Confession

By E. M. Zerr

[Page 3]

     I do not hold myself accountable for anything I never said or did. Let it be understood to begin with that no specific wording is to be required of an alien sinner in making his confession. Many years before the present controversy, I taught by tongue and pen that any statement that was equivalent to acknowledgment that Jesus is the Son of God, would meet the scripture requirement for the public confession. I will give one citation as an instance of this point. In 1 Timothy 6:13 Paul introduces Christ Jesus, "who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession." The places where Jesus was before Pilate when he made his confession are Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3 and John 18:37. But when we consult those passages we find that Jesus only replied by saying, "Thou hast said," in one form or another. Hence any statement that amounts to agreement with the divinity of Christ would constitute the confession. This statement is justified by Paul in the passage quoted. He refers to the words of Jesus cited in the verses above and calls them "a good confession."

     The good confession cannot be made privately or personally between the sinner and God. "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32) There is a logical reason for requiring that the confession be made in the hearing of a human being. "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38). One man cannot know the attitude of another toward Christ unless he is given some evidence. If a sinner is ashamed to furnish that evidence, it proves him unworthy of the favor of the Saviour. It has been taught that it is unjust to require a sinner to "push his way through a crowd of gazers" in order to go up front and make the confession. On the contrary, a penitent sinner would regard it an honor to show his faith in this way.

     The preceding paragraph should be sufficient to convince the reader that public confession is required as a condition of salvation. Yet I will offer some additional thoughts on the matter in view of its importance. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10). The original for "unto" is EIS. In the King James Version it is rendered "for" 91 times. It is the original of "for" in Acts 2:38, where almost universal scholarship says it means "in order to." And in the passage just quoted it sustains the same relation to "righteousness" as it does to "salvation." I am sure no one will say that he can claim to be righteous who does not believe with his heart. By the same token it must be seen that salvation cannot be had without confession. But it is objected that actual confession is not necessary, for the fact that a sinner asks to be baptized shows that he believes. Well, that was not enough for Philip, for he required the eunuch to confess his faith in Christ.

     Having seen that public confession is necessary for salvation, the logical procedure is to give the sinner the opportunity for making it. But that sinner will not know that he has such opportunity until it is offered to him. This is where the public invitation is in order. "The Spirit and the bride [the church] say come. And let him that heareth say come." (Revelation 22:17.) Some needless quibbling has been done as to whether we must have congregational singing. As far as I know it has not been contended that such form of singing must be used to the exclusion of other forms. It is claimed only that it is scriptural. And at the time of the invitation it is especially appropriate that the congrega-

[Page 4]

tion unite in the song used for that purpose. In so doing the passage quoted will be carried out beautifully. The evangelist has "heard" and in his exhortation he is saying "come." The bride or church is singing "come" in the song. Any man who will call such an orderly and intelligent service as this a "vaudeville act" indicates that he knows more about vaudeville than he does a respectful performance in the name of the Lord.

     Jesus said there is rejoicing in heaven among the angels when a sinner repents. We can see a convicted sinner stepping forward, penitent but unashamed, in order to take the holy name of Jesus upon his lips in the presence of his fellowmen. At the same time we can hear the angels of God in the glory world as they rejoice over the event. They know that one more creature of their God has been won from the ranks of sin and Satan. One more prospect to join them upon the golden streets after the year's of earth are over. No wonder then there is a blissful time in the heavenly courts that grace the throne of the Almighty.

REMARKS BY THE EDITOR

     Bro. Zerr has done well in presenting our traditional position. It is possible he may be right and I may be wrong. In sincere humility, I would like to set forth my view, although I do it with deep regret that I must dissent from some things mentioned by my venerable and esteemed brother. The position Bro. Zerr advocates is exactly what I once sought to defend. I think now I was wrong, although I was very sincere, as sincere as I still am.

     Matthew 10:32 has no reference to a confession by sinners, alien or otherwise. This chapter deals with sending forth the twelve apostles (verse 5). They were sent forth as sheep among wolves (verse 16); they were to beware of men (verse 17); they were to be scourged in synagogues and brought before governors and kings for a witness against them (verse 18); they were to be hated of all men (verse 22); and persecuted from city to city (verse 23). In view of this they were to fear not (verse 26); even to fear not them which kill the body (verse 28). This was not addressed to sinners but to disciples and servants of the master (verse 25).

     In view of the trials, scourgings, brutal treatment and threats of death, there would be a temptation to desert the Christ, so he says, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my father which is in heaven" (verse 32). This has no bearing upon an alien sinner getting up and confessing before an audience of disciples, but refers to a disciple confessing Christ before aliens and sinners. The application generally made is in direct opposition to what Jesus was teaching. There is not one passage in the Bible which requires an alien sinner to say anything as a step to entrance into the Christ. There is ample proof that disciples of the Christ are to testify of Him in the presence of sinners.

     Confession in verse 32 is an antithesis to denial before men in verse 33. If the first means an alien sinner must go before an audience and make a statement to confess Jesus, must the other go before an audience and make a statement in order to deny him? Will

[Page 5]

Jesus deny before the father in heaven any who have not gone forward and said, "I deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." The truth is that Jesus was not even thinking of a step to salvation" by an alien. But we need a supporting passage for an established practice, and since this one has the expression "confess me before men" we lift it from its context and use it to bolster such practice.

     It is hardly correct to say Philip required the eunuch to confess his faith in Christ, although I believed that for years. Philip made no request, requirement, or demand for a confession. He simply answered the man's question. After preaching Jesus to him, they came to a certain water. The eunuch called attention to it, and asked, "What is to hinder me from being immersed?" Philip simply replied, "If you believe with all your heart you may." Instead of Philip asking a question and the eunuch answering; the eunuch asked a question and Philip answered. The only requirement Philip set up as a requisite to baptism in his reply was belief with the heart.

     Did not the eunuch make "the good confession"? The King James Version records the statement, "I believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." No other version I have ever read contains the statement. We are obligated to immerse only those who are believers. If we do not know if a man believes we should ask him. His assurance that he believes is not for God's benefit, for he already knows; it is not for the man's benefit, for he too already knows. The only one who will be served by a statement of belief is the administrator. If it be urged that it is for the benefit of the audience, then we can never immerse a man without taking him before an audience, and Philip committed a grievous error. God knew if the eunuch believed; the eunuch knew if he believed; but Philip may not have known. There is a difference between asking a man a question for your own information, and setting up the procedure as a divine requirement on the same plane as repentance and baptism.

     One passage which confuses many is Romans 10:9, 10. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Again it is assumed this refers to aliens. I once felt that it did. Yet, the Roman letter was not written until many years after the Christian system was introduced, and if a public and oral confession was required of aliens, this is the first mention of it. When the Jews on Pentecost asked what they must do, Peter said not a word about an oral confession. Nor in any case of conversion in the book of Acts is this ever mentioned as a requisite to entrance into the Christ.

     What does the statement in Romans mean, which says, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"? There is a contrast in the chapter between "righteousness of the law" (verse 5) and "righteousness of faith" (verse 6). Legal righteousness, as described by Moses, requires the perfect keeping of the law as a source of life. "The man who does these things shall live by them." The righteousness of faith is different. Faith does not require that we personally see Christ descend from heaven, or rise from the dead. Instead, we have the word in our heart and in our mouth, so we can confess the Lord with the mouth and believe on him with the heart as our way of life. Our means of obtaining righteousness and salvation is not legalistic. It is not what we do for Christ that saves us, but what he has done for us. Christ is our life, and our life is Christ. We manifest that life internally (by faith) and externally (by testimony). The faith here is not a temporary assent of intellect, and the confession is not a preliminary statement to the Christian life -- but these are the Christian life. It consists of faith and profession. The salvation here is our eternal salvation, secured not by legalism, but by faith and service.

     Suppose I conduct a home Bible study with a family for many weeks and lead them through the book of Acts. I observe their deepening interest and concern. One night the head of the house follows me to my car and informs me he is convinced of his sinful state, has repented, and wishes to be immersed. Need I enquire of him if he believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? If a man writes a letter and tells me he is convinced that Jesus is the Christ and God's Son, and asks met to meet him the next morning and immerse him, shall I ask him when the two of us meet, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?" What would I do, if he replied, "Didn't you get my letter?" Must I make him repeat his statement with the mouth? I do not find any scripture which intimates that "a public confession is necessary for salvation" upon the part of an alien sinner. I know that such confession is essential to my salvation, and I seek to confess him before men every opportunity that is afforded. Bro. Zerr refers to Jesus making "the good

[Page 6]

confession" before Pontius Pilate. This is a good example of the sinless one making the confession before a sinner!

     Do not overlook the context of that reference. Here it is "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession." The expression "a good profession" is from the same original as "a good confession." Our confession is our profession. The same term is used in Hebrews 4:14, "Let us hold fast our profession."

     I shall not fall out with my brethren who feel they are obligated to sing "an invitation song." I know of no scriptural precedent for stopping in the midst of our praise and worship of God, to address a song to aliens and sinful men. It seems to me that our hymns should be addressed to God rather than to men. I look upon prayer and praise as being related in that respect. But that is a matter for determination of the congregations. I shall not bind my views on them. We do many things for which we have no authority and it will require many years of fervent toil and study before we are able to restore the primitive ideal of worship and evangelism. In the meantime we can be charitable, tolerant, patient and kindly toward all. The brethren do not have to agree with me for me to love them and be forbearing. I am certain that through love we can maintain an atmosphere for further study. We do not need to cast each other out, nor refuse to listen to each other. I thank Brother Zerr for his able presentation, and his generous disposition, and pray that he may live long and be blessed of the Lord.