Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Well over ten years ago, the Guardian of Truth called attention to the grace-unity movement which was having some influence among us. The doctrine was discussed and several men among us who were propagating it were exposed. Some might think that the movement is dead and will have no more influence among us.

Let me assure you that the grace-unity movement is not dead. Our liberal brethren are fighting a life-and-death battle among themselves over whether or not unity with the Christian Church is possible. Several of their more influential men, including such names as Reuel Lemmons, Rubel Shelly, and others, are advocating a unity-in-diversity with those in the Independent Christian Churches. The movement to fellowship Independent Christian Churches is only a temporary stopping place in route to moving into the mainstream of modern Protestant denominationalism.

Those who have left the moorings of Bible authority have moved further and further into denominationalism. They themselves do not know how far to go and where to stop. For example, Carl Ketcherside began by going to the Christian Churches and not singing with the instrument, because at that time he still believed it was sinful. Before long, he was singing with the instrument and condemning those of us who preached that using mechanical instruments of music in worship was sinful. As his departure from the word of God progressed, he began writing about denominational people as “brothers in prospect” and now he considers them brethren. A similar journey away from Jesus could be described in Leroy Garrett, Edward Fudge, Bruce Edwards, and many others.

Major Tenets of the Grace-Unity Movement

What are the major tenets of the grace-unity movement? Given below are some of them:

1. Unity-in-Diversity. The grace-unity movement asserts that the only way unity can be attained and maintained is through unity in diversity. They argue that we can no more think alike than we can look alike. The unity-in-diversity brethren state that we have unity with the Christian Church by recognizing that we are different in our beliefs about using mechanical instruments of music in worship and by accepting each other in spite of this difference.

This kind of unity is not “of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). Paul did not try to maintain a unity-in-diversity with the Judaizers; instead the Judaizers were charged with preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9) and brethren were told to “cast out the bondwoman and her son” (Gal. 4:30). John did not recommend a unity-in-diversity with the Gnostics of his day; instead he charged that they had gone beyond the doctrine of Christ and did not have God (2 Jn. 9-11). Those who were faithful to Christ were commanded not to bid them Godspeed lest they become partakers in their evil deeds. Yet, the unity-in-diversity brethren tell us to accept those who have corrupted the worship of the Lord’s church by introducing mechanical instruments of music in worship. The unity which they preach is a different unity than what is revealed in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit.

The unity which they preach is a unity which requires those who oppose instrumental music in worship to compromise their convictions. Those who favor using mechanical instruments of music in worship make no changes whatsoever; they continue to use their instruments of music in worship and preach that it is right to use them, although they are not used at some unity forums lest brethren should be alarmed at where the movement is headed. Those who oppose instrumental music in worship are told to quit preaching that a person sins and brings himself into a state of spiritual condemnation when he uses mechanical instruments of music in worship. He must give up his conviction that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is a sin which will cause one to lose his soul.

2. Fellowship Without Endorsement. Recently, we have been treated to several treatises on fellowship which try to distinguish levels of fellowship. One might be in the fellowship of God but not in the fellowship of other saints. We have been told by some of our grace-unity brethren that those in the Christian Church are in fellowship with God but that they cannot join with them in the fellowship of worship (because it would violate their conscience).

Does fellowship imply endorsement? Leroy Garrett says, “No.” The Bible says, “Yes.” Paul mentioned that James, Cephas, and John “gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). The “right hands of fellowship” from these leading men indicated that they approved the gospel which Paul was preaching. Yes, the right hands of fellowship meant endorsement. In fact, inviting a Gnostic preacher into one’s home in such a manner as to aid his work and increase his influence resulted in “bidding him Godspeed” and becoming a partaker in his sins (2 Jn. 9-11). The unity-in-diversity brethren are flatly contradicting the word of God when they teach that we can receive those who introduce mechanical instruments of music into the worship of the church without endorsing that which is sinful.

3. Essentials and Non-Essentials. The grace-unity movement unscripturally distinguishes essentials from nonessentials. Everyone of us recognizes that there are essentials and non-essentials in the Bible. Paul placed eating meats sacrificed to idols (Rom. 14-15) in the latter category. Whether or not one decides to marry is placed in that category (1 Cor. 9), as are also whether or not a preacher is supported, meeting in an upper room, etc. However, there are other things which are essential, such as the deity of Christ, the Lordship of Christ, the resurrection, etc.

The grace-unity brethren work to reduce the essentials to a bare minimum. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside reduce the essentials to seven facts and one act which they call “gospel.” The other items are called “doctrine.” With reference to the “gospel,” all of those brethren who can no more think alike than they can look alike must learn to think alike! Rubel Shelly’s list of essentials is the seven ones of Epheiians 4:4-6; however he quickly points out that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is not a violation of the seven ones.

Brethren who reduce the “essentials” to a bare minimum are forced to go through the commandments of God and decide which are “essential” and which are “non-essential.” Surely they would be so kind as to tell the rest of us what criteria is used to distinguish an essential from a non-essential. Their subjective and arbitrary lists are worthless. Is God’s commandment to “flee fornication” an essential or a non-essential? How can we tell? Brethren, I have no desire to join hands with those brethren who put themselves in the position of becoming a judge of the law of God, distinguishing which of God’s commands must be obeyed and which do not have to be obeyed (Jas. 4:11-12).

4. Who Is A Christian. As the grace-unity movement continues its evolution, more and more the question is raised regarding who is a Christian. Leroy Garrett recognizes Christians in all denominations, regardless of whether or not they have been baptized. They may even be modernists, embracing evolution and denying the virgin birth of Jesus! Rubel Shelly says that one is a Christian so long as he is baptized in order to obey God. (The Baptists who deny that baptism is for the remission of sins teach that one is baptized in order to obey God.) The grace-unity movement loosens what God has bound as the conditions for becoming a Christian.

The Lord Himself said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). 1 will not tell a man that he is saved before and without being baptized. I will not recognize as saved anyone who has not complied with the Lord’s conditions. We dare not loose what God has bound (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).

How Much Love And Tolerance?

The grace-unity brethren preach love and tolerance. However, when they speak of those who oppose their unity-in-diversity, they become filled with venom. Those who oppose the unity-in-diversity movement are “close minded,” “sectarian,” “legalists,” “would be popes,” etc. Their publications are on the “gutter level,” contain “smut,” and are “slander sheets.” Those who oppose the grace-unity movement are not invited to the unity forums because “they do not have the right attitude” and are “knuckleheads.” I continue to marvel that the tolerant are so intolerant of the intolerant! To the preachers of tolerance, I say, “Physician, heal thyself!”

Are ill-will and malice toward those who call for book, chapter and verse tenets of the grace-unity movement? One could draw the conclusion that this was so from reading their journals. When these brethren write about denominational folks, they are described in glowing terms – they are so full of the Spirit, they are scholars, etc. When speaking of Christians who call for book, chapter and verse authority for everything we do, they syternatically attack us with such derogatory terms as “keepers of the orthodoxy,” “watch dogs,” “legalists,” “would-be popes,” etc. The heart of these brethren is exposed by their words. These brethren have much more in common with the denominations than they do with the Lord’s church. They are bent on reshaping the Lord’s church into a denomination!

Conclusion

Brethren, beware of these false teachers. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. They preach love and tolerance, but they are full of venom, bitterness, and intolerance. While we continue to oppose the grace-unity movement, let each of us resolve to work for the unity of the Spirit in every way that we can.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 193, 214-215
April 3, 1986

By Ronnie Westmoreland

One would think living in such a nation as this, that people would be constantly thinking and preparing for the future. We prepare our food that we eat; we prepare our clothes and other things for a trip that we have planned; this nation prepares its troops for the defense of itself. But it seems that the two most important events in our lives are the two that little or no preparation is made for, at least by the majority of the people of this nation. The two events that most often catch people unprepared are death, and the judgment that will certainly follow (Heb. 9:27). “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

At a funeral, the statement that one hears so often is, how well he or she had been doing, or it seemed to happen so suddenly. Yet, James 4:17 teaches us, “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” One never knows what the day in which we are living will bring forth, but we do know that death and judgment are coming. So it looks like we would be preparing each day as if it were to come that day. Being prepared is something that is taught throughout the Bible. Jesus tells us what we must do in order to prepare for judgment through His word. Since it is His word that will judge us in the day of judgment (Jn. 12:48; Rev. 20:12), then we should listen to Him.

The Bible declares what we must do. Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” One must believe. “But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). “1 tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3,5). One must confess Christ before men. “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32). One must be baptized. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16; see also Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:1-6, 1 Pet. 3:21). Revelation 2:10 says, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” These are the things in which we should be always ready. We should be living each day as if it were our last, because it just may be.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, p. 200
April 3, 1986

By Hayse Reneau

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Matt. 19:3-9).

The Pharisees ask Jesus two (2) questions. Jesus answers them in turn. To the first question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus says “No.” “What God has joined together let not man put asunder.” Note: When the Lord says don’t do something, the transgressing of His law constitutes sin (1 Jn. 3:4). Isn’t this true? If we say “Yes; but, not in all cases.” This puts one in the position of those who say sin separates one from God, but not necessarily all sin separates one from God. Such puts one in the foolish position of speaking for God. Unless God has made an exception, mere man has not been given the prerogative of doing so! It necessarily appears obvious that a mutually agreed upon separation does not come into this category; for it does not constitute one “putting asunder” the other one as the term denotes. Christians, in a godly attempt to maintain their vows, have discovered how much they need and love their mates by this practice.

Also, in Acts 5:29, we read, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” No situation is exempted from this truism. In my opinion, if marital circumstances produce a condition forbidding obedience to God and if it cannot be changed, one has no choice but to extricate himself from these circumstances. Likewise, a life-threatening situation would seem to be a justifiable reason for departure. Of course, there are thousands of “exceptions” which men have added to Christ’s one exception, as people seek to get out of marital arrangements they have gotten themselves into. Rather than suffer a little “hell” here on earth to avoid eternal torment, people have become a law unto themselves, marrying and divorcing indiscriminate of what God says. With such God is not well pleased.

Jesus then answers the second question, and warns that one who has put away his wife except for fornication enters a second sin should he remarry: Adultery. If he has put away his wife for fornication, his remarriage is not adultery.

Mark omits the second question asked by the Pharisees, and says Jesus and His disciples went into a house where the disciples “asked him again of the same matter” (i.e. the same question the Pharisees asked the second time). He answers them in essentially the same manner as Matthew records His answer to the Pharisees, adding that His saying applied also to a woman who might put away her husband for any reason other than fornication.”

I may be wrong but I fear some suppose that the terms in the heading are insignificant; that a state “divorce” issued by a heathen court is the important thing. With this erroneous conclusion it is presumed that a marriage partner who has “put away” the mate for some (any) cause except fornication has committed no trespass unless and until a state “divorce” is sued for according to state laws (this was not even a practice in the time of Christ!). Of course one must comply with the law of his country (Rom. 13). However, this has no bearing on the subject the Lord addresses. As we look at the meaning of these terms (“put away,” “put asunder”) we see that Christ’s command, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder, ” is broken when a mate is put away for some other reason than the one Jesus states.

1. Apoluo. Put away: To let go; to let loose; to send away (Bagster’s Analytical Lexicon) This word in the perfect tense and passive voice is translated “divorce” in Matthew 5:32, meaning the “dismissed woman.”

2. Choridzo. Put asunder: To sever; to disunite; to disassociate one’s self; to withdraw; to depart (op. cit.).

The term: “bill of divorcement”‘ (Matt. 19:7; Deut. 24:1-4) is from apostasion, and refers to the Jews’ practice of placing a document in the hand of the woman which would show for her benefit that she was not a deserter.

Do people really appreciate what the Lord signified when He said, “Wherefore they are no longer two but one flesh”? I’m afraid not. From R.C.H. Lenski’s Interpretation of Matthew 193-9 (pp. 729, 730), I quote:

“(Vs 6) In order still more to impress the point regarding what God made of marriage at the time of creation Jesus adds: ‘Wherefore they are no longer two (like father and son, mother and son) but one flesh.’ The physical sexual union consummated in marriage actually makes ‘one flesh’ of the two. And it ought to be self-evident that, therefore, this union is to be permanent. But since this is vital for the question brought up by the Pharisees, Jesus states this deduction (oun) in so many words: ‘What therefore, God yoked together, let man not divide apart.’ When persons are involved, a neuter such as (6) makes the reference abstract and general and thus stronger: ‘anything’ joined together by God. The aorist is generally considered timeless, yet here it marks time antecedent to the main verb and is thus in place for this reason. In connections such as this the English prefers the perfect, ‘has yoked together.’ The implication is that any man who divides what God has thus by his own creation united into one, flies into the face of God and his will a serious opposition, indeed. How indissoluble marriage is according to God’s own creation is thus made clear. Did these Pharisees never read these words of Scripture and think on what they obviously declare?”

Every Christian who is concerned for souls and alarmed over the moral decay in America continues to be shocked by the climbing divorce rate as reported in newspapers (the local newspaper recently reported 4 divorces granted; 2 pending, 2 marriage licenses applied for on that day). While it is needful (for the sake of our soul) to sympathize with those who jeopardize their eternal welfare in not fulfilling their marriage vows to God and their mate, we can in no wise excuse it.

The Jews “tempted” Jesus with their question. There is implication that they knew what God had said originally, and what Moses had written and why. They ask, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” The answer he gave is “no!” In verse 9 Matthew tells us He gave one (1) cause: “Fornication. ” God has “a few things against” those who would cast a “stumblingblock” (skandalon, “a cause or occasion of sinning) before others. The church at Pergamos was charged with “holding the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel to . . . . commit fornication” (Rev. 2:14). In Matthew 5:32, the one who puts asunder the mate for anything other than fornication puts a stumblingblock before the mate and “causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced comitteth adultery.” The world doesn’t believe this, and some brethren have too much of the world in them, for some seem to think Jesus answered, “Yes, it’s lawful to put away your mate for any cause.” That is what worldly people are doing!

In His answer Jesus used the broader term when He warned, “What God has joined together let not man put asunder.” Don’t walk away from; don’t send away; don’t sever what God has joined together. When one ignores God’s warning in this, sin results, before a suit is filed before a heathen court. Sorrow alone over what is done will not fix it.

Much complaining is often done about consequences, whenever God’s condemnation of our belief and practice is unacceptable to us. Nevertheless, God’s truth must be accepted; and whatever necessarily results from that truth must likewise be received, whether we like it or not, or whether it seems reasonable to us or not. Observe: baptism for a believer in order to have forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) presents consequences which are unacceptable to many people: “If that is correct,” I have been told, “it means my momma and daddy are going to hell, because they were not baptized.” Also, people who have “put asunder” their mate for “every cause” other than that allowed and have remarried, often having children born into that union, have argued about the consequences of how they can now please God. Repentance of sin demands ceasing that unlawful relationship: “But what about the innocent children?” “But we love each other!” Nevertheless, if the thief would serve God acceptably he must cease stealing, and those living in adultery (Col. 3:5-7) must cease. (Read Ezra 10:1-5.) People, who accept the truth are willing to accept whatever consequence goes with this truth. We can feel sorrow for the position truth puts the impenitent in; but we cannot change it. Solomon wrote: “Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard” (Prov. 13:15).

All written comments I have seen from brethren on this have dealt with the right of remarriage granted unto one who had put away his/her mate because of fornication, or denial of the right to remarriage, without sin, unto the guilty party or one who has dismissed the mate for reasons other than adultery. However, knowing how Jesus answered the Pharisees’ first question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” with, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”: It seems to me that this has to be dealt with before we get to the sin of adultery encountered by remarriage of those who believe that indeed it is lawful to put away the mate for “every cause.” Am I correct? Beloved, these things are set forth in an unbiased manner, for the sole purpose of Bible study. I have no one in mind to condemn or justify. Can it be studied without bias, traditionalism, or what the world may think about it or practice? I hope so.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 6, pp. 178-179
March 20, 1986

By Irven Lee

Thousands of parents have turned to private schools to help deal with the serious atheistic influences that reach children through many public schools. Evolution, sexual freedom, rejection of parental authority over their children and efforts to break down faith in God are dangers from which parents seek to protect their children. Alcohol and other drugs present physical dangers, and unholy behavior on the part of the untrained present dangers to character (1 Cor. 15:33).

Parents also hope for more positive things in the private school. It is good to avoid the evil influences, but it is also very helpful to find the wholesome influences of a good environment and effective teaching of truth that builds faith in and knowledge of the right way of the Lord.

The value of the private school depends very much on the faculty. These teachers need to be strong characters who give much thought to what they should accomplish. There are people who are not unbelievers and they are not immoral, but neither are they strong characters with great faith and strong convictions that would enable them to have a good influence on their pupils.

The effectiveness of the private school in training children also depends on the quality of the student body. Children and young people influence one another. If a school allows itself to become a reform school for the depraved young people, it ceases to offer the wholesome environment for which it may have been established. There is a place for the reform school, but it is not the school started by Christians to provide a safe place for training their children. A basket with many rotten apples is no good place to keep good apples.

A school where Christians teach and where children from good homes attend can and usually does maintain higher academic standards than schools where many teachers and pupils live by lower moral standards. The people who are righteous know more of the value of life and the reasons to attain higher goals. As righteousness exalts a nation it also blesses a school or home (see Prov. 14:34).

We need not expect to find perfection anywhere. Neither the teachers, the students, nor the parents are perfect. Parents who are very careless about their own lives and their teaching of their own children need not expect too much from the schools. Home is the place of special responsibility for training children. Excellent private schools can do much to aid worthy parents who are determined to train their children to be Christians. There is no substitute for mothers and grandmothers like Eunice and Lois, and for fathers who bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 1:3-5; 3:14,15).

Schools have in many cases taken themselves too seriously and have looked with longing eyes to church treasuries for help. Churches are not in the school business. It is not wrong for schools to exist and function, but they must operate separate and apart from the church. They certainly do not become wrong if board members, teachers, and patrons are Christians. If churches give to schools they will in turn be dominated by the schools.

Many religious people of various denominations have seen special needs for schools that would not work against their efforts to train their children. In such schools the religious teaching may be seriously in error even if their teaching does fight humanism and other forms of evil. It is amazing how modernism, worldliness, and humanism can influence them who claim to be Christians.

Race conflicts have led to the building of many private schools. In certain communities public schools hardly have a chance to provide an environment that is morally safe. Some private schools at best offer academic excellence with some effort to maintain moral decency. Each community has its own problems and its own advantages. We do not all face the same degree of danger.

Parents, if you take your children out of school to teach them at home, please understand that you have undertaken a difficult task which calls for much thought and constant effort. If reading, writing, and simple arithmetic were the only important needs the job could be done more easily. Even these basic needs will not be met very well in many homes. Teaching is a slow and tedious process. There should be excellent Bible teaching at home wherever the children are or are not sent for other training.

So many children do not have loving parents who are concerned about their spiritual welfare. We may learn enough from the world about us to realize that many children are abused rather than loved, protected, and properly trained. The only references to God they hear may be in the constant flow of blasphemy from parents and others about them. Even the orderly existence of our nation is threatened by this element of society who are drug addicts and alcoholics with animal like behavior. Our property is not safe and we are even in physical danger from such neighbors. Think of their helpless children who have such animals for parents.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 6, pp. 182-186
March 20, 1986