Truth Magazine

By Billy Boyd

Something is eternal! This is the most axiomatic of all axioms, the most self-evident of all truths. To say that something cannot come from nothing may be to repeat an overworked phrase, yet it is also to restate an unalterable truth.

Even the absolute materialist must concede that everything is grounded in eternity. This is as fundamental to his development of matter and man as it is to the theist. The chair in which I am sitting, the desk on which I am writing, the paper, the ink, the typewriter, which I am using, all have their existence ultimately depending on the eternal. To deny this is to deny reality itself. One has only to seek to trace anything back to its ultimate source or origin to see its necessary relationship to what we will presently call the “undefined eternal.” The desk on which I am writing is made of wood. This wood came immediately from a tree. The tree in turn was the product of a seed. The seed, itself, was the product of a different tree which had been able to grow because of its ability to utilize certain basic elements of the earth. Thus, we would be completely accurate in saying that the desk at which I am sitting is basically composed of certain combinations and adaptations of some of the elements. These elements may be further broken down into atoms which may be even further broken down into electrons and protons. In the views of some scientists, these may be further broken down to the point that matter is a form of energy. But still one does not get away from the force of the fact that every existing thing is grounded in the eternal.

Materialistic Reasoning

If we should follow the absolute materialist in his reasoning, we would be taken back through the supposed evolution of life, through the emergence of the living from the non-living, even through the evolution of matter itself. Yet, we would still ultimately stand face to face with the fact that something is eternal. If the basic foundation of matter is energy in motion, then energy in some form existed before matter.

The recent claims of some scientists that they may be able to “create” matter (i.e. make new matter from other matter) in no way alters this fact. For in his attempts to bring into existence matter which did not previously exist, the scientist begins whith matter and energy which did previously exist. Even if scientists are successful in bringing matter into existence, which did not previously exist, all that will have been done will be to prove that under favorable conditions, certain types of matter can “give birth” to other matter. If something is not eternal, then they must not seek to “create” matte: by the formation of favorable conditions, but they must seek to “create” matter by the elimination of all conditions. Unless something is eternal, we must trace the ultimate origin to the time when there was no matter, no elements, no energy. We must envision, not only a time when there was no earth, but also when there was no sun, no stars, no gaseous elements from which they might be formed NO THING. Then we must bow before this great state of Nothingness with reverence, humility and awe. For NOBODY, out of NOTHING, with NOTHING to do it, with created the great and marvelous SOMETHING which we behold. No greater feat of magic has ever been performed, no greater miracle has ever been claimed, no greater fraud has even been perpetuated. Yet, this is the conclusion to which the “educated” man of today is driven unless, UNLESS, he wishes to write an answer other than NOTHING in the blank of the following statement, _______ is Eternal. If he writes an answer in this blank other than NOTHING, then our axiom has been admitted. SOMETHING IS ETERNAL!

But the inquiring mind cannot stop here. Faced with the undeniable reality that something is eternal, the honest searcher must seek to know what this “undefined eternal” is.

Dilemma of Agnosticism

Here the agnostic bogs down. He fears to face the inquiry and seeks to take refuge in the disposition that “I do not know and cannot know what is eternal.” But clearly such an attitude is not only irrational, it is impossible to truly maintain. There can be no such thing as true agnosticism in a practical way for two reasons. First, to be a true agnostic one would forever have to close his mind to the problem of what is eternal. Guided by the disposition that I do not know and cannot know, the agnostic would be forced to abandon all search, all questioning, all desire to know. This is an impossible state of mind. Second, agnosticism is an impossible philosophy by which to live. “On the grounds that certain knowledge of God and spiritual things is unattainable, it bids man think and feel and act as if there were no God and no spiritual life and no further existence. It thus degenerates into a practical atheism.” (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I, p. 87.) While avowedly affirming nothing, practically the agnostic affirms the negative that that which is eternal is not God. And in so doing, he runs from the refuge to which he ostensibly fled for shelter.

Thus the honest mind is forced again to the consideration of what is eternal. Only two answers have ever been seriously maintained and we will now examine these one at a time.

Materialism

Materialism is the doctrine or belief that MATTER is eternal. It should be emphasized at the outset that materialism, like theism, is a FAITH. Sometimes those who do not believe in God are wont to belittle the idea of faith. But in the world in which we live it is impossible not to exercise faith in something. Those who do not have faith in God have faith in something other than God. The responsibility of the materialist is, not to ridicule the exercise of faith, but to show the faith which HE exercises is more reasonable and rational than the faith which the theist exercises. This he cannot do and should he even attempt to so do, he will end in utter failure. William Clark has forcefully pointed out that it “is fair to say at this stage of history that all materialistic explanations of existing things have lapsed into common failure.” (The Christian Doctrine of God, p. 393.)

Science cannot produce one shred of evidence to indicate that matter is eternal. The very opposite is true. All of the known facts of the universe in which we live point inevitably to the conclusion that matter is not eternal. Those who hold the doctrine of materialism do so without facts and often in the face of the facts. Not only so, but they are faced with insurmountable difficulties all along their pathway of tracing life. For when one affirms the eternity of matter, he, at the same time, affirms that life emerged from non-life, order from non-order, intelligence from non-intelligence and spirit from non-spirit. He likewise affirms that all of this took place without guidance, plan or direction. He is forced to the conclusion that the world with all its wonders and marvels is totally the produce of change. Therefore, the doctrine that matter is eternal is unreasonable as well as unscientific. This has been dramatically demonstrated in recent weeks by indications that even the top scientists in Russia are no longer satisfied with a purely materialistic explanation of life.

Theism

If then, the question of what is eternal cannot be satisfactorily answered by the doctrine of materialism, how is it to be answered? The only other possibility is that Mind, manifested in the existence of God, is eternal. There is, of course, the popular idea today that the world and its phenomena are to be explained by the doctrine of pantheism. This is the belief that the world itself, with its forces, movements and actions IS God. This doctrine denies the personal being of God and seeks to identify God as Cosmic Energy or force. The fallacy of this faith is that it ultimately reverts to materialism and collapses at the same spot. For if the only god in the universe is a god of Cosmic Energy, then this energy must be eternal. But this is the exact affirmation of materialism and is equally unreasonable and unscientific.

We return again, then, to the only possible answer to the question of what is eternal. It is the answer which is affirmed in scripture and expressed so beautifully by Paul. “Which in its own time he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal.” (I Tim. 6: 15-16.) Or again, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.” (I Tim. 1:17.) This was the same wonderful truth that had been expressed many years earlier by Isaiah in these graphic words: “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy.” (Isa. 57:15, emphasis added.)

Yes, something is eternal. That something is God. This is a faith that is founded in fact, that rises with right reason and that can be continued in confidence. May we never allow the clouds of skepticism and doubt to block the sunshine of this truth from our souls. May we with unwavering trust be guided by this truth until we, ourselves, stand on the other bank of eternity and are ushered into the presence of Him who makes his habitation there.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 11-13
April 1962

By Ervin Driskill

Brother Gayle Oler continues to write as though his statements, concerning the relationship of Boles Home to the church and whether it is doing the work of the church or the home, had never been met or answered. In B. H. News, January 25, 1962, he has this to say, “Boles Home is doing the work of the home and not the church.” Well, let us suppose that B. H. was emptied of all children and the facilities were used for 350 “widows-indeed” and churches were maintaining their care. Would this be the work of the church or the home? I Tim.5:16 certainly identifies such care of widows as the work of the church. (This does not mean a centralized arrangement of caring for widows indeed, under one eldership, would be right; I only use the illustration to show what is and who is the obligation of the church). My point is this: What makes B. H. caring for 350 children doing the work of the HOME and B. H. caring for 350 widows doing the work of the church? Does Gayle deny that I Tim 5:16 sets forth the work of the church? One of two things is true: (1) Either B. H. (under its present set-up) is doing the work of the church and not the home or (2) I Tim. 5:16 is not a picture of the church at work. Either you deny I Tim. 5:16 or you give up the present set up at Boles Home.

Caring for my family is my obligation and, that which is my obligation becomes my WORK. This is true of any person or organization. When I am unable to meet my obligation I am no longer accountable for the work. When the church steps in, it has accepted its obligation and it has therefore become ITS WORK. From this it is evident that if the church has any obligation to children in B. H. and is meeting the obligation then, it is the WORK OF THE CHURCH and not THE HOME that is being done. These are evident facts and they cannot be gainsaid. If any of these liberal brethren think otherwise let them expose the fallacy. At least two major things are wrong with B. H. (1) They have fostered a work on churches, that is not the work of the churches and, (2) they are having them do it through a human institution.

It has further been argued that caring for orphans is a Religious Work. (Jas. 1: 27.) However, the charter of Boles H. says, “Every director believes, and is required to believe in order to be a director, that the LOCAL CONGREGATION of the church of Christ, IS ALL AND THE ONLY ORGANIZATION AUTHORIZED TO CARRY ON CHRISTIAN WORK OR WORSHIP and that such organization EXCLUDES EACH AND EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION for the purpose of conducting or carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK or worship, whether the same be missionary or OTHERWISE.” (caps, mine R.E.D.) Notice then, the following:

1. The church being the ONLY ORGANIZATION for carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK, excludes all other organizations for carrying on that work (Boles charter).

2. Boles Home is ANOTHER ORGANIZATION carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK. (Jas. 1:27.) Therefore, Boles Home is excluded by its own charter.

But, with the former before us we reach this conclusion:

1. Another organization to do or carry on RELIGIOUS WORK is an impeachment of the wisdom of God in establishing the church to do RELIGIOUS WORK.

2. Boles Home is that other organization. Therefore, Boles Home is an impeachment of the wisdom of God.

These brethren must either deny Boles Home is doing a RELIGIOUS WORK (and when they do they give up their argument on Jas. 1:27 and it applying to the church rather than the individual), or they must admit Boles Home is doing the WORK OF THE CHURCH, or THEY WILL HAVE TO WRITE ANOTHER CHARTER.

Our brother further says, “B. H. sustains exactly the same organizational relationship to the church of Christ that any other home does.” That then, means there is no such relationship or connection and, if so, what right do men have setting up such an organization and soliciting and receiving contributions from churches? Could we set up natural homes and solicit and receive contributions from the church? We could if B. H. sustains the same organizational relationship as any other home. I can give as much scripture for one as he can for the other and there is none for either.

If men in the church, set up a Missionary Society and make its establishment and continual existence depend on church money and, its policies and operation are set by a board, it becomes an organization of the church; there is organic relationship but, these same men can set up a Benevolent Society (Boles H.) and it is not an organization of the church; there is no organic relationship. Those who so reason are either mighty shall low or, are too dishonest to admit their inconsistency.

Gayle also says, “So B. H. stands in the exact PLACE of the home, and in no other” and then argues there is no difference in the natural home and Boles H. How can B. H. be “the home” and at the same time “stand in the place of the home?”

The following are propositions I shall be happy to affirm and deny:

1. Resolved: The New Testament teaches the church’s obligation, in benevolence, extends to saints ONLY.

2. Resolved: The New Testament teaches the church has a responsibility to care for orphans who are not saints as well as those who are.

I will affirm the first and deny the second. Let someone first establish the right of the church to support orphans per se and then we will discuss the relationship of Boles Home to the church etc.

It becomes a little disconcerting for brethren to state their belief in the all sufficiency of the church and then come forth with a lot of specious palaver trying to prove their unscriptural practice is in harmony with their statement of belief.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 13-14
April 1962

By J. W. McGarvey

(Ed. Note: The following article originally appeared in the Christian Standard, Nov. 13, 1897).

I answer the following question: I read, years ago, your article in Lard’s Quarterly on “By one Spirit are we all baptized into the one body,” etc. J. J. Haley claims for it Holy Spirit baptism. Have you changed your view, or do you believe now as you did then? – W. C. Rogers.

I remember the article referred to, but I long ago gave away the copy of the Quarterly which contained it, and I can not now consult it. The article had rather a singular origin. Bro. Lard and I agreed as to the meaning of the passage; but he had some misgivings about it, so he made the proposal that I should write a defense of our interpretation; that he should make under an assumed name the strongest objections to it that he could, and that I should then make a short rejoinder. It has been so long since I read my article that I can not now recall all the course of my argument, and I am not sure that I did not say some things that I would not now repeat; but my understanding of the apostle’s meaning has undergone no change, and I will try to set it forth in brief.

As given in the Revised Version, the language of the text is this: “For in one spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit” ( 1 Cor. 12:13). Two facts in the past experience of the disciples are here set forth: first, that in one Spirit they had all been baptized into one body; and second, that they had all been made to drink of one Spirit. I think that it will not be denied that the word “drink,” in the latter clause, is a metaphor for the enjoyment of the Holy Spirit; and that the reference is to that gift of the Holy Spirit promised to all who repent and are baptized. This enjoyment of the’ Spirit, which begins of course with its reception, is represented by the apostle as being preceded by the other fact that all had been in one Spirit baptized into one body. In other words, being baptized into the one body had preceded being made to drink of the one Spirit. Can the baptism then mean the baptism in the Holy Spirit? I think not; for he who is thus baptized begins in the act to drink of the Spirit, and this drinking would not be spoken of as a subsequent and separate experience.

Again, in all passages where the word “baptize” is connected with that in or into which the act brings the subject, the verb is placed first. For example, “I baptize you in water;” “He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire;” “All who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death.” Even in our passage, “baptized into one body.” Now, if the apostle had meant to say that this baptism into one body was the Holy Spirit baptism, he would have expressed himself, according to the universal usage, differently. He would have said, “We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body.” This would have been unambiguous. But, connecting the expression “into one body” with the baptism, he places the expression in “one spirit,” not between them, but before both. What, then, does he mean by this latter expression? This is the real issue.

It is well known that Paul, in a few instances, uses the expression, “in the Spirit,” for the state of one in whom the Spirit dwells; but it is also used to indicate the controlling guidance of the Holy Spirit; and the latter usage is more frequent than the former. What is more to the point, the latter usage is the one that prevails throughout the context of the passage under discussion. The introductory remark of the context is this: “Wherefore, I give you to understand that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith Jesus is anathema; and no man can say Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit” (v. 2). Now, a man can say Jesus is Lord without being in the Holy Spirit in the sense of having the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, but he cannot say it without the Holy Spirit as his guide to a knowledge of Jesus. The Spirit’s guidance in the matter is exercised through the word of truth. Farther on the apostle adds: “For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; and to another the gift of healing, in the same Spirit” (vs. 8, 9); where the expressions “through the Spirit,” “according to the same Spirit,” and “in the same Spirit,” are equivalents, and all specify the action of the Holy Spirit in the several instances, and not the state of being in the Holy Spirit. If there could be any doubt of this, it would be removed by verse 11, which is a summary of the preceding specifications of the Spirit’s work: “But all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will.” In such a connection, when the apostle adds, “in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,” it appears incontrovertible that he is adding another specification of what the Holy Spirit does–that by its guidance, which was known to be exercised through the preached Word, the disciples had been baptized into the one body. The baptism could be understood by his readers only as the same by which they were baptized into Christ, and into his death; that is, the baptism in water.

I may add that, in the only two instances of baptism in the Holy Spirit expressly so styled in the Scriptures, this baptism did not introduce its subjects into the one body. The first was that of the apostles on the great Pentecost, and the second the family and friends of Cornelius. In the former instance the subjects of the baptism were already members of the body, and in the latter they became such afterward by being baptized, as Peter commanded in the name of Jesus Christ.

Truth Magazine VI:5, pp. 14-15
February 1962

By Osby Weaver

We do not propose to be able to answer all the questions that might be asked nor solve all of the problems that might arise as a result of marital entanglements in which some people find themselves involved. We do know that if all parties concerned would always respect the word of God on this question, no such problems would ever arise. Hence, whatever confusion, disunity, and inequities exist in marriages cannot be charged to the Lord.

In this article we are primarily concerned with a discussion of those issues about which we can be certain and regarding which errors have been propagated.

It is erroneously affirmed by some that one can marry, divorce for any cause, and re-marry as many times as it pleases him before he becomes a Christian, and God takes no notice of his marital capers until he is baptized, at which time, God then joins him to the one he got caught with when he was baptized. The reasoning employed by the exponents of this theory is as follows. “One is not a subject of God’s law until he becomes a citizen of God’s kingdom; that while he is in the devil’s kingdom, he is not amenable to God.” We shall now proceed to point out the fallacy of such reasoning and show that such a conclusion proves too much for the the0rizer, and that he will not accept the consequences of his own proof.

The first consequence of this theory that we mention is this: It makes marriage a church ordinance, ignoring the fact that marriage is 4000 years older than the church, and declares that all those outside the church are not married in God’s sight. This in turn demands that children born of such alien parentage be considered illegitimate by the God of heaven and makes marriage depend upon the church for its acceptability with God.

That such a position is ridiculous when one contemplates the baptism of only one party to the marriage vows is clearly seen. According to this theory, we suppose the one being baptized would be considered married in God’s sight, while the other would not, seeing that he was not subject to God’s marriage law and God took no cognizance of his marital state. Would this constitute a half-marriage? If the one not baptized was not subject to God’s law, then he would have the same liberty to put away his wife and take another, as the theory supposes any alien has, with the one being put away in this case being a Christian. The wife, who is a Christian, could not plead fornication as the cause of separation no matter what her husband had done, for if the alien is not subject to God’s law, then he cannot be guilty of the sin of fornication. Therefore, a non-Christian could desert a Christian, engage in the practice of any and all immoral acts, and the Christian could do nothing about it. She would stand to lose her home, never able to contract another marriage (on the basis of fornication being the cause), and that, too, with no objections from God. How could God object to the actions of an alien if the alien was not responsible to God in any sense except from a civil point of view?

Let us further consider the consequences as it relates to one who lives in a land that permits the practice of polygamy. A man comes to be baptized who has several wives. Can he keep them all? Does God join him to all of them at the point of baptism? Can he keep any of them? If so, which one? Can he pick his preference? Sometime it is argued that because children are involved, certain exceptions should be made to God’s demands concerning marriage. Well, let us suppose that this polygamist has children by each of his several wives; does that mean he can keep all the wives? If not, then why argue that one could keep one wife because there were children involved? We are not unmindful of the plight of children in such circumstances, nor unsympathetic toward them, but their presence does not change God’s law in any degree.

But the consequences thus far mentioned by no means represent the greatest danger involved in the theory. If one is not accountable to God while in the devil’s kingdom, he cannot be charged with transgressing God’s law. One certainly cannot transgress a law of which he is not subject. Romans 4:15 says, ” Where there is no law, neither is there transgression.” Hence, if God has no law for the alien, the alien has not transgressed God’s law. Again we read in Romans 5:13: “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Therefore, the alien who supposedly is not under God’s law is not charged with sin. If he is not charged with sin, he is not separated from God, because sin is that which separates a man from God. (Isa. 59:1, 2) It would then follow, if the theory is correct, that a man in the devil’s kingdom is not charged with sin and is not therefore separated from God — an alien sinner but not charged with sin–in the devil’s kingdom, but not separated from God! What a theory! I suppose this would establish the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy, for if one were in the devil’s kingdom yet not separated from God, there would be no place from which he could fall and to which he could fall. He would be with God and the devil both at the same time. If such a one came to be baptized, for what would the advocate of this theory tell him he should be baptized? Certainly not for remission of sins, for “where there is no law, sin is not imputed.” If he were not responsible to God, he would have no sins for which to be baptized. A preacher who holds this theory was pressed with this argument and finally answered, “He would not need to be baptized at all.” He had to say it in order to be consistent, thus the consequences of a false doctrine. This doctrine invalidates the gospel of Christ, renders His death a useless sacrifice, and declares His earthly mission to be a total waste of time. Jesus came to “seek and save the lost” only to find that after all had been done to accomplish this aim, that there were no lost, because those outside the kingdom of God were not subjects of His law therefore not sinners.

The consequences of such a theory would be enough itself to explode the theory if there was nothing more, but there is more. In 1 Cor. 5:9, 10, Paul said, “I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators, not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.” If those in the world are not subject to God’s law, just how did they get to be fornicators, covetous, extortioners, and idolaters? What made them such? Again in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 it is said that “fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed . . .” Here were some who were adulterers and fornicators before they were washed and justified, hence one in the devil’s kingdom can be guilty of committing adultery. Therefore, God does take cognizance of one’s marital relations and holds him accountable, therefore, before he is baptized, while he is still in the devil’s kingdom.

After it has been shown conclusively that one in the devil’s kingdom is a subject of God’s moral law; that God does take account of his doings; that he can be guilty of the sin of adultery and fornication, then the advocate of this theory jumps to another position. He admits that God does hold one accountable prior to his baptism, but that baptism cleanses one of his sins, therefore he can go right along living with a companion with whom he was in adultery before he was baptized. “Baptism,” he says, “cleanses the adultery and purifies the marriage so that it is no longer adultery.” To which we have just as often answered that baptism of itself cleanses no one of any sin. Baptism alone will not wash a single sin away. It must be preceded by faith and repentance. Now, whatever is involved in “repentance” is essential to the washing away of sin in baptism. “Repentance” means to “have another mind”–to change the mind, which in turn results in a change of conduct. One cannot habitually continue the practice of sinning and claim to have repented. That is the sense of 1 John 3:9. He cannot continue to sin if he is born of God, but he is not born of God unless he has repented. Things morally wrong before baptism are also wrong after one is baptized. If one insists on continuing in that which was wrong before he was baptized, therefore still wrong, it evidences his failure to repent.

Let us suppose that one is a drunkard before he is baptized, will baptism purify drunkenness and make it righteous? No one argues that he can keep on drinking after he becomes a Christian and do it with God’s approval. “Another,” let us say, “is a thief.” Can he keep on committing acts of theft after he is baptized because baptism cleanses it and makes it righteous? All agree that he must quit stealing and if repentance has been genuine, he will quit. Through fleshy weakness, he may take it up again but each time he steals, he is guilty of sin. Another comes to be baptized who is married to a woman with whom he is in adultery. Must he cease this act with her or does baptism cleanse it and make it righteous? Strange as it seems, there are those who will tell the drunkard and the thief that they must cease their unrighteous acts or be lost, but will tell the adulterer that it is all right for him to continue. “O,” it is said, “it is no longer adultery after baptism.” Well, just what keeps it from being adultery? Was baptism responsible for the transformation? If baptism changes adultery to purity, why will it not also do the same for drunkenness and theft? Is the blood of Christ powerful when applied to adultery?

Though they reach it in different ways, the blood of Christ is the cleansing power to wash sin away for both the alien sinner and the erring child of God. Now, will the blood do something for the alien that it will not do for the erring child? Does the blood of Christ lose some of its power when applied to the sin of the erring child? If it cleanses the alien of adultery and allows him to continue in it, will it do the same for the child of God? If the blood of Christ reached in baptism by the alien sinner will purify for him an adulterous marriage, will it also do the same for an erring child when he reaches it through repentance and prayer? If an alien sinner can put away his wife and marry another, without fornication as the cause, and be so purified by the blood of Christ that he can continue in this second marriage, can a child of God also put away his wife for other reasons and marry another and have his second marriage purified by the blood of Christ so that he may continue in it? If this is so with reference to the second, how about the third, fourth, and fifth? If this is so, then God has no law to protect the home, and the whole marriage realm becomes one big round of promiscuity, and that, too, with God’s approval! Believe it who can!

God holds both saint and sinner accountable for misdeeds. Sin separates from God for whoever is guilty. (Isa. 59:1, 2) The only way for one, who is separated from God to be reconciled, is to have his sins forgiven. Through the good providence of God, a plan has been revealed from God by which man can be made righteous. That plan is the gospel of Christ. In order to appropriate the grace of God offered in the Gospel, one must meet the conditions set forth, one of which is the cessation of the practice of habitually sinning. Whatever sacrifice one must make, whatever human relationships must be severed in order to meet these conditions, are essential to our salvation. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) From this there is no appeal. Hypothetical cases, borderline incidents, and man-made theories may be brought up; the innocent may suffer for the guilty, but the word of God still reads just as it did before. It is our business to respect it, not attempt to circumvent it.

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 1,8-9
March 1962