With the ideas some have, I do not
see how they have any grounds for urging aliens to repent. We have been
told that aliens are not in covenant with God—are not under his law, and
therefore the Lord takes no notice of what they do. If this be true,
they violate no law, and are therefore not sinners. Where then is there
grounds for urging them to repent? Repent of what?
It was put this way in a sermon I
heard: "When a man becomes a Christian he obligates himself to do
right." And that is saying that a man is under no obligation to do right
till he becomes a Christian. If an alien is under no obligation to do
right, then he commits no sin in failing to do right—he commits no sin
no matter what evil he does. He would be under no obligation even to
believe in God or the Lord Jesus Christ, and would have no sins to
repent of. Can you think of a more vicious doctrine?
It sounds like some of the phases of
Russellism. Here is the way Scofields Bible states the doctrine: "Acts
is in two chief parts: In the first section, 1:1-9, 43, Peter is
the prominent personage, Jerusalem is the center, and the ministry to
the Jews. Already in covenant relations with Jehovah, they had sinned in
rejecting Jesus as the Christ. The preaching, therefore, was directed to
that point, and repentance (i.e. a change of mind) was demanded—In the
second division (10:1-28, 31) Paul is prominent, a new center is
established at Antioch, and the ministry is chiefly to Gentiles who, as
strangers from the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12), —had but to
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved." These are strange
statements, but consistent with the notion that aliens are not
responsible to God for what they do. It is plainly implied that, if the
Jews had not been in covenant relations with God, they would not have
needed to repent of crucifying Jesus! And the Gentiles had no sins to
repent of, then they had none from which to be saved. Besides, no Jew
today was ever in covenant relations with God, as had been the Jews to
whom Peter preached; for that covenant had been nailed to the cross. If
Scofield were correct, neither Jew nor Gentile would now need to repent.
But Scofields Bible and Gods Bible
do not agree, Jesus said that repentance should be preached among all
nations. And when Peter explained his preaching to Gentiles, the
brethren at Jerusalem "held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then
to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life." And Paul
told the Athenians that God now "commandeth men that they should all
everywhere repent." It is a pity that a man who professes to be a
teacher of Gods word will ignore plain statements of the Scriptures
because he cannot fit them into a fanciful theory. Of course, repentance
in the passages mentioned includes more than a mere change of mind.
As to the condition of the Gentiles,
there is little difference between Scofield and Pastor Russell. In a
debate with a Russellite several years ago, one of the propositions I
affirmed and he denied was, that baptism was for the remission of sins
to Jew and Gentile alike. He readily granted that baptism to Jews was
for the remission of sins, but denied that any Gentile was ever baptized
for the remission of sins. Even so, it is easy to see that both Scofield
and the Russellite were more consistent on that point than brethren who
contend that baptism is for the remission of alien sins, and yet contend
that the alien, not being under any law to God, violated no law of God.
But brethren who so contend are as wrong on this point as Scofield and
Russell. Paul speaks of "sinners of the Gentiles." (Gal. 2:1-15).
If the theory were correct, we
might well repeat Paul’s question, "Then how shall God judge the world?"
The Jews had been entrusted with the oracles of God, but had made such
poor use of their blessings, that Paul makes this observation concerning
them and Gentiles: "What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise:
for we before laid to the charge of both Jews and Gentiles, that they
are all under sin," (Rom.
3:1-9). And to see the
degrading sins into which Gentiles had fallen read Rom.
1:18-32.
And the Jews were no better—"all under sin." Jesus came to save sinners,
not to make sinners; the gospel is Gods power to save sinners, not to
make sinners of those who hear it. I think on these things.
How come Cornelius to need
salvation? One writer said that Cornelius was "doubtlessly serving the
God of his fathers under patriarchy." But patriarchy was not a religion,
nor a form of worship, but a form of government. However if the head of
the family or clan worshiped Jehovah, he was the priest and prophet for
the family or clan; but some of them, like Laban, worshiped idols.
Again: "The Patriarchal Dispensation did not end at Sinai except to the
descendants of Abraham—While the offspring of Abraham was amenable to
God under the law of Moses, Gentiles, to whom Moses law was never given,
could serve him under the law that had been in effect since Eden was
lost to Adam and Eve." But many of the descendants of Abraham were not
included in the covenant made at Sinai. The word dispensation occurs a
few times in the New Testament, but never in the sense we attach to it
when we speak of the three dispensations.
So far as we know Abel was the first
one to offer a God-appointed sacrifice, and it does not appear that he
was the head of a family or clan. He was therefore not a patriarch, and
it is certain that he did not pass on to Cain or any other what God had
revealed to him. I do not think anyone will contend that the commands to
Cain and Abel were recorded for the guidance of following generations.
It seems that the head of a family or clan, if he worshiped God,
received revelations direct from God, just as did Abel. Joshua said to
Israel, "Your fathers dwelt of old time beyond the river, even Terah,
the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served other
gods." (Joshua 24:2; see also verses 14, 15). The quotation is
from the American Standard Version. So Abraham came from idol-worshiping
patriarchs. "Fathers" would include at least his father and grandfather,
and perhaps farther back; and so he did not learn true worship from
them. God spoke to him as he did to others before his time. You will
search in vain for any line of true worshipers from creation to Abraham,
and on down to Cornelius. And I have seen no indication that any
directions for patriarchal government or worship was ever written for
their guidance. If it were handed down by word of mouth, it would be
perverted beyond recognition in a few generations. That Cornelius was
ruler, prophet, and priest for his family or clan is a mere guess, with
no hint on which to base a guess.
Cornelius may have learned about the
true God from the Jews. It seems that he kept the Jewish hour of prayer.
Many Gentiles did learn about God from the Jews. We do know that
Cornelius knew much about the life, teaching, and miracles of Christ.
Who knows but that Cornelius was the centurion present at the
crucifixion of Jesus? Remember this: A man cannot make a guess without
some basis for his guess, and he cannot believe without evidence.
Here is a strange statement from our
writer: "We firmly believe that Cornelius was not a sinner until the
appearance of the angel with instructions that brought him and the
entire Gentile world in covenant relations with Christ. Inspiration
records, without correction, the statement of the man that had been
healed of his blindness by the Lord (John
9:31).
How we know that God heareth not sinners. God, then, will not hear a
sinner, but he did hear and answer the prayers of the Roman centurion.
Therefore the man was not a sinner at the time his prayers were
ascending unto the throne of God." The Jewish authorities said Jesus was
a sinner, but they knew he was not an alien—they knew he was in the
covenant. The man born blind knew Jesus was not an alien; and to make
his language apply to an alien is inexcusable. Saul of Tarsus prayed
before he became a Christian—prayed while he was still an alien, and the
Lord was pleased in that he did pray, at that time he was still an
alien, but not an alien sinner. An alien who has sincerely repented is
not then an alien sinner, though he may not yet have been pardoned. That
was the condition of Saul during the three days and nights he fasted and
prayed. Nor was Cornelius sinning when he was praying for more light. If
you will notice the answer he got you will know what he was praying for.
The angel told Cornelius that his prayer was heard; "Send therefore to
Joppa, and call unto thee Simon, who is surnamed Peter," "who shall
speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy
house."
I do not think I ever read a more
startling notion (by any brother than that the visit of the angel to
Cornelius made Cornelius a sinner and brought the entire Gentile world
into Covenant relations with Christ. He was righteous till the angel
spoke to him and that turned him into a sinner! How come? Did not
Cornelius immediately set about doing what the angel told him to do?
What sin did he commit? The visit of an angel turned a righteous man
into a sinner, and also the entire Gentile world became sinners! Another
strange thing—a righteous man prayed and was heard, but the prayer was
answered after he became a sinner,
Cornelius the righteous man prayed,
but Cornelius the sinner received the answer. And just how did the
angels visit to Cornelius bring the entire Gentile world in covenant
relations with Christ"? What is the nature of that covenant that the
entire Gentile world is in? I have never heard of such an idea. At the
risk of being criticized, I make one personal reference that may help
some young preachers. I have said both publicly and privately, "I have
been given credit for knowing more about the Bible than I really know,
and I think the reason for it is, I do not know so many things that are
not so." Think on this. If you do a lot of guessing, and make a lot of
assertions for which you have no sure basis, people will rightfully
conclude that you are not a careful Bible student.
Other
Articles by R. L. Whiteside
Why and Why Not?
