referendum related to the use of alcohol is considered a moral as well as a political issue and arouses emotions that other elections do not, if churches can help sway the outcome of the political process, the attorney general was correct in his ruling that they have assumed the role of political action committees.”

We certainly sympathize with those who fought to stop the legalization of liquor-by-the-drink in their fair city. This was a positive moral issue and all such require that Christians exert whatever influence they scripturally and ethically may on the side of right. But in recent years it has become popular for churches, as churches, to become directly involved in politics, and that we consider a mistake.

We have come to expect that many of the denominational churches will do such things, since most have little regard for the pattern left us by the early church and her apostles. They were quick to enter into the thought – world of the social gospel, attempting to establish the Kingdom of God on earth through social change. But churches of Christ tended to steer clear of politics because they considered this one of the areas where the individual rather than the church is to act. The early church never attempted to make of herself a political movement. She obeyed those in positions of authority (Tit. 3: 1) and prayed for rulers and those in high places (1 Tim. 2:1-2). The teachings of the New Testament had ramifications which reached into the world of politics. Yet the church did not, until centuries later when she slid into apostasy on many issues, try to make of herself a force to be reckoned with in either local or imperial politics. For an earlier generation of Christians that was enough.

The fact that the Word of God did not sanction such involvement kept them away from putting the church into the position of endorsing particular political candidates. The weight of those biblical teachings which instructed the church on the subject of her work and how those funds collected on the first day of the week were to be used in the Lord’s service, was sufficient to turn the balances against political or social service involvement.

A new attitude has come of age in the churches over the past several years, however. Spurred on by the desire to compete with some of the denominations in the social service area, some brethren opened the door to all sorts of things by establishing human institutions to carry out these functions (colleges, orphan homes, homes for unwed mothers, rest homes for the aged, child-care agencies, etc.) and then hitching the churches onto them by seeking church support. The question whether or not they had a right to exist was one thing. The Bible does not stand in the way of individuals who wish to create businesses of this kind. Christians have every right to establish and administrate a means for securing their livelihood. But when the churches were solicited for contributions, that represented another thing altogether. On the one hand, the church was making a contribution to an organization of man’s devising, a human institution. She was not buying a service. She was making a contribution. This assumed that the institution was doing the work of the church. And, the church was accomplishing her work through the agency of an institution engineered by man and not God. This further assumed that the church was insufficient to carry out the work God gave her to do, whereas Scripture said the opposite (Eph. 1:23).

In order to avoid the obvious force of the arguments leveled at them from brethren who opposed these machinations, the advocates of this new theory of financing and accomplishing the work of the church reasoned that ‘anything the individual can do with his money, the church can do with hers.” Never mind the distinction made in the Bible between the individual and the church (1 Tim. 5:16; etc.)! At the first this view was only accepted in principle. It came to be put into practice much more slowly. In fact, some of the brethren who first made this argument balked at accepting some of its implications when they saw what it eventually led to. When churches began building gymnasiums and swimming pools and threw themselves “hook, line, and sinker” into the social gospel, a few men were heard to mildly protest, but not above the din of the mob that went along.

Where did they end up? They ended up going into politics too. You see, to get back to our newspaper article, one of the churches which made a political contribution to the CADA was the Wallace Road Church of Christ in Jackson, Tennessee. They contributed $760 to this political pressure group, and so entered the realm of politics. That made them a ‘Political Action Committee.’ They didn’t think so, but that is what they became. And the Attorney General for the state of Tennessee made them file a financial disclosure statement.

There will probably be nothing said in opposition to this among our liberal brethren. In fact, they will likely protest only the harsh treatment of their comrades by Mike Cody and bemoan the erosion of our political rights under the Supreme Court in recent decades. They will never think to ask whether or not the church may legitimately enter into politics. After all, what the individual can do, the church can do. Or so they think!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 20, pp. 625-626
October 18, 1984

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Can a person send (or cause) someone else to go to hell? What about an unsaved person who was murdered? Would the murderer be responsible for the murdered person’s lost condition?

Reply: It seems that this question can be answered in a few words. The one who is lost is responsible for his condition. It is true that an individual may be lost because he has influenced someone else to be lost; but the fact remains that each person is responsible for his own sins. The law was specific in the day of Moses that “the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut.24:16). Thus the proverb in Ezekiel 18:2, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge” never was acceptable. When the prophet stated that Israel would no longer have occasion to use it, he was not saying that it had been acceptable before. Children were not to be put to death for the sins of their fathers. In contrast to the delusion of this proverb, Ezekiel is plainly asserting that “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (see also Ezek.18:20). Each individual is accountable to God for his own sins and will answer for himself in the day of judgment (Rom. 14:12).

Man is lost because he is in sin. An unsaved man is not lost per se because he did not have, or take the opportunity to be saved. He is lost because he is in sin. A man, therefore, who murders one who is unsaved is not the cause of the murdered person being lost. That person was lost already because he was in sin. He was already spiritually dead (Rom.6:23), being separated from God by sin (Isa.59:1,2). Also, the man who is unsaved and then commits murder is not lost because he committed murder. He too is already lost because he is in sin.

Men go to hell because of their own sins, and not those of someone else. It is not God’s desire that anyone be lost (see Tim.2:3,4; 2 Pet.3:9), but men choose (exercise their own free will) when they sin and refuse to repent. Actually, men send themselves to hell when they sin, violate God’s law (I Jn.3:4); God, the judge, will utter the final sentence: “Depart from me. . .” (Matt.25:41).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 20, p. 613
October 18, 1984

By Rick Billingsley

“I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil . . . “

The above quotation is taken from Revelation 2:2. Paul had foretold that grievous wolves would trouble the Ephesian church (Acts 20:29), and we see here a fulfillment. However, the Ephesians did not bear in their midst the company of evil men who were morally or ethically base in their character. This attitude toward evil men is most commendable; for they were and are unlike many congregations then and today. Today, many congregations are too tolerant toward their members who need to be disciplined.

“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). It is evident from these Scriptures that discipline is a Bible subject. Yet, it has been avoided, neglected, and even abandoned by many churches of the Lord. The root meaning of “discipline” comes from the Greek word dais, which means instruction, but in the course of time it came to be used for moral training, chastening, and punishment. The subject naturally divides itself into two parts: (1) the spiritual discipline of the soul, and (2) the congregational discipline of offenders. The latter subject will be discussed in this article.

Toleration

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). For self-protection and self assertion the church has to exercise a strict discipline. Its well-being and very life depends upon the suppression of abuses and the expulsion of persistent and gross offenders. Toleration would mean unfaithfulness to Christ and degradation in example before the community. The duty of maintaining an adequate discipline is one of the most difficult and most important tasks confronting the church today.

Discipline

Discipline is two fold: instructive and corrective. Instructive discipline is positive and preventative in nature. It is primarily concerned with laying out the rules-training by education (Deut. 6:4-12; Prov. 22:6; Acts 20:38; and Heb. 13:7). Perhaps the problem of discipline that the church is facing today is due to the lack of teaching concerning the subject. For years, many of the Lord’s body have failed to provide proper teaching on discipline. It has been one of those negative “no-no” subjects that many avoid teaching. Education is necessary in all subjects including discipline.

Corrective discipline is both positive and negative. It is unpleasant but must be carried out for the good of the offender and the church. This discipline does not consist of corporal punishment, imprisonment, fines, or civil incapacities; but in the administration of admonitions and rebukes. When these are without effect, and the offender. continues impenitent, the Bible teaches that we are to mark them, avoid them, not to keep company with and not to eat with them (Rom. 16:17; Phil. 3: 17; 1 Cor. 5:5,9,11; 2 Thess. 3:14). All of the terms above express the idea of revealing the unruly one and not to have association or agreement with such a person.

Who?

This discipline is to be administered to: a brother who sins (Matt. 18:15-20), one whose heart is not right or filled with wickedness (Acts 8:18-24), one causing division or becoming a stumbling block before other fellow Christians (Rom. 16:7), a brother who is a fornicator, covetous, idolater reviler, drunkard, extortioner (1 Cor. 5:11), one who hath caused sorrow (2 Cor. 7:8-12), one who is overtaken in a fault-paraptomate-to fall away from the teaching of the apostles (Gal. 6:1-3), one who is unruly (1 Thess. 5:14), one who walked disorderly and keeps not the word or traditions of the apostles (2 Thess. 3:6,14,15), those who lose their faith and make shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim. 1:19-20), those that sin-the elders that sinned (1 Tim. 5:19-20), unruly men, vain talkers, those who teach error, those who deceive (Tit. 1:10-16), a man who is a heretic, schismatic, a follower of false doctrine (Tit. 3: 10), one who errs from the truth (Jas. 5:19-20).

It is obvious from the above description that any person who abides not by the principles of Christianity as given to man through the word of God is subject to instructive or corrective discipline. It is safe and justifiable to say that any brother or sister who refuses instructive discipline is subject to corrective discipline.

Conclusion

We can go beyond and say that any congregation of the Lord that does not administer discipline to an impenitent brother or sister in Christ, has erred from the truth, and therefore is in great need of discipline themselves. Our generation has witnessed a great threat to the church because of the legal incident that occurred out west, but who knows what the next generation will experience or what the future holds for the church? Should persecution stop the church from carrying out God’s will? God forbid! The Ephesian church was rare because they would not tolerate evil, and in this the Lord commended them. Brethren, let us be like the Ephesians and not tolerate such evil and let us not lose sight of the purpose of discipline; to restore the offender and to keep the church pure that we too can be of this rare breed-faithful to the Lord, not only in discipline, but in all aspects to Christian principles.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 595, 599
October 4, 1984