Truth Magazine

By J.W. McGarvey

In addition to Biblical works of the kind just mentioned, the preacher should also study works on the Evidences of Christianity. It is no reproach to a man of little education and poor opportunities for study, that he believes in the divine authority of the Bible, not because he has made a special study of its evidences, but because he has been educated to this belief. The value of faith is determined, not by the source whence it is obtained, but by the effect which it has on our lives. Of the preacher, however, more than to his is rightly expected. He should know for his own sake, and in order that he may teach it to others and defend it when attacked, the line of evidence which supports our faith.

The exhaustive study of evidences is a lifetime work. The books on the subject are numbered by the hundred. Some of the questions involved are exceedingly intricate, requiring much learning and research for their solution; new questions are constantly arising, and the line of defense, as a consequence, is ever changing. Only the few who are possessed of learning, leisure, and libraries, can explore the entire field. But there is, and from the nature of the case there must be, a fixed line of positive evidence on which the faith has always rested, and on which it must continue to rest to the end of time. With this every preacher should endeavor to make himself familiar; and he will find that, in the main, it is simple and very direct.

It is better, when practicable, to begin the investigation of questions in dispute with some fact admitted by all parties, so that all may start from common ground. This rule would suggest as the very first question in a course of study in Evidences, the inquiry whether the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, which we now have in hand, as all parties to the controversy know, have been so preserved from the date of their composition as to be substantially the same that they were originally. If it cannot be made to appear that they are, the investigation need not go any farther; for what is the use of spending time to prove the divine origin of an ancient book if no reliable copy of it has been preserved to us? The study, then, of the state of the Greek and Hebrew text, by the aid of works on Biblical Criticism, is the first task before the student of Evidences. But though first in logical order, it is the last in the order of actual development. Biblical Criticism cannot yet be called a completed science; for, while it has almost completed its task on the New Testament, it has done comparatively little on the Old. Still, enough has been done to assure the student that in the whole New Testament, with well defined exceptions of brief passages and single words on which we can place our ringers, we have the very words and syllables which were penned by the inspired writers. The number of those yet doubtful is rapidly diminishing under the hands of the critics, and none of them leaves doubtful any matter of doctrine or duty. The best works to study on this subject, taken in the order in which I name them, are the History of the Printed Text by Tregelles, Scrivener’s Introduction to the Critical Study of the New Testament, and the Appendix to Westcott & Hort’s Edition of the Greek Testament.

Having satisfied ourselves that the New Testament books have come down to us without material change, we must next inquire when and by whom these books were written. Were they written by the authors to whom they are commonly accredited, or are they spurious compositions of a later date? It is idle to inquire into the inspiration of the authors until we know who the authors were. On this subject, commonly known under the title of the Canon of the New Testament, the preacher will find much valuable information in the introductions to the various books in his Commentaries, and he will find similar information in his Bible Dictionary. After mastering these he is prepared to study appreciatively Westcott’s work on the Canon, the most masterly work on the subject now extant in the English language. He will find, also, nearer home, in Prof. Fisher’s Supernatural Origin of the Bible, and Ezra Abbott’s small work on the Genuineness of the Gospel of John, some special arguments of very great value.

Having traced the New Testament books to their reputed authors, we next inquire what evidence these books furnish, apart from their claim to inspiration, in favor of the divinity of Christ. This depends upon their authenticity. If their statement in matters of fact are reliable, including what they say of the miraculous, then, whatever may be the qualifications of the writers in other particulars, the claims of our Redeemer are established, and the Christian religion is proved to be of divine origin and authority. This question is treated here and there, in connection with particular passages, throughout all the good Commentaries, and there are several most excellent works devoted entirely to its discussion. Of these I may mention, as among the most valuable, Blunt’s Coincidences Paley’s Horae Paulinae, and Rawlinson’s Historical Evidences.

But when we have proved that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, our task is not yet completed. However true the claims of Jesus, and however truly and authoritatively he spoke, unless we have a reliable account of his teaching, we know not how to avail ourselves of the blessings which it offered to the world. Moreover, a very large part of the teaching found in the New Testament came not from him, but from the pens of his disciples, and unless they possessed some qualification for speaking with authority in matters spiritual and eternal, we are thrown back at least upon our own fallible judgment to decide what is right and true. This makes it necessary that we next inquire whether or not these writers were inspired, and to what extent their inspiration guarded them against error. If when writing they were miraculously inspired of God, then all that they have written is infallibly true; if not, then every man is left to judge for himself when they speak the truth and when they do not.

While almost any work on the general subject of evidences that you make take up, and every valuable Commentary, contains proofs of some kind is conceded to them even by many extreme rationalists, I am not able to name a work which, in my judgment, contains a thoroughly satisfactory discussion of the nature and extent of inspiration. It is purely a Biblical question, to be determined by statements of the Scriptures themselves. As a brief outline of a course of study on the subject, I recommend that we inquire first of all, what Jesus promised his disciples in the way of inspiration. Examine these promises with the utmost care so as to determine with the greatest possible precision what they mean. Secondly, let us examine with equal care what the Apostles claim to have realized in fulfillment of these promises. Thirdly, consider the bearing of all facts recorded which tend in any way to modify the promises and the statements concerning their fulfillment, and let these have due weight in forming our final conclusions. In this way alone, it seems to me, can an adequate theory of inspiration be evolved, and in this way every man of fair scholarship and sound judgment can safely prosecute the inquiry. I commend it to my brethren in the ministry as one of the most important inquiries which can in this age engage their attention. There is no other question on which the minds of preachers are now more unsettled, and there is none on which it is more important that we have settled convictions. If a man fall into doubt concerning the inspiration of the sacred writers, though his faith may appear to live, it is dead – it is rotten at the core.

At the close of this series of inquiries, the student of evidences is ready to gather up and appreciate a multitude of collateral and of independent arguments which are scattered through the books on the subject, and he is also ready to enter upon the consideration of all objections and of all arguments on the other side which he shall not have encountered already. In regard to the latter, I have a suggestion to submit, which may be dignified by the title of a rule to govern our readings in evidences. Never read an attack on the Bible at a given point until the Bible at the point of attack is understood, and its evidences known. Of course, you may stumble upon some attack, or you may look into a work, or listen to a lecture, for the purpose of ascertaining what attack is made. But when a book is within your reach which you know contains an attack on a particular part of the Bible or on a particular line of its evidence, never read that book until you have made yourself acquainted with that which it attacks. This is but a maxim of common sense, and its observance is necessary to fairness. It is enforced in courts of justice and in all properly conducted discussions. The evidence which the plaintiff can furnish in support of his claims is always heard before that of the defendant who attacks his claim; and in criminal cases, the only reason why the accuser is heard first, is because he claims that a crime has been committed by the defendant, and the evidence in support of his claim must be first heard. In public discussions, no one hears the negative until after he has heard the affirmative. If you listen to unfriendly representations of a person before you are acquainted with him, you may be prejudiced against one whom you would otherwise highly esteem; and if you hear unfavorable statements concerning a book which you have never read, you can scarcely do justice to it when you read it. So it is with the Bible. Thousands of unbelievers owe their unbelief to the fact that they have listened to the negative in the discussion concerning its claims, before they have heard and understood the affirmative. No grosser injustice could they have perpetrated against their own minds or the Bible.

Before leaving this general division of my subject, I must add a suggestion in regard to the reading of general literature. It has been truly said that there is no department of knowledge which the preacher cannot make subservient to his high calling; yet there is a limit to the possibilities of acquisition, and he who limits his efforts at acquisition to that which will do him the best service is the one who studies most wisely. As a rule, an earnest preacher’s knowledge of general literature is confined chiefly to what he acquires before he enters fully upon his life work; for after this, literature belonging to his special department is so urgent in its demands and so enormous in quantity, that if he does it justice it will absorb, all of his time. Still, there are hours of relaxation in, which a brief excursion into neighboring fields is refreshing to the student and from it he will usually bring back some valuable spoils.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 7, pp. 201, 217
April 5, 1984

By Anonymous

(Introduction: A few years ago I labored diligently On several occasions to counsel a friend and preaching brother who was having many problems both in his marriage and in his preaching. Though I did not have full knowledge as to his situation, I was determined to help him if I could. Others had simply written him off as a hopeless case. My efforts were not fruitful and in time his family broke up and his effort to preach came to an end. Having moved to another work I lost contact with him. Apparently he was remotely keeping his knowledge of my efforts at hand, because he phoned me one evening several months ago. He brought me up to date on his efforts to stabilize himself emotionally and spiritually. He requested some help as to reading material so that he could study. I suggested among other things, the Guardian of Truth and sent in his name for a subscription. When he read the January 5, 1984 special, “That The Ministry Be Not Blamed,” he phoned expressing his appreciation for the fairness, directness and clarity with which each writer expressed himself. His speaking in this manner way very touching to me because he was a former preacher who had involved himself with another woman. He was a guilty party in a divorce. His pouting out his experiences of agonizing, penitent weeks and months there after resulted in the suggestion that in response to the special a guilty party’s story would be of interest to many. What follows is the response to that suggestion presented for publication just as he wrote it. His message is clear. a preacher does not have to be a worldly minded person to get into trouble. Satan will take advantage of whatever weakness the preacher may have and overthrow him, if possible. More than this though is the illustration that one’s sins result in transgressions that are hard to bear. Like Cain this anonymous writer is saying, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. ” Through the cleansing blood of Christ this once guilty party now hay peace with God and with himself. May we all read what he hay to say, weep with him and learn from his experiences. – Jimmy Tuten, 7911 Country Dr., Mobile, AL 36609)

I am writing this in response to the January 5, 1984 “That The Ministry Be Not Blamed” issue of the Guardian of Truth. This is being written anonymously in order to protect the innocent. It is with a heavy heart and with many profound regrets that I submit this article for publication. It is the hope and prayer of this writer that this article may cause someone somewhere (be he a preacher, or an elder, or whoever) who is contemplating the sin of adultery to be dissuaded from destroying himself.

I appreciate the Guardian of Truth’s willingness to print an article submitted by a former full-time gospel preacher who was overtaken by the sin of adultery. I urge the reader to consider these confessions carefully and prayerfully.

Several months after I took leave of full-time preaching my affair with “the other woman” began. I continued to preach from the pulpit on Sundays while employed in secular work. Therefore, I must accept responsibility for being a church leader who brought reproach of the worst kind on the Lord’s church.

I have repented of my sin. I have begged forgiveness from my wife who had scripturally put me away. She has forgiven me. She is now scripturally married to another man. I wish them well and they both wish me well. I have taken the necessary steps to be reconciled with the brethren who scripturally withdrew from me. God has forgiven me. I have suffered a loss, however, from which I will never recover.

I had never been accused of being a “ladies’ man.” I have never been known as one who indulges in hugging, kissing, or flirting. I was especially careful about my manner towards ladies during my full-time preaching tour. I always took my wife with me to visit one of the ladies. From the pulpit, I was outspoken against hard rock music, movies that glamorized immoral people, miniskirts and other worldly indulgences. No one could have been more outraged than I was at the news of a preacher or other brother who had sinned against his partner.

The Path Of Apostasy

How then could this have happened to me?

(For the purposes of this article I shall refer to my former wife as “Ann” and to the other woman as “Beth.”) My marriage to Ann took place nearly twenty years ago. I was a college drop-out with an employment record that left a little to be desired. I had a psychological disorder that had commenced in early childhood. Ann’s parents strenuously opposed her plans to be married to me; however, she married me over their protests.

During my courtship with Ann I vowed to her that I that I would prove myself as a breadwinner and that I would be a success. As the years unfolded, however, I came to see myself as a dismal failure and a bitter disappointment to Ann who married me over her parent’s objections.

Ever since I came into the Lord’s church I have been enthusiastic about soul-winning. I led Ann herself to Christ several months prior to our marriage. Although I did earnestly desire to serve the Lord and to win souls for him, my decision to enter full-time preaching was at least partly motivated by a strong desire to “succeed.” I felt a great need to win some kind of a victory. I needed to do this for the sake of our marriage and for the sake of my own self-esteem.

My preaching tour turned out to be an exercise in futility. My term at each local church was very short. I did not enjoy a good working relationship with the brethren of any of the churches with which I was associated. When I arrived at my decision to take leave of full-time preaching I felt that Ann was unsympathetic and unsupportive. This was a feeling, not necessarily a fact.

This was where Beth, the other woman, came in. Beth was a divorcee. I viewed Beth as a sincere Christian who had suffered a terrible heartbreak. She needed a friend on whose shoulders she could cry. It seemed only right at the time that I should supply those shoulders.

For several months I would take Ann with me to visit Beth, although Ann did begin to question why I was taking such a profound interest in her. Then I commenced to visit Beth alone. Beth was saying things to me that I wanted to hear. She did not consider me a failure, but a victim of circumstances. I felt rejected by Ann and unconditionally accepted by Beth.

During all those visits it never crossed my mind one time that I could be tempted to enter into an adulterous relationship! I was content to enjoy Beth as a counselor or confidante, someone with whom I could talk out my frustrations, disappointments and aspirations. Beth, however, had other plans for me. She challenged me: “Why do you come to see me so often and without Ann?”

At this moment I made my fatal mistake. The choice before me was: (1) enter into an amorous, extra-marital relationship with Beth, or (2) decline to do so and thereby bring my special friendship with Beth to an end. I could not bring myself to break off my friendship with Beth. I felt at that moment that she was the only person on earth who understood me, who really cared about me, and who could make life bearable for me. (These were feelings, not necessarily facts.)

For several months I would see Beth secretly during the daytime and then go home to Ann in the evening. There was touching between Beth and me, but we refrained from engaging in sexual relations.

Then came the confrontation. Beth and I had to admit to Ann and to our brethren that we were seeing each other in secret. Since we did not admit to having had sexual relations, the brethren took no disciplinary action. We were warned, however, to end our relationship.

Beth made a decision to leave me and to relocate to another part of the country. Just before she actually packed and left town, I made my second fatal mistake. I told her I could not live without her and that I would follow her as soon as I could get my affairs in order. Beth responded favorably.

During these months in which I divided my life between two women, my relationship with God underwent a change. Not only was there a spiritual deterioration, but a theological deterioration as well. I came to blame God for my difficulties. I convinced myself that I was justified in violating my marriage vows. I actually resigned myself to the persuasion that I was hell-bound anyway, so it really did not matter whether I lived my life in harmony with God’s will.

I followed Beth to her new location. For a time we lived in separate quarters. Then, sexual relations took place. Our brethren withdrew from both of us. Several months later, Ann divorced me. That same year, I proposed marriage to Beth and she accepted. My “new” theology allowed for easy marriage-divorce-remarriage.

Shortly after I married Beth, I found myself under more stress than I could handle. I was admitted to a mental hospital. Several weeks after I was admitted, Beth told me in a very calloused and heartless manner that she had no further use for me. She told me that she would make it easy for me to get a speedy divorce. Within the year, I divorced her on the legal grounds of adultery. (Beth had found another man on whose shoulders she could cry.)

During my stay in the mental hospital, I began to pray and to read my Bible as I had never done before in my life. I was the prodigal son who “came to himself” (Luke 15:17) and who was ready to return to the father. I contacted Ann and expressed my desire to be reconciled with her. She ultimately decided against it and accepted a marriage proposal from another man which indeed was her scriptural prerogative.

Consequences of Sin

All of these occurrences transpired several years ago. I try now to live one day at a time and to look ahead. I desire very much to please the Lord so that I may claim Heaven as my eternal home. However, there are remembrances that grieve my heart daily. I remember the wonderful days of courtship with Ann. I remember how desperately Ann tried to save our marriage. I remember how she pleaded with me, with tears, not to leave her. I remember how those beloved babes in Christ, whom I taught and baptized, appealed to me to reconsider my course. My heart will be tormented until the day I die with these remembrances. What a terrible price I am payingl And for what?

Words of Advice

So much for my story. Dear reader, if you are now engaging in sin against your partner, or are contemplating such sin, please consider the testimony of one who has “been there”! Please believe me, you are making a tragic mistake!

I now have a word of advice for one who is considering the work of full-time preaching. Dear brother, if you are being troubled with a psychological disorder, the work of full-time preaching is not for you! Do not expect your brethren to exhibit patience, forebearance or understanding. The preacher who feels that he must be continually concerned about his job security qnd about how he stands in the opinion of his brethren is a preacher who will certainly fail. Many of your brethren have emotional problems of their own. Two minuses do not equal a plus! You are not only likely to fail as a preacher, but you may find yourself very vulnerable to being “conned” by some Jezebel posing as a heartbroken, sweet young thing who needs a shoulder to cry on!

If you are wanting in Bible knowledge, do not offer your services as a full-time preacher with the expectation that you can “learn while doing.” If you are serious about preaching you need to get the benefit of some kind of study program led by knowledgable men. During my brief preaching tour, I frequently found myself going to more knowledgable preachers for better understanding of Bible issues. I should have had that understanding before I ever commenced fulltime preaching!

I obviously cannot pretend to be an authority on the subject of full-time preaching, but I offer the above advice in the hope that some starting preacher will benefit from my mistakes.

The time I spent in the mental hospital and in sessions with mental health professionals has certainly been time well spent. Friends who know me best tell me they are pleased to see the progress I have made. There are some brethren, unfortunately, who are negative towards all mental health professionals. One dear brother several years ago appealed to me: “You don’t need a psychiatrist; you need the Lord! ” The dear brother was right concerning my need for the Lord; however, I believe he was wrong about the other part of his utterance.

If a man’s teeth have cavities, I would recommend a dentist. If a man’s vision has dimmed I would recommend an optometrist. If a man has a psychological disorder he certainly needs the Lord! However, he owes it to himself and to his partner and to everyone else with whom he is involved to consult one who is especially trained to help those in his condition! It is simply not true that all mental health professionals are atheists!

I must concede that the testimony offered in this article concerns an extraordinary case. This should help the reader to realize that there are other leaders of the Lord’s church who can be overtaken by the sin of adultery than the stereotyped flirtacious, hugging-and-kissing “ladies man.”

Some of my preacher friends and other faithful brethren tried earnestly to dissuade me from my self-destructive course. I am grateful to them and for their efforts. I want them to know that their efforts were not in vain.

I have “been there”! Dear brother (or sister), please do not follow the self-destructive road I traveled from which there may be no return!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 7, pp. 197, 214-215
April 5, 1984

By Lewis Willis

I am having to deal with the proverbial “horns of a dilemma.” I am not in this by myself. You have got the same problem. I am certain that you have enough problems already – I know I do – but I do not see any way we can realistically avoid confronting the dilemma to which I refer.

It was not long after I arrived on this old earth that scientists developed the bomb that ended World War Il. Periodically since that time, situations have existed in the world that could have potentially thrust us into one mighty nuclear conflagration. Last night (11/20/83) ABC television aired a movie, The Day After, about such an event. I did not watch the movie. If a nuclear weapon is going to fry me like a french fry, I want to experience such only once! I have no interest in vicariously going through the experience numbers of times. And, admittedly, the thought does not exactly brighten my day. Our premillennial religious friends have capitalized on this possibility for many, many years. Most of them will tell you that they think the end of the world will occur as a result of such a war among the super powers. It is this kind of mentality that led to the building of bomb shelters several years ago. I never did really understand the rationale of such. If the world is going to end by the fires of a nuclear war, it will mark the end of the bomb shelters too. I fail to see, therefore, how such is going to help much.

But now we have got the other horn of that dilemma to take into consideration. The Akron Beacon Journal (I 1/ 15/83) printed an Associated Press article out of Sydney, Australia regarding the findings of an international scientific research team at the Australian National University’s Mount Stromlo Observatory. Dr. Bruce Patterson, head of the observatory, informed us “that the universe is infinite and will go on expanding forever.” The fact that the Bible says otherwise is meaningless to such men. Before you take too much comfort from their findings, however, you need to realize that “through a series of complicated calculations,” these distinguished scientists have established that “life will slowly die out in a dark, frozen waste rather than disappear in a final cataclysmic explosion.” I do not know if freezing offers me much more consolation than burning. The dilemma is rather obvious. Do we need a fan or a furnace? Now I don’t know what to do!

These “complicated calculations” of the scientific community on this subject do not exactly impress me. I am always reminded of the story of the fellow who walked through a cemetery one night and fell into an open grave. After trying unsuccessfully to get out, he just sat down to wait for the morning and someone to get him out. After a while another unfortunate fellow stumbled into that same open grave. He calculated, worked, figured and struggled in every possible way to get out. The first fellow observed his predicament and calmly announced, “You can’t get out of here.” But, he did! I guess that about sums up my attitude about either horn of this dilemma. I plan to get out and, so far, science has offered no viable escape mechanism or route. I think I’ll concentrate on a third alternative and forget about the fans, furnaces and bomb shelters. I recall that the apostle Paul once said that God would “destroy the wisdom of the wise . . . ” (1 Cor. 1: 19). He has systematically done this throughout history. If there were scientists in Noah’s day, their calculations would have considered the flood unlikely, if not impossible. What gathering of scientists would have agreed in advance that Israel could have escaped across the Red Sea as they did. The counsel of the wise led the majority of the people to reject Christ as the Messiah. And the Gospel was just too simple for intellectual men. But God destroyed all of that human wisdom and proceeded to do it as He desired – and He had the ability to do so.

The same God who executed all of those other wonders has announced that “The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet. 3: 10). Science can believe anything it wants to believe, but it has traditionally rejected the revelation of God. Nothing is too preposterous to be accepted so long as it takes issue with what the Lord says! Therefore, some conclude that man will destroy himself with his bombs and others conclude we’ll just freeze like popsicles on this earth one of these days. Peter affirms that “by the word of God” this world will come to its demise (2 Pet.

3:5-7). 1 have determined that I will accept the testimony of God about the end of these things. I will attempt my escape to that other realm by believing in Christ, obeying the Gospel and trusting the promises of God. Thus, when that great and terrible day of the Lord does come, “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: . . . We shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality . . .” (1 Cor. 15:52-53). I was just thinkin’ – there must surely be sufficient comfort in this promise of God to enable us to totally trust Him in our deliverance from the end of this realm into the blessedness of the place prepared for us by Jesus (Jn. 14:1-3). So, forget the fans and furnaces!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 7, p. 204
April 5, 1984

By Weldon E. Warnock

Fellow-Christian, do you have complete confidence that you are going to heaven? I am finding among Christians some reservations as to what their standing before God is. The reason for this uncertainty is the notion that there may be some sin in their lives of which they are unaware and their unconscious, ignorant, isolated sin alienates them from God, and, therefore, condemns them.

What unnecessary dread and fear because of a misconception of the grace of God. The gospel of Christ teaches assurance, joy and peace for God’s people – not doubt and despair. We sing:

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!

O what a foretaste of glory divine!

Heir of salvation, purchase of God,

Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.

This great song expresses the settled, positive conviction of salvation through the redeeming love of the Lord Jesus Christ. We can confidently proclaim, “heirs of salvation,” because eternal life is so certain for the believer that it is spoken of many times as already possessed. John said, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” (John 3:36). Jesus said, “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47). Other passages could be cited. Indeed, it is a blessed assurance!

The followers of Jesus are given eternal life and they shall never perish; neither shall any man pluck them out of Jesus’ hand (John 10:28). Of course, a disciple can quit following Jesus and forfeit eternal life, but the faithful saint is constantly safe in the hand of Jesus. A dedicated child of God is not in and out of the hand of the Lord, week in and week out. The Bible does not teach such a fragile plan of salvation.

For a faithful Christian to be lost and saved over and over and over and over reminds me of the game many of us have played with flowers as we picked off the petals and said, “She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not The idea of having to be aware of every sin and then specifically confess it, leaves those who would espouse it wondering where they are, spiritually, and saying, “He saves me, He saves me not, He saves me, He saves me not.”

God’s Security

Listen to Paul: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Tim. 1: 12). The beloved apostle was sure about his salvation. We can be, too — not, however, by sinless perfection through perfect law keeping (an impossibility), nor by being conscious of every imperfection in our past lives (another impossibility), but by God’s marvelous grace that forgives our isolated sins, our ignorant imperfections as a result of our abhorrence of sin and our humility to confess to God that we are sinners and we need His forgiveness. The publican prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner’ (Luke 18:13). He went down to his house justified (v. 14). We can go on our way, justified, by the same process. David prayed, “Cleanse thou me from secret (ignorant) faults” (Psa. 19:12). With an attitude like that, brethren, God takes care of us – forgives us, cleanses us through the blood of Christ, covers our transgressions and keep us under the shadow of His wings (1 Jn. 1:7; Rom. 4:7; Psa. 17:8).

Read the wonderful passage in Psalms 91:1-4. The Psalmist stated, “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust …. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” Yes, our heavenly Father forgives us continuously of isolated, ignorant sins of which we can never become aware, predicated, of course, on general confession. This is what keeps loving believers in God’s grace.

Our hope in Christ is an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast (Heb. 6:19). The Christian’s hope is solid and stable, not flimsy and wavering. Hope means “desire and expectation.” Hence, a Christian expects to go to heaven. He has the promise of God for it and he can, therefore, depend on it. All of God’s people have infirmities and are tempted in many ways, but God takes care of His own who have surrendered their hearts to Him. Through the years we have sung:

Safe in the arms of Jesus,

Safe on His gentle breast;

There by His love O’er-shaded,

Sweetly my soul shall rest.

Some of us are either going to have to quit singing this grand old song or change our thinking about the security of God’s children. How can we sing that we are safe and our soul is sweetly at rest while entertaining worry, anxiety and despondency about our soul? Is it that we are relying too heavily on ourselves rather than the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ? When we do the very best we can, we still are unprofitable servants. Let’s assure ourselves that God’s grace does for us what we are not able to do for ourselves. We then can say with Paul, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13).

Concerning the child of God who knowingly sins, whether deliberately or inadvertently, he is to immediately repent and confess his sins (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9). God will abundantly pardon (Isa. 55:7). God loves us and wants us saved, for God is love (1 Jn. 4:8; 1 Tim. 2:4). We do not have to keep begging God to forgive us, nor do we have to appease Him. He is ready and willing to forgive (2 Pet. 3:9).

These preceding things I firmly and deeply believe. I can find no alternative to keeping myself saved. I can find no other way to maintaining the joy of my salvation. But do not read into what I said as advocating God’s forgiveness of those who are ignorantly walking in sin or living in sin, whether it be immoral conduct or religious error, because the situations are entirely different.

Walking In Sin

The apostle John specifically deals with those who are walking in sin and he explicitly teaches they have no fellowship with God. John writes, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 Jn. 1:6). Whether knowingly or unknowingly, if a person is walking in darkness he has no fellowship with God, regardless of what he claims to the contrary. The word, “walk,” means “mode of conduct or behavior.” Hence, if one’s conduct is persistence in sin, he has no fellowship with God. The blood of Jesus will not cleanse those who are walking in moral impurities and religious falsehoods.

Children of God, regardless of how sincere they may be, cannot go off on a tangent from divine truth and stay in fellowship with Almighty God. Those who use human innovations in worship to God, corrupt the organization of the church or pervert the purity of the doctrine of Christ are walking in darkness and John says they have no fellowship with God. Those who claim they do have fellowship, lie, and those who try to defend their sinful behavior on the basis of sincere ignorance, also lie. Nobody can live in sin and be right at the same time.

Only those who walk in the light, in the truth of God, have fellowship with God and they, and only they, are cleansed (continuous or repeated action) from all sin by the blood of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7), contingent upon the conditions already stated.

Let us learn all we can about God’s word, live as close to it as is humanly possible and say with the Psalmist, “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119:11).

(Editor’s Note: The preceding article is another attempt by a faithful brother to deal with the question of the security of the believer who might be guilty of sins of ignorance or weakness. Brother Warnock states that the believer can be secure, which all of us believe. He finds this security in the grace of God who forgives isolated sins of ignorance and weakness based on a general confession of sin. He limits this forgiveness to an occasional sin in contrast to a general walk in some sin, whether that walk in sin be occasioned by ignorance and weakness. Brother Warnock has also written a second article, which will be published in a future issue, showing how he will answer the grace-unity advocates who use the premise that God forgives sins of ignorance, weakness, and inadvertence as a platform for fellowshipping those in the Christian Churches and liberal churches of Christ. Brother Warnock takes a different approach to the security of the believer than I do. Our conclusions and practices are the same. Both of us believe in the security of the believer. Neither of us believe that fellowship [whether limited or unlimited] can be extended to those who practice sin, defend it as righteousness, and encourage others to participate in it. We are happy to present his material for our readers’ consideration.)

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 7, pp. 205-206
April 5, 1984