Paul's Writings Versus Jesus' Words

Many years ago as a young man, I heard it said by a young lady of my own age that the apostle Paul just had a thing against women, with the idea being that what he wrote on the subject of women had no authority but was merely the expression of personal prejudice on his part. That young lady many years later became a preacher within her denominational body, contrary to Paul's teaching on the subject in 1 Tim. 2:12.

Over the course of the many years that have transpired since that time, I have heard the same or similar comments regarding things Paul wrote. It seems many believe he lacked the authority of Christ in the words he spoke or wrote. That is the subject I wish to pursue in this article. I add that the reality is that if what Paul wrote is not authoritative, then we cannot stop there but have to go right down the line and ask about what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter, and Jude wrote.

The truth of the matter is every single word of the New Testament, excepting only those words added by translators for clarification (usually marked by being printed in italics in the KJ, NKJV, and NAS translations), came directly from God the Father, including the words of Jesus himself. In John 1:1 Jesus is called "the Word" (NKJV), and he is recorded as saying, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak." (John 12:48–50 NKJV) He says again, "The word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." (John 14:24 NKJV) One could add to these references, but the point has been made.

Before Jesus ascended back to heaven, he promised to send the Holy Spirit to his apostles. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:26 NKJV) "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper (the Holy Spirit--DS) … even the Spirit of truth." (John 14:16–17 NKJV) "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, … He will testify of Me." (John 15:26 NKJV) Now here is where one needs to pay special attention. Did the Holy Spirit speak freelance style? Listen carefully.

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13–15 NKJV) The apostles were commanded by Jesus to stay in Jerusalem until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4–5 NKJV). That day came on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1–4.

The important thing to see thus far is the chain of command. Even though God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one, all being equally God, they have an order in which they, of their own accord, have chosen to work. Jesus, "being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant." (Philippians 2:6–7 NKJV) Jesus thus submitted himself to God the Father and spoke only the Father's words. When the Holy Spirit came, after Jesus returned to heaven, he did not originate truth, for he did not speak on his own authority but spoke what he heard. He glorified Jesus by taking what was from Jesus and declaring it to them.

Thus, when an apostle spoke by means of the Holy Spirit, he spoke not out of himself but rather spoke the very words of God. Peter speaks of "those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven." (1 Peter 1:12 NKJV) On the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, Peter himself spoke just such a gospel sermon after the Holy Spirit fell on him and the other apostles. Paul says, "No one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (1 Cor. 2:11–13 NKJV)

If Paul was not an inspired writer (as well as a gospel preacher), then Peter was in error, for he said of Paul's writings that some twisted them "to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15 NKJV) Not only does Peter compare Paul's writings with the rest of the Scriptures, but he also says his writings can be twisted to one's destruction. That would be a little hard to do if they were uninspired writings, would it not? If you recall, Ananias was sent to Paul at his conversion, with one reason being that Paul might be "filled with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 9:17 NKJV)

Sometimes people latch on to a few statements made by Paul in 1 Cor. 7 and read into them more than they should, in that they feel Paul is there giving uninspired advice, or giving only his own judgment or opinion apart from any direction of the Spirit. For example, Paul says in verse 12, "I, not the Lord, say," (NKJV) and then in verse 25 he says, "I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy." (1 Cor. 7:25 NKJV) Well, is Paul trustworthy or not? He closes this very chapter with these words: "According to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 7:40 NKJV) Do you think Paul had the Spirit of God? Do you think he was questioning himself by making that statement? You know better.

Here is the bind that those get themselves into when they begin questioning Scripture and taking some of it as inspired and other parts of it as not inspired—how do you decide which is which? Are you that all-wise and all-knowing, so that you can declare beyond doubt that this scripture is inspired while that one is not? How do the rest of us know you are that smart, even God-like, in your declarations? How did you come to possess these mighty powers of discernment? Maybe showing us a miracle would help the rest of us build confidence in you. In New Testament times, miracles were performed to confirm the word as being from God (Heb. 2:1–4). We need confirmation of like nature if you are going to start cutting scripture out of the Bible; proof is needed that your word is from God when you do such cutting. After all, you will be giving us a new Bible when your cutting is done.

Needless to say, all such approaches to Scripture end up being faith-destroying. How do you have faith if you do not know what to have faith in and what not to have faith in? Yes, I know these types proclaim their faith, but genuine faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17), and not by one's own "think so." It does not come by one declaring himself to be God and thus able to give man the true Scriptures versus the false ones.

The bottom line ends up being that one either has to hold to the Scriptures as being authoritative and verbally inspired by God, or else he holds to the words of some man who declares otherwise but can work no miracle in proof of his declaration.

In closing, yes, the words of Jesus in red are authoritative, but no more so than the words in black in your New Testament, for the truth is the source of all inspired writings is God the Father. When Paul or Peter or whomever the New Testament writer was spoke with pen and ink or otherwise on matters of the faith, his words came from the same source that Jesus' did while Jesus was on the earth. The idea that Paul was writing for Paul's sake, promoting his own doctrine, contrary to what Jesus would have said, is as unscriptural as it gets.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16–17 NKJV)

Postscript: This article is not meant to imply that Bible translations, man-made, are infallible. However, to the extent a translation accurately represents the original manuscripts of the New Testament, it is reliable.

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

Disrespect for The Word of God

There is little respect for the word of God in America today. It is now common to hear the term post-Christian used to describe our society and the West in general. Of course, if we are post-Christian, it necessarily follows we have also become post-scriptural, people who no longer value the things of scripture, believe them, or abide in them.

The liberal secularists and progressives in America who have come to dominate much of the media, politics, academia, and the sports and entertainment industries see this as a positive thing. We are growing up, outgrowing silly myths and superstitions, becoming at last mature adults able to deal with reality. Their reality is that God is a myth. Man is king and is his own God.

With such a mindset, obedience or disobedience to the word of God as found in the Christian scriptures means nothing. The scriptures are not to be taken seriously. At best they teach good life lessons on how to order your own personal life, but if you follow them too meticulously they will lead you into intolerance and judgment. You will become a despicable, bigoted person, for after all, not everything the Bible calls sin is sin. Modern man is a better judge of actual sin than the scriptures.

Accordingly, modern man has, so he thinks, refuted outdated ideas like there being any sin in adultery (as scripture defines it), fornication, abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, attempting to change one's sex, etc. Since discarding scripture is now in vogue, one must ask what we have in place of it to guide us through life? The answer is nothing other than whatever the latest fashion is. Our values and ethics change, it seems, like the passing seasons of the year. Anyone now living who can remember just fifty years ago can tell you we are no longer the same people we were then, not in the way we think and go about our lives.

In modern thought, what one needs to do is embrace everyone in whatever lifestyle they engage in, meaning you remain uncritical of it and accepting, and it will be okay with you. Be a good person as judged by society's standards, and it will go well with you in whatever life is to come—if there is a life to come—which, by the way, we don't believe. But even if there is a God, he thinks the same way we do, so don't worry, it will go well with you. So we think, so we live our lives.

Did Jesus teach any of this? No, he did not, none of it. First of all, he never believed nor taught it was going to go well with the majority of society based on being a good person in society. "Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt. 7:14 NKJV) The few is not the many. Do not be misled by those who seem to be teaching or implying that all is going to go well with the mass of humanity, those judged good by society's standards; unless Jesus is a liar, that will not be the case. A good Roman citizen in the first or second century was still lost unless he/she was also a Christian. The same can be said of citizens in all societies since then. "All have sinned." (Rom. 3:23 NKJV)

Secondly, Jesus never had the attitude that one could be indifferent about scripture; one cannot be indifferent about doing God's will. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matt. 7:21 NKJV) If doing the will of the Father is necessary, as Jesus says, the will of the Father must be discerned. That necessarily implies that God's word is of utmost importance as it is the vehicle by which God's will is made known to man. Scripture matters.

Did Jesus respect scripture? If he did, how can we say we respect him while disrespecting what he honors? In John 5:45-47, Jesus rebukes the Jews he is speaking to for not believing the writings of Moses, "if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:47 NKJV) Earlier in John 5:39, he says the scriptures are "they which testify of me." In John 10:35, he says, "The scripture cannot be broken." (NKJV)

In just these three passages alone from the book of John, we see Jesus' respect for Moses' writings and the trustworthiness of scripture as it relates to the testimony of and about himself as well as the fact that scripture is rock solid; it cannot be broken. This is Jesus' view of scripture.

One is reminded of Jesus' comments about creation in the book of Matthew when he said, "Have you not read (read what?—scripture—DS) that he who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Matt. 19:4-5 NKJV) Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, Moses' writings, and in doing so is telling us he respects what was written and with the direct implication that we should too. Jesus destroys any thoughts about the evolution of man from lower life forms in this passage and establishes marriage as being between a man and a woman by accepting what Moses wrote.

Moses' writings are reliable, but our culture does not want to accept them or what Jesus said about them, for if Moses' writings are true, it means that marriage is between a man and a woman, and our culture is no longer willing to accept that kind of a restriction on God's institution. God institutes marriage, but he has no right, as we see it, to be exclusive about it. It is his institution, but we are determined to grasp it from him and rule it ourselves. God has no right in the matter.

We will not respect the scripture. Jesus did, but we won't, and many of us want nothing to do with a Jesus who will not endorse and celebrate gay marriages. God has no right to regulate sin. Thank you, but we can very well do that on our own (we think). If we don't want an act to be sin, we will not allow it to be. We have that much power? Wow! Impressive!

Jesus also spoke of Noah, the flood, and the ark as historical fact (Luke 17:27), of Moses and the burning bush (Mark 12:26, Luke 20:37), of Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights (Matt. 12:40), of Sodom and Gomorrah (Mark 6:11, Luke 17:29), of Daniel's "abomination of desolation" (Mark 13:14), and of David saying "have you not even read this, what David did when he was hungry?" (Luke 6:3 NKJV)

Jesus endorsed the scriptures as authentic, historical, and reliable. To cast aspersion upon the scriptures is to reflect upon the knowledge and wisdom of Jesus, to make him out a fool for accepting things we will not accept. Our society is no longer willing to believe and laughs at divine creation, a worldwide flood, Jonah (a fish story), Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuality as a sin, etc.

Let me drive a point home here. We sometimes make a distinction between what we believe and what we know. We say we do not believe a thing—we know it. So the question arises, did Jesus believe the things he spoke of, that is, just have a strong opinion, or did he know them?

If he just believed them like you and I sometimes believe things, when we speak that way, then he was just a man and could not be God and man's savior. If, on the other hand, he knew as fact the things of which he spoke, then we admit his divinity. He spoke as one who knew. So where do we stand? What do we believe about Jesus? Did he speak as a man or as God? Will we believe Jesus? If so, it forces us to believe the scriptures. When we doubt the scriptures, we doubt Jesus, and doubt is not faith.

Jesus spoke of events in the Old Testament scripture, as the New Testament scriptures had not yet been written. But how important is not just Old Testament scripture but also New Testament scripture? What about it?

Jesus said, "He who rejects me, and does not receive my words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that his command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." (John 12:48-50 NKJV)

Jesus spoke the word of God (John 12:48-50, 14:10, 24, 17:8, 14), but lest we think that means we need only a red-letter edition of the New Testament where we can pick Jesus' words out by the red print and can ignore the rest of the New Testament, we need to read further. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles. "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another helper…even the Spirit of truth…he dwells with you and will be in you…I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:16-18 NKJV) As Jesus and the Father are one, so are Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

When the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, it was the same as if Jesus had come back to them in person. This is clarified in Jesus' own words in John 16:12-14, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak; and he will tell you things to come. He will glorify me, for he will take of what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16:12-14 NKJV) Jesus still has many things to say. When is he going to say them and how? He will say them through the Holy Spirit when the Holy Spirit is sent to the apostles (and granted as a spiritual gift to others in the scriptures after Pentecost).

The apostle Peter spoke of Paul's writings as being twisted by some to their destruction, comparing Paul's writings to "the rest of the scriptures." (2 Peter 3:14-16 NKJV)

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Tim. 3:16 NKJV) Jesus is God (John 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Acts 20:28). Jesus is the one of whom John proclaimed, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 NKJV) To disrespect scripture, to belittle passages, make light of scriptural teaching, etc., is showing disrespect for the author of those scriptures, the one who said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Matt. 4:4 NKJV)

This Jesus is the one Peter was referring to in Acts 3 when he quoted Moses saying, "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever he says to you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'" (Acts 3:22-23 NKJV) Jesus is a prophet, priest, and king, but above all he is a part of the Godhead. We can hear him, or we can be "utterly destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:23 NKJV)

Jesus says many times, "if you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15 NKJV) or words to that end (see John 14:21, 23, 24, John 15:10, 14). He is "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him." (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) How does one obey Jesus while disrespecting the scriptures that teach us his commandments that we are to obey? "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3 NKJV) Disrespecting the word of God is not an ingredient in the love of God, and it certainly does not show respect for Jesus, Jesus who is the Word.

America is truly becoming an anti-Christian nation, or should one say an anti-Christ nation? The America we once knew, where God-haters and Bible-haters were rare, is disappearing, and I think most Americans know that and would no longer disagree about it. We are becoming Europe, but we saved Europe twice from themselves last century. Who will save us from ourselves when we have to reap what we are now sowing?

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

Willful Sin--Can Anyone Be Saved

The text for this article is Heb. 10:26-27, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (NKJV)

These verses, when read in the King James and the New King James versions of the Bible, have probably caused Christians about as much anguish as any you will find in the pages of the New Testament. Make no mistake about it, the verses are directed at Christians as is the whole book of Hebrews. Each of us knows we are guilty of having committed willful sin, and this passage troubles us. When we read the verses in the larger context of verses 24 through 31 it is very easy to become fearful and feel it is hopeless, we are lost without remedy. We are sorry about our sins, but we feel it is too late.

However, there are things we ought to consider before reaching that conclusion. When we take a look at verse 26 in the New American Standard version we readily see that the verse is not talking about a single act of willful sin. It reads as follows, "For if we go on sinning willfully"; thus the sin of verse 26 is a way of life rather than an individual act of sin. (See also the NIV, which reads, "If we deliberately keep on sinning.")

All sin other than sins of ignorance is willful sin. One may struggle mightily before committing the sin that has enticed him/her, but nevertheless, it was their decision to take the leap and commit it. It was a willful sin in that sense, a sin of personal choice.

If a willful sin of that kind necessarily led to condemnation without hope, then who could be saved? Would it be Peter?

Peter, according to Paul, stood condemned (Gal. 2:11). Why? Because "he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision" (Gal. 2:12 NAS), refusing to eat with the Gentile Christians. Barnabas did the same thing. Do you think this was a sin of ignorance? Paul gives the cause, which was not ignorance but fear of the circumcision party. It was a willful sin in the sense that Peter knew what he was doing. It was a sin committed out of fear, weakness of the flesh, we might say weak knees.

How about the man in 1 Cor. 5:1, "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife." (NAS) Did this man who was doing this not know it was a sin? You know he did. Yet, in 2 Cor. 2:7 Paul urges the Corinthians to forgive the man as he had repented. I remind the reader that Paul wrote and spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

2 Cor. 12:21 clinches the meaning of Heb. 10:26 for me. It reads as follows, "I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced." (NAS) What do we have here? Christians practicing sin. That implies certainly that we are not talking of one-time acts. Are they lost?

Yes, if they do not repent, but please note that is the very thing Paul is saying they can do. Why is Paul fearful that he may end up mourning? Because they have not repented, but that implies they could if they would, and thus could be forgiven. We also understand they knew what they were doing. The word translated "immorality" in this verse in the NAS is translated in the NKJV and others as "fornication." It is the Greek word "porneia." Do you really believe these people did not know fornication was sinful? They were committing willful sin, and yet we see they could be forgiven if they would but repent.

What then is the meaning of Heb. 10:26-27? Any sin you knowingly commit and continue is a willful sin as long as you continue in it and fail (refuse) to repent. While involved in that, there is no sacrifice for that sin that can save you as a willful practicing sinner. When you repent, that is another matter.

I believe verse 27 bears the truth of this interpretation. It says of such a person (a Christian involved in a sin on a continual basis willfully) that there is "a certain fearful expectation of judgment." (NKJV) Why would you fear judgment if you were a complete apostate who no longer believed? What you are is a man who believes but willingly persists in sin. Such a man fears judgment.

Do not despair because you knowingly did that which was wrong, even if you engaged in such a sin over a period of time. Do not despair, but rather repent and turn back to God. God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) "'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord GOD. 'Therefore turn and live!'" (Ezek. 18:32 NKJV) God will always have the one who is truly penitent back if that one will only come back.

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

Living In Grace Day By Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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