Living in Grace Day by Day

Many years ago I got into a discussion with the editor of one of the brotherhood periodicals over the topic of how a Christian is cleansed from sin that he may commit from time to time.  He had taken the position that a Christian had to confess every single sin he committed or else he was lost.  There was a general debate among brethren back then about this topic which they were calling "continual cleansing."  I am not here to opine on that doctrine except in the case of sins of ignorance.   

I think most Christians agree that when a Christian sins he must repent of his sins and confess them to the Father in prayer asking for forgiveness and depending on the particular sin and the circumstances surrounding it there may be a need to confess to others as well asking their forgiveness, even before the church in some instances.  Some think that it is never necessary to publicly confess sins but I am not one of them.  All sin is against God but some sin is against others as well (Matt. 18:21, 1 Cor. 8:12) and one can commit sin against the church (1 Cor. 10:32, 1 Cor. 11:22, Gal. 1:13).  We need to confess to whomever we have sinned against.    

The editor I am speaking of years ago was taking the confession of sin to an extreme so that any sin not confessed to the Father doomed one, including sins of ignorance.  Now if it was hardness of heart and impenitence that prevented one from confessing a sin that is one thing but ignorance is quite another.  Sins committed in ignorance cannot be repented of and confessed unless it is at a later date when one knows more and has learned better and remembers his past.

However, remembering is part of the problem, a big part of it.  We do not realize we have sinned so the event or occasion when we sinned does not stick in our memory.  There was no reason to remember what to us at the time was meaningless.  We generally remember the evil we have done but if we did not consider our action at the time evil we are not likely to remember it a few days down the road to say nothing of years down the road. 

Now do not get me wrong, ignorance is not an excuse for sin.  If ignorance excuses sin then all those living in lands where they have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel, North Korea for example, are saved and are better off if they never have an opportunity to hear it.  If ignorance were an excuse for sin we would all be better off remaining ignorant.  If ignorance excuses sin one can be saved without the gospel. 

Nevertheless, there was a problem with my editor brother's position.  It is impossible for the Christian to know every single sin he has committed even as he attempts to live the Christian life in all sincerity and faithfulness.  I am to obey the laws of the land, of the government under which I live, but as I drive down the highways and streets of this country I do not see every speed limit sign.  Am I eternally lost because I violated a traffic law I was unaware of?  I am certainly guilty under the law but am I guilty and condemned under grace?    

There is no Christian security, no sense of peace, no freedom from fear of condemnation, no assurance of salvation, and no sense of living under grace versus law when we go that far afield.  John said he wrote 1 John so "that your joy may be full" (1 John 1:4 NKJV) but where is the joy if I must live in fear of my ignorance?  I wonder how many sins we have all committed in our lives when at the time we committed them we had no idea we were sinning.

Is the teenager who has just been baptized supposed to have the knowledge and understanding of the faithful Christian who has read and studied for 50 years?  Is there no room under the grace system under which we live for growth in knowledge and understanding?  "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 3:18 NKJV)

So what is my point?  It is we live under grace, not law.  We do not know every sin in our life or sin that has been there.  We repent of and confess what we know which is all we can do.  I think it likely that many, perhaps most, add in their prayers to God a request that they be forgiven for all those sins of which they are unaware or know not even as they confess the sins they do know.

Do you not only know every commandment found in your New Testament but know exactly how to apply each one of them in every possible scenario that arises in your life?  Can you define every sin listed in the New Testament?  Tell me the difference between a temptation which is not sin according to the New Testament and an evil thought which is (Mark 7:20-23), draw me a line in the sand and tell me exactly when one crosses over into the other.  Is the thought only classified as evil when it is acted upon and thus becomes sin retrospectively only because it was acted on?

At what exact point in time does self-esteem turn into pride which is sin?  Draw the line in the sand and tell us exactly when.  My point is there are a lot of things that are black and white when we see them in the extremes but who is so perfect in judgment as to be able to draw these lines when they are not so extreme?  We can certainly be ignorant of crossing the line on occasion.  These are only examples of many similar things that could be listed. 

I want to make it clear I believe in strict commandment keeping.  I could quote verse after verse on the need to obey from the pages of the New Testament.  Every reader of the New Testament knows that but the bottom line is we are saved by grace and not by perfection in law-keeping. 

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9 NKJV)  "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Gal. 2:21 NKJV)  The word "the" that comes before the word "law" in Gal. 2:21 just quoted is an added word, added by the translators, which is not in the Greek thus Young's Literal Translation of the Bible translates the passage, "I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness be through law--then Christ died in vain." 

John tells the Christian how he is saved day by day in 1 John 1:7, "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin." (NKJV)  The word "cleanses" in this passage is in the present tense meaning it is a constant process, a continual thing.  Commentator Guy N. Woods says of the cleansing of this verse by the blood of Jesus that "it cleanses from sin, not merely or solely the conscience, but sin (amartias), all sin, whether of thought, word, or deed, rash sins, sins of ignorance, of malice, of omission or commission, sins of the flesh, sins of the disposition, sins of pleasure or of pain, sins of every type and kind committed at any time or place." (See his commentary on 1 John 1:7.)  I quoted this only because brother Woods mentions "sins of ignorance."  

E. M Zerr in his commentary on 1 John 1:7 says, "If a man is a worker in the Lord's vineyard and his life as a whole is one of obedience to the law of Christ, he does not need to worry about the mistakes he might make which he does not realize, for the blood of Christ will take care of it and wash them away."  I agree.  

But what does it mean to "walk in the light?" (1 John 1:7)  The Bible describes God's word as light.  "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." (Psalms 119:105 NKJV)  "The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple." (Psalms 119:130 NKJV)  To walk in the light is to walk in or by God's word.  It is to be directed by God's word which is the same as to be directed by God.  

But it might be objected that would require perfection in the knowledge of the word and anything short of that would not be truly walking in the word, in the light.  I concede it does place a responsibility on a man to not be lazy or lukewarm in studying and learning God's word.  If we fail to walk in God's word because we were too indifferent and uncaring to find a desire to read and study the word how can we expect our sins committed in ignorance to be forgiven when it was willful ignorance we lived in?  There comes a point in time when we are old enough in the faith to know better as the saying goes but even then we each have different God-given abilities to learn and retain knowledge. 

Whatever subject a man sets out to learn it takes time and that goes for learning God's will as well.  Peter said to those new in the faith, "As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby." (1 Peter 2:2 NKJV)  God thus allows for growth and no babe ever becomes an adult overnight.  Elsewhere the writer of the book of Hebrews says, "Everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe." (Heb. 5:13 NKJV)  If he is unskilled it surely means he has a ways to go to maturity and thus is prone to sins of ignorance. 

Heb. 5:14 sums up the end goal of spiritual growth in knowledge, "But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb. 5:14 NKJV)  It thus takes time.  

Yes, I believe we must repent of and confess every sin to God of which we are aware to be forgiven.  John teaches, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9 NKJV)  I also agree, as already stated, that those too indifferent to study and learn are not going to get a free pass because of ignorance.  I would also include in that group those who through hardness of heart are unable to learn the truth (God will judge).  But, to say a Christian man who has a good and honest heart yet sins in ignorance and thus fails to repent of that sin and confess it is condemned is a thing I do not see the Bible teaching. 

Walking in the light is the key (1 John 1:7) but the best any man can do is walk in the light he presently has.  I have more light today than I had 30 years ago because I know more today than I did then.  How about you?  You surely know more today than you did 5 or 10 years ago. 

I am satisfied I have taken the correct position on this subject for the opposing position puts us back under a strict law-keeping system for salvation where one slip up through ignorance condemns you.  Furthermore, that position requires that one be fully mature from the moment he arises out of the waters of baptism in both knowledge and understanding.  That just cannot be correct.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

One Church—A Thing Hard to Accept

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.  I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me.  One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it.  I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her.  Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor.  Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist.  I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion?  Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects?  There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth.  I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with. 

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them.  They would flunk out of a high school or college class for they will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning.  Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O.J. it simply cannot be so.  It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it.  That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their mind that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).  

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull.  Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.”  Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV) 

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see?  Had God done it?  The text says "their eyes they have closed."  Why would a person do that?  Could it be they did not want to see?  Could it be they did not want to know?  Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know?  Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing.  Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.  Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV)  It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear. 

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will."  Both could have heard.  The only difference between the two parties was the heart.  The Jewish heart had grown dull.  The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull."  The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will.  Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV)  The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them.  It is hard to get a satisfied person to change. 

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man.  The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context).  It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions.  Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will.  Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong.  The eyes were deliberately closed.   

This brings me to what I really want to talk about it.  I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present.  The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology.  In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide."  In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000.  The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty some thousand?

How is it we have here in the Bible a plain statement of scripture as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews in centuries gone by and yet the eyes are closed today and the ears are hard of hearing and the hearts are grown dull so the plain statement of scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty some thousand?  Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old.  We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church.  Where do you read that in your Bible?  What book is that in, what chapter, what verse or verses?  It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said.  That parable is found in John 15.  Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations.  There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time.  When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it.  Why?  Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the 12 apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper (compare Mark 14:17-18 with John 13:1-18:3).  Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations?  It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account.  It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines.  When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.).  The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination then the reality is truth no longer matters.  Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error.  Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus.  That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means.  What does it mean to believe in Jesus?  Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?  That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock.  Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue"? (NKJV)  Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men or the same group of men do the same thing after Pentecost.  What then?  They are believers that Christ is the Son of God.  Is that all that matters?  Are they then in the "one church?"  Are they saved?  The failure to confess Jesus is the same as denying him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief.  When you begin to define saving faith in stricter terms than just an intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are saying that doctrine does make a difference after all and if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church."  The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.  

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built.  God adds you when you obey the gospel.  The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved?  In Acts 2 in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted) we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached.  It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter via the Holy Spirit preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23).  Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach?  He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV)  Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached.  Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful?  Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation.  If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened.  He next tells them to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter.  So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says.  That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus."  There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example).  No one wants that kind of faith.  We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject.  You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds.  They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts.  It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either.  They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question.  Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside.  Here are some examples:  the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc.  These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of.  These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question.  Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which any person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or on the other hand that there is only one church?  I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling.  It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them?  Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church.  I include Catholicism as just another denomination.  It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad).  But, this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost) or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built.   That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine.  Every congregation was to abide in it.  There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine.  It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church.  It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church.  If that church is not found in your community why not restore it?  You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]