Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

1) In Acts 2, miraculous events, viz., “a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,” and “cloven tongues like as of fire,” in addition to Holy Spirit baptism occurred (vv. 2, 3). However, nothing like these marvelous, puzzling and perplexing sights and sounds accompanies a modern day Pentecostal service. Why not, if, as they claim, they exemplify the “Pentecostal experience?”

2) In Acts 2, the recipients of Holy Spirit baptism spoke tongues or languages which the audience could hear and understand (vv. 4, 6, 8, 11). Pentecostals of today babble like a baby and chatter like a chimp. None speak a language which the audience speaks as they did in Acts 2, yet they claim the “Pentecostal experience.”

3) The ones who received Holy Spirit baptism delivered a dignified discourse in Acts 2:14-41. Pentecostals shout, cry and moan incoherently. Their preachers deliver unorganized speeches which are full of philosophy and clever witticisms, but they rarely present an arranged speech on a given topic for any length of time as was done in Acts 2. Still, they avow, aver and avouch that they have the true “Pentecostal experience.”

4) The speakers, the preachers received Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2, not the audience, but Pentecostal preachers urge the audience to “get the Holy Ghost” at their services. This is the reverse of Acts 2, yet they claim they are duplicating the “Pentecostal experience.”

5) No one in Acts 2 was urged to “come to the front” and “pray through for the Holy Ghost.” This is always done at Pentecostal services, yet they claim they are imitating the “Pentecostal experience.”

6) Sinners were exhorted to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, but Pentecostals urge people to “reach out” and “feel the Spirit of God come into your heart.” Why not say what the apostles said if they are indeed reenacting the “Pentecostal experience?”

7) In Acts 2, the ones saved were added to the church of the Lord (v. 47; Acts 20:28). Pentecostal converts become members of various Pentecostal Holiness groups and sects which are unknown to the New Testament, yet they claim they are the direct result of the “Pentecostal experience.”

8) Not one of the recipients of Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2 told how he felt when he received it. None of them described it as a “thrilling, refreshing sensation that made me tingle all over.” They did not mention a single physical feeling, but one of the first things a Pentecostal wants to tell is how he felt when he “got the Holy Ghost.” Is this truly comparable to the original “Pentecostal experience?”

9) None of the ones who received Holy Spirit baptism on the day of Pentecost ever said that their experience transformed their drab, dismal life of sin into one of joy, beauty, happiness and forgiveness. Pentecostals of today often make this claim for what happened to them when they discuss their alleged “Pentecostal experience.”

10) No one in Acts 2 was told to “expect a healing.” No one was asked if he wanted to give his “testimony of healing,” but this is done at nearly every Pentecostal service today as they attempt to relive the “Pentecostal experience.”

11) In Acts 2, the miracles that transpired served to confirm the word preached (v. 33). But Pentecostal preachers expect that their word will confirm their claims of miracles. The apostles confirmed the word with miracles, but Pentecostals “confirm” their miracles with words; the exact reverse of the “Pentecostal experience.”

12) Those who received Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2 performed “many wonders and signs” that even their enemies could not deny (Acts 4:16). Pentecostal preachers say they cannot work miracles “because unbelievers are present with us.” Certainly, this is not the genuine “Pentecost experience.”

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 501-502
August 12, 1976

By Cecil Willis

In our last lesson we promised that we would devote this lesson to a study of the order of faith and repentance. We want to determine whether faith precedes repentance, or whether repentance precedes faith. The importance of this lesson is magnified to us if we consider the extremes to which members of the denominational world will go in order to prove their point. Denominationalism is vitally interested in proving that repentance precedes faith.

They say that one must repent before he believes, and the reason for their efforts is this: Members of several large denominations believe that one is saved either by faith only, or at the point of faith. They virtually all used to say that one is saved by faith only, and affirmed this in debate many times, but here of late, they have almost universally quit affirming the doctrine of faith only. Now they affirm a modified form of the doctrine, still calling it the doctrine of faith only. They now say that one is saved at the point of faith, before and without water baptism. The reason for their saying that repentance comes before faith is because if they say that one is saved at the point of faith, and if repentance came after faith, then they would be saying that one was saved before he repented, which they refuse to admit. The seed of the whole doctrine was an effort to get as far removed as possible from the doctrine of baptism’s having anything at all to do with one’s salvation.

Actually, if salvation is by faith only as some denominations still affirm, it matters not whether repentance comes before or after faith, for salvation by faith only means that one is saved without anything else. Regardless of the order of faith and repentance; the doctrine of faith only excludes repentance. ‘Whether it comes before or after does not alter the case. Salvation by faith only still excludes repentance.

Many preachers, still believing the doctrine of faith alone, but realizing themselves to be caught in a verbal dilemma, have tried to solve the dilemma by putting repentance before faith. In view of their belabored efforts, one can see certain admissions that these denominationalists make. When they become so concerned about “getting” repentance before faith, they already have repudiated their doctrine of salvation by faith only. They are saying that repentance is also essential. Most of them will deny that they ever said that it was unessential, but nevertheless, they still have the doctrine taught in their official creeds, manuals, and disciplines. They say one is saved by faith only, and the word “only” excludes everything else, repentance included. They deny this doctrine when they admit that one must repent, but since they now teach that one is saved at the point of faith, they say repentance must precede faith. Repentance must precede faith or their doctrinal position collapses.

Psychological Impossibility

First of all, let us note that for repentance to precede faith would be a psychological impossibility. One cannot possibly repent before he believes. There are so many foolish, absurd, and impossible tenets connected with this doctrine, that it seems almost vain to have to refer to it. Let us notice some of these absurdities.

Suppose you were trying to convert an atheist, one who does not believe that God exists. What would you do first? Would you try to persuade him to believe or to repent? It would be impossible to get the man to repent in the Biblical sense of the term. We saw last week that repentance is produced by godly sorrow, for one thing. How could this man have godly sorrow before he believed in God? Further, it was seen that repentance should be produced by the goodness of God, but this man does not believe that God lives, and therefore he would be wholly ignorant of the goodness of God. He might know something about the things that the Bible says are given us by God’s goodness, but he certainly would not attribute these things to God, but to insensate matter. The fear of judgment and punishment could not prompt him to repentance, because he does not believe that the Lord exists who could judge him. The desire to be saved could not be that which motivates him to repent, for as an atheist, he does not believe that man has a soul to be saved, nor that there is a God to save it. None of these forces which the Bible says produces repentance could operate on an atheist or an infidel, for they are unbelievers, and all these forces can have effect only upon believers. In the true sense of the word, only a believer can repent as God commands, and so repentance could not precede faith.

In Luke 15:7, we read that there is joy in the presence of the angels of heaven over one sinner that repents. One could repent without believing if repentance precedes faith. If he could not, then to repent and to believe must be one synonymous act, and if it is, then all the lengthy discussions by denominational preachers have been foolishness, for there could be no order of faith and repentance if they are the same. If they are not the same, it is possible for one to do one of them, and not do the other. The Bible says that there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of heaven over one sinner that repents, but the writer of Hebrews says in the eleventh chapter and sixth verse, “that without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he that cometh to God must believe that fle is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” We have this dilemma, if the doctrine be true. We have angels rejoicing over a man because he has repented, but God not pleased with him because he has not believed. One should repudiate any doctrine that makes such folly of God’s Holy Word.

Further we read in Jas. 2:19 that the devils believed. Now, if repentance precedes faith, then it must be admitted that these same demons had repented. According to denominational dogma, repentance and faith is all that could possibly be required of anyone. According to this doctrine, the demons had believed and repented, and so they should have been saved, but we know they were not.

Alleged Proofs

When one has the gospel preached to him, and learns that he must repent, why does he repent? It is because he believes the message that is brought him. Were it not for this, he would not repent.

One replies, “Well, surely these people must have something by which they prove their doctrine, or they would not teach it. What do they use to substantiate their contention that repentance precedes faith?” To those who view their arguments only lightly and casually, they seem very plausible, but when they are examined -more closely, one can see that they do not teach, at all, what these men say that they do. They have perverted the passages. But let us now notice some of the passages offered in favor of this contention.

First of all, “Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:14, 15). In this passage the word repentance comes before the word believe, and therefore men infer from this that it means that in obedience to the gospel repentance precedes faith. On this occasion “Jesus was preaching to persons who already believed in the true God, and in the revelation which God had already made, and his object, at this stage of his ministry, like that of John, was to bring them to repentance as a preparation for faith in himself and his kingdom. This accounts for the order in which repentance and faith are here mentioned. To repent toward the God in whom they already believed, but whose revealed will they were violating, naturally and properly took precedence over believing in him whom God was about to reveal” (McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark, pp. 267, 268). This passage, then, does not teach that repentance precedes faith in obedience to the gospel.

Another passage used is Acts 20:21, which reads: “testifying both to Jews and Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Let us think just a little bit about what this passage really teaches. Paul was talking to a group of people who had saith in God. They were familiar with a part of the law of God at one time, but they had become disobedient to the laws of God, and indifferent to their responsibilities to Him. Paul was telling them that before they believed in Christ they needed to repent toward God of the way that they had acted toward Him. They needed not to repent of following the laws that they had been given, before they were to be taught anything else. These men needed to repent toward God, and then they would be in better position to believe in Christ. The order here was: faith in God; and then repentance toward God. The gospel order differs from that in that we are commanded to have faith in God, and also in Christ as the Son of God, then repent toward Christ, and then to be baptized into Christ.

What someone needs to find in order to prove this doctrine is an instance in which one was told to repent toward Christ before he believed in Christ, or an instance in which one is told to repent toward God before he believed in God. Acts 20:21 is an instance of where one, who is a believer in God, is told to repent toward God, and then to believe in Christ. These are not the passages that these people need. There are some other passages that teach the same thing, and that they often use, but they do not add anything else to the argument and so we will omit them. Both of these passages tell one, believing in God to repent toward God, and have faith in Jesus Christ, but no passage tells one to repent toward Christ before he believes in Christ, or to repent toward God before he believes in God. They must look elsewhere if their doctrine is to find support.

Scriptural Order

The New Testament has examples of the order of faith and repentance. Study the events that occurred and are recorded in Acts the second chapter, On this occasion Peter, the key speaker was addressing a group of Jews that he accused of having slain the Lord of Glory. He used several arguments convicting these people of their crime. They believed the charges that he made against them. By Peter’s arguments they became persuaded that they had crucified the Son of God. The Scripture says that they were cut to the heart by these things, “and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles. Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37, 38). Why did they ask the question? It was because they believed what Peter has said unto them, and that they were persuaded that the one that they had crucified was God’s own Son. They were believers. Had they not been believers, surely they would have rushed upon Peter and the other apostles and would have killed them for bringing this charge against them. They knew that what Peter said was the truth. We know that they were believers. But what did Peter tell them to do when they asked him “what shall we do?” Peter told them to “repent ye and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Where did repentance come in this case? Did it come before or after faith? Certainly we all know that it came after their faith, and even after they asked what they must do to get forgiveness for killing this one who was God’s only Son. If there were not another case in all the Bible, this would be enough to silence the gainsayers, and to prove conclusively that repentance comes after faith.

Another illustration though: “The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold a greater than Jonah is here” (Matt. 12:41). All of us know that they would not have repented under the threat of punishment by God, if they did not believe that there was a God that could punish them. They repented because they had faith that God would keep his promise, and that he would punish them if they did not obey. Their faith preceded their repentance, rather than repentance preceding their faith.

Conclusion

We can well see the extremes to which men will often go to avoid the teachings of God’s Word. They strive to put repentance before faith in order that they might not have to obey the commandment of the Lord to be baptized for the remission of sins. It would be much better, more pleasing to the Lord and easier for man, if one would humbly submit to the commandments of Christ, rather than try to figure out some way to get out of having to do them.

Truth Magazine XX: 32, pp. 499-501
August 12, 1976

By Donald P Ames

We are living in an age in which the use of marijuana is becoming recognized as the number one problem facing parents. It has found its way into nearly all the school systems (if you doubt this, you need to take another look). We even have some legislators seeking to pass laws legalizing the use of it. And, the most frequently heard argument in its defense is that it is “no worse than alcohol.” Against this kind of reasoning, and with a lack of information at hand, how do we as parents, teachers, preachers and concerned young people meet this growing problem?

That it is becoming a real problem is evident by the rapid increase in the number of arrests and the amounts seized by the federal authorities. In 1968, they seized 85,715 pounds of marijuana. This figure grew to 782,033 pounds in 1973. Then in 1974, it jumped clear up to 1,291,000 pounds! When you consider that only one pound can intoxicate about 200 people, and that roughly eight pounds reach their destination for every one pound seized, one can begin to realize the seriousness of the situation.

However, when opposing the sale and use of marijuana, we are confronted with various statements issued by former studies concluding that it is only a mildly stimulating intoxicant and not really anything to get upset about. Although we can look at the results and be convinced otherwise, how do you argue against such reports?

Well, there is an answer! I am very pleased to be able to commend a 61-page booklet by Dr. George K. Russell, entitled Marihuana Today. Dr. Russell is the Associate Professor of Biology at Adelphi University in Garden City, New York, and was awarded a doctorate in biology by Harvard in 1963, where he specialized in genetics, biochemistry and cellular physiology. He has done an excellent job in this booklet of not only exposing the harm involved in the use of marijuana, but of listing and exposing the previously mentioned reports as well. He pointed out the grave medical evidence that has been accumulated in recent years (of which the press has had little to say) and notes that “much of what has been said in the 1960’s about the harmlessness of its use (is) obsolete.” And, although dealing with technical material, yet it was written on a level that anyone with a high-school education can easily read and comprehend. It has 53 pages of rich material, plus an eight-page bibliography and is rather shocking, to say the least.

Dr. Russell noted that most of the tests revealed that the effects of marijuana are cumulative and dose-related, and concluded (along with other quoted authorities): “marijuana must be considered a very dangerous drug . . . the most dangerous drug on the market today.” He listed seven basic reasons for so concluding, and provided material in support of each.

(1) The THC from cannabis tends to accumulate in the brain and gonads and other fatty tissues, much like DDT.

(2) It has a tendency, even in moderate usage, to cause massive damage to the entire cellular process, reducing resistance to certain diseases by as much as 41%.

(3) Growing evidence shows that it tends to be stored in the sex glands, and may well produce deformed babies such as the thalidomide babies of the last decade. The marijuana products also can do serious damage to the normal process of sexual maturation in teenage boys undergoing adolescence, can produce impotence, and also enlargement of the male breasts to the point of desiring surgical correction.

(4) Evidence that it produces irreversible brain damage, and because of its easy storage in fatty tissue, the brain is one of the first areas to be affected. In fact, “an individual smoking even one marihuana cigarette a week is never free of the drug.”

(5) That it is actually worse than cigarettes in producing sinusitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory diseases. He noted that evidence shows that marijuana can do in one year or less as much damage as it takes smoking twenty years to accomplish.

(6) That it is far more damaging to the lungs than smoking, and that such damage is “pre-cancerous.(Interestingly enough, ABC News on December 2, 1975, reported several new reports out that show a definite relationship between the use of marijuana and cancer susceptibility.)

(7) A deterioration of mental functioning, forms of paranoia, and a lack of motivation and destruction of the will, that lead to more sexual freedom, opens doors to stronger drugs, and a lack of desire to pursue former goals. This also affects one’s concentration, learning, and ability to talk sensibly (coherent thought).

Dr. Russell concludes: “Inexcapably, the time comes when each must ask himself: What kind of person do I want to be? What kind of society do I want to live in?” These questions need to be faced-both by those who may be trying marijuana and those who could be affected by others using it. “Can the use of marihuana, in any amount, ever be reconciled with the clarity of thought, the personal integrity and the strength of will that an individual must have who would play an active role in helping humanity find the way out of its everworsening difficulties?” This is a very sobering question in light of the material presented.

In my opinion, this is one booklet every Christian (elders, oeacons, preachers, teachers, parents and young people) needs to have and read! It is published by the Myrin Institute Inc. For Adult Education, 521 Park Ave., New York, N.Y. 10021, and is available to any who will send the modest fee of only $1.00 (to cover printing and handling costs). You owe it to yourself and others to be informed on this subject! Why not sit down and order a copy today?

Truth Magazine XX: 31, pp. 493-494
August 5, 1976

By Peter McPherson

1) Are We To Continue In Sin That Grace Might Increase? Answer: “‘May it never be!” (Rom. 6:1-2). The very purpose of the sixth chapter of Romans is to explode that wrong notion and to positively teach otherwise. It shows what the gospel of Christ is all about. It is to really change lives and make them “servants of righteousness.” Since, then, the Christian is not to sin even though he is under grace, the fundamental next question has to be . . .

2) What Is Sin? Answer: “Every one who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1 Jn. 3:4). That is clear and plain. Sin is any violation of the law of God whether it be by way of rejection, addition, subtraction or substitution. But the next question now arises. . .

3) Do Christians Never Sin? Answer: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8). Then we all do sin, at least occasionally. But then. . .

4) Are Christians To Sin? Answer: “My little Children, I am writing these things unto you that you sin not”(1 Jn. 2:1a). The gospel of Christ not only offers forgiveness of our sins but also releases power and has incentives for man to actually deal with the practice of sin. “I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one” (1 Jn. 2:14). Read also Romans 8, Colossians 3, Ephesians 1:19; 3:16-21 and especially Titus 2:11-12.

5) Whenever Christians Sin Are Their Sins Simply Overlooked Because They Are “In Christ”? Answer: Writing to Christians Paul informed even them that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). “The man whose sin the Lord will not take into account” (Rom. 4:8) is “the man” “whose sins have been covered . . . . . .. whose lawless deeds have been forgiven”(Rom. 4:7). Whenever our sins are “forgiven” (and that will be many times-Mt. 18:22; 6:12) the Lord “remembers (those) sins no more” (Heb. 8:12).

6) What Are Christians To Do ‘If Anyone Sins”? Answer: “If anyone sins” we are instructed to use our “Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). We are to “repent” of sins (Acts 8:22), and “confess our sins” (1 Jn. 1:9) to our Forgiving Father. The blessed result is that “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Note that a Christian’s sins forgiven make him cleansed from “all unrighteousness.” Then he is only “righteous” as long as he “sins not” (1 Jn. 2:1). When he sins he is “unrighteous” and “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9). But, thanks be to God, he has access to the cleansing blood and he can be made “righteous” by availing himself of this rich gospel provision.

7) Does Not “Walk In The Light” and “Walk In Darkness” in First John And In the New Testament Merely Describe Two General Life Styles? Answer: It is true that John’s statement that “whosoever is born of God sinneth not” (Jn. 5:18) means habitually. A. T. Roberson says that the “sinneth not” is “lineal present active indicative, ‘does not keep on sinning,’ as he has already shown in 3:4-10.” Further, John had already stated that “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8). In general terms it is true that the world sins and Christians do not. That is why Christians are never referred to as sinners in the New Testament but as saints (sanctified ones. . . people set apart from the “whole world (which) lies in wickedness” 1 Jn. 5:19). Yet the Christian’s single sin is sin and needs to be repented of and taken before the Father in prayer (1 Jn. 1:8-10).

8) Are There Any Gospel Provisions For Forgiveness Apart From A Specific Repentance And Confession Of A Specific Sin? Answer: We know that the Bible teaches us to repent and confess every sin that we are aware of to God. Also we are to even ask God to “forgive us our debts” (Mt. 6:12). That would include “unknown” sins. And further we are to always manifest a prayerful attitude in life i.e. “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). Of course in all of this we are “looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2).

We know that the gospel of grace includes an ability” clause (Mt. 25:15) as well as it has affixed a “growth” rider (I Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:18). What does this mean? It means that we can necessarily infer that there is a provision (conditional of course as will be shown) for all of us due to our mental limitations and conditioning. For example, we are all commanded to grow . . . to “add to our faith” the following: Virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and love (2 Pet. 1:5-7). The full-grown Christian in all of these areas would be perfect . . . 100% . Are any of us perfect i.e. 100% ? Rather, we are somewhere between zero and 100 percent in each of them depending on our own abilities and/or time-growth. But if I (and here are some of the human effort conditions) “press” (Phil. 3:14) and I “buffet” (1 Cor. 9:27) and we “apply all diligence” (2 Pet. 1:5) then God treats me with acceptability. I am, like Abraham, walking by faith and thus I am, like he was, continually “justified.” As long as, during my total ability-growing time (my lifetime) I have the attitude of David and plead to God to “cleanse thou me from secret faults” (Ps. 19:12). I am “righteous.” My attitude is that I am still an “unprofitable servant” w1file striving to do “all those things which are commanded” (Lk. 17:10). Even after having “done that which was our duty to do” we need to recognize that we fall short and, like David, scripturally ‘plead the blood’ (Ps. 19:12; 1 Jn. 1:7). In all of this there is no “boasting” (Eph. 2:9) for we are His workmanship” (Eph. 2:10) and be His total plan for us applied personally and humbly accepted it is in this manner that “God . . . is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13). Surely no one will say that they do not need or want such grace benefits as above discussed. It is only by appi ying and accepting all of grace’s provisions that we may be “present(ed) . . . perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28).

9) Will False Theology And Doctrinal Error Taught AndlOr Accepted Cause A Christian (A Babe Or Otherwise) To Be Lost? Answer: Jesus said that there would be “blind leaders of the blind” and that “if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Mt. 15:14). Yes, one of the “hard sayings” of the Bible that many do not accept is the fact that a person can honestly “believe a lie” and still be “damned” (2 Thess. 2:11; Jn. 6:60; Gen. 3:4; Mt. 7:23; Lk. 11:52). Sentimentalism, emotionalism, humanism and materialism have all played their part in the positions now being advocated’to restructure the church into a non-doctrinal denomination. But it is exactly at this point where the grace-fellowship-unity advocates and adherents get into deep trouble and come into condemnation. They are setting forth a false theology and are thus on the wrong track aitogether. They will never grow into the truth because they are going into the wrong direction! It is like a Baptist reading Acts 2:38. He will not likely see the truth plainly taught in this verse, namely, that baptism is “for the remission of sins” because he has accepted the false concept and theology on the subject of salvation. He has already been taught and therefore embraced the idea that salvation is by ‘faith alone.’ It is not a matter of growth or ability here but rather of direction and aim. The Catholics have their theology that teaches them that “tradition” of the Church is as important as the teaching of the Bible and therefore they do not arrive at the truth even though some of them might read the Bible. The same is true of the Calvinists, Materialists as well as our institutional brethren of the past and present. With an institutional concept of the church in mind one is blinded to the truth.

Whatever hangups and problems there might be associated with the old restoration ideas, it still has to be the right aim and direction. It is imperative that we be headed back . . . back to the Bible and that our direction be towards the pattern . . . the New Testament pattern. Jn. 17:20-21; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:1-6; 1 Pet. 4:11; Gal. 1:6-10; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Cor. 14:37; Jude 3; Rev. 22:18-19 etc.

10) Are Sins Of Ignorance Ignored Or Overlooked By God Under Grace? Answer: Read answer again to No. 8 above. Life has been given to us as a time to prepare for eternity (2 Cor. 5:10-11; Eccl. 12:12). It demands constant change from wrong to right and God’s grace is the guiding light (2 Cor. 4:3-4; Jn. 3:19-21; 8:12). Ignorance due to a failure to know and to grow in God’s will for us is no excuse for sin and in fact is sin itself. The following verses ought to show conclusively that ignorance is not a bliss but rather a curse: Lk. 12:47-48; Acts 3:17; Acts 17:30; Mt. 15:14; Lk. 11:52; Eph. 4:17-19; Rom. 10:1-3. God’s word has been given to “enlighten” men in their sinful ignorance. Again, whatever implications this might have it is not ours to speculate and to announce clemency to the ignorant. Rather, we are to accept what God has said knowing that this is the only way we can know when we are in harmony with His will. So, let us be making the most of (our) time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:16).

Truth Magazine XX: 31, pp. 490-492
August 5, 1976