Truth Magazine

By Mike T. Rogacs

Being a former Catholic, from time to time I look back upon my former religion and am always amazed at the glaring inconsistencies of its doctrines as compared with Biblical doctrine. One such example is the method in which a Catholic believes his sins are to be remitted by the church and thereby by the Lord.

It is taught by the Catholic Church that sin carries with it two consequences: guilt and punishment (punishment in this life and/or in Purgatory). The guilt of the sin must be removed by confession to the priest and by Contrition; a sorrow and detest for the sin. In addition, there remains the need for “Satisfaction;” that is, a paying of the penalty for the sin or at least seeking some sort of atonement for the penalty. One can “pay the penalty” by various acts of penance assigned by the “church” (remembering that to the Catholic mind the “church” is the hierarchy of the institution, not really all the people). If this is not done before death, a man will “pay” for his sins by suffering in Purgatory. This is a realm of the dead where their sins are purged away in time and after all sins are purged, the individual will then be permitted to enter heaven; and then again only if he had been guilty of “venial sins.” “Mortal sins” are more serious sins that cannot be purged in Purgatory, and they result with the sentence of eternity in Hell.

Let us briefly pause to remind ourselves that the concept as mentioned above is quite erroneous in light of the Scriptures. A sinful individual is not required by the Bible to confess to a special official of the church called a priest. God revealed that all Christians are priests and that we are to confess our faults one to another (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Jas. 5:16). The only wages – or penalty – for sin is death, spiritual death, with the consequence being eternal damnation for any sin if a man is not moved to repentance. A man does not need to “pay” for sins in this life or after death if he has become sorrowful over those sins, repented and has asked the Father for forgiveness (Rom. 6:23; 2 Thess. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 7:9-11). Also, concerning Purgatory, there is no scriptural basis for a “venial and mortal” distinction between sins, and there likewise exists no basis for the concept of the realm of Purgatory. As the Scriptures teach, when we sin in one point of the law we are guilty of all points of the law (Jas. 2:10). This being true, the Catholics would then have us guilty of both venial and mortal sins! How, then, could we solve the dilemma? The truth is that there is no such distinction is sins. And Purgatory? It is most likely a perversion of the Biblical teaching concerning the Realm of Hades (Lk. 16:22-28; Acts 2:27, 31; Matt. 16:18; 2 Pet. 2:9; etc.).

“The Sacrament of Penance”

But included in the Catholic concept of remission of sins is the topic of our concern in this article. It is a little understood topic by many who are outside the Catholic Church, and even by many Catholics to boot! We approach this topic by going on with our look at the concept of remission of the penalty of sin (the Sacrament of Penance) in the Catholic Church. The Catholic is taught that he can seek atonement for this penalty by seeking an “Indulgence.” The indulgence is defined by Catholics as “a remission, granted by the Church, of temporal punishment which often remains due to sin after its guilt has been forgiven.” In other words, one can avoid the punishment of sin if the church will see fit to grant him an indulgence. These grants can be total, partial, perpetual and temporal (within a certain time limit). They are granted by the church to a living individual or can also be granted to someone who is dead and in Purgatory (how one knows if a dead friend or relative is no longer in Purgatory and therefore no longer needs someone in this life to seek an indulgence is extremely hard to determine in the doctrine). The church administers these grants (indulgences) by a general edict applying certain terms which can be met by all Catholics if they so choose to meet them. Such an edict was used in persuading the Catholic citizenry of the European nations to fight in the Crusades in the Holy Land and thereby, in service to the church, gain an indulgence for sin. An indulgence can also be administered by a written decree to an individual when he has in some manner earned such favor from the church, or by word of mouth from a priest in a mass or some other occasion (an emergency, etc.). (We might recall hearing of a mass being said for some famous departed individual, i.e. John F. Kennedy.) The derisive expression “buying an indulgence” is partly justified if one realizes that certain costs of a priest’s time might need to be paid by the individual who has asked for a mass to be said. It is also obviously true that in past ages indulgences were literally bought by influential Catholics (although the church has in print referred to this practice as being an “obvious” corruption of the doctrine).

The Catholic Church cites Matt. 16:18,19 and 18:18 as their authority for “binding and loosing” in all spiritual matters, even in the realm of sin and its penalty. They believe the Pope to be the successor of Peter, possessing Peter’s power, and all priests sharing similar authority to bind and loose by being successors of the other apostles. But this doctrine of Apostolic Succession is alien to the scriptures, and this fact negates the concept that “the church” (or the hierarchy) has the authority to bind or loose anything, aside from binding or loosing any supposed penalty for sin. But believing in this apostolic succession, it was easy to develop the doctrine of indulgences during the Crusades, and seeing the possible profit involved, to continue to expand the doctrine’s scope. (In all false doctrine there appears to be suspicious motives of gain.)

It is also taught that God Himself can grant without the church’s approval any indulgence to anyone in Purgatory. It is true that God will exercise mercy in His judgments concerning the saints, but the Bible teaches, as we will note later, that this will not be in the form of an indulgence.

Now that we have an outlook on indulgences, we must ask the obvious question: where do the Catholics believe these grants for the remission of punishments come from? From God the Father? No. It is taught that they come from a place called the “Treasury of Merits” (sometimes called “Treasury of Grace”). To adequately present the composition of this “treasury” I shall give to you a quote from The Teaching of the Catholic Church, editor, Canon George D. Smith, page 977:

“The Church is not merely a number of individuals joined by belief in the same truths, by the practice of the same worship, and by submission to the same authority. It is this, indeed, but it is more. It is the Mystical Body of Christ. By his death Christ made it possible for us to gain that supernatural life of sanctifying grace whereby ‘we are made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ Those who possess this life are united with each other by their common union with Christ from whom they all received it. Thus Christ’s merits and satisfaction are shared by faithful Christians through their union with Christ in the Church . . . Thus Christ’s atonement being infinite is inexhaustible, and all the sins of the world can be expiated by it. Moreover, the saints have often made satisfaction in excess of what they require to atone for their own sins. This satisfactory value of their acts, not being used for themselves, remains in existence and can be used for others. This is that spiritual treasury often called the `Treasury of Merits,’ from which can be unceasingly drawn satisfaction for the sins of Christians.”

Let us make clear the implications of this teaching. The “Treasury of Merits” or “Grace” is the store house of all grants for the remission of sin and its punishments. It is made up of all the “excess” merits and virtues of all Catholic “saints” (the special champions of the faith), of the most revered (or is it overly revered) Virgin Mary, and of the “inexhaustible” merits of the sinless Jesus Christ. If one is in sin and is a Catholic, he can gain the forgiveness of God by seeking to apply to his credit the good life of someone else.

Surely the fallacy of the doctrine should be evident. In the above quote it was suggested that a Christian has the Divine Nature of Christ at the moment he becomes a member of the “body” of Christ. Thusly we are to be automatically found sharing the merits of Christ. One does not have to pay for his sins if he can get Jesus (or get the church to ask Him) to grant remission, even after death, of the penalty of any sin. In other words, it is supposed to be the meritorious lives of others, especially that of Christ, which pays for our sins and remits the consequences of such. The mistake of the above quote is that the church is not part of the Mystical Body of Christ in the sense of the Catholic thought. The church is not literally part of the bodily form of Christ and therefore possesses the “Divine Nature,” simply because we are part of His actual form and substance, and being part of Him in this manner we have assumed the benefits of His meritorious life. In this view, we would have the stockpile of virtues flowing through the “veins” of that “body-substance” of Christ, and we draw from the veins whatever “food” (virtues) we need to correct our inadequacies, as does each cell of a physical body. Biblically, the term “Body of Christ” refers to the body, or group, of believers which Christ claims as His own; which He purchased with His blood (Eph. 3:15; Acts 20:28). Again, it is a group, it is an ekklesia, not a literal body-substance of one called Christ. This is often the mistake of the mystical thinking Catholic Church. Another example is their doctrine that mystically the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper changes to a literal body and blood of Jesus. This, too, is contrary to scripture as is their concept of the church’s being a “body.” This Biblical “body” which we are truly baptized into (Gal. 3:27; Eph. 1:22-23) is called “a body” to express to us that the group of Christians forming the ekklesia should function as does the human body: one head, many members, different functions (1 Cor. 12:12-18; Rom. 12:4-5). The Divine Nature mentioned is not given automatically to God’s children any more than a child’s personality is automatically given to him at birth in this life. After our spiritual birth in baptism (Rom. 6:1-6; etc.) we must put on whatever characteristics that are required of us by our spiritual parents. We do this by emulating Jesus Christ’s demonstrated virtues (2 Pet. 1:2-9; Phil. 3:13-17; 1 Cor. 11:1) just as a child emulates his father, mother, brother and sister. The virtue of Christ itself is not that which saves us. It is our birth by baptism into God’s one family group and the obedience of the rules of that family (the faith of Christ) which will also have us emulating to the best of our human ability the virtues of Christ. His sacrifice gave us the remission of our sins through the likeness of his death, burial and resurrection in baptism, and His life gave us the example of obedience of the Almighty Father, the kind of obedience necessary to please Him (1 Pet. 1:9-23).

The Catholics have forgotten long ago that the Bible only indicates that a man shall be judged according to the works he does in his body. No man shall be judged by how I have lived, good or bad; nor shall I be judged by how any “saint” or how Mary lived. I, and all mankind shall be judged according to how we were able to live according to Christ’s laws and up to His examples, from our baptism unto the day of our death (1 Pet. 1:2). No one’s virtue or merit can or shall remit or purge sin or its punishment from another person’s soul before or after death. To be sure, God has promised to use mercy in His judgments, but this mercy shall be based upon our own application of mercy in this life, and upon Christ’s knowledge of human weakness (to which He did not yield) (Jas, 2:13; Heb. 4:15-16). But to think the merits of other saints could purge our sins? Why, God tells us that the righteous will scarcely be saved by obedience (1 Pet. 4:18)!

Effects on the Church

I have been motivated to write these remarks concerning the erroneous Catholic doctrine of the “Treasury of Grace” for a reason which to many might now be obvious. There has been some of our brethren in Christ who have for reasons of their own been teaching what to my eyes is just about the same thing as a “Treasury of Merits” or “Grace”. I have not seen anyone call it a treasury, but it is quite clear that they are teaching that our salvation is based not upon our obedience of God’s law but upon the “error-free and meritorious life of Jesus Christ.” Some call this the “imputation of Christ’s righteousness” upon souls. Some call it simply Calvinism. But let us give credit to all whom it’s due: the doctrine can find roots in the Catholic Church which developed the concept in an attempt to put aside the importance of an obedient life and make salvation easier to the man who dislikes strict obedience. Though it is suggested that it would be better for all Catholics to live a “clean” life, the doctrine of the “Treasury” permits, if not encourages, a very loose-lived life. Eat, drink, and be merry. As long as the common Catholic does not incur upon himself the wrath of the hierarchy, it is good to let him think that the meritorious life of someone else will eventually get him into heaven. The Catholics on the Crusades committed a multitude of sins against humanity, but since indulgences were granted from the meritorious lives of others, the Crusaders needed not to fear Hell, while it so happened that the Church profited.

Is it not clear that any doctrine which justifies disobedience, no matter if such disobedience appears to be “white and little” or “black and big”, is of Satan, not of God (Eph. 5:6,7; 2 Thess. 1:7-9)?!

The motive of the Catholic Church to redefine sin and its forgiveness was power: a loose definition of faithfulness and obedience of God’s laws, methods, and plan of work and worship would insure obtaining a membership to that church as large as possible. This definition helped contribute to the rise and support of every unscriptural practice presented to the Catholics by each group of converts (instrumental music in worship; infant baptism by various modes; church control and involvement in social and political concerns; Christmas; Easter; etc.). In all this can be seen the evil that any practice and belief can eventually fit into a religion which teaches that a broad base of fellowship of any peoples with a “good” king of religiousity is justified by the meritorious life of Christ which will cover up the disobedience of the “good in other churches.”

That is what some of our brethren are teaching; let us have a broader base of fellowship. The meritorious life of Christ is really a “Treasury of Grace” which will purge away for free the disobedience that is done in “ignorance.”

I left the Catholic Church. Why is it that some of my brethren wish to drag us all back?!

Truth Magazine, XX:10, p. 10-12
March 4, 1976

By Bob Walton

Some of the most simple, yet most profound words ever uttered were those by Jesus in the parables. In these short, simple lessons, Jesus often taught on man’s relationship to his material possessions. Thus we wish to study three of these parables that call attention to this important matter of my relationship to my material possessions.

First of all, we are taught that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof” (Psa. 24:1); that “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights . . . ” (James 1:17). Thus, we are all stewards of God; we are simply “in charge” of those things which really belong to God, but have been given to us (by His grace) to use. Of course this should always be the beginning place of our thoughts concerning our material possessions. And how good God has been to each of us! We all have so many things to enjoy; more than any nation on earth, past or present. It is because of the abundance of these material possessions that solemnity is needed in deciding how we are to use them.

Jesus, in his teachings gives four different illustrations of what we can do with our goods as stewards of God.

First of all, the Master Teacher illustrates in the story of the prodigal son the possibility of wasting our goods. The young man of whom Jesus spoke (Luke 15:11-24) “wasted his goods with riotous living” (v. 13). So it is possible to simply waste that which we have. Whether it be money or talent, so many of us use them on “the things of this life.” Oh no, we are not immoral people; we are not like the heathen who says, “Let us satisfy every desire.” We are good people, yet we use all our resources, time, and talents on “things” with no time nor resources left for the Lord. In so doing, we have our affections on “the things of this earth” (Col. 3:1-4); we waste our good on self.

A second failure as stewards can manifest itself in our hoarding our goods. “Oh no, I don’t waste my goods, they were too hard to come by,” one says. But unless we are careful, we then become as the rich farmer (Luke 12:15-21); we hoard our goods. Jesus never talked about the hypothetical nor the exceptional; he talked about the typical. And here is a very typical example of “many a man’s” relationship to his possessions. We cannot condemn the rich farmer’s honesty nor his success; we can only condemn his blindness and selfishness in relationship to his stewardship of his material possessions. He was a success in the eyes of men; he was a fool in God’s sight. He was foolish because he did not realize that “a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth” (Luke 12:15). And so it is when all that I have becomes “mine” and God is left out of my plans.

A third situation, somewhat like the one above, yet different in many respects, is the story of Jesus of the one talent man who hid his talent (Matt. 25:14-30). This man’s defense was, “I haven’t embezzled, I haven’t squandered nor wasted, I haven’t used for self; I haven’t done anything with it! His was a defensive excuse. But the import of this parable was to teach that what we have, we must use for the Lord. And the retribution for the man who hid his talent should show the futility of such action; “thou wicked and slothful servant” (Matt. 25:26) was the pronouncement of the Lord on this man. But worst of all, this unprofitable servant was cast into “outer darkness” (Matt. 25:30) for his neglect in using that which he had.

But there is still another thing (and a very, very important one) which we can do with the stewardship of our possessions; we can use them to the glory and honor of God. Such was the reckoning of the five and the two talent men (Matt. 25:14-30). “These talents were given us by our master to use; therefore we will use them” was their philosophy of life. And both men were commended for using what they had. By faithfully discharging their duty, their pronouncement was “well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter ye into the joy of thy lord” (Matt. 25:21-23).

From these brief stories told by the Master Teacher, let us first of all learn that the Lord is the giver; and He is indeed generous to every one of us today. And we need also to learn that with these manifold blessings comes opportunity and responsibility. And most of all, we need to always remember that our use, abuse, misuse, or disuse of our possessions will determine where we spend eternity.

Truth Magazine, XX:10, p. 9
March 4, 1976

By John McCort

The Mormons tell people that the Book of Mormon is the word of God just like the Bible. They leave the impression that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than an extension of the Bible and that both can and should be believed as being the word of God. (They actually feel the Book of Mormon to be superior to the Bible since they believe many precious and important parts of the Bible were supposedly deleted from the Bible by the Catholics.) The simple truth of the matter is that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in many areas. Both books cannot be true. At least one of them is a fraud.

The Book of Mormon was supposedly written before the time of Christ. A statement, dating about 147 B. C., is found in the Book of Mormon, “And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward” (Mosiah 18:17). In about 33 A. D. Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Jesus did not establish his church until the day of Pentecost, 33 A.D. How then can the Book of Mormon say that the church was established 147 B. C.? One of them is wrong.

The Book of Mormon states, “So long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land-for thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church” (Alma 46:13, 14, p. 310, 73 B. C.). The Bible states, “And that the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (Acts 11:26). The statement made in the Book of Mormon predates the statement in Acts by 100 years. Both cannot be right.

With reference to the darkness at the crucifixion of Christ, the Bible says, “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour” (Matt. 27:45; Mk. 15:33). The Book of Mormon contains a completely contradictory account of the same event, “Three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel” (I Nephi 19:10, p. 42, 588-570 B. C.). Three days of darkness is quite a bit different from three hours of darkness.

The Bible states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea … ” (Matt. 2:1). The Book of Mormon states that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers . . .” (Alma 7:10). The Mormons argue that Bethlehem was a mere suburb of Jerusalem and therefore does not contradict the Bible on this point. The Mormons fail to take into consideration several key points. Jerusalem was a walled city and thus Bethlehem would have had to be inside the walls of the city. When Jesus traveled by donkey from Jerusalem to Bethany it is said, “And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany” (Matt. 21:17). Bethany was only two and one half miles outside of Jerusalem. Bethlehem was seven miles outside of Jerusalem. If Bethany maintained a separate identity, how much more so of Bethlehem.

The Bible says, “And that repentance and remission of sins be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). The Book of Mormon states, “Repenting of your sins . . . willing to take upon you the name of Christ by baptism” (1 Nephi 31:13). “Yea blessed are they who shall … be baptized, for they shall … receive the remission of their sins … Behold baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling of the commandments unto the remission of sin.” Again, the Book of Mormon supposedly predates the New Testament. Not one thing was preached, commanded, or prayed for in the name of Christ prior to the day of Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection; nor was one saved by baptism in his name prior to that time. Repentance and remission of sin were preached first from Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, 33 A.D.

The doctrine of latter day revelation teaches that God continues to reveal new truths through modern day prophets. Thus, what those prophets teach are to be received as equal authority with the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young, the successor of Joseph Smith to the presidency of the Mormon Church, taught that Jesus was not begotten of the Holy Spirit. “When the virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Spirit” (Brigham Young, “Journal of Discourses”, pp. 769-770). This contradicts what the Bible teaches on the matter. “Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit . . . Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife: for that which has been conceived, is of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:19, 20).

There are many places where “inspired” Mormon literature contradicts itself. There are four , main documents which are considered by the Mormons as being inspired. The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Book of Abraham are all considered to be the word of God. Major, blatant contradictions between these documents would disprove the books as being inspired. For example, the Book of Mormon states, “Yea blessed are they who shall . . . be baptized, for they shall . . . receive the remission of their sin . . . Behold baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling of the commandments unto the remission of sin” (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11). The Doctrines and Covenants state, “All who fumble themselves . . . and truly manifest that they have received the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church” (Doctrines and Covenants 20:37). In one instance baptism is unto the remission of sin. In another inspired (?) document it states that after a person has received the remission of sins they are baptized to get into the church. Both statements cannot be true.

The Doctrines and Covenants contradicts itself on the subject of the Lord’s Supper. In one place it states, “That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, nether meet in the sight of your father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make” (Doctrines and Covenants 89:5). Doctrines and Covenants also says, “For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory” (Doctrines and Covenants 27:2).

Brigham Young, the “inspired” successor to Josph Smith, contradicted the Book of Mormon on the birth of Christ. Brigham Young stated, “When the virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost” (Brigham Young, “Journal of Discourses”, pp. 769-770). The Book of Mormon teaches, “And behold he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God” (Alma 7:10, 11).

There are many other doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon which are completely contradictory to the Bible. Space will not permit a detailed expose of every Mormon contradiction. These examples should be sufficient proof to demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon and other spurious Mormon literature.

Truth Magazine, XX:10, p. 7-8
March 4, 1976

By Denver Niemeier

We read in Rev. 3:20 the following, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me.” Jesus here pictured a door separating him from man, a door that has to be opened by man in order for Christ to come to that man. All blessings that God has provided for man through his grace are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). If a man desires those blessings, he will have to open the door that Christ is knocking upon. Through his word, God has given man the necessary instruction to open the door. God has placed on that door a combination lock on man’s side that will have to be worked in order for it to swing open.

A combination lock is one that has a dial on which are numbers or letters, and is designed to open when a prescribed series of numbers or letters is turned to on the dial. At that time, the tumblers will release and one will have access to whatever has been secured or fastened by that lock. For example, a lock of that type is used to secure the door of a vault or safe in which are stored one’s valuables. The manufacturer arranged the lock to open when the dial was turned to the following numbers: 5-1-8-3-9. That lock will not open until all of those numbers have been turned to in the right order. If a person sought to open that door by just using some of the numbers such as 5-1-8 and then stopped, he could not open the door. The same would be true if he used all of the numbers but used them in the wrong order.

Man is a sinner (Rom. 3:23). God has the power to forgive man of his sin and therefore has the right to set forth the requirements that man must meet in order to obtain that forgiveness; thus, the combination has been designed by God which man must work in order to open the door of our study.

In John 6:45 Jesus said, “Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” Just like number 5 is the first number in the combination illustrated above, so is learning of God’s will for man the first movement that must be made in working the combination of the lock God has placed on man’s side of the door. Every instruction man needs for his soul’s salvation has been provided by God through the scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17), and by studying and searching them man can thus listen to God.

Not only must man hear, but accepting in faith God’s will is required of man. This then is the second movement in God’s combination. We are told in Rom. 10:17 that faith comes by hearing God’s word. Thus, learning of God and Christ, and what they have provided for man and believing what the scriptures teach concerning them, the second movement is made (Heb. 11:6; John 8:24).

Please notice our combination of figures given above, 5-1-8-3-9. Suppose one turned the dial to 5 then 1 and endeavored to open that safe. Would it come open?

You know it would not because the entire combination had not been worked. The same is true if one stops at faith and tries to open the door of Revelation 3:20.

The third movement of God’s combination is repentance. The necessity of this is set forth many times in the scriptures (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). Some mistakenly think that sorrow is repentance. Others think reformation is repentance. While godly sorrow is involved in repentance (2 Cor. 7:10), and John said there would be “fruits meet for repentance,” Jesus through the lesson given in Matt. 21:28-29 shows that a change of will is involved also. When one who has heard and believed the gospel of Christ, with godly sorrow determines to turn from the way he has been going, to follow God’s way and is willing to bow his will to God’s, he will then work the third movement of God’s combination.

Jesus said in Matthew 10:32, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” Paul wrote in Rom. 10:9-10 “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” This we find the eunuch did in Acts 8:37. Thus when man does this, he then works the fourth movement in God’s combination. We note again that in our example combination of 5-1-8-3-9 that if the combination was worked through 3 the door would still not open. So it is with our door of Rev. 3:20 if we stop at confession.

Baptism is the fifth movement of God’s combination. The Bible shows there is a going down into water (Acts 8:38), a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12), and a coming up out of the water (Acts 8:39), and a planting together in the likeness of his death and a likeness of his resurrection (Rom. 6:5). The reason for doing this according to Acts 2:38 is for the remission of sins, or to have “sins washed away” (Acts 22:16). Peter says, in 1 Pet. 3:21, that it saves us, as Jesus also taught in Mark 16:16. The Lord adds those thus saved to the church (Acts 2:47). Paul said in Gal. 3:27, it puts us in Christ where, as mentioned before, we have access to all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3). This fifth movement then will open the door and Christ “will come in and sup.”

A combination lock will only open when the right combination is worked in the right way. Have you worked God’s combination and opened the door for Christ? If not, remember “Now is the accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

Truth Magazine, XX:10, p. 6-7
March 4, 1976