Will Sincerity Save?

By E. M. Zerr

[Page 7]

     Perhaps the reader thinks I forgot to include the word "only" in the heading. No, I did not forget it; neither did I forget to leave it out. Had I inserted it the entire article would have been besmirched with inconsistency as to what I believe and teach on the plan of salvation. It will be seen in this article that if sincerity will save, then no other condition or quality on the part of man is necessary for salvation. The Missouri section of the "restoration" movement recently had a representative conducting a series of Biblical studies in another state. In one of the sessions a member of the class asked this spokesman if he believed the members of the denominations would be saved. The answer in substance was "yes, if they are sincere."

     We are not told of any degrees or limitations in the authority of Jesus as king and ruler of his church. In Ephesians 1:22 Paul declares that God "gave him to be the head over all things to the church." A man will not be excused in failing to pay his taxes to civil government, even though he pleads that he was not aware of such responsibility. He might say that he "sincerely" thought such and such assets were exempt from taxation. If he is discovered (and in the kingdom of Christ no one will be overlooked) he will be penalized for not knowing of his obligation. Sufficient provision is made for all citizens to learn of their duty. Likewise in the kingdom of Christ, all human beings have been offered a full copy of the laws governing it, and a failure to become informed about them is at their own risk.

     If sincerity will "cover the multitude of [doctrinal] sins," why do we have so many instances of warning against being deceived? That negative word in its various forms occurs no less than 51 times in the New Testament, to say nothing of the

[Page 8]

frequent times in the Old. The most ordinary kind of thinking would conclude there is something serious if not fatal in being deceived, else the Lord would not warn against it so much, for He does not give "scarecrow" warnings or threatenings. And yet the deceived man is sincere as to the point on which he is being deceived. The man who is conscious of his error cannot be sincere for he is not being deceived. He is deliberately accepting what he is doing for some motive other than deception for he knows better. The people in the denominations do not know any better ("if they are sincere") but are being deceived. Yet the Lord warns them against being deceived which proves that they are in danger and not in line for being saved.

     If sincerity will exempt the people in the denominations from the law of baptism, adherence to the New Testament as the sole creed and the church as the only divine institution, it will exempt us from weekly assembly for the Lord's supper, etc. But the reply is that we know better and could not be sincere if we ignore all such. But why is it that we know better? It is because we have respected the New Testament enough to read and consider it. The denominations have the same book in which they have been warned again and again not to be deceived, but to be concerned about being approved unto God by rightly dividing and applying the Word.

     The position based upon the theory of sincerity's power to save runs counter to many portions of the Holy Scriptures. In Proverbs 16:25 we read, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." If anything seems right unto a man, then he must be sincere if he says that thing is right. Also if his manner of life is according to that thing we must accord him the quality of sincerity in that way of life. Not only so, but we must allow him all the benefit that lies at the end of such a life. Yet the text says that death lies at the end of such a way, notwithstanding the person was doing that which seemed right to him--he was sincere in walking therein.

     In Acts 26: 9 Paul says, "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." Did Paul's thinking this make it right? We know it did not for in 1 Timothy 1:15 he says Christ came into the world to save sinners "of whom I am chief." And his sincerity is not to be restricted to some particular time. In Acts 23:1 he says, "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day," and in 2 Timothy 1:3 he asserts that he had been conscientious "from his forefathers."

     I think I hear some man object that in these specific cases, I am assuming that the "sincere" people were disappointed in the end. Then I will give him a case where an inspired apostle expressed his "opinion." In 2 Thessalonians 2nd chapter Paul describes the development of the Romish church. In verse 11 he says "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." If they believe it then they are sincere, which is the quality this article is discussing. Hence according to the teaching I am reviewing these people will be saved since they are ''sincere." Yes they are sincere for Paul says they believe--not merely pretend to believe. But in the next verse he says they will all be damned, notwithstanding they are sincere. But according to the "restorationists," the popes of Rome are resting their souls in the bosom of Abraham.

REMARKS BY THE EDITOR

     Our venerable brother is sincere. His writing provides opportunity for a clarification of my position. A proposition is one thing, belief of it another thing, and sincerity of motive still another. Sincerity is honesty of mind or intention. It is freedom from pretence or hypocrisy. Such an attitude will not necessarily save a person, but lack of it will damn a person.

     We live in a decadent age of Christianity. Christians have become separated, segregated, and divided from each other. Many are in human parties, or denominations. Will God save any of the sincere ones in such parties? Our brother says he will not. I do not say, for I do not know. I am content to leave that with His judgment. I would rejoice, if in His mercy, He saved all such. But my lack of

[Page 9]

positive knowledge of God's disposings need not interfere with my examination of my brother's thesis.

     True, we are not told of any degrees or limitations in the authority of Jesus as being king or ruler of his church. But when God put all things under Jesus, He exempted himself, and is not, therefore, subject to his authority or rule. He may demonstrate His grace or mercy, in the final day of accounts, without violation of the authority of Jesus. "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Rom. 9:14, 15.) Will our brother tie God's hands with the law God gave to bind us?

     Whatever power Jesus now has, it is not a whit greater than it was the day he sat down at God's right hand. His authority does not fluctuate with the centuries or seasons. It was the same during the Dark Ages and The Reformation, as now. Does our brother believe any sincere members of the denominations in those ages were saved? In his commentary, he writes on Revelation 14:13, thus: "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. That can be said of every person who is faithful until death, but it is said here especially with reference to those who have died under persecution. It is peculiarly appropriate to make the statement in view of the thousands who had been slain by Pagan and Papal Rome through the past centuries. Also after the Reformation had stirred up the anger of the 'die hards' of Babylon, many others were put to death in their struggles."

     Our brother here affirms that "the dead who die in the Lord" were those put to death by Pagan and Papal Rome, before and after the Reformation. Can he name one person in history who was put to death by Papal Rome, before or after the Reformation, who was not a member of what he would call a denomination? Can he cite just one such person who was a member of "The Church of Christ" as the term is now used to designate a special party in the Christian realm? Can one die in the Lord, and be blessed, who is a member of a denomination? If not, who were the members of "The Church of Christ" who were killed by Papal Rome after the Reformation?

     He comments on Revelation 18:4 as follows: "Come out of her my people. Even after the work of the reformers was well under way, and the institution of Babylon as a body had fallen there were still some individuals connected with the church part of the former institution who were honest and at heart were desirous of serving God. They are the ones who are called my people because the Lord considered them true to the testimony of Christ as far as they had been permitted to hear it. Now if they will heed the call to come out and line up with the workers of the Reformation they will be received by Him."

     Study this carefully! There were some individuals connected with the church part of Rome, whom God called His people. He did so because they were honest, at heart were desirous of serving Him, and He considered them true to the testimony of Christ as far as they had been permitted to learn it? Are there any people in the denominations today who are honest, at heart desirous of serving God, and true to the testimony of Jesus, as far as they have been permitted to learn it? If not, why not? If there are, are they still God's children? But notice the basis of acceptability, as stated by our good brother. "If they will line up with the workers of the Reformation they will be received by Him." Who are these "workers of the Reformation"? Our beloved brother identifies them in his comments on Revelation 16:17: "The great revolution thus symbolized was the Reformation of Luther and his fellow workers that resulted in breaking up the union of church and state." Would our brother be willing to imitate God and accept those who line up with Luther and the other workers of the Reformation? Actually he goes much farther in fellowship than I would dare go!

     Sincerity will not cover one sin, much less a multitude. Neither will every false impression or mistaken idea damn a person. We need to heed the warning against deceiving and being deceived, but a person may be deceived about many things and not be a subject of "doctrinal sin." If this is not the case, we are all lost, whether in a denomination or not. Sincerity does not exempt any one from the law of baptism, or any other law. It does not operate in the judicial realm. Sincerity is a characteristic attitude within the person toward life in all of its phases. It has not one thing to do with legal exemptions, which are in the realm of authority. But a lawgiver may exempt a person from a penalty due to mitigating circumstances. Such an individual is not exempt from the law, but from the effects of non-compliance therewith, when such failure is involuntary, not wilful or deliberate.

     Our good brother cites Paul as an example. He quotes the apostle: "I verily thought that I ought to do many things contrary to the

[Page 10]

name of Jesus of Nazareth." He then uses 1 Timothy 1:15 to show Paul's thinking did not make him right. But he omitted the two verses preceding, where Paul said, "I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." If Paul, in his sincerity, obtained mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief, is it not possible others may also? Is not our real problem today, one of legalistic approach which makes no provision for any extenuating circumstance, ignores circumstances of birth, mental deficiency, intellectual variation, previous environment and training, and utterly forgets "the grace of our Lord which is exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus"?

     Did not Jesus pray "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"? Is not this plea for forgiveness based upon their lack of knowledge? Peter said, "And now, brethren, I know that through ignorance you did it, as did also your rulers" (Acts 3:17). Was there any excuse for this ignorance? Did they not have the sacred scriptures? Was not Moses read every sabbath day in the synagogues? We must conclude that merely having the word of God, or access to it, is not enough to dispel all ignorance at once, and enlighten one in a day. May there not still be some who know not what they do? Can we not join Jesus in praying for their forgiveness? Or, do we really care whether people are forgiven and escape the flames of hell?

     Our aged brother is unfortunate in his choice of a final example of "sincerity." He cites the fact that some would believe a lie because God sends them strong delusion. He reasons that if they believe it, they are sincere, and therefore will be saved, according to the teaching he is reviewing, whereas, God says they will be damned. Surely our brother knows that sincerity is an attribute of character, and not a mere reaction to an isolated proposition, whether true or false. In this case, the apostle says, "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: that they all might he damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." This is the first time we have ever heard anyone affirm that one can be sincere in the spiritual realm who has no love for the truth, but has pleasure in unrighteousness.

     Charles John Smith, M. A., in Synonyms Discriminated, says, "Sincerity is truth or truthfulness of motive. Sincerity combines reality of conviction and earnestness of purpose with purity or freedom from unfairness or dishonesty. Unless these be combined, sincerity becomes a very fallacious term." To apply the term to those who believe a lie because they have no love for the truth, is fallacious indeed.

     I know of no "restorationists" who believe the "popes of Rome are resting their souls in the bosom of Abraham." Such reckless assertions and unfounded accusations, will only do harm to our brother's influence and position, among thinking persons. It would be best for all of us to humbly serve God, love each other and all men, treat all with fairness and kindness, even though we disagree with them, be kindly affectioned one toward another and allow God to consign whom He will to the bosom of Abraham. I pray that Brother Zerr and myself will "be among that number when the saints go marching in." May God grant that we shall labor together here that we may share the bounty of heaven together over there!