Truth Magazine

By James R. Cope

One of the most difficult tasks any Christian faces as he seeks to teach the ignorant or unconverted is that of overcoming their personal emotions and sentiments as these factors loom heavily before the minds of those the Christian endeavors to teach and reach with the simple word of God. Almost inevitably we are told of relatives and friends who believe thus and so and are straightway informed of the subject’s feelings toward these persons. Again we are faced with various “experiences,” “feelings of pardon,” and other irrational and emotional reactions which must be overcome if the truth of the gospel is to prevail. We think it terrible that otherwise intelligent people will close their eyes to the light of God’s word by appeals to sentiment and will seek refuge in personalities, persuasions, and practices untaught in the Bible. But must we leave disciples of Christ to find the same emotional reactions?

(1) Premillennialism. Some years ago when the premillennial issue was hot a very common occurrence was to hear the defenders of, apologists for, and sympathizers with R.H. Boll talk about his goodness and piety. This man’s adherents sought refuge behind his piety and prayerful life as if these characteristics immunized the faith of brethren against the gospelless doctrine of premillennialism with all of its speculative implications which he and his disciples pressed upon the churches. His gentleness did not prevent theories concerning a future reign of Christ on earth from dividing churches almost everywhere this materialistic doctrine found rootage. Some of the finest congregations in the land were split asunder because of the doctrine Boll espoused and yet teaches. Many who had known him intimately and walked with him in the common faith in earlier years became exceedingly caustic and critical toward all who sought to show brethren the destructive nature and eventual consequences of the doctrine this man propounded. While many denied believing what Boll taught, they nevertheless held in contempt preachers who warned against him because of the falsehood he preached. Judging by speech and actions, theirs was a sentimental attachment to a man rather than his teaching. But even if this explanation be accepted, their defense of a false teacher had many practical effects of the doctrine itself, for where the apologists’ influence held sway there was ever the possibility that the false teaching himself might enter with his destructive dogma. Even where the teacher did not enter, such an apologetic attitude toward the man himself made for an unhealthy spiritual condition among churches which condition can be diagnosed as a soft, apologetic, compromising attitude toward error generally. Emotions ran away with reason and sentimental attachment dethroned the truth of God. We should remember that all the sympathetic stir in the world in behalf of a teacher can never make what he teaches the truth of God.

(2) Instrumental music. A glance at the controversy over the introduction of mechanical instruments of music in worship shows that many persons who favored the instrument were ruled more by sentiment than reason based upon revelation. “Who could object to such a harmless little instrument as a melodian?” “The swelling sounds of a giant pipe organ stirs our spirits and puts us in a mood for worship which can come from nothing else! ” “Everybody else uses the instrument in their worship and we like it; so why not have it!” “I love the beautiful sound of an organ!” These and similar statements were heard three generations ago as those who ran headstrong over the objectors to the instrument established their shrines. “Never mind about divine authority!” “Do not quibble over trivialities!” “We want our organ and our organ we shall have!

Wild sentiment displaced reason. Unbridled passions spurned the word of God. This was the attitude then. It has occasionally showed up even in our own generation over the same issue. But who is so brazen among those who respect the silence of the New Testament as to justify this emotional display? The first two commandments that God gave ancient Israel prohibited their having another God before Jehovah and the making of graven images, yet when Moses tarried in the mount these were the very first commands Israel trampled under foot. In a fit of frenzy they disregarded Moses, rebelled against God, molded the golden calf, and worshipped before the creature they had devised. It has happened before. It can happen again!

(3) Evangelization. A century ago when the fight over the missionary society was on, those who opposed the society were told that they had no interest in preaching the gospel to the lost. In the Millennial Harbinger (June, 1866) C.L. Loos, an ardent advocate of the human missionary society, was evidently directing his remarks toward Benjamin Franklin, Tolbert Fanning, and David Lipscomb when he wrote:

The evidence from all quarters of our land, and from other lands, demonstrates that this great matter of missions organized associations for cooperative efforts to send the gospel abroad – is really no longer a doubtful question among us; that it is decided and accepted. The whole matter has been thoroughly sifted in the past quarter of a century, and may now be regarded as settled . . . those few who have been of late days persistently and noisely denouncing missionary associations, have by the unsanctified bitterness and rudeness of their attacks, given full evidence of the causes of their opposition – a lack of knowledge, of an enlightened piety and a true spiritual culture. To attempt to teach such men is well-nigh useless, as it is almost hopeless.

In May, 1867, issue of the Harbinger, W.K. Pendleton wrote similarly as follows:

Let men who have missionary work . . . take counsel together . . . and let us not be disturbed, or distracted in our work, by outside railers, who seem to rejoice in nothing so much as their own success in presenting the preaching of the gospel.

David Lipscomb was caricatured as an old woman with a broom trying to sweep back the ocean tide all because he opposed the society as an agency through which churches could do their work.

To the person who understands that the silence of God’s word must be respected as much as its express commands, a sentimental appeal by one who insists on having instrumental music simply because he likes it is completely irrational and absurd. The same person can understand why an apology for the personal piety of a false teacher does not nullify his false teaching. That same individual can see why opposition to a human missionary society to do the work God gave the church to do does not mean that the opposer of the society therefore also opposes preaching to the lost. Yet that same person who will not be swayed by sentiment over the instrument, the society, or a false teacher, may be swept off his feet by some other emotional appeal just as foreign to the teaching of the New Testament.

(4) Schools. In these days when objections are raised to churches supporting schools from their treasuries, some who are ruled more by sentiment than reason, cry out, “Oh, all these folks think about is how they can hurt the schools. They are against Christian education and the colleges! ” We have known where these or similar statements have been made about men who have contributed liberally of their time and money to Christian colleges. It seems never to occur to some people that a sincere criticism can be offered without the one offering it attempting to kill the thing itself or the influence of the person criticized.

(5) Benevolent homes. When objections are filed against churches contributing to independent benevolent institutions such as orphan homes and homes for the aged, this same ungoverned emotionalism explodes with these or similar expressions: “You don’t believe in providing for the aged and infirm!” How irrational! What emotional instability is revealed! How utterly untrue!

(6) Centralization. When a word is sounded in criticism of some of the big-time, brotherhood-wide, high-pressure propaganda campaigns which have become so familiar within recent years, it is not uncommon to find the critic lambasted as being opposed to foreign mission work, church I i co-operation,” and anything else apparently that the promoters decide to promote. Are these brethren on foreign fields who disagree with “centralization” of funds and forces and who have giver, their time and talents to gospel work, “anti-missionary”? Are these who have sacrificed the comforts of America for hardships in Europe and Africa against preaching the gospel to those in darkness? Are they opposed to evangelism abroad? Emotional upheavels by the brethren at home have not deterred them from going ahead in a campaign to save souls and build up the Lord’s church in distant lands. Their unselfish attitude and willingness to serve under adverse conditions should forever stop the mouths of those who say that the critics of centralized control are against preaching the gospel. That same charge was hurled at David Lipscomb when he cried out against the missionary society, but the charge was false then even as it is false now.

Expressions and reactions like these mentioned are indicative of how much some persons are controlled by their personal feelings rather than an intelligent analysis of the word of God. When such reactions occur they are usually an admission of weakness or vulnerability of the cause or position occupied by him who flings the charge. Fairness demands that we say this is not always the case. In some instances persons hurling such wild charges simply have no idea of what the issue is all about. They are honest but honestly ignorant of the point being discussed. They have such a smattering of the biblical principles governing these activities that they fail to grasp the criticisms made.

Perhaps all of us are to a greater or lesser degree controlled by our emotions. It is easy for us to get mad when we should be praying. It is easy to “pop off” when we should be listening with a view to learning. But whatever may be said in defense of emotions, it can never be truthfully said that divine principles are proved by sentiment. (1) They are not proved by uninspired examples or practices. (2) They are not proved by uninspired men. (3) Likewise they are not proved by personal sentiment, feelings, or emotions. Again we insist: let us not forget these fundamental considerations in any study of the organization, work, or worship of the church.

(James R. Cope wrote an informative and incisive series of eight articles on “The Problem of Institutionalism ” in The Preceptor, April through November 1953. The section reprinted above appeared in the September issue.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, pp. 450, 469-470
August 2, 1990

By Bill J. Humble

Ever since the earliest days of the restoration movement journals have exerted a great influence in molding brotherhood thought. Entering thousands of homes over widespread areas, these papers have served to acquaint brethren with the progress of the church elsewhere, draw brethren together, and crystallize thinking on brotherhood problems.

The influence of brotherhood papers is well illustrated by such journals as the Christian Baptist, Gospel Advocate and many others. Established in 1823, the Christian Baptist was published by Alexander Campbell while he was still preaching among the Baptist churches; and its influence was so great that when Campbell finally withdrew from the Baptists, thousands joined him in the work of restoring New Testament Christianity. A half-century later, David Lipscomb published the Gospel Advocate, and almost single-handedly, he stayed the tide of digression in the South. Let no one doubt the influence of religious journals!

Good or Bad?

The question is often asked, “Has the influence of these papers been good or bad? Have they been guardians or disturbers of the faith?” Unfortunately, the answer must be: both! The influence of the papers, as with men, has been both good and bad. The papers have done much to advocate the restoration of the New Testament church; they have converted thousands to this plea; they have drawn the brethren together and encouraged them to greater zeal and activity. This is the positive good side, but the bad is also there. The papers have sometimes abandoned and opposed the restoration ideal, promoted unscriptural ideas, and broth controversy and division to the brotherhood. There have been some who have exclaimed disgustedly, “The church would have been far better off had these papers never existed.” OF some papers, but not all, this is true!

Surprisingly, the same paper has sometimes been both a guardian and disturber of the faith at various periods in its history. The restoration movement would never have grown so rapidly during the decade of the 1830s had it not been for the Millennial Harbinger, but after congregations had been established in many areas, Campbell became the champion of a national missionary society, through which these congregations might cooperate in evangelism. For nearly ten years before the American Christian Missionary Society was established in 1849, Campbell wrote article after article pleading for such “cooperation.” Had it not been for the influence of Campbell and the Harbinger, the society would not have been established in 1849. Now, was the Harbinger a guardian or disturber of the faith? It was both; for upon the society question, at least, Campbell abandoned the very principles which had given birth to the paper.

The American Christian Review, edited by Benjamin Franklin in the decades after the Civil War, was at one time the most influential paper in the entire brotherhood; and it opposed the missionary society vigorously. Franklin’s Review was undoubtedly a staunch guardian of the faith. Yet in later years the Review fell into the hands of brethren who used it to oppose “located preachers” and colleges operated by Christians. The Review thus became a disturber of the faith, promoting views which cannot be defended by God’s word, sowing discord and division among brethren.

Since papers have been, and will probably continue to be, both guardians and disturbers of the faith, how may we determine whether the influence of any particular paper is good or bad, whether it is defending truth or disturbing brethren? The following general principles should help us to answer this question.

Guardian of the Truth

If a religious journal is to be a guardian of the faith:

(1) It must stand for the faith! This is actually the fundamental test, and all else is secondary. If a paper is teaching the truth, it is a guardian of the faith. The paper may not be large and influential; it may not be popular. (David Lipscomb was always pictured as a “mean ill-tempered little man” by the majority who favored the society.) But only truth, not circulation or influence, can determine whether any journal is defending the faith.

If a paper has a scriptural attitude toward truth, its writers will admit, “This paper is fallible, but the New Testament is infallible.” The readers will be admonished to search for a “thus saith the Lord,” not a “thus saith the paper.”

(2) It must allow brethren to discuss questions andproblemsfreely. This spirit of free inquiry lies at the very heart of the restoration ideal. The idea of “restoring” New Testament Christianity implies a search for long-lost truth and this necessitates study, inquiry and discussion. Our brethren have always believed that as they study scriptural questions and weigh controversial issues, they draw nearer the truth, and the religious papers have always served as a medium through which these discussions should be conducted.

The willingness of such great editors as Campbell, Franklin and Lipscomb to open their columns to those opposing views is an index to their greatness. Searching for truth, they encouraged frank discussions of controversial issues.

(3) It must be interested in presenting truth in love, not in crucifying some brother, or group of brethren. The paper must be an instrument of truth, not a weapon of character assassination. Let the brethren ponder their problem, but let them do it in love and understanding.

Disturber of the Faith

On the other hand, a religious journal becomes a disturber of the faith whenever:

(1) It teaches false doctrine. Again, this is the basic test. When a paper defends a teaching not in harmony with the New Testament, when it “rides some hobby” (as brethren often put it), the paper becomes a disturber of the brethren. The paper need not be small to be guilty. It could be a large and influential journal, even supported by a majority of the brotherhood; but when it teaches false doctrine, it is disturbing the faith. Just after the Civil War, it was the small and unpopular Advocate which said, “Each local congregation is sufficient to do the work God has given it,” while the larger papers favored the society.

Today, there are some papers which disturb the faith by teacing that it is wrong for brethren to operate Christian schools. They charge that the school is doing the work of the church, but these papers err in failing to distinguish between congregational and individual responsibilities. On the other hand, some brethren go to the opposite extreme and insist that churches may subsidize the colleges out of the church treasury. But if the college is not doing the work of the church, what right does it have to be supported out of the churches’ treasuries? None! When a paper teaches that the college may be included in the church budget, it is a disturber of the faith just as certainly as if it went to the opposite extreme!

(2) The paper becomes “the” authority. There is nothing more dangerous than for a paper to become so influential with a segment of brethren that they say,” I have such confidence in that paper and its editor that I’d believe nearly anything I read in it.” When brethren become that loyal to any paper, the seeds of disaster have been sown. Unwittingly perhaps, the authority of men has been submitted for revelation.

This is exactly what happened in the decade of the 1840s, when the way was being prepared for the society. When Campbell began to plead for a means by which the churches might work together, the majority of brethren said, “We have such confidence in Bro. Campbell and the Harbinger that we just don’t see how he could be wrong. ” And disaster struck!

(3) The paper abandons the “sound doctrine “for which it once contended. We do not preach “once safe, always safe”; and the fact that a paper once was sound in teaching does not guarantee its perpetual soundness. The American Christian Review, once an effective instrument for good, later became a disturber of the faith.

Even today, brethren who once preached the autonomy and all sufficiency of the local congregation shudder when some preacher announces that he will discuss these same themes: for they fear that some “pet institution” may be criticized. Could it be that principles are being abandoned?

(4) The paper refuses to allow brethren to study vitalproblems. When any paper stifles free discussion of current issues, it assumes an ornniscence which Campbell, Lard and Lipscomb dared not assume. When thousands of sincere brethren conscientiously question some practice and ask that it be studied in the light of the New Testament, and when some paper defends the practice by saying, “We are teaching the truth on this question, and no hobbyist on the other side has any right to be heard,” that paper is treading the brink of disaster. Let brethren discuss the questions which confront the church! Truth will prevail! But let no paper become so arrogant that it says, “What we teach is the end of truth. No further discussion is necessary.”

Let all papers say, “Our quest is for truth; our spirit is brotherly kindness; our aim is to present all views fairly.” And a grateful brotherhood will rise up and say, “These papers are all guardians of the gospel” (The Preceptor, July 1956).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, pp. 449, 470-471
August 2, 1990

By Jerry Parks

After a one month stay in the Philippines, it is good to be back home and to report to you on the activities and results of our recent trip. Brother John Humphries and I left Louisville on February 26th and I returned home on March 28th. John had to return a few days earlier because of another meeting here in the states.

I believe the trip was very productive for several reasons. Thirty-two precious souls were baptized into Christ. For this we are truly thankful to God. Since this is the longest that we have stayed in the Philippines, we were able to become better acquainted with brethren in this unique part of the world.

Because of our extended stay, we were able to cover a portion of the three basic sectors of the Philippine Islands: Luzon, Visayans, and Mindanao. Last year we had planned to go to Mindanao but were hindered by typhoons.

The first week was spent in the Manila area as we enjoyed the hospitality of brother and sister Victorio Tibayan. We visited places like Tala, which is a leper colony as well as preaching to a group of bank employees and a community of people who make their homes under a highway bridge. Political unrest caused by the assassination of General Florendo and talk of another coup attempt, made it necessary for us to check on the advisability of our travel within the country. We checked with both brethren as well as the American Embassy then finally decided that we would go ahead with our travel plans. John traveled to northern Luzon while I flew 600 miles to the southern most island of Mindanao. We were told that it would be safe as long as we stayed in the metropolitan areas. Therefore John taught classes in Baguio City and surrounding areas while I conducted Bible studies in Davao City.

Since this was my first time to go to Mindanao and since I was not personally acquainted with any of the brethren there, brother J.R. Tibayan agreed to accompany me to Davao. J.R. proved to be a wonderful traveling companion and co-laborer. He has traveled with many American brethren in the past and we soon became the best of friends.

We stayed in the home of brother and sister Joy Notarte and later in the week we stayed with brother and sister Juanito Balbin. Their hospitality will long be remembered and appreciated.

Our Bible classes started at 8:30 each morning and would continue till 5:00 in the afternoon. I studied through the book of Timothy which was followed by a Filipino preacher translating the lesson into the local dialect. After that there would be an extended question and answer period which generally stimulated a lot of discussion. There were about 75 preachers who were in attendance throughout the week. They came from all parts of Mindanao, many at great personal sacrifice in order to be with us.

In addition to the teaching we were able to do, we also had opportunity to hear brethren tell of their hardships and the difficulties they faced with poverty, drought and discouragement. Various denominations continue to pour money into the Philippines along with their social gospel. It is not unusual to find a big beautiful Catholic, Mormon, Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist church building complete with school, medical hall and basketball courts in a community of bamboo houses. This would be a great enticement to people anywhere, but especially in a place where poverty prevails. In spite of such hindrances, brethren continue to preach the word, distinguishing between the Lord’s church and the churches of men. Thankfully, people continue to be drawn to Christ by the simple power of the gospel.

After returning to Manila for a few days, brother Humphries and I flew to Palawan, a long narrow island on the western side of the Visayans. We conducted classes in Puerto Princesa as well as preaching for various congregations in the areas. Brethren attended the classes from as far away as Brook’s Point which is 200 Kilometers to the south. There were several problems which soon became apparent and we were able to address these in the course of our studies. Before we left, brethren seemed to be in a much better frame of mind. Personal clashes were resolved and unity now seems to prevail among the preachers.

Our last full week was spent in the home of brother and sister Ben Cruz. We conducted classes at Kapitbahayan as well as participating in various home Bible studies. We were also greatly assisted by brother and sister Noli Villamor who helped us with some banking transactions. Sister Teresa Cruz took care of our medical needs. Dr. Teresa provides medical attention for most all the brethren in the Manila area. She is a great blessing as most all the brethren are ready to attest.

There is yet much to do in the advancement of the cause of Christ in the Philippines. Others are needed to make the kind of trips that I have just described. This is a source of great encouragement to the Filipino brethren; it provides much needed teaching and an opportunity for a better understanding of the poverty that so afflicts the gracious people of this struggling nation. Poverty is indeed, the greatest physical problem these brethren are facing. It is the cause of most of the medical problems. Diseases like tuberculosis and other health problems are rampant because of the poor living conditions and pollution that fills the air and water.

Brethren, we are blessed abundantly here in the USA. We must not become weary in well doing. The opportunity is there for us to help. Why not consider helping with the support of a Filipino preacher? There are many good preachers who have been preaching for years without any support. Preachers are living in poverty conditions making great sacrifices in order to continue the work of spreading the gospel. I would be glad to share any information that I have with any individual or congregation that might be interested in helping such a person.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 426-427
July 19, 1990

By Tom M. Roberts

“For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment” (Jas. 2:13, NKJV).

Each of us can be thankful that God allows mercy to temper justice. Since “all have sinned,” and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 3:23; 6:23), each of us could properly be damned to everlasting torment. God would not be unjust in that event and none could levy charges of inequity against him. Truly, grace and mercy go hand in hand and it is by God’s grace that we are saved (Eph. 2:8,9). None of us will dare to ask for justice before God’s great Judgment; we plead for mercy.

Our text states that mercy in some fashion wins out over judgment and this news should be received with joy on the part of every responsible person. However, the relation of mercy and judgment within God’s character will be compatible with God’s nature, so we should not quickly assume that mercy negates judgment. On the contrary, Paul warned that it is the “righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death. . . ” (Rom. 1:32). “Worthy of death” cannot be ignored in the context of a discussion of God’s righteous judgment. I fear that many have assumed that mercy will somehow cause God to overlook sin, discount it, fail to impute guilt or, in some manner, be so benevolent toward sinners that we feel we can sin with impunity. Many funeral orations seem to leave this impression by preaching the most reprobate of sinners right into heaven. But whatever it means for “mercy to triumph over judgment,” it cannot be an absolute situation whereby mercy assures universal salvation to all men, regardless of their deeds. Remember, “it is fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). It will be to our advantage to study mercy and judgment in the light of our text to see how we may share in the triumph of mercy.

Definition of Mercy

“The outward manifestation of pity: it assumes need on the part of him who receives it, and resources adequate to meet the need on the part of him who shows it” (Vine, p. 60).

“Mercy, kindness or good will towards the miserable and afflicted, joined with a desire to relieve them” (Thayer, p. 203).

This suggests that God has a desire to help and resources adequate to meet our needs. It also suggests that man is pitiable and miserable, which is, indeed, the truth, as we are afflicted in sin and unable to do anything about our condition. We need mercy and, thanks be to God, he wants to be merciful. Paul says that God was “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4-6) even while we were “dead in trespasses.” He is said to be the “Father of mercies” (2 Cor. 1:3) in that mercy originates and has its source in him. David pleaded with God to save him “for your mercies’ sake” (Psa. 6:4) and begged for forgiveness: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to your loving kindness; according to the multitude of your tender mercies, blot out my transgressions” (51:1). However, David recognized a responsibility on the part of the one pleading for mercy. He said, “For you, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in mercy to all those who call upon you” (86:5. emp. mine, tr). We must understand, therefore, that mercy is conditional, not absolute. What does God require of us for him to be merciful?

Mercy Has Conditions

God is merciful, but David has shown that mercy is bestowed selectively to those “who call upon God” (Psa. 86:5). “But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children’s children, to such as keep his covenant, and to those who remember his commandants to do them ” (103:17,18, emp. tr). Further, we read, “In mercy and truth atonement is provided for iniquity; and by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil” (Prov. 16:6).

Isaiah declares: “let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (55:7). In the Magnificent, Mary declares, “and his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation” (Lk. 1:50).

All these passages, and many more, simply teach that God has made choice of those upon whom he will have mercy and those upon whom judgment will be visited. “Therefore he has mercy on whom he wills and whom he wills he hardens” (Rom. 9:18). This is not saying that God is arbitrary with his mercy, sending some to hell who want to go to heaven or sending some to heaven who ought to go to hell. But it is teaching that God has the desire to show mercy and that he has chosen to show mercy to those who 41call upon him,” “fear the Lord,” “walk in the light” (1 Jn. 1:7). On the other hand, the disobedient, the rebel, the wayward and backsliding will meet God’s judgment and justice (Rev. 1:8), not mercy.

Where is Mercy to be Found?

God has specifically identified not only the conditions by which mercy will be offered, but he has specifically identified the Person through whom mercy will be offered. Mercy is not administered haphazardly, not through merit, not according to respect of persons or wealth, or because of lineage. Mercy is administered in Christ. This important point cannot be overemphasized. It is the theme of the entire Bible.

Once sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12), man needed mercy in the form of a Savior. This Savior was to be the seed of woman (Gen. 3:15). The Scriptures further identified the seed of woman as being the seed of Abraham (15:4, et al) and the seed of David (2 Sam. 7:12). Isaiah explained further: “incline your ear, and come to me. Hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the sure mercies of David” (55:3). We are not left in doubt as to the meaning of this phrase since Paul identified it with Jesus and his resurrection in Acts 13:34: “And that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus, ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.” In these verses, mercy is firmly connected with Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy. Other inspired men recognized this to be so. Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit when John was born, saying that the Lord was fulfilling his covenant with Abraham, David and Israel by “performing the mercy promised to our fathers” in sending John and Jesus “through the tender mercy of our God” (Lk. 1:67-79). Note that Jesus’ coming into the world is an act of mercy, an “outward manifestation of pity” toward those who “sit in darkness.” It was no accident that many of Jesus’ day, hearing his message and seeing his mighty deeds cried out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mk. 10:47) They rightly connected Jesus with the promise of Messianic mercy.

Furthermore, not only is the coming of Jesus an act of mercy, but salvation in Christ is the focus of this mercy. Not all in the world will be saved; only those in Christ will be saved. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christfrom the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). Our hope is rooted in Christ. Those in Christ are begotten again. Redemption is in Christ (Eph. 1:3ft), along with “every spiritual blessing.” Salvation is in Christ. Remission of sins is in Christ. Fellowship with God is in Christ. Eternal life is in Christ. Thus, mercy is not generic, found somehow in an attitude of looseness toward sin or an overlooking of sin, but specific: in Christ. Remember how David said that God is “abundant in mercy to all those who call upon” him? The New Testament reminds us that when we obey the gospel, we are calling on God: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. ” Obedience to the gospel is the same thing as calling on God. The gospel is the good news of this mercy and is to be preached to the whole world. Those who accept Jesus as Christ and Lord by faith and baptism (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15, 16) are added to Christ and his body (Acts 2:47; Rom. 6:37; Col. 2:12; etc.) and he is the savior of the body, the church (Eph. 1:22, 23; Eph. 5:23).

My friend, don’t wait for the Judgment Day, expecting in some vague way to plead for mercy as you stand before the Judgment Throne. “Mercy triumphs over judgment” in the sense that God has made it possible to extend mercy in the Person and Will of Christ when we ought to be condemned. All we who need mercy may find it in abundance as we turn in faith to Christ. In that way, when we stand before God, we will, as Paul, “be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). To appear before God outside of Christ and plead for mercy is to plead in vain. In Christ we find mercy, and this mercy triumphs over judgment because our sins are forgiven, pardoned by the same Judge who appointed Christ as our Merciful High Priest (Heb. 2:17). It is in this manner that God can say, “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more” (8:12). Indeed, mercy triumphs over judgment in the redemptive work of Jesus. “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. . . ‘ (Rom. 8:1).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 432-433
July 19, 1990