Truth Magazine

By Bill Simmons

Fellowship

We, all know how easy it is to say love, and how difficult, but rewarding, it is to practice it (Matt. 5:44; 23:3; Acts 20:35; Jas. 2; 1 Pet. 1:22). We can sympathize with all who try to maintain the “unity of the spirit in the bond of Peace” (Eph. 4:1-16; 1 Cor. 1:10; Jno. 17:21; Prov. 6:19). We have all experienced wishy-washy compromise on one extreme (Jude 16) and selfish pride on the other (3 John 9,10). Nevertheless, when we try to the best of our ability and opportunity (Matt. 25:14-30; 1 Pet. 4:11) to say and do according to God’s Will (Col. 3:17), we shall have the kind of unity God wants from us. This unity will make our lights brighter (Matt. 5:13-16) for Truth seekers and keep the church as near the “pattern” (Tit. 1:7) as possible.

We will have differences; even difference we believe will affect soul salvation. These do not always have to cause ungodly division, as opposed to the kind Christ caused (Jno. 7:43). A Christian could confide doubts about our resurrection, but “saying” it in the manner of Hymenaeus and Philetus would ultimately “overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:17,18). Most of us agree it is easier to force division over matters of congregational involvement since we are “joined” to what the congregation to which we belong does (Acts 9:26). Disgraceful schism (1 Cor. 12:25) has occurred over individual responsibilities, from judgmental matters such as smoking, to the fundamental truth of the deity of Christ.

There are times we must “withdraw” (1 Tim. 6:3-5). The cause of ungodly division is on the “side” of those who taught “otherwise;” who “abide not in the doctrine of Christ;” who “cause divisions and offences;” who “leaven” others with their “commonly reported” sins; and any who “bid Godspeed” to such (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Thess. 3:6-16; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Jno. 9-11). Man’s withdrawal of “fellowship” (sharing; joint participation; communion; and togetherness) is not nearly of the magnitude of that of God’s. However, for individuals and congregations (churches do have a “sharing” with each other, but not to the extent of individual “fellowship” (Acts 14:26-28; Rom. 16:16; 2 Cor. 8:1-4) to no longer “recommend” and to “mark” another as divisive and sin-causing, should be considered a serious consequence by those commanded to “love one another with a pure heart fervently.”

Division: A Case in Point

In May of 1973, the church in Polson, Montana divided over a “salvation-by-faith-only” heresy. Gary Burlington, one of the preachers, gave one of his reasons for helping start a new church; “I was told I could not preach my beliefs.” Some of these beliefs were: “man is so totally depraved, he cannot do anything to save himself;” “we are saved by faith alone;” “we are saved only by grace;” “Paul places faith and works completely opposite;” “faith is not a work, Christ was being sarcastic in John 6:29;” “baptism cannot save us;” “It is impossible to keep any law;” and “righteousness of any law is wrong.” In contrast, see Matt. 7:21; Acts 2:37-41; 10:34; 17:31; 22:16; Rom. 3:27; 8:2; 10:1,3; 1 Cor. 9′.21; 2 Cor. 5; 7:1; 13:11; Jas. chs. 1 and 2; 1 Pet. 3:21; 4:11; 1 Jno. 3:4,5).

Keith Smothers, the then full-time preacher at Polson, agreed with most of the false teaching, but said his reason for helping start another church was the ungodliness of the original congregation (sin is still being corrected when it emerges). Dan Copeland, who also helped preach, after several weeks joined the apostate church.

They found comfort in Ed Fudges’ Grace of God booklet. While much taught therein is ambiguous, some definite false doctrine is taught (e.g.: “no man can be saved by keeping the rules” – P. 15; and “no one can ever be saved by law” – p. 18). Scripture teaches we are saved by keeping God’s rules and the “law of liberty”, (Jno. 8:51; 14:21; Rom. 8.2; Jas. 1:21-29; 2:10-13; 1 Pet. 1:22-25; 1 Jno. 3:24; Rev. 22:7).

Other Teachings Not “Pushed”

It was argued 2 Jno. 9-11 restricted only those who said Christ was not God. However, the context shows Christ’s commandments and doctrine of Christ are involved. It was argued we could join churches who recommended those causing division over “institutionalism,” if such churches were not currently forcing any members out over it. These teachings, though; were hardly a factor in the division.

After the division, a wresting of Romans 4 and 1 John 1 did surface. They taught, in varying degree, “the blood of Christ will >cleanse’ some sins (they specified non-rebellious and non-persisting sins) without having to >confess’ or ‘repent and pray.=” In contrast, see Acts 8,22; 1 Jno. 1:9; Jas. 2:8-14; 1:13-25; 2 Pet. 3:9; Matt. 25:14-30; Rom. 8:26; 6:23). Our “fruits of darkness” cost us the privilege of “walking in the light” of God’s fellowship (Eph. 5:8-11; Jas. 1:17; 1 Jno. 1-2:3. Our repentant confession to God is the first step back into walking “in the light,” wherein Christ’s blood cleanses us.

Some Reasons For The Division

While basically gentle and loving saints, their fruits (Matt. 7:15-29) show other attributes now: lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6); too little love (I Pet. 1:22); self-righteousness (Rom. 10:1-4); evil speaking (Jas. 4:11); stubbornness (1 Sam. 15:23); guile (1 Pet. 2:1); wisdom of the “wise” (1 Cor. 1:17-31); not abiding in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jno. 9) and causing division (Rom. 16:17).

The roots for such a tree are many. It is true many Christians act like they are “owed” a home in Heaven just because they have been baptized and are in Christ’s church, without faith-full-ness (Rev. 2:10). Similarly, there were Jews who felt the “reward” was reckoned a “debt” owed them because they were circumcised and Jews, and they too neglected faith (Rom. 3:27-4:5; Hab. 2:4; Jno. 4:24). However, when our “fruits” demonstrate faith “toward God” (Heb. 6:1) and thankfulness for God’s grace (which is not some mystical, inexplicableness, but simply means favor, undeserved, when from God to man), we should not be repeatedly accused of trying to “merit” salvation. Even God’s works for us today (opposed to works of the law of Moses; of the flesh; and man’s own (Gal. 2:16; 5:19-26; Tit. 3:5), while essential in working out our soul salvation (Phil. 2:12; Acts 10:34; Rom. 3:27; 8:2; Jas. 2; 1 Pet. 3:21), still find us dependent on God (Lk. 17:10; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Tim. 1:12).

Need For Assurance

They have “gone onward” in seeking more assurance God is with them. They say, “we can do nothing to save ourselves and therefore only grace can save us.” If this were true, we could be relieved of all concern about our own erring potential and just “throw ourselves on the cross” of our unerring God. God has the power to save us by His Greatness alone, but He has not chosen to do so (Jno. 3:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rev. 2:10).

We do find abundant assurance in that God “is not willing that any should perish” (Heb: 11:6; Matt:. 7:7-14; 11:28-36; 18:12-14; Mk. 16:16; Rom. 8:35-39; 10:10; ;1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Jno. 1; Ps. 1; 23; 84:11,12). There is no good reason to worry about diligent seekers of God dying without finding Him, meeting His conditions, whether an “alien” sinner or wandering sheep, whether on a desert or in a car speeding through a stop sign, whether in Africa or the darkest of America! We must trust God’s promises glad obey Him!

Humility?

While assigning others a “haughty spirit” through “trusting in works,” they cloak themselves with a mantle of super-humility (?). They inform us, “we cannot do anything to save ourselves, we put all our trust in God’s grace.” In such a context, only a “conceited Pharisee” would dare disagree, or so they would have us believe (see Jno. 6:27-32; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22; Acts 2:40).

Rebellion Against Authority

They stress “no law or ‘system’ can affect our’ soul salvation” (see Jas. 1:21,25; 2:10-12; Rom. 8:2). Such independence breeds spiritual anarchy, with the usual chaos and self-destructive contradiction. While it is true there are still “parties” in Christ’s church (1 Cor. 1), zeal in opposing “party-line” should not sweep us “beyond” Christ’s “party line” (2 Jno. 9), no matter how orthodox that makes us.

Mystery (?) Of Grace

A yielding to the mysterious reveals itself in their use of the word grace. Actually, God’s favor to man is more readily comprehended than His Supreme Greatness (Psalms 103 and 139; Jno. 1:1-5; Rom. 1:20), without which His favor would be no more significant than man’s grace! The proclamation, “we are saved only by grace, but not by grace only” is supposed to reflect deep faith and wisdom, approaching the mystical, when it is really desperate contradiction.

Illustrating confusion over a related phrase, “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4), were statements from two “sound” (?) preachers who recently visited me. While admitting they had sinned, both declared they “never had fallen from grace.” Even after discussing degrees of “falling,” sometimes momentary (Acts 8:18-23), sometimes continual (Heb. 10:26-31), sometimes “unto death” (1 Jno. 5:16; Heb. 6:6), they persisted. Can they really believe God has looked in favor upon them while in the very act of transgressing His Will (see Jas. 1:12-18; 2:10)? It is true, when we pray in repentance to God, we cannot have total “recall” or absolute knowledge of all that is against God’s Will. We should repent of all sins nevertheless, just as we did when we first obeyed the Gospel (Acts 2:38; 8:18-24; 2 Cor. 7:10; Rom. 8:26,27; Lev. 5:17-19). God knows if our hearts offer Agodly sorrow” or “sorrow of the world.”

Why Now?

The subjects of faith, grace, law, works, righteousness and fellowship have been disagreed among faithful Christians before, without causing division. The “lawless” among us now are going to the extreme similar to that of Hymenaeus and Philetus, to the overthrowing of the faith. Deep convictions of faithful and learned saints are disdained as “party-line.” Stubbornness is mistaken for courage: “Princes of this world” (1 Cor. 2:6) are too often lauded and brethren in Christ too often slandered. There is more willingness to accommodate denominational “Calvinists” on the “plain of Ono” (Neh. 6:2) than to keep “the unity of the Spirit” with blood-bought brothers and sisters. Pathetic cries, “we are misrepresented,” ring hollow when they consistently weave ambiguities. Yes, they are confused, and should admit it, rather than assigning to others bigotry ndd ignorance for not “understanding them.”

Though the siren song, “God does it all,” will always attract many (Matt. 7:13,14), God is still “the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey Him” (Heb. 5:9). We will stand before God and be saved or damned depending on God’s undeserved favor and our works, deeds and fruits done in our body (Jno. 5:29; 15:1-6; Rom. 2:6-11; 6:17-23; 10-16; 14,11,12; 2 Cor. 5-1-11.) We can expect to be saved eternally because God is (Ex. 3:14; Rom. 9:1421), God will save us (Jno. 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:22-25; Jno. 14:1-4); and we will save ourselves (Jno. 11:25; Acts 2:37-40; Phil. 2:12). God will not alone save us. We cannot, alone, save ourselves. Meanwhile, we must all continue to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 10-11
September 26, 1974

By Gene Tope

“One of life’s greatest privileges has been my friendship with Steve and Cora Kearney. This fine couple have been “my joy” from the time of their conversion. Now they have decided upon a difficult task: to return back to Ireland to live, work, and teach. They will not be going as strangers, but will be returning home-to parents, loved ones and neighbours. Steve Kearney is not a novice as a gospel preacher. For seven years he has laboured with me in the gospel: studying, preaching and teaching. He has unusual ability in the pulpit and a great zeal for the salvation of lost souls. His life matches what he teaches. History has shown Ireland to be a difficult field. The Kearneys know what it is all about. They are to be commended for their dedication, sacrifice and zeal. I commend Steve’s article to you. Read it. It will do you good.-Gene Tope”

“Dear Brethren,

Ireland is much in the news today, unfortunately though, for the most part it is bad news. I suppose, the majority of Irish Catholics, would class our returning home to preach the gospel, in the same category. But be that as it may, it is for us the fulfilment of a long cherished hope. In 3 short months we will leave the shores of South Africa to bring the gospel to our own people.

“Seven years ago I was converted to Christ here in Pretoria. Brother Wayne Sullivan was working with the Church at the time. A few months after my baptism, my wife obeyed the gospel. Since renouncing Catholicism I have earnestly studied the scriptures, preaching whenever I got the opportunity. All my formal training and instruction can be accredited to Brother Gene Tope, who over a period of six years has arranged special classes for preacher training, and has given me much practical guidance in and out of the pulpit. May the brethren who have continued to support such men be richly blessed! The highlight of my career, from an experience stand point, was our 3 years of work with the Krugersdorp congregation. The rugged nature of the work here, with all its disappointments and discouragements has, I feel sure, prepared me for the long, arduous task ahead in Ireland.

“I plan, if the Lord wills, to support myself in the work. I am a Display Artist and have been employed all the time I have preached regularly. I realise the shortcomings of this arrangement. The extra hours, which under normal circumstances would be given to one’s family, are devoted to the Lord. This burden my wife has to bear, and I appreciate her willingness and unselfishness. The lack of time for study, personal work, prayer, et. al. – all of this is offset by the advantage which I will have with the common people as a window dresser rather than a preacher. Knowing the barriers raised against all, outside of the Catholic faith (especially a preacher), this will help me meet the people on an equal footing and subdue this prejudice.

“Before leaving in December we will take a round trip to Cape Town, where we get the boat. First to Durban to spend a week with Brother Jim Lovell and his family. Then to Port Elizabeth to visit Brother Ron Chaffin and his family. When we arrive in England we hope to spend a week with the brethren there. Incidentally, these will be our closest neighbours. Then on to Dublin in Southern Ireland about the 17th of January, 1975. We desire to make Ireland our life-time work. If you are interested in the Irish work, I would be glad to hear from you.

Yours In Christ,

Stephen Kearney”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 9
September 26, 1974

By Victorio R. Tibayan

It is with great exuberance that I write this short article to express the overwhelming gratitude in the Lord of the Filipino saints and churches for the yearly preaching and teaching visits made by our faithful American preachers, to the Philippines. These trips across borders attest to. the magnitude of their zeal for the glory of God and the expansion of the borders of His kingdom. Under a most exacting and perverse condition, they freely gave themselves to share with us their wonderful knowledge of the word of God; meanwhile, adorning the doctrine of Christ through their Christian deportment among us. Our appreciation for these things becomes exceedingly great as we consider that they went through their spiritual mission, having left behind other responsibilities, constrained by their love for the souls of men wherever they may be.

Each time a pair or a group came to visit with us, reports about their accomplishments and the situation obtaining here were promptly published. The brethren are encouraged and God is blessed. Faithful churches and dedicated Christians there with whom we have fellowship and who shared of their means to send these worthy preachers of the gospel, even at enormous sacrifices, are fully encouraged to do more good for the sake of Christ. In this context, I would like to express to each of them (to whom I am not in a position now to write in particular) the heartfelt thanks of the Filipino Christians in the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

As a reminder, the following were those who came to the Philippines for the above-mentioned purposes since 1970:

1970-Roy E. Cogdill and Cecil Willis

1971-Connie W. Adams and J.T. Smith

1972-Dudley Ross Spears and James P. Needham

1973-Wallace H. Little, Frank D. Butler and Jady Copeland

1974-Earl E. Robertson and Larry Ray Hafley

To each of these good people, this article is made to show our deep appreciation for all the good things they did for us. Not only were we edified and sinners converted to Christ but their efforts also brought us nearer and dearer to the hearts of the American faithful saints, which paved the way for more closer contacts and fellowship among us, according to the pattern set by God. Witnesses to these are the numerous and spontaneous succors afforded to us during times of distresses and emergencies (Acts 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25, 26; 2 Cor. 8,9). But best of all, is the enthusiastic desire created in the hearts of Christians there to have scriptural fellowship with’ us in the propagation and defense of “the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Phil. 1:5; 4:15, 16: Jude 3).

Rest assured that these communications of love for us, performed in self-sacrifices, are not in vain. Before the starting visit of brethren Cogdill and Willis, there were only a handful of churches here, at least on Luzon. There were three or four struggling preachers here in the Manila Area and who had only a vague idea of the first principles concerning the unchangeable pattern of God in the work of the church and the duties of individual Christians. Thanks be to them and through our correspondence with many of the saints there, plus the numerous books and reading materials . . . we were made firmer to the extent that we are able to wield the “sword of the spirit” against foes and erring brethren alike with grace and power. Churches have been established in many regions and we are able to edify them more in the Lord.

But as we are guided towards the heavenly horizon, we, more than ever, still need (as the church in Antioch and other primitive churches needed) similar visits from worthy and capable preachers from there. Since early last year, brethren here have corresponded with a number of American gospel preachers for the purpose of arriving at a consensus as to who may be available for the coming years and who we thought would best serve the cause of Christ here in the Philippines. At the same time, we have made provisions and scrupulous plans for these. And the following schedule of visits have come to the fore:

1975-Cecil Willis and Connie W. Adams

1976-Frank D. Butler, Ron Mosby and Bill Battles

1977-Wallace H. Little, Jady Copeland and Paul J. Casebolt

1978-Earl E. Robertson and Larry Ray Hafley

Most of them have been assured, even now, of support by churches and individuals for this schedule of visits to the Philippines. At least, one of them was assured by one congregation of sound believers for all his expenses, but, he wrote that AI may not allow them to furnish all of it, as others may desire to communicate with me also, but it is good to know that brethren are so willing.” May I add to this thought that surely the Father is exalted to see His children walking hand-in-hand according to His divine will.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 8
September 26, 1974

By Cecil Willis

We often hear one advised, in religious matters, just to follow his conscience and he will be all right. Since so much emphasis is placed upon the conscience by our contemporaries, and since there is quite a lot in the Bible about the conscience, a discussion of what the Bible says about the conscience seems appropriate.

As we begin this article, we first need to understand what we mean by conscience. We may, for the purpose of this lesson, think of the human mind as being compartmentalized. One part of the mind chooses a standard by which every action of one is to be governed. All of us have a standard by which we think one ought to be governed. This standard is not always correct, but we have a standard. The conscience is that part of the mind which either approves or disapproves one’s actions, on the basis of their being either in or out of harmony with the standard one has chosen, by which every action of one is to be governed. All of us have a whether or not he has acted as the standard he has chosen to guide him tells him to. The conscience is not a standard itself. It simply tells one whether he has violated his standard of action or not. In the Bible, several different kinds of consciences are mentioned. The outline of our article will consist of a review of these different kinds of consciences that one may have.

A Good Conscience

First of all, the Bible speaks of a good conscience. In Acts 23:1, we read: “‘And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day.” One may have a conscience like Paul had – a good one. The apostle Peter also mentions a good conscience and says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). So one may have a good conscience. But what does it mean to have a good conscience?

It simply means for one to have conducted himself in accordance with the standard he has chosen. It does not say that the standard is correct. It just says that the standard has not been broken. A good conscience is an unviolated conscience. However, most people today think it would be impossible for one with a good conscience to be lost. But even though one might do what he thinks is right, if he is wrong as to what he thinks he ought: to do, his actions may be wrong, and consequently, one with a good conscience may be lost. Paul is a perfect example of this. Before the council, he could say “I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day” (Acts 23:1). What did Paul mean? Does he mean that he had always done rightly? Not at all. It simply meant he had followed his conscience. In Acts 26:9, he tells us what his standard told him to do. He says “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Paul felt that Christ was an imposter, that He was not the Son of God as He claimed. So he fought against the Lord with all his might. He held the coat of those who stoned Stephen; entered into every house, and dragging men and women, committed them to prison; when they came to be put to death, he gave his word against them; at the time when he met the Lord, he was then on his way to Damascus that he might bind and punish all that he found there following Christ. Paul did not violate his conscience. That is why he could say he had a good conscience. But a good conscience was not all that Paul needed. He had been taught wrong. He had rejected Christ when he should have accepted him. Even though Paul had a “good conscience,” he says he was yet “chief of sinners.” In 1 Tim. 1:15, he says “Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” So having a good conscience does not guarantee that one is right. Paul as a chief of sinners, even though he had a good conscience, an unviolated one, could have died as a chief sinner and gone to hell.

If all one has to do is follow his conscience, then truth is a variable. It is not uniform. This leads to every person becoming a standard of truth. If this be true, then whether you are following the truth or a lie matters not. It is only important that you follow it carefully. But we do not believe this. The atheist might conscientiously believe there is no God. If he follows the dictates of his conscience, God would be obligated to save him in his unbelief, if all one has to do to be saved is follow one’s conscience. If one’s conscience should tell him to worship many gods instead of Jehovah alone, this theory would say he could be saved in so doing, while the Bible denies that he can. If an unviolated conscience will save one, then the Mohammedan who follows the Koran, trusts in Mohammad, worships Allah, and prays toward Mecca would be saved, for he has a “good conscience” in so doing. The Hindu is governed by the Vedas, worships Brahama, and many other gods, offers human sacrifices, but in so doing he has a good conscience, and if this is all that is necessary, his salvation is guaranteed. If a “good conscience” alone would save, then one could follow the Old Testament, deny that Christ is the son of God, offer animal sacrifices with a good conscience and be saved. I suppose even the murderers of Christ were doing what they thought they should do, for afterward some of them repented in obedience to the gospel. But’ if all one has to do to be: saved is have a good conscience, then these murderers would have nothing to repent of, for they had done precisely what they thought they ought to do. All a good conscience means is that one has lived within the bounds of one’s chosen standard. It does not guarantee that the standard chosen is the correct one.

A Weak Conscience

One may have another kind of conscience, a weak conscience. A weak conscience is one that does not speak out loudly and discriminately for it has not been properly taught. Paul says, “For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to an idol’?” (1 Cor. 8:10). This man who is described by Paul as “weak” was one who did not know enough to decide properly between right and wrong. The other person, we might say, he who was strong, was one whom Paul described as one “who hast knowledge.” This question discussed in 1 Cor. 8 and 10 was whether a Christian ought to eat meat that had been used in a sacrificial service to an idol. Paul said that those who had knowledge to know that the idol was nothing but a piece of stone or wood, could eat the meat, for the meat had not been defiled. But there were some who could not differentiate between eating of the meat and worshiping the idol. So they could not eat the meat. They were described as “weak.” Their conscience had not been taught adequately. There are many today who cannot clearly distinguish between right and wrong, because they have not been taught properly. Their conscience is weak.

A Defiled Conscience

Paul speaks of certain people whose conscience was defiled. He says “To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled” (Titus 1:15). Since these people had a defiled conscience, it is likewise possible that we might have a defiled conscience. What kind of conscience is one that is defiled? Defiled means contaminated. One with a defiled conscience is one who is so polluted that he cannot ascertain good from evil, because his standard is corrupt. Paul is a perfect example of this. He could, not recognize right from wrong, because his chosen norm was incorrect. Denominationalists are unable to determine right from wrong, because they are committed to a false premise. They depend on their feelings to guide them in the right way. One will say he knows he is right because he just feels deep inside of him that he is. But one may feel that he is right in a certain matter, when actually he is in error. Remember Paul did just this. Many consciences are unviolated, and yet defiled, and therefore the person is in error.

A Seared Conscience

There are others who are in such a condition that it led Paul to speak of their conscience as being seared. He speaks of them in 1 Tim. 4:1, 2. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” To sear something means to make it insensitive. In the West, cattle are branded with a hot iron. This branding removes the sensitivity from the seared portion of skin. There are some consciences that have been seared.

The way a conscience becomes seared is by it repeatedly being run over. When one does something that the conscience, drawing from the dictates of the chosen authority, forbids, it cries out to the offender. To illustrate how one’s conscience may become seared, let us speak of this instance. Suppose one has been taught from his youth, from the Scriptures, that it is his duty to worship God on the Lord’s Day. When he fails to do this, his conscience cries out, reprimanding him. One time he misses, and he is pricked in his heart by his offended conscience. But again and again he violates that which he knows to be right. Again and again he tramples under foot his conscience, until finally he can miss services with no feeling of having done evil at all. His conscience no longer cries out against his unrighteousness.He has so frequently walked over his protesting conscience until it cries out no longer. It is no longer sensitive to his transgression. This is what is meant by a seared conscience.The most precious and valuable restraining influence that a man has is his conscience, and there is but little hope for a man when his conscience no longer pricks him when he does evil. If he has no conscience to cry out against his unrighteousness, he has nothing to condemn him in anything that he does.

An Evil Conscience

Paul speaks of another kind of conscience, too. He says, “let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). These people had their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience. What kind of conscience is an evil conscience? It is one that has not yet been seared, but that has been violated and cries out because of one’s guilt. This is a healthy sign. It notifies a man that he has not done what he should do. It tells him that he has transgressed the law fat he has chosen for himself. It should make a man want to correct his waywardness. When a person has an evil conscience, and when he is sincere, he is then ready to repent of his snis, and make amends for them. There are many, I am sure, who do not have good consciences. There are many that know how to act better than they have.

A person cannot have a good conscience so long as there is a single commandment of which he is aware that he has not obeyed. One cannot have a good conscience in the sight of God if God said believe, and if he has not done it. One’s conscience must be evil (violated) if God said repent and if he has not done so. Knowing that God said for one to confess his faith with his mouth, he who has not done so must have an evil conscience. Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Peter said “which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). One who has not been baptized cannot have a good conscience toward God. One’s conscience must be evil who has not been baptized, for God commands it.

If conscience is not a safe guide in matters of religion, what is? One must choose the word of God to be his standard, and be guided by it alone. As soon as one learns that God requires something of him, without hesitation he should comply with God’s command. Then one can always have a good conscience toward God, a conscience that has chosen the right guide or standard, and has faithfully kept it.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:46, p. 3-5
September 26, 1974