Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

Many Christians have a problem with forgiveness and forgetting. They ask God’s forgiveness, but still feel that because of their remembering the sin, they may not have been forgiven. Sometimes, those who obey the Lord in baptism continue to remember their past sins and wonder whether God has truly forgiven them.

There is a difference between being forgiven and forgetting. Saul of Tarsus was forgiven of his sins when he was baptized “to wash away” his sins (Acts 22:16), but he remembered his past sins when he wrote Timothy (1 Tim. 1:13-15). In the Old Testament we read of David being forgiven, yet he remembered his past sins. Nathan said, “God hath put away thy sin” (2 Sam. 12:13), but years later David wrote about his past sins (Psa. 32:1-5). The apostle Peter was pricked in the heart by the crowing of a rooster (Lk. 22:61,62), and obviously repented of his sin. His life afterward shows clearly that he was aware of God’s forgiveness, but no doubt the sound of a rooster crowing sent pains through his heart for a long time after that event.

The Bible records many sins that God had forgiven and did not hold against the forgiven party. Did God remember them? If not, how did He inspire the writers to write about them? Did God forgive the fornicator in Corinth, after he repented? In the second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul said, “Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many; so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:6,7). This clearly implies that God had forgiven him, and that they were to do likewise, yet God “remembered” in the sense that he inspired Paul to write about it. There is a difference between forgiving and forgetting.

When a child of God commits sin and asks God’s forgiveness, how does he know that he has been forgiven? The same way that an alien sinner knows that God has forgiven him – by what God said! God said that if “we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9). This does not mean that we forget that we committed the sin, but we can be assured that God treats us as though we had never committed it. He does not hold it against us.

Though Paul remembered the terrible persecutions that he had inflicted upon God’s people (1 Tim. 1:12-15), he could still “forget the things that are behind” (Phil. 3:13), in the sense that he did not allow them to hinder his faithfulness to Christ. There was no doubt in Paul’s mind whether God had forgiven him. Neither should there be any in our minds when we conform to the conditions God has revealed.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, p. 117
February 16, 1984

By Daniel F. May

Over the years, there has been a great deal of discussion on the subject of the “unpardonable sin” or blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Many have been confused over the apparent contradiction between two widely accepted facts: (1) That blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable (Matt. 12:31, 32; Mark 3:29) and (2) That the blood of Christ can wash away all sin (Acts 22:16; 1 John 1:9). This confusion has led some to fear that they may have committed this sin unknowingly, and thus are destined to an eternal Hell. Such confusion and subsequent fear is sad and totally unnecessary. It is this writer’s hope to dispel such in the clear light of God’s word.

The difficulty with this subject lies in two areas: (1) Who and what are involved in God’s law of pardon, and (2) What is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? When these two areas are examined and understood, the apparent contradiction is shown to be non-existent and confusion and fear are eliminated.

Who And What Are Involved In God’s Law Of Pardon

There are four persons involved in the action of forgiving sins. First, there is God. He is the One who is sinned against (Acts 5:4). He is the One who has set the conditions for removing sin and gaining salvation (Matt. 7:21). And He is the One who ultimately forgives the sin (Luke 23:34). Next there is Christ. He is the One who “offered up Himself” for sin (Heb. 7:27). And He is the One who is ever at the right hand of God, making intercession for us (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25). Next, there is the Holy Spirit. He is the One who was sent to “convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8). He is the One who delivered the glorious gospel concerning the sacrifice of Jesus and God’s conditions of forgiveness (Eph. 3:1-5). Finally there is Man. He is the one who commits the sin, either by falling short of, or going beyond what God has said. He is the one who must believe the message of the Holy Spirit. He is the one who must take advantage of the sacrifice of Jesus by complying with the conditions of pardon that God has outlined in the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The conditions for the man who is not a Christian are: (1) Belief in Jesus as the Son of God; (2) Repentance of sin; (3) Confession of faith; (4) Baptism in the name of Jesus (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:10; Acts 22:16). For the erring Christian, God’s law of pardon demands: (1) Repentance of sin; (2) Confession of sin; (3) Prayer for forgiveness of sin (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9).

When these things are accepted and acted upon, then God has promised to pardon us of our sin. The slate is clean and it is as if we had never sinned. If we fail in any part, then we remain in our sin. That too is a part of God’s law (Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46).

What Is Blasphemy Of The Holy Spirit?

Jesus warned the Pharisees that they were in danger of committing this sin in Mark 3:28-29. He said, “Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (see also Matt. 12:31-32). In the context of this statement by Jesus in Matthew’s account, one can clearly see the actions of the Pharisees which brought on this warning. A man was brought unto Jesus, “one possessed with a demon, blind and dumb” (Matt. 12:22). The text simply say, “and he healed him.” The multitudes were amazed and wondered if this Jesus really was the promised Messiah. The Pharisees, fearful of losing their &4preeminence” in the eyes of the people, claimed that Jesus cast out the demon by “Beelzebub, the prince of the demons.” In so doing, they hoped to discredit Jesus as being a man of God and, consequently, as the Messiah. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, first showed them how illogical their argument was by the illustration of a house being divided against itself and its ultimate failure. He then warned them concerning the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. To speak evil of Christ, to reject Him as the Messiah and even to kill Him could be forgiven. On the other hand, to speak abusively and contemptuously concerning the Holy Spirit, to attribute the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan, and to reject the witness of the Holy Spirit who was given to prove that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30, 31), was a sin that would never be forgiven. The reason for this was that there would be no other witness given to cause them to accept Jesus, and repent of their sins. Having rejected the final witness, there being no other witness to “convict” them “in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” they would not repent. And without repentance there is no forgiveness (Luke 13:5).

How does such relate to us today? Is it possible to commit this sin still today? Yes! Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit occurs when one has viewed all the evidence that the Holy Spirit has revealed (i.e., the Bible) and rejects that evidence as being false and of man or Satan. With no evidence left, it having been “once for all delivered” (Jude 3), there is nothing to convince us or convict us and cause us to repent. Again, without repentance God will not forgive us of any sin.

Perhaps if we notice some other passages of Scripture which deal with this sin and this type of sinner, we can better understand it. In Hebrews 10:26, the writer says, “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins.” Literally the writer is saying if we “go on sinning willfully. . . .” The context fully describes the character and actions of this type of individual, who knowing the truth, discards it and willfully continues in sin. Notice verse 29. He is a person who (1) trods under foot the Son of God, (2) counts the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and (3) hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace. Instead of honoring Christ, he walks on Him, treating Him like dirt. Instead of thankfulness for the blood of Christ, he treats it as being common and unclean. And instead of respecting and honoring the witness of the Holy Spirit, he blasphemes. In this case it is easy to see why the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. It is because the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the “truth” of Hebrews 10:26, has been rejected. That “truth” included the atoning sacrifice of the blood of Christ. That sacrifice being “once for all” (Heb. 7:27), when it is rejected “there remains no sacrifice for sins” and consequently no forgiveness.

In Hebrews 6:4-6, essentially the same thing is stated as in the gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark and in Hebrews 10. Jesus said that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven, but He did not go into detail as to why. In Hebrews 10:26, we saw that in rejecting the witness of the Holy Spirit, the acceptance of the sacrifice was also rejected, and so there remained no sacrifice for sin, and thus, no forgiveness. Here in Hebrews 6, the reason why forgiveness is impossible is because, having “once been enlightened. . . . made partakers of the Holy Spirit. . . and then fell away,” rejecting the evidence as false, it is now impossible to renew them unto repentance. Why? Again, because there is no other witness given to convince one of the truth and convict him of sin. When one rejects the Holy Spirit and His testimony, he effectually closes the door to repentance and forgiveness. That is why Peter said “the late state is become worse with them than the first” (2 Pet. 2:22). There is no new witness, sacrifice, or condition of pardon waiting to be revealed. Such a sin “hath never forgiveness.”

One can never know if another has, in fact, blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. God only knows. It may be that there is some evidence, some witness of the Holy Spirit contained in Scripture that that person has not seen, and when he is shown it he will have his eyes opened to the truth and believe, repent and submit to God’s law of pardon. That is why we must continue to preach and teach God’s word.

We need not fear that we may have, at one time or another, inadvertently committed this sin. It is not a sin that one slips into, but one that is done in high-handed rebellion against God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. It is hoped that the purpose of this article has proved to be fulfilled in understanding what the “unpardonable sin” is.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 4, pp. 116-117
February 16, 1984

By Mike Willis

During the last ten years, the church has been forced to fight a battle with false teachers who have taught that unity could be maintained with those who are practicing sin, defending their sin as an act of righteousness, and encouraging others to join with them in the commission of sin. No journal among us has written more or fought harder to negate the effect of these false teachers than has the Guardian of Truth.

We have no apologies to make for our defense of the faith which Christ has delivered to us through the inspired apostles and prophets. We are appreciative of the warm support which we have received from those brethren who stand with us in opposing the grace-unity movement.

In recent months, discussion has been given to the topic of continuous cleansing by the blood of Jesus. This discussion is a spin-off of the grace-unity discussion. The grace-unity brethren have made the following argument in justification of their fellowship with those who are using instrumental music in worship, supporting human institutions from the church treasury, participating in the sponsoring church arrangement and participating in church sponsored recreation:

1. “Do you know everything perfectly?” No one can argue that he has perfect knowledge of everything. Hence, he must answer this question, “No.”

2. “Is it possible that you might be committing a sin of Ignorance at the present time?” The only answer which can be given to this question is “Yes.”

3. “Are you saved right now?” Each of us who has a good conscience believes that he is saved at the present. The grace-unity advocates are arguing that so long as a Christian is good, honest, and sincere he may be wrong and practicing sin in any matter of doctrine and still be saved.

4. “If you are saved while committing a sin of Ignorance, weakness or inadvertence, why can’t those in the liberal churches of Christ (who support human Institutions from the church treasury, participate in the sponsoring church arrangement, and practice church-sponsored recreation) and Christian Churches be saved In the same manner?” These brethren pray the same prayer confessing sinfulness, are just as sincere and honest, and have the same desire to be saved as you do. Hence, if you can be saved while committing sins of ignorance, weakness, and inadvertence, why can’t they?

5. “If you admit that they an saved, you have an obligation to receive them just as Christ received you (Rom. 15:7).” If we are going to be in heaven together, we have an obligation to accept one another here on earth. Consequently, the grace-unity advocates fellowship each other.

As most of our readers know, I have attacked this false doctrine at point number three in several editorials and comments in “Quips and Quotes.” I simply do not believe that a man is saved before God while practicing a sin, even if he is good, honest, and sincere. Hence, I would attack the point (#3) which implies that a man is saved while practicing a sin. Until someone shows me a better place to attack this argument, I shall continue to resist it at this point. My only interest in discussing the issue of forgiveness of sins of ignorance, weakness, and inadvertence has been in its relationship to the grace-unity movement.

Before there was a grace-unity movement brethren were discussing the question of how God deals with His children who fall into some inadvertent error or into some sinful practice through ignorance. There have been several shades of thought but everyone has agreed that we must rebuke sin, no matter what its cause, and that we must teach those who err to repent and pray God’s forgiveness (Acts 8:21-23; 1 Jn. 1:6-2:2). We have been united in practice – in telling the sinner what he must do to be right with God. But in recent years, the apostate grace-unity movement has given the old discussion a new twist. The apostates claim that God somehow automatically forgives sins of ignorance, weakness and inadvertence – and claim this as a pretext to justify fellowship with those who are practicing and defending sin.

I openly confess that there are areas of the question about what God will do with a Christian who dies under this or that circumstance to which I do not know the answer and join with others in stating “only God knows.” However, I am opposing the grace-unity doctrine in its every twist and turn designed to create a basis of unity broader than the Bible allows.

There are others who stand just as opposed to the grace-unity movement as I do who make some arguments and concessions I cannot make – some are willing to concede point number three (above). As a matter of fact, these brethren consider my opposition to point number three to tend toward legalism at the very best. These brethren are not Calvinists or sympathizers with the grace-unity movement! I think that those who accept the doctrine of continuous forgiveness could also admit that I am no legalist, not guilty of neo-Catholicism, and do not believe in salvation based on perfect obedience. Our applications in the realm of fellowship are identical. We have a great unity based on our common practice, even though we might arrive at the same conclusion from different points of view.

That we might arrive at the same conclusion from different points of view is not new. Those of us who are united in our opposition to church support of human institutions do not always arrive at the same conclusion in the same way. Some who stand opposed to church support of human institutions arrive at that conclusion based on the conviction that the local church is the only collective arrangement for teaching the Bible. These brethren are not only opposed to church support of human institutions, they are also opposed to individual contributions such as Florida College, Think, Guardian of Truth, and Vanguard. These brethren work with me and I with them in spite of our personal differences because we are united in keeping churches separate from business and service organizations. We can study such differences with calmness and mutual respect, united in work and worship in the local church according to the Scriptures. Those who have called for division over such issues have generally been resisted and with this I concur.

A similar tolerance needs to be practiced regarding our differences on “continuous forgiveness.” I am concerned when I read comments which implicitly or explicitly state that churches should not be using men who differ with a certain position on continuous forgiveness. Those men who stand opposed to the grace-unity movement but believe in continuous forgiveness are practicing the same things which I practice. Let me be specific. Brethren Leslie Diestelkamp, Robert Turner, and Eugene Britnell and others who could be named take a different position than I take on continuous forgivingness. They have made some statements with which I am uncomfortable and I have made some statements with which they are not comfortable. Nevertheless, they preach against instituationalism, church sponsored recreation, the sponsoring church arrangement, premillennialism, etc., just as strongly as I do and have for a good many moor years. I have not detected any difference in our practices that fall into the realm of sin. Consequently, I can find no biblical justification for calling upon brethren to quit using such men. I view any such call as a misguided statement born from overzealous actions in opposing the grace-unity movement.

These misguided statements are not the only danger in the area of fellowship regarding this issue. There is also a danger that churches might determine who they have for meetings based on convictions regarding continuous forgiveness. A boycott of some good brethren who oppose continuous forgiveness but who come out the same in practice as those who accept the idea might also occur. Not to us those who stand opposed to “automatic forgiveness” but who practice the same thing as you do is to have the same practical result as a public, written call for churches not to use those who take the opposite view on this issue. We need cooperation on every side.

What can we do to prevent this matter from crystalizing into a division among us? I would like to make the following suggestions:

(1) Work together so long as our practice is the same. I personally have determined that I shall continue to work with those with whom I disagree so long as our practices are the same. I shall continue to invite such brethren to participate with me on radio programs, write articles for Guardian of Truth, preach in pulpits where I worship, and lead in public prayer in spite of our differences on this issue. A different stance will be taken toward those who write public statements of endorsement to the grace-unity leaders, who sanction sinful practices, who teach that church support of human institutions and the sponsoring church arrangements do not violate the doctrine of Christ and should not be rejected from fellowship (2 Jn. 9-11), who can write repeatedly in liberal papers without rebuking the sins of liberalism, who state that liberal brethren are preaching the same gospel as we are peaching, and similar such things. Those who do such things stand identified with the grace-unity brethren and in violation of 1 Corinthians 1:10, Galatians 1:8-9, 2 John 9-11, Jude 3, Revelation 22:18-19 and a host of other passages.

(2) Keep the lines of communication open. I plead with brethren on both sides of this recent issue to join with me in keeping the lines of communication open. I invite you to present your material in Guardian of Truth. I invite you to respond to material which I have written to express the other side. I might differ with you and express my difference in the form of reply but we will part as brethren who continue to receive one another. I have expressed this much to some of these brethren in the past and will continue to express this in the future. If the lines of communication and fellowship are broken, someone other than me will have to do the breaking.

Conclusion

With the Indianapolis debate between brethren John Welch and Floyd Chappelear just around the corner, let us resolve anew not to let these issues divide us. Let those who want to and can attend the forthcoming debate approach it from the standpoint that we are brethren seeking to reach a better understanding of God’s word in order that we might use it against the enemy, not against those who are practicing the same things as we are. If this can be done in the forthcoming debate, good can result.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 5, pp. 130, 150
March 1, 1984

By Larry Ray Hafley

Christians are often placed on the defensive. When discussing and disputing with people about fundamental features and facts of the New Testament system, the child of God feels as though he is on trial. The simplest truth appears as the rankest heresy. One who believes and practices “what is written” in the Bible is pictured and portrayed as the wild-eyed “nut.” A moment of reflection will prove it to you. For example, consider the last time you talked to your denominational friends about music in worship, the observance of the Lord’s supper, baptism and giving. Did it not seem as though you were the one advocating and propagating some new thing? Were you not placed on the defensive?

In reality, this situation and circumstance should not occur. Why? Because the issues of music, the Lord’s supper, baptism and giving are not denied, the disciple should not be viewed as the one who is bound to explain himself. Here is why:

(1) The Music Question. No one argues that Christians cannot congregate and sing. Everyone agrees that it is right and scriptural for saints to sing and make melody in their hearts to the Lord (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Ask a Catholic, a Lutheran, a Baptist or any other denominational person if it is proper for the church to do what churches of Christ do, namely, to sing. What will they say? They will admit that it is according to the truth and pleasing to God. Now, if they want to contend for a different practice, the burden of proof is theirs. No one questions that what you believe is right.

(2) The Lord’s Supper. That Christians may partake of the communion of the body and blood of the Lord every first day of the week is not denied. Ask a Baptist if he believes that it is sinful for the church to break bread upon the first day of the week. He will not say that it is. So, it is conceded that the practice of the brethren is in harmony with the word of God. If they want to do something different, that is their problem. Let them find authority for what they do since they agree that what you stand for is right.

(3) Baptism. There are numbers of churches that believe, teach and practice sprinkling for baptism. However, none of them will say that it is contrary to the Bible to immerse. A Catholic priest will tell you, as will a Lutheran or a Presbyterian, that immersion is acceptable. New Testament Christians, therefore, engage in the action that no group denies. You see, your position and your practice, is unquestioned. Everyone agrees that it is of God. If they want to do something else, that is their responsibility. The ball is in their court.

The same thing is true with regard to the subject, the candidate, for baptism. Who would deny that a penitent, believing adult is suitable for baptism? Absolutely no one. Once again, the thing you defend is beyond controversy. Further, if they want to baptize others, well, they must submit the proof. It is their action that is at issue since they acknowledge that what you do is correct.

(4) Giving. Churches of Christ collect their contribution each Lord’s day (1 Cor. 16:2). Ask a Pentecostal or a Methodist if he thinks it is wrong to do so. Will anyone in any of the denominations speak against laying by in store upon the first day of the week? Of course not. They all know it is in accord with the doctrine of the Lord. But they want to have pie suppers, rummage sales and car washes to raise money. Sorry, but that is not my fault; that is not my baby. If they want to do other than what they agree is right, they will have to find book, chapter and verse for it.

Conclusion

See the point? Obviously, you do. So, relax. Most of the basic principles of New Testament work and worship are approved even of men. They who would do something else, something less, something different, are the defendants in this case. They are on trial. The truth has been vindicated. Prosecute their error and convict it.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 5, pp. 131-132
March 1, 1984