Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

When we talk about the organization of the church we need to know just what it is that we are talking about. We are not talking about the universal church, for it has no organization. The local church as such is a complete organization within itself. It organizes itself under the head, which is Christ, and is not dependent upon any man, machinery or organization outside of itself to handle its affairs. The Bible teaches that the local church is independently organized (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5), independently directed (Acts 20:28) independently charged (Eph. 4:12) and independent in function (Acts 11:27-30). In this arrangement it is completely self-governing and autonomous. The only head it knows is Christ. The only headquarters it will recognize is heaven. The only instructions it will accept are those from the heaven inspired book, the Bible.

The Apostle Paul prophesied that the first major apostasy would begin within the organization of the church. He said, speaking to the Ephesian elders, “also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). The same type of instruction is given in 2 Thess. 2:2-4. The apostasy predicted in these passages found their fulfillment when Boniface the Third was crowned first pope in Rome in 606 A.D.

Most apostasies in the church have begun within the organizational level. The ‘missionary society of the last century divided churches across the land.- This apostasy was the result of an effort to remodel the organization of the church from a local arrangement to that of a universal structure. Writing in the Millennial Harbinger in 1831, Alexander Campbell said, “a church can do what an individual disciple cannot, and so can a district of churches do what a single congregation cannot” (italics mine, jt). Writing in the same publication in 1866, W. K. Pendleton said, “we fear that the large conception of the church universal is too little realized by many Christians of the present day. The idea of the church and of the responsibilities and work of the church circle too much within the limits of the local congregation.” One can see a present day application of the principle in William Banowsky’s book, The Mirror of A Movement, p. 273, 313. The problem of apostasy within the organizational structure of the church still exists. It poses as great a problem today as it presented in days gone by.

Scriptural Church Organization

Scriptural church organization begins with the components of the local church. It is illustrated in Phil. 1:1 – “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (emphasis mine, jt). It is the will of God that each congregation of God’s people have a plurality of bishops or elders overseeing them. “And when they had ordained them elders In every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord . (Acts 14:23). Titus 1:5 says, “for this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders In every city, as I had appointed thee.” In addition of the fact that there are to be elders in every church, there are to be deacons who serve as physical servants of the church (1 Tim. 3:8-13). Hence, the saints work and worship with their elders and deacons.

Someone has suggested four possibilities or categories into which churches might fall. Every church falls into one of these categories with reference to local organization.

(1) Scripturally Organized – This takes place when a plurality of men meet the scriptural qualifications for the respective offices and are duly appointed.

(2) Unscripturally Organized – When men who are not scripturally qualified are supposedly put into the respective offices they become manmade officers.

(3) Scripturally Unorganized – This is a congregation that have no men scripturally qualified for the respective offices.

(4) Unscripturally Unorganized – When a plurality of men are qualified for the respective offices but for some reason are not appointed.

Each local organization is autonomous in nature. Webster’s dictionary defines “autonomy” as “independent in government; self-governing; without outside control.” It comes from two words: “auto” meaning self and “nomos” meaning law. Hence the right of self law. Therefore the word means self-law, self-rule or self-governing. This means that each congregation is to govern itself. Look at this from the standpoint of the direct statements limiting the authority of the elders to the flock over which they have been made overseers: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof . . .” (1 Pet. 5:2). Again, “take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers . . .” (Acts 20:28). The local organization with its bishops constitutes the largest unit of organization known to the New Testament. As such it is independent and self-governing. In the absence of authority for any other form of local government, we conclude that the law of exclusion forbids any other form of government. As such the local church possesses equality with other local churches (2 Cor. 8:14) and sufficiency in organization to do all that God intends that it do.

Perversions of Local Church Organization

There are perversions of the local church arrangement. Any organization that is larger or smaller than the local church is a perversion. Let us list some organizations that are smaller than the local church: (1) Sunday School organizations which have their presidents and superintendents, which function independently of the church. (2) Various committees within the church that function independently of the church. (3) Bible Classes which perform works in their own name, separate from and independent of the local church. (4) Young people’s organizations are perversions when they function independent of the church. Organizations that are larger than the local church are: Synods, Conferences, Sponsoring churches, Area-wide meetings and Societies, These perversions should not be tolerated by sound thinking brethren.

Conclusion

We can preserve the distinctive church organization by insisting that each church plan its own program, oversee its own work and manage its own affairs. This is the way God arranged it and the way we must have it.

Truth Magazine XX: 31, pp. 489-490
August 5, 1976

By Karl Diestelkamp

Churches throughout the land have received a 17 x 22 inch letter-brochure from the University Avenue church of Christ, Austin, Texas, detailing an expected conflict between it and atheist Mrs. Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Mrs. O’Hair is seeking permission to “teach the Bible at the University from an atheistic point of view or to close down the Bible Chairs at the Austin campus.” This has the University Avenue brethren excited because they sponsor “the church of Christ Bible Chair.” Their letter states:

” . . . in a real sense her success will depend on you . . . The biggest obstacle standing in her way is the University requirement that a Bible Chair must be the agent for a national religious organization. This rule that now disqualifies her would technically disqualify the church of Christ Bible Chair. Because of the biblical principle of congregational autonomy, we have no national convention nor synod, being rather under the direct oversight of the elders of the University Avenue Church of Christ. The church’s Bible Chair, then, may well become the leverage Mrs. O’Hair uses to win her goal.

“To prepare for what might become her point of attack, we are appealing to every congregation of the Lord’s church to participate in the Bible Chair by contributing the funds to teach one student for one semester, which Is $32.50. With this financial participation of churches of Christ we will be able to demonstrate that the Bible Chair is a nationwide project of the Lord’s people” (all emphasis by K. D.).

There you have it, brethren! The success of an atheist depends upon us! We are supposed to feel guilty if we do not help demonstrate that this Bible Chair is a “nation-wide project” of the churches of Christ. They have the audacity to refer to “the biblical principle of congregational autonomy” in one paragraph and then in the next to try to activate the church universal under their sponsorship. Would this make University Avenue church “The Mother Church,” or Headquarters,” to the minds of those who must decide who may and may not operate Bible Chairs on the Austin campus? Do these brethren really believe that Mrs. O’Hair, as blasphemous and obnoxious as she is, is also so stupid as not see through this obvious subterfuge?

Did another alternative not occur to them? What about the possibility of admitting that they violate “the University requirement” and withdraw from the scene? Why give Mrs. O’Hair any opportunity to charge that the University Avenue church violates rules? Some need to be taught again the principles of honest behavior found in 1 Thess. 4:12; Rom. 12:17 and 2 Cor. 8:21.

Over twenty years ago, in the Harper-Tant Debate over the “sponsoring church” arrangement for the Herald of Truth, Brother Tant stated: “Herald of Truth is wrong because it provides an arrangement by which the ‘church universal’ may function through a single agency-the elders of Highland Church.” Defenders of the “sponsoring church” have been reluctant to openly admit that if one church can function partially through a sponsoring church, then all the churches in the world could do so. And, if one church can partially so function, then why not completely, and then the next step would be all of the churches in the world functioning completely under the oversight of one sponsoring eldership. Logic and common sense require that possibility-if the sponsoring church concept is valid to begin with.

Today we have this Austin church making an appeal “to every congregation of the Lord’s church.” Perhaps that phrase betrays some of their problem. That is equivalent to saying, “to every church of the Lord’s church.” It may be that they think the church universal is made tip of autonomous congregations, when, in fact, it is made up of all the saved individuals in the world (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:41,47; 1 Tim. 3:15).

These Texas brethren are not alone in their mistaken ideas about the nature of the body of Christ. In a paper titled: “Position Paper Concerning The Scriptural Authority For The Campaigns For Christ Being Conducted In The Cincinnati Area,” Oct. 21, 1975, Gaston D. Cogdell writes:

“The model church-that in Jerusalem, which was made up of perhaps 10,000 people (5,000 men alone-Acts 4:4), which it seems reasonable to suppose, was made up of many groups or congregations, even had a common treasury. (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37) . . . It would, theeefore, seem to be a necessary inference that the 10,000 or so members of the Jerusalem Chruch met in many groups . . . This would not be different from the situation in Cincinnati, or in most other places, where the Church is comprised of many congregations . . . There is only one true Chruch of Christ in the Cincinnati area . . . many congregations, but only one Chruch. This Church is charged with the solemn responsibility of preaching the Gospel of Christ . . . The Church is the Body of Christ and the various congregations tire integral parts of that universal body, and are obligated to function together as parts of that body (emphasis by K. D.).

Our brother is confused. First he “supposes,” though not giving proof, that the Jerusalem church was made up of many congregations. Then, on the basis of his supposition he concludes that a plurality of local churches had a common treasury. Neither does he understand what constitutes a “necessary inference.” Nothing necessarily infers that even 10,000 people (a man-made estimate) could not have met together in one assembly. I suggest that those interested in crowd size possibilities read McGarvey’s comment on Acts 3:11 when considering Acts 4:4.

If Gaston Cogdell’s thinking is followed to the logical conclusion we could easily have one sponsoring church in the world to oversee all of the contributed funds of all of the churches in the world. Would he deny that every church in the world could send some, or all, of its funds to the same sponsoring church? In describing the “Campaign Committee” composed of “representatives of several congregations to assist in a joint evangelistic endeavor,” this can-of-worms-argument gets even worse when he says, “The elders of the sponsoring church have sole final authority in all matters, and the decisions of the Campaign Committee are all subject to the approval of the over-seeing Eldership, but the Committee itself is not under the authority of the over-seeing Eldership, but the members of the Committee are under the authority of the Elders of the various congregations they represent” (emphasis by K. D.). When the Committee is functioning, who has the oversight? We can only conclude that all of the participating elderships must have the oversight, jointly, of the functioning committee. Here is a plan for activating the church universal-have one church assume the oversight of any, or all, work that is the equal responsibility of local churches and let all other churches become supporting churches sending locally overseen “representatives,” who have no authority, to an advisory committee that has no authority. In this Cincinnati case all of the supporting churches must, admittedly, submit to the “sole final authority” of the sponsoring eldership, in so far as decisions regarding the use of their contributed funds.

The Austin and Cincinnati brethren suffer from the same problem. They do not know what constitutes an autonomous church. They fail to understand that the universal church is composed of all of the saved in the world and has no collective work and no machinery for work and function. Their’s is a denominational concept that has no scriptural support and the words, “it seems reasonable to suppose” and “It would, therefore, seem” are not the same as “thus saith the Lord.” Will the Austin brethren give up their unauthorized project or choose to share the “Bible Chair” arrangement with an atheist? We shall see! In the mean time they will try to portray to the world that this is a “nationwide project” of the churches of Christ and as a by-product get as many contributions of $32.50 as possible from uninformed and gullible brethren. In a “P.S.” on their letter they list among the “important facts” about their Bible Chair that “It is the oldest Bible Chair in our brotherhood.” What does that prove? Being in error as a sponsoring church longer than anyone else is not a virtue. The entire letter contained not one verse of scripture in defense of this project. But, then, of course, there isn’t any – just the desire to continue, regardless!

Truth Magazine XX: 31, pp. 487-488
August 5, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

It is just as essential that we be united in our obedience as it is that we be united in faith. The same passage that teaches that there is “one faith” teaches also that there is “one baptism.” That means just what it says and it is just as true as “one God,” “one Lord,” and “one Spirit.” it would be just as right to preach and believe “many Gods” – and one as good as another, “many Christs”- and one as good as another, “many Spirits”-and one as good as another, as it is to preach .1 many faiths”-and one as good as another, or two kinds of baptism and three different ways to be baptized “according to the convenience and preference of the candidate,” as human creeds sometimes read. Unity involves obedience, or practice, just like it involves the same faith, the same rule by which to walk, the same source of authority, and the same object of worship.

God does not require one thing of one person and something else of another. He is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:tt). He does not accept one act as obedience one time and an entirely different act the next time. He has given no commandment that can be obeyed in a variety of ways. “The convenience and preference of the candidate” is not the standard of what constitutes obedience to God’s commandment to be baptized. It is the will and Word of God that must govern our obedience and He has but one standard for all.

There is One. Authority in Baptism

Bible baptism originated in Heaven’s will. It did not come by the will and wisdom of man. It is commanded to all men and is age lasting (Mark 16:15-16; Matt. 28:t8-20). Because Christ commanded on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit came and repentance and remission of sins was preached by the apostles of Christ for the first time (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 2:36-41), those who heard the word were “pricked in their hearts” (Acts 2:37), and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). They were commanded, “Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38). The name of Jesus represents the authority of Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20). Baptism in the name of Jesus involves reverence for His authority and obedience to His word. Men should be baptized because Christ commands them to be every one of them. When men are not baptized they are rebelling against the will of Christ. When men are baptized it must be an act of obedience to Christ and to please no one else.

When the Gospel was preached for the first time to the Gentiles also (Acts 10), at the house of Cornelius, they were commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). Whether Jew or Gentile the same Lord by the same authority commands baptism. This removes baptism from the realm of church authority. Man cannot be scripturally baptized by the authority of any church. It must be by the authority of Christ.

There is One Element in Baptism

The New Testament has recorded several baptisms. There was the baptism of John, the Baptist, to begin with, but it served its purpose and is no longer acceptable as obedience to God. This is evidenced by the example of Apollos in Acts 18:24-26. He spake and taught accurately the things of the Lord but he knew only the baptism of John until Aquila and Priscilla took him unto them and taught him the “way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). Anyone that still believes in and practices the baptism of John needs to be taught the way of God more perfectly. Apollos had made some disciples in Ephesus and when Paul found them and asked, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” their reply was, “Unto John’s baptism.” Paul explained that John’s baptism was not in the name or by the authority of Christ and “when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:1-5). They did not plead that they were satisfied with their baptism. When they learned that their effort to obey God did not meet the divine standard, they just did it again in the right way. While John’s baptism was in the right element -water-it was not upon the right authority.

Then in the New Testament we read of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was simply the coming of the overwhelming power of the Spirit. God had promised this to both Jew and Gentile-“all flesh” (Joel 2:32). John had taught his disciples of it (John 1:33-34; Luke 3:16). Jesus had also promised it to the apostles (John 14:1617; 14:26; 16:7-14; Acts 1:4-8). This promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost to the Jews (Acts 2:14; 2:16-20; 2:32-33). It was fulfilled to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius and is recorded in Acts 10:44. Peter testifies concerning this in Acts 11:15-17. He said the Holy Spirit “fell on them, as on us at the beginning” and connected this with the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:16). So the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled to “all flesh’. and having served its purpose it never recurred or at least its recurrence is not recorded in the Scriptures. In A. D. 63, or thereabout, Paul said in writing to the Ephesians, “one baptism.” Since the baptism of the Holy Spirit is one and baptism in water is one, if a man had both he would have one too many baptisms, for one and one still make two, and there is just “one” now. We do not need the baptism of the Holy Spirit today for the reason that it came upon the apostles – revelation – for the will of the Lord has already been revealed. Neither do we need the baptism of the Holy Spirit for the reason it came upon the Gentiles, for this incident recorded “bears them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:7-9). Surely we can believe the testimony of the divine record on this point and do not need the experience to occur all over again to convince us. These instances record the fulfillment of the promise and it has served its purpose and does not need to recur. Men are not being baptized today with both the Holy Ghost baptism and water baptism.

In Acts 10:47-48, Peter commanded those who had heard the Word and believed to be baptized in water. Jesus had commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel and baptize those who believed the preaching (Mark 16:15-16; Matt. 28:18-20). Baptism in the name of Jesus is a command and must be obeyed. The baptism commanded by Jesus was to be administered by men and men never administered the baptism of the Holy Spirit for only Jesus did that. Jesus taught that men, in order to enter the Kingdom of God, must be born of the water and the Spirit (John 3:3-5). Paul teaches that men are saved not by their own works of righteousness but by mercy from God in the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). When our bodies are washed in plain, unmixed water in the obedience of faith in baptism, our hearts are cleansed by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus (Heb. 9:13-14; 10:19-22). Baptism in water is in order to obtain a good conscience and not just the washing of the body in water to get the body clean (1 Peter 3:20-21). Hence, in baptism the agency of the Holy Spirit and water are united. “For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13).

It follows as clearly as the noonday sun follows the dawn that baptism commanded by Christ unto all men and women throughout this age is in one element, and that element is water. It is the “washing of water in accordance with the Word” (Eph. 5:26).

Truth Magazine XX: 31, pp. 486-487
August 5, 1976

By Cecil Willis

We sought, in our lesson last week to correct the erroneous definitions of the word repentance given by the majority of the religious world. We saw that repentance is not fear, regret, godly sorrow, conviction of sin, confession of sin, nor is repentance a reformation of life. From the usage of the word repentance in Scripture, we concluded that the word accurately defined, was a mental change. Repentance is a change of mind, preceded by godly sorrow and followed by a reformation of life.

It was also seen that repentance is a prerequisite to salvation, that without it, one could not be saved. Therefore this consideration lays the foundation for our lesson this week. If one cannot go to heaven without repenting of his sins, then certainly all of us must be vitally interested in learning what produces repentance.

A large portion of the religious world understands repentance to be something that one “gets,” rather than something that he does. Repentance is a command, and cannot, therefore, be, something that one gets. One cannot “get” a command. Members of religious denominations tell us that repentance and faith are both direct gifts of the Holy Spirit, and these individuals also place faith after repentance. To them, one must repent before he can believe. In our next article, we shall consider the order of faith and repentance. Faith is not a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, nor is it the product of such an operation. Paul said, “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Just as faith is not a product of a direct operation, neither is repentance. Repentance is produced by certain forces, as the Bible plainly declares. Since one has to repent in order to be saved, and he does as we pointed out, then consider now the forces leading one to repentance.

Godly Sorrow

First, “Godly sorrow leadeth thee to repentance” (2 Cor. 7:10). To many, godly sorrow is repentance, but Paul declared that godly sorrow and repentance are related as cause and effect. Godly sorrow is the cause, repentance is the effect. But in order that we might more fully understand Paul’s teaching, read more of that passage: “For though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it: though I did regret it (for I see that that epistle made you sorry, though but for a season), I now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made sorry unto repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly sort, that ye might suffer loss by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret; but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2 Cor. 7:8-10). In this passage, Paul referred to a former epistle. Of course this was the First Epistle to the Corinthians to which he referred. Those familiar with that epistle know that in it Paul reprimanded the Corinthians severely, because of the sins in the church. Paul was saying that for a while he was regretful that they had been made sorry by his epistle, but when he learned that as a product of that sorrow of theirs, caused by his epistle, repentance was produced, no longer was he regretful that they had been made sorry. On the other hand , he said, “I now rejoice.” Paul, after seeing the effect of the sorrow he had caused, was glad he had done it. Because of Paul’s firm, chiding preaching, they were made to realize that they were to be blamed in God’s sight. They understood that God was not pleased with them as they were. They were sorry toward God. Paul said that this godly sorrow worked in them repentance. When they understood that God did not approve of them, they were sorrowful toward God. This sorrow toward God, produced repentance, a change of mind about their sins. They resolved to abandon their sins. This repentance produced a reformation of their lives. Notice verse 11: “For behold, this selfsame thing, that ye were made sorry after a godly sort, what earnest care it wrought in you, yea what clearing of yourselves, yea what indignation, yea what fear, yea what longing, yea what zeal, yea what avenging! In everything ye approved yourselves to be pure in the matter.” They corrected their lives. So, their sorrow toward God caused them to repent; their repentance caused them to reform their lives. This is exactly the definition that we ascribed to the act of repenting. So “godly sorrow worketh repentance.”

The Goodness of God

Paul gave a second cause resulting in repentance in Rom. 2:4, as he said, “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” In the context of this passage, Paul was accusing the Jews of being ignorant of the goodness of God, or of his intention that His goodness was to motivate them to repent. While the blessings that God had poured out upon the Jewish nation should have made them recognize God’s sovereignty, yet it had not. The Jews had tasted the blessings of God, but had forgotten to consider from whence they had come. God’s goodness should be constantly acting upon us.

How does the goodness of God lead one to repent? In our everyday association we see the same principle illustrated. If we have a friend that is always doing something very nice for us, one who is continually giving us something that is precious to us, one who consistently makes great sacrifices in order that he might give to us, we then, become very favorable toward him. Should he ask us to do something that was right in itself, and something that was to our own advantage, certainly we would not refuse him.

God is that friend that for ages has been pouring out rich gifts upon mankind. He has given us many things that are of great value to us, namely the means by which we might be saved. He sacrificed, greatly, in order that He might give His only begotten Son, in order that we might be saved. These all are expressions of God’s goodness.

In considering the great gifts that God has made to man, the tremendous sacrifice He had to make in order to give them, the intention that God had of blessing man in giving these gifts, how can one refuse to comply with the righteous commands of God? How is it that we have been so ungrateful of all that He has done for us, that we have remained in rebellion to His commands? Some have not repented because they were like these Jews to whom Paul was speaking. They were ignorant of God’s goodness. This ignorance, was of course, a willing ignorance, for God had informed man of the things He was doing for him, but the Jews refused to hear. Paul then asked, is it because you are ignorant of God’s goodness, or is it just that you despise the goodness of God, now knowing that this goodness is to produce repentance in your heart? “The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.”

Longsuffering of God

While this next cause could be classified as an expression of God’s goodness, and therefore be grouped with the other gifts of God’s goodness, we are calling it the third force producing repentance. The longsuffering of God should produce repentance on the part of man. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). The expression of God’s goodness in His longsuffering should. cause some of its to repent. But sadly, enough, many people, rather than being moved to repent by God’s longsuffering, have been encouraged to continue in their sin. In the third chapter of 2 Peter, Peter answered those who doubted that the Lord would come again. They said, “Where is the promise of his coming? For, from the day that the Fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were, from the beginning of the creation” (2 Pet. 3:4). Peter was telling them, that time is no element with God, for He is not slack concerning His promises. He has promised to return and He will. is tarrying His return that as many as will may repent, for the Lord does not want any to perish, but it is His will that all should come to repentance.

Today, some are making the same mistake that these ancients made. Since the Lord has waited so long in coming, they have forgotten that He is coming, or at least their lives indicate that they have. They make no attempt to prepare themselves for the time of His coming. But the longsuffering of God should lead men to repent, for He is tarrying His coming that as many as will might prepare themselves for His return.

A fourth cause producing repentance is fear of the judgment. Many preachers of today try to let this be the only means of producing repentance, and they spend all their time in relating death-bed stories to try to scare people into repentance. The extreme of this is the practice of others who try completely to reason with one to repentance. Between these two extremes should be the position of the gospel preacher.

The fear of judgment should have a very definite part in causing men to repent. Our Lord told those gathered about Him, that unless they repented they would perish just as those whose blood Pilate had mingled with the sacrifices. Should they fail to repent, Christ said that they would also be destroyed as were those on whom the tower at Siloam fell. With Christ it was a matter of repenting, or suffering eternal punishment for failing to do so. He said, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:5).

Paul also used the element of fear of the judgment, as he told the group in Athens about God. He said, “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:30,31). According to Paul, why should these men repent? It was because God had appointed a day in which he would judge the world in righteousness, and he hath given assurance that such a judgment will come in that He raised Christ from the dead, If God is going to judge the world in righteousness, surely there will be a condemnation of those who have done unrighteousness, or there would be no judgment in any sense of the word. A judgment involves the rewarding of the righteous and a punishment of the wicked. Therefore those who have not repented have very good reasons for fearing the judgment, for God will condemn them. The certainty of the judgment, and therefore their punishment, should lead them to a correction of their life.

If it were possible for one to picture in words the true horrors of hell, and a fair estimation of eternity, then one with good judgment, certainly would not continue to rebel at God’s commandments. Christ pictures hell in these words: “and if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out; it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For everyone shall be salted with fire” (Mk. 9:47-49). Seeing the terribleness of hell, and the certainty of our going there if we fail to repent, then we should be moved to repentance.

Salvation

Not only should one be moved to repentance in order to avert hell, but a fifth power producing repentance, should be the intense desire that all should have to be saved eternally. The design of repentance is to receive the remission of sins. Peter told the Jews on Pentecost to “repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38). They were to repent and be baptized in order that they might be saved. Both of these commands were in order to obtain salvation, and without either of them, salvation is impossible. In Acts 3:19, Peter said, “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” We are to repent that our sins may be blotted out. This means that they are taken away. So one should repent because he wants to be saved.

Conclusion

In summary, the forces producing repentance to which we have invited your attention are first, godly sorrow, secondly, the goodness of God, thirdly, the longsuffering of God; fourth, the fear of punishment; fifth, the desire to receive the remission of sins.

It is our sincere prayer that some or all of these forces will make you determine to quit sin, and resolve to obey the commandments of the Lord. Believe, repent, and be baptized in order that you might be saved.

Truth Magazine XX: 31, pp. 483-485
August 5, 1976