Truth Magazine

By Bill Cavender

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:3-5).

Every faithful child of God is an heir of God and has been promised eternal life by our Father. “And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life . . . in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal . . . the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 John 2:25; Tit. 1:2; Rom. 6:23). Our promised inheritance, which is in heaven in the presence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and with the elect angels and all the redeemed of the ages, is “incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” Our inheritance in heaven is imperishable, enduring forever, never decaying. It is pure. “It will not have been obtained by dishonesty, nor will it be held by fraud; it will not be such as will corrupt the soul, or tempt to extravagance, sensuality, and lust, as a rich inheritance often does here; it will be such that its eternal enjoyment will never tend in any manner to defile the heart” (Albert Barnes). It will ever be new and fresh, in all its original splendor and brilliance, brightness and beauty. That wonderful inheritance of the saints in light, in the presence of the Almighty Himself, in that land of fadeless day and in that city which lieth foursquare, will be revealed to us when Jesus comes again at the last day of time (Col. 1:14; Rev. 21:1-27; 22:1-20; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess. 1:3-10).

Our entering into and upon such an inheritance is not only conditioned upon our becoming God’s children through faith, repentance and obedience in baptism, but also upon our being faithful to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ all our lifetimes. “We desire that every one of you do show the same diligence unto the fullness of hope even to the end: that ye be not sluggish, but imitators of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:11-12). The apostle Peter said, “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:5-11). The lazy, slothful, indifferent, ungodly, unfaithful child of God has no hope and no promise of the eternal inheritance (Matt. 25:31-36). It is reserved for those who are willing to suffer with Him and who are “kept by the power of God through faith” (Rom. 8:17; 1 Pet. 1:5). In this life we have a hundredfold of God’s blessings and in the world to come we have eternal life (Mark 10:28-30).

Are you God’s child and an heir of God? Are you preparing now for eternal life in heaven? Today, now, is the day of salvation (Heb. 3:13, 15; 4:7; 2 Cor. 6:2)!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, p. 199
April 4, 1985

By Johnny Stringer

Unless he put away his spouse for the cause of fornication, the divorced person has no right to marry a second mate while his first spouse is still living. If he does so, he is guilty of adultery (Matt. 19:9; Lk. 16:18). The reason for this is that one who is divorced continues to be bound to his first spouse; they are bound to each other for as long as they both live (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). Since he is bound to his first spouse, he commits adultery every time he has intercourse with his second spouse.

In order to be forgiven of this adultery, one must repent (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22); hence, he must quit committing it; his adulterous relationship must be severed. Brethren, however, have propagated theories which make it unnecessary to sever adulterous marriages. Two of the most popular of these theories in the Lord’s church are identified with their most prominent proponents, E.C. Fuqua and Lloyd Moyer.

Fuqua’s Theory

Fuqua championed the theory that the alien sinner is not .under the law of God, hence not subject to God’s law on marriage. Consequently, he argued, no matter how many times one has divorced and remarried unscripturally, he can remain with whatever mate he is married to when he becomes a Christian; for God’s law did not apply to him when he was divorcing and remarrying as an alien. Here are his words:

I therefore boldly stated the World is in no sense under law to Christ but lives and breathes under self-made laws called Civil law . . . While in the World . . . they are not under Christian law, but are under civil law exclusively . . . the World is without law from God or Christ: the church alone is under Christ’s law . . . We have removed Marriage, as per Christ’s law to the Church, entirely from the World. It is God’s perfect marriage law in the church, for Matthew 19:9 states Christ’s law to His Church. It has no particle of reference to the World (Fliqua- Warren Debate).

Fuqua’s theory is false. Aliens are subject to God’s marriage law. If God’s marriage law did not apply to aliens, they could not be guilty of adultery and fornication, for these are violations of God’s marriage law. Yet, the Bible teaches that aliens are held accountable for these sins. The Corinthians had been guilty of them before their conversion (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Moreover, Paul spoke of fornicators of the world, as distinguished from brethren who were fornicators (1 Cor. 5:11).

While in Athens Paul said that all men everywhere were commanded to repent, because Christ would judge the world (Acts 17:30-31). This means that all men everywhere (including aliens) are required to cease disobedience to God’s law. They would not be required to repent, ceasing disobedience to God’s law, if they were not subject to God’s law.

God today has no law on marriage other than the law of Christ (Heb. 1:1-2) and His law applied to all men. He has been given authority over all, not just over the church; and all owe Him their obedience (Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22; Phil. 2:9-11; Rev. 19:16). It is clear that His authority extends over alien sinners, even though they rebelliously refuse to submit to it. He rules supreme, and all who refuse to submit to His law will be held accountable (John 12:48; Rom. 2:6-9).

According to Romans 2:6-9, those who do not obey the truth will receive tribulation and anguish when Christ exercises His judgment; and Paul in that passage has reference to “every soul” (v. 9). Hence, every soul (including the alien) is responsible for obeying the truth. Since Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce is obviously part of the truth, it follows that every soul is responsible for obeying that teaching. If the alien is involved in a relationship which the truth of Jesus says is adulterous, he is guilty of sin and he cannot be forgiven unless he ends that relationship.

Moyer’s Theory

Lloyd Moyer propagated the theory that when one marries unscripturally, the first act of adultery with the second mate automatically dissolves the first marriage; hence, subsequent acts of intercourse are not adulterous, and the second marriage can, therefore, continue. Lest anyone think I am misrepresenting brother Moyer’s position, I cite his own words. In the Gospel Guardian (Aug. 22 and 29, 1963), he wrote:

The first marriage has been destroyed by the sin of fornication . . . Though adultery was committed when they first joined themselves together in intercourse because they were still the husband or wife of someone else, subsequent sexual intercourse between them is not adultery. They are no longer the husband or wife of someone else . . . And by this sin of adultery they cause their previous marriage to be dissolved . . . No marriage exists. Where no marriage exists, the parties may marry someone else . . . We have shown that by the very act of adultery the first marriage was defiled, adulterated, and therefore dissolved. Subsequent sexual intercourse would not be adultery. It would be simply a man and his wife cohabiting in the confines of marriage.

Then in his debate with Gene Frost, Moyer affirmed:

Though adultery was committed when they first joined themselves together in intercourse because they were still the husband or wife of someone else, subsequent sexual intercourse between them is not adultery. They are no longer the husband or wife of someone else. . . And by this sin of adultery they caused their previous marriage to be dissolved . . . Jesus shows . . . that fornication (illicit sexual intercourse) is that which dissolves a marriage.

Moyer’s theory means that if a man commits adultery and his wife does not know it, the adultery dissolves the marriage without her being aware of it; hence, she unknowingly continues to live with a man to whom she is not married! Moreover, the innocent party who knows of the adultery cannot simply forgive the guilty party and continue living with him, for they are no longer married. As Moyer said in his debate with Frost, “The innocent party may not cohabit with the guilty companion without taking a member of Christ and making him a member of an harlot. The innocent cannot knowingly participate on the ‘marriage bed’ which is defiled without becoming a party to the unholy union of three people becoming one flesh. ” Moyer continued to explain that in order for the innocent to continue living with the guilty, they must “make an agreement to live together again as husband and wife.” The legal aspect of the marriage, he says, is the only aspect of the marriage which is still intact and does not have to be re-established.

This theory is unscriptural. No where does the Bible teach that the act of adultery dissolves the first marriage. According to Jesus’ teaching, adultery gives the innocent party the right to divorce a spouse, but it does not itself sever the

marriage (Matt. 19:9).

Moyer’s theory is contrary to the clear teaching of Romans 7:2-3, which says, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth . . . So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.” She is bound to her husband for as long as he lives, not just until she has intercourse with someone else. Even though a woman is married to another man, she is still bound to her first husband, so that her second marriage is adulterous. Since she is still bound to the first husband, she has no right to live with the second; she must end the adulterous relationship.

Conclusion

It is not at all easy to teach people who are in adulterous marriages that they must sever their marriages. No one finds it a pleasant duty. Consequently, many have found theories such as Fuqua’s and Moyer’s very attractive. We, however, must look to God’s word and accept what it says; and we, must reject all theories which are contrary to scriptural teaching, even though we might wish we could believe them.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, pp. 200-201
April 4, 1985

By Lewis Willis

There is something unique and peculiar about every religious organization that you encounter. The peculiarity is usually the thing that becomes the basic appeal of that organization. For instance, the basic peculiarity about the Catholic church is their claim that the pope is the mouthpiece of God today. Some of the Pentecostal sects are unique for claiming that only one personage – not three – possesses the nature of Deity. The Seventh-Day Adventists are peculiar because they worship on Saturday instead of the first day of the week.

Not every unique or peculiar thing is bad. In Churches of Christ, we are unique in contending that “we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.” Unlike these other groups of people and their peculiar assertions, we in the Lord’s church can prove from the Scriptures that for which we contend (1 Pet. 4:11).

Nonetheless, some of the ideas that become the “reason” for the existence for some of these religious organizations are silly and dangerous. As an example, there is an organization in Warsaw, Indiana called Faith Assembly and it has recently gained acclaim in the press as the church that teaches its members not to seek medical treatment when they are sick. Instead, they are taught to depend on faith healing. As a result, some of their members and their preacher have gotten themselves into legal trouble because they have withheld treatment from their children. Last November, a six-week-old baby was permitted to die of pneumonia because his parents would not take him to a doctor. A grand jury indicted the child’s mother for reckless homicide, criminal recklessness and neglect of a dependent (Akron Beacon Journal, 12/19/84).

The leader of this religious sect, the “Rev. Hobart Freeman,” was indicted in November on charges of “aiding or inducing the death of an untreated child. ” In fact, Freeman was charged with three felony charges for his part in teaching these people to withhold treatment from their children.

Ironically, those who have been led by this blind guide are the ones who are going to have to suffer the legal consequences of their deeds. The reason for this is, the Rev. Freeman died on December 8, 1984 of “severe cardiovascular disease, coupled with mild bronchopneumonia.” Because he taught that medicine is evil, he had shunned medical care during his illness just as he had taught his followers to do. The press reported him to have said he could not die – but, he did (Akron Beacon Journal, 12/11/84)!

There is a certain justice in this. This man had become famous for his silly doctrine and innocent children were being swept to their deaths because of its practice. It seems somewhat fitting that he should have met the same fate. Of course, his problems are not over because of his death. They have just begun. The word of God teaches that we are all going to give account to God for what we’ve done and said (2 Cor. 5:10).

A little closer to home, in June of last year, a judge in Coshocton County, Ohio, dismissed involuntary manslaughter charges against some parents who allowed their one-year-old son to die of pneumonia while withholding treatment from him. The judge ruled that Ohio law protected the Coshocton couple. Current Ohio law says that parents who withhold medical care from their children risk being prosecuted for child neglect except in cases where the parents “provide spiritual treatment” to their children instead of medical care. The judge ruled this exception applied in this case but he criticized the law. He argued that Ohio law violates a 1944 Supreme Court decision which says “parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free . . . to make martyrs of their children” (Akron Beacon Journal, 12/13/84).

In the last session of the State Legislature, Rep. Paul Jones of Ravenna tried to introduce regulation that would have deleted the above referred to exception from Ohio law. William Evans, a lobbyist for the Christian Scientists, had legislators flooded with letters protesting Mr. Jones’ amendment and the matter was dropped. Jones said he would make a second attempt to change the law in 1985. His view is, “Surely we can come up with a law that allows people to follow their religion but does not force the State to stand by helplessly while innocent children die without medical treatment.”

Courts and legislatures have to grapple with such problems because some religious zealot has to have some weird idea around which to build his religious movement. And there are enough of these religious weirdos that they are able to change the thinking of an august body such as a State Legislature. One would think that the Lord had never said anything at all that would deal with this silly phenomenon. Jesus once said, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick” (Matt. 9:12). It would be difficult to misunderstand what the Lord said sick people need a doctor! There is no violation of any principle of truth when somebody who is sick goes to a doctor. And everybody can see this except those who don’t want to see it.

Miraculous healing established faith in Jesus as the Son of God (Jn. 20:30-31). It was also used to establish the credentials of the apostles in preaching the truth (Heb. 2:4). But it was a temporary arrangement intended to be used until “that which is perfect is come” (1 Cor. 13: 10). That which is perfect – the perfect law of liberty – has come and miraculous healing is no longer being practiced (Jas. 1:25). An awful lot of deception is being practiced in the name of faith healing but no healing is being done like that which was done in the days of the New Testament. Do not allow yourself to be confused by modern faith healing claims.

So, nowhere has Jesus forbidden believers seeking medical treatment for their diseases. I was just thinkin’. if you are sick, go to the doctor!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, pp. 198, 217
April 4, 1985

By Robert Wayne La Coste

Contention and strife have been existent for decades now over the matter of caring for orphan children. Churches have been divided, preachers fired, and bitterness created over the matter. Scripture has been debated, both orally and in written discussion. One brother believes this on the passages and another brother believes the contrary. One thing is or certain! Both might be wrong, but one is definitely wrong, for two different positions have been advocated, namely: institutional care or individual care (in one’s own home). The honest Bible student can plainly see the difference between the individual and the church and the responsibilities relative to each; yet the war rages on and brethren everywhere continue to insist: “This is the best way to do it.” Is it really? Some are so foolish as to even comment, “This is the only way to do it.”

When I began studying these matters years ago, I was determined to find out what God had said and stick to that, and from those principles find out just which was the better way, both scripturally and otherwise. I was not simply going to preach against institutional care because “dear ole dad” did and simply because he had said, “There is no Scripture warranting the church support of such.” Although I believed he was and is preaching the truth on these matters, I wanted to know for myself!

The Scriptures were plain! James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 were never a problem. Anyone who can read English and who knows the difference between personal pronouns and collective terms can see the teaching there! But the question in my mind was: Which would be better? That answer wasn’t long in coming either. No brother or sister anywhere who supports these things from the treasury of the church can honestly say that institutional care will ever surpass the divinely established family! If any of them is so naive as to believe that orphan homes are better than families and the love and care derived from having such, they have deceived themselves!

God instructed in particular fathers, “. . . Provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Question: Who did God think was better qualified to rear children in His truth, an institution or a father in a family? To ask such a question is to answer it!

Speaking of “dear ole dad,” he was reared in an orphan’s home for many a year. The Catholic home certainly provided all of the clothing, food and ‘ shelter necessary. A certain love and fondness was aroused between those over him and himself, but does one think this replaced the love of the mother he had lost in early childhood? Would one equate or think this care was better than his earthly parents could have offered? Proper love, discipline, and teaching is to be directed from the parents of children and absolutely nothing man can devise can or will take the place of God’s order!

Though all of this be true, certainly this does not mean that such institutions do not have a right to exist. They do have a right. I have yet to read about one existing during ‘the first century when God’s people served Him in His church; but notwithstanding, they, along with many other human organizations, do have a right to exist, as long as they do not seek to impeach the wisdom of God! When they start advocating, “We can do it better” or “We need the church to support us” or “This is the only way to do it,” they have overstepped their bounds, for none of these statements are valid! They have no basis, biblically or otherwise; they are just not so!

Many have asked me, “What will we do with all of these children if we don’t care for them in institutional homes?” I wonder what they did, in century number one when the apostles lived? Do you suppose they carted them off to a human institution? How could an inspired man write what he did about fathers in Ephesians 6, not to mention what he wrote to Timothy about widows in I Timothy 5, and do that? There was and is a better way! I tell you this: If these money begging institutions would open up their doors and cry throughout the land, “Come and get the children,” there would not be one left yet to be adopted within a week I How do I know this? Remember the Vietnam children and the baby lift after the conflict? Thousands of parents wanted them, but there just weren’t enough children to go around.

This is not going to happen however! To close down the orphan homes according to some of these people would be “terrible and tragic.” I pray God will hasten the day! May He hasten the day when children can awaken to a mommy and a daddy to talk with, to pray with, to cry with, instead of some appointed “parent” from some committee. Can a human institution which has so divided the church and kept children from mothers and fat-hers, as God intended, be smiled upon and blessed by God? We think not! These homes will not let them go I If they let them go, they would cease to exist and they know it. Again, I say, may God hasten the day!

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord . . . have we not done many wonderful works in thy name and then will I Profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:22-23).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, p. 207
April 4, 1985