Truth Magazine

By Harold Hancock

We live in a time in which time to forget rather than confession is the path of restoration sought by many Christians, and accepted by some churches. Many questions have been asked about the Christian’s confession of sin, especially the “public confession.”

The Bible teaches that Christians ought always confess his faults unto God, and sometimes unto men. “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). “Confess your faults one to another, that ye may be healed” (Jas. 5:16). In the parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:21), the son returned confessing, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight.”

Sometimes the knowledge and effect of our sins travel much faster and further than news of our repentance and confession. I remember the story of a lady who traveled through a certain town dropping feathers as she went. She then returned trying to recover them. Many had been blown by the wind and were irretrievable. So it is with some of our sins. Our best efforts can not undo all the harm that has been done.

A good rule to follow when possible is that the confession be as broad as the knowledge of the sin. This would assure us of always confessing our sins unto God, for He always knows of our sins (Heb. 4:13, 14). It would mean that sins that were public, or generally known, would be confessed publicly, or generally. I think we see this principle applied in the scriptures. In Mt. 18:15, we read, “Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained a brother.” All responsibility toward men can be fulfilled by letting one person know of our repentance if our trespass is against one, and only one knows of it. In Gal. 2:12, we are told that Peter sinned before all; Paul rebuked him before all (Gal. 2:14). Could Peter’s confession have been less than before all to be effective? When a sin is carried before the church (Mt. 18:17), should not the church also be informed of the repentance?

Suppose that a teacher sees a student at his desk write 2+2=5. The teacher may inform the student of his mistake, and the student may correct it without anyone other than the teacher knowing of it. No harm will come. However, if the mistake is made at the board before all, then it must be corrected before all.

Are we saying one must “walk down the aisle” to confess sin? We care not how one goes about confessing his sins – whether he calls each individual and informs them, or acknowledges to all at once while they are assembled together. Just remember that when possible the confession should be as broad as the knowledge of the sin.

I am not sure all have grasped the importance of the confession. We must confess our sins to God to have forgiveness of them (1 Jn. 1:9). Without confession unto God, there is no forgiveness. We confess our faults one to another that we may be healed (Jas. 5:16). Again to be healed is to be forgiven. Compare Mt. 13:15 and Mk. 4:12. This is God’s plan of restoration. We have no more right to change it than to change the command of baptism for the remission of sins. The confession also relieves one of the burden of sin. David felt the hand of God pressing upon him while he kept silent about his sin. The burden was lifted when he acknowledged his sin and confessed his transgressions (Psa. 32:1-5).

A confession of sin lets all know where one stands. I like the story of the man with a peg leg who answered the invitation after a sermon on worldliness. He wanted all to know that he no longer danced just because he could not, but because he now felt it was wrong as well. All knew where he stood. What kind of a Christian are we if we are afraid to let all know where we stand? All of us sin (1 Jn. 1:8, 10). We need to make some kind of a confession. May we all make the ones we need to. It has long been said, “Confession is good for the soul.” Truly it is.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 4, p. 74
January 25, 1979

By Bill Cameron

“For 1 say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Romans 12:3).

Some of the brethren addressed by Paul in his letter to the church of Rome must have had a false pride over spiritual gifts that they had received. Although these miraculous gifts have long since ceased, the attitude which moved the apostle to write these words is too often seen in the church today. Thinking too highly of self seems to be a universal weakness of man. It was so two thousand years ago; it is so now.

Also, Romans 12:3 may be better understood when viewed against the background of the spiritual gifts which were necessary in directing the church in her work and worship in those early days. Now, of course, the New Testament has been completed as the perfect rule of faith and practice. With the completion of divine revelation these miraculous gifts ceased to exist, having fulfilled the purpose for which they were given.

In Paul’s time, although every gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit upon certain members of the church was of equal importance, some of the unusual powers were looked upon by men as having more significance and greater prestige than others. This misunderstanding led to false pride on the part of some who were endowed with gifts which men considered to be more essential than others. Thus they came to “think of themselves more highly than they ought to think,” and the apostle was moved to warn them of the danger of such an attitude. He reminded them that each person was just one in a body of many members; every office and every gift which God had placed in the church was essential; and each was to exercise his peculiar gift without esteeming one above the other.

Moses, the Great Servant of God, was not allowed to enter the promised land “because ye sanctified me not in midst of the children of Israel” (Deut. 32:51; Num. 20:1011). Moses took upon himself the glory that belonged to God only; he thought of himself more highly than he should have thought. Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, was given a “thorn in the flesh” lest he be exalted above measure (2 Cor. 12:7-9). The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were condemned by our Lord for the high opinion which they had of themselves, which opinion caused them to look down on others (Luke 18:9-14). The parable of the Pharisee and the publican is a contrast between the man who thinks too highly of himself and the one who thinks humbly of himself as God would have us all to think. These examples should impress upon our minds the importance of developing within ourselves a humble spirit. The proper Christian attitude is expressed in Philippians 2:3 where the apostles admonished the Philippian brethren to “let nothing be done through strife or vain glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.”

However, there are two sides to the coin. This text does not indicate that a Christian is not to think highly of himself. Because of a Christian’s relation to God and Christ he should have a high regard for himself. If one is to be respected and regarded highly by others, he must maintain self-respect. That we are to love ourselves is implied when Christ tells us that we are to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39). If we do not think highly of self, we are not likely to think highly of our neighbor. If we have respect for self, we are better prepared to have respect for our neighbor. There are many reasons why a Christian should have self-respect. A Christian should take pride in being separated from the world (John 17:16; 2 Cor. 6:17). Therefore, there are things he will not do, places he will not go, and activities in which he will not participate. A faithful Christian should think highly of himself and his influence as a child of God, too highly to participate in immoral and wordily practices (2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Pet. 4:3-5). James said a friend of the world is an enemy of God (James 4:4).

The Christian who seeks to hold himself in high regard and maintain his self-respect in order to be acceptable to God will be found doing the following:

(1) He will understand that our talents are God-given (1 Pet. 4:11).

(2) He will use his abilities instead of losing them (Luke 8:18).

(3) He will store up treasures in heaven (Matt. 6:20).

(4) He realizes that his abilities and opportunities are God-given. Failure to use them is sinful (James 4:17).

(5) He will seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Matt. 6:33).

As our love grows toward God and we mature in Christian graces, we will truly learn to love our neighbor as ourself. With this maturity in faith will come self-esteem and avoidance of thinking of self more highly than we ought.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 4, p. 73
January 25, 1979

By Donald P. Ames

For some unknown (to me) reason, the illustration found in Acts 11:29-30 has been a favorite “proof text” of those seeking some type Biblical authority for their “Sponsoring Church Arrangements.” Like the Premillennialists and Rev. 20, our liberal brethren must read into the passage everything they claim to get out of it, but I guess it is about the closest thing they have that is a “country cousin” to actual Biblical authority. Thus, again and again it pops up as justification.

Every once in a while though something new is thrown in, and when this happens, perhaps we can also get something deeper out of it as well. Recently I had a “new argument” employed on this passage as an effort to respond to some material I had presented on the Biblical pattern of congregational cooperation. I invite your study with me of this new argument.

I had pointed out that there is a Biblical pattern of cooperation, as plainly revealed as God could have done so. Furthermore, it is as valid as our argument that “to sing” is exclusive of the instrument – unless someone can show that the New Testament church used the instrument as well. In every case of churches involved in cooperation there is a clear pattern of direct sending. In helping the evangelist, the funds were sent directly (Phil. 4:15, 2 Cor. 11:8). In assisting other churches to meet their God-given duties (not assumed activities) when they had circumstances thrust upon them making them unable to do so, the funds were sent directly to the receiving churches (Acts 11:29-30; Rom. 15:25; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9 and only to “saints”). There was no “in-between” board or church that assumed controls.

One preacher took exception though and mailed me his reply. His argument went as follows: (1) The funds mentioned in Acts 11:29-30 were sent to the brethren in Judea. (2) The funds were sent to “the elders.” (3) Only Jerusalem had elders at this time (per my own agreement that they existed there). (4) Therefore, the funds were sent to Jerusalem, which in turn distributed them to the various churches in Judea; and hence there is authority for a “Sponsoring Church Arrangement.” The logic behind the argument is based on the idea that Acts 14:23 is the “first mentioning” of the appointing of elders; hence, the churches of Judea (existing before then) could not have had elders yet. Since I conceded Jerusalem did have elders, then they were the only elders that could have been involved. The preacher went on to point out that he had not spoken “lightly,” and the burden of proof lay on me to show any other such elders existed in Judea prior to Acts 14:23.

I am glad he was willing to concede “churches” existed in Judea (he would have had to – 1 Thess. 2:14; Gal. 1:22). I also found it very interesting that he would concede elders existed in Jerusalem as well, especially when he emphatically stated, “I refuse to base my convictions on maybe’s.” So, taking his own words, I decided to show him he had to employ better logic, and study by means of necessary inference in the same manner that I did – and which he was not doing.

To illustrate, first of all there is absolutely no proof that Jerusalem had elders at the time of the events of Acts 11:29-30. Now I do not deny that they did. Certainly, the fact that the funds were sent to “the elders” show some existed somewhere. I believe that not only Jerusalem, but all Judea had elders by the time of Acts 11 (certainly if Paul could appoint them as quickly as he did in Acts 14:23, the older churches of Judea could also qualify). But the liberals are so quick to affirm we are guilty of assuming, perhaps we need to turn the cart around and demand some proof from them. Where, prior to Acts 15:2 is there any reference anywhere to elders existing even in Jerusalem? Now this is fundamental to their assumption that Jerusalem was the receiving and disbursing church, but can they prove that the church is qualified to meet their own standards – or was it perhaps another church?

Then, to go one step further, if Acts 14:23 is the first time elders were ever actually appointed – and then only among the Gentiles, can we prove elders existed anywhere in Judea (including Jerusalem)? Of course this is silly, as the funds were sent “to the elders” so we know some had to be in existence. But using the preacher’s own logic, he has eliminated all such from Judea. And, if Jerusalem could have them before Acts 14:23, then so could all the rest of the churches of Judea! Thus he has become trapped with his own logic.

Actually Acts 14:23 is merely a demonstration of the fact Paul was appointing elders “in every church” as was his practice and his teaching in “all the churches” (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; Acts 20:28, 1 Pet. 5:1-4, etc.). It has no reference to all to when they began “for the first time” to appoint elders! It would indeed be strange for Paul to conclude that the Gentiles suddenly were in need of elders while the older Judean churches had been organizationally approved of God without any need for them.

If one wanted to get real technical, there is yet another argument to be made that shows the falsity of this position. Since only Jerusalem had elders before Acts 14:23, and since it cannot be proven that elders were put into the Judean churches even then (only Gentile!), then it follows the Jerusalem elders had the oversight of all Judea! Now you have a Catholic Diocese, and such is the consequence of such logic.

And while on the same points, let us again note that the fact Paul returned from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25) does not prove that was the only city he visited any more than one leaving Chicago for an overseas trip and returning from New York (or London) proves that that was the only city visited during the trip. The distribution was to be for the “brethren living in Judea” and was sent “to the elders.” Wherever the “brethren living in Judea” were, there were “elders” to whom it was sent. If otherwise, why does the text not state that it was sent “to Jerusalem for distribution throughout Judea”? Jerusalem would have had the same problem Antioch had – the elders there were not “over” or “among” the local flock, and hence had no first-hand information of individual needs.

The writer concluded: “If you’ll find elders in any of the other Judean churches before Acts 14:23, I will concede he went there: if not, I refuse to base my convictions on maybe’s.” I believe that by necessary inference we have so demonstrated, just as he used necessary inference to assume that even Jerusalem had elders. I challenge him to prove Jerusalem had elders prior to Acts 15:2 by any other method! And, when he shows the exact verse that states when they were appointed in Jerusalem, I will show in the same verse that they were likewise appointed in all the other Judean churches at the very same time. And since convictions should not be “based on maybe’s,” perhaps someone can produce the proof Jerusalem had elders at this time. Wouldn’t it be horrible to have a “Sponsoring Church Arrangement” with the “mother church” not even scripturally organized?

Brethren, why not accept the obvious meaning of the text and let that suffice? The funds were sent to the “elders” of the “brethren living in Judea.” Now either you will have to accept a Catholic Diocese and deny any other Judean church ever had elders (and find proof Jerusalem had them before Acts 15:2), or accept the fact the “elders” existed wherever the “brethren living in Judea” were meeting, and it was to these various local flocks overseen by local elders that the funds were sent for local needs.

Sometimes brethren go to the same extremes denominations go to in trying to justify themselves. Maybe this is the way they learn, but let us all take warning and be careful in this respect, that we are not found justify sins that God has not approved (2 John 9). Be sure what we teach and practice is found in the pages of Holy writ (Matt. 7:21-23).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 4, pp. 71-72
January 25, 1979

By William V. Beasley

According to 1 John 5:13 we, along with the first century Christians, can know if we have eternal life. This is something we should want to know. To know is a source of great comfort or the motivation, if necessary, to make correction. John has given us the key or standard to know. To know two things are necessary: (1) careful study of 1 John (actually the whole New Testament) to learn how to know, and (2) prayerful consideration of our life with an open and honest heart to see if we know.

This lesson, covering 1 John 4:7-21, is repetitive-the major points have already been mentioned in previous articles. John, guided by the Holy Spirit, thought it well to repeat with added emphasis these points. We can do no better.

“Love One Another. . .” (1 John 4:7-11, 16)

Irk these verses, John exhorts, “Beloved, let us love one another . . . ” (4:7) and then gives us reasons for loving one another and also some results of loving one another. We ought to “love one another” because “God is love” (4:8, 16). This is more than an attribute of God; it is the very nature of God. Loving some of God’s wayward children is not easy. It may be that we need God’s help (partake of His spirit, His nature) to love some of our brethren. We should “love one another” because of the example of God’s love of us (4:9). The marginal reading for “in us” (ASV) in this verse is “in our case.” Herein was the love of God in our case, that God sent his only begotten Son in the world . . . ” (4:9). Contemplate the love of John 3:16. God loved that much. The statement, “We love because he first loved us” (4:19), is not speaking primarily of our loving God because He first loved us, but of loving one another because God first loved us. We, beloved, should copy the example of love given to us (4:11, 19). We should love one another because of the results of God’s love for us (this is still a part of the reasons for loving one another). Because of the love which God had for us, we “might live through him” (Christ, 4:9). Without the giving of Jesus, there would have been nought but death (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Jesus Christ is the “propitiation for our sins” (4:10). Jesus is the “sacrifice of atonement,” our “mercy seat” before God. His blood covers our sins from the eyes of God.

The results of loving one another are many. If we “love one another,” we are “begotten of God” (4:7). This is a part of doing righteousness (2:29). If we have love one for another, we “knoweth God” (4:7-8), i.e., we know God in the sense of obedience (2:4-5), and “God .abides in us” (4:12, 16). We are to live that others may see God in us (Matt. 5:15; Gal. 2:20). This loving also indicates that we “abide in God”(4:16). We are to partake of the nature of God and strive to be like Him (1 Pet. 2:21). Finally, when we love one another, “His love is perfected in us” (4:12, 17). His love is brought to full fruition when we keep His word (2:5) and “love one another. “

“Given US Of His Spirit” (1 John 4:12-14)

The basic idea may be a repetition of what we saw earlier (2:24; 3:9; 4:2), i.e., the spirit of a man is changed by the word (seed) of God; we become like unto Him. The ones who “behold and bear witness that the Father hath sent his Son to be Savior of the world” (4:14) are, as in 4:6, the apostles. The apostles were to be witnesses (Acts 1:8; 2:32). One qualificattion to be an apostle was to be an eye witness (“beheld” – 4:14) of the resurrection (Acts 1:21-22).

Perfect Love (1 John 4:17-18)

This could have been discussed under the heading of “results of loving one another.” In this section we are speaking only of “perfect love” (4:18). This “perfect love” gives us “boldness in the day of judgment” (4:17). We are not bold to stand before God because of doubts, our doubts are because of a lack of obedience and our lack of obedience is because of an imperfect love. It is also true that “perfect love casteth out fear” (4:18). The word for “fear” (Greek, phobos) is defined as: “1. fear, dread, terror . . . 2. reverence, respect” (Joseph Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 656). Perfect love does not cast out the reverence we owe the Almighty. It does cast out the dread and terror of the disobedience (when they turn to God in loving obedience). Some might ask, “What about Matthew 10:28?” If there is any fear (dread, terror), let it be of God that it might bring us to obedience, but perfect love casts this out. If any fear (reverence), it must be of God.

Confess “Jesus Christ . . .” (1 John 4:15)

“Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God” (4:15). This is the same basic idea we found in 4:2. We are to confess with our mouth and also with a life lived for Him. This is not “six word salvation.”

Liar (1 John 4:20-21)

Love of brethren is necessary to love God: “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar . . . ” (4:20). It is impossible (“cannot”) to love God while hating one’s brother. Brotherly love is the “commandment” (4:21) of God. If one does not love his brother he cannot love God; if he does not love God, he is going to hell (1 Cor. 16:22).

Conclusion

Brethren, do you know about your eternal salvation? Do you love God? You do not unless you love your brethren. God said so.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 4, pp. 70-71
January 25, 1979