Truth Magazine

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

By Mike Willis

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God (Matt. 5.9).

“God is the God of peace; the Messiah is the Prince of peace, his birth was welcomed with the angel’s hymn, ‘Peace on earth.’ He is the great Peacemaker. He made peace through the blood of his cross. They that are his must follow his example” (A. Lukyn Williams, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XV, p. 174).

The Prince of Peace came during a time of peace (during the Pax Romana) to preach a gospel of peace. Through obedience to His gospel, one obtains peace with God (Rom. 5:1) and learns to live at peace with his fellow man (Rom. 12:18). Truly those who teach the gospel of Christ are the world’s greatest peacemakers. They will bring more peace to this world than any who participate in SALT talks or other disarmament discussions.

The Need For Pence

There is a great need for peace in this world. There are many who have no inner peace; the inner turmoil inside of them sometimes leads to total collapse or breakdown. Others cannot get along with their fellow man. Neighbors have fought each other and even killed one another over the placement of a fence between them. Family conflict is one of the most frequent causes of homicide.

Most of these people will not be reached by an article such as this, partially because they will not be exposed to it. This article will largely circulate among brethren. In the circle of Christians, there is still much need for peace and peacemakers.

Churches in many parts of this country have split, not over doctrinal issues, but over “personality conflicts.” If I understand, what brethren mean by “personality conflicts,” they mean that several strong-willed brethren clashed to such an extent that they decided to divide rather than to work through their disagreements. I know that these differences are different from those of the Paul-Barnabas type (Acts 15) because these brethren, who believe in the same Lord and teach the same gospel, will not announce each other’s gospel meetings (although they might on different occasions use the same preacher), recognize one another as faithful brethren, call on each other for prayer, and such like things. Paul and Barnabas did not act this way toward one another.

Some churches isolate themselves from other brethren by having nothing to do with one another. There is no feeling of cooperation and support for each other’s work; instead, one feels jealousy and envy at the other’s successes while the other feels contempt and manifests arrogance. The result is that the various churches have little if anything to do with one another.

These symptoms are not isolated to one section of the country. They manifest themselves in various cities. Surely, there is a need for modem peacemakers.

Some With Whom There Can Be No Peace

Whatever program of peace is accepted is also a program for division from those who refuse to acknowledge and accept it. Hence, the gospel will prohibit a man being at peace with every man. Here are some men with whom one cannot be at peace:

1. The World. James said “. . .know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?” (4:4). Those who are at peace with the world have God as their enemy. Hence, the godly cannot be at peace with the world.

2. False Teachers. Jesus said, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Lk. 6:26). Those who are at peace with the false teachers of our age – the Leroy Garretts, the Carl Ketchersides, the Guy N. Woods, and other false teachers – are false teachers themselves. They have compromised the gospel in order to be at peace. Godly men cannot be at peace with false teachers.

3. Those With Sinful Dispositions. Sometimes one cannot live at peace with his fellow Christian because his fellow Christian will not let him! When one brother approaches his brother in Christ, seeking to bring about peace, and the brother continues to undermine his influence, destroy his reputation, hold him at arm’s length or otherwise isolates himself from him, there is no way to make peace. Those who have sinful attitudes make it impossible to live at peace with them.

Things Which Disrupt Peace

Men sometimes do not understand what disrupts peace. Some charge others with disrupting the peace when, in reality, they are peacemakers. There are times when brethren are divided over an issue. Secretly the brethren knife each other in the back, talk about each other maliciously, and otherwise seek to destroy one another’s reputation. A brother comes along who addresses a discussion of the issues and identifies those whom he believes are teaching something wrong in an effort to work through the problem. Many times the brother who openly discusses the issue is charged with disrupting peace. The truth is that the peace was already disrupted and this man was simply trying to restore it. The open discussion of deep-seated problems is not a sinful disruption of peace. If brethren are at peace in error, they need disrupting!

The kinds of things which disrupt peace are: gossip, whispering, self-willed attitudes, selfishness, envy, jealousy, and such like things. False doctrine will also disrupt the peace of the church.

Attributes Of the Peacemaker

The peacemaker must have certain attributes. (1) He must love peace. The man who does not love peace will not be able to live at peace himself, much less to help others obtain peace (2) He tries to live peaceably with all men (Rom. 12:18). (3) He has subdued the works of the flesh in his own life which interfere with peace. (4) He is longsuffering, willing to bear patiently with offences of others in the interests of peace. (5) He is sacrificial. He is willing to suffer mistreatment in the interests of bringing peace. He will sacrifice himself – anything but the truth and righteousness – in the interests of peace.

How To Make Peace

1. Communicate. Peace can never be attained unless brethren start talking to each other. That is why Jesus said, “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault” (Matt. 18:15). Communication with each other is necessary for peace to be obtained. Though there are times when breaking contact is necessary, generally he who shuts off contact with his brother builds walls and fences, destroying any opportunities for peace.

2. Pray. Pray about the problem. He who prays for peace with his brother will be ready to work with his brother to solve their differences. Jesus commanded us to pray for our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48); surely we can pray for our brethren with whom we have disagreement.

3. Repent of sins. Those who have committed sins against another must be willing to repent of their sins in order for there to be peace. Jesus said, “. . . if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:15-17). The wicked man’s refusal to repent of his sin makes peace with him impossible.

4. Leave room for exercise of judgment. Many brethren cannot get along with each other because they have no tolerance of each other’s differences. Paul and Barnabas disagreed on judgment; nevertheless both of them were faithful Christians. That should cause me to expect that some people who do not agree with my judgment might be faithful Christians.

Because some brethren might think that some problem was handled differently than they would have handled it is no reason for one congregation to withdraw from another. Give each other room to exercise his best judgment. Surely the problem is not solved by cutting off communication from one another, building fences, and isolating ourselves.

Conclusion

Surely the time has come for all God-fearing brethren to call a halt to alienating ourselves from one another. We must quit building fences and start building bridges. Those who are afraid of the bridge building probably have reason to prefer the division to reconciliation with their brethren.

The autonomy of the local church is not violated by preachers visiting with each other or elders discussing mutual concerns and problems together. Brethren have nearly quit visiting each other’s meetings; some hardly attend their own meeting so we should not expect that they would attend someone else’s meeting. Instead of feeling like we are all working on the same team to accomplish the same good, in some areas brethren seem to think that they and on rival teams. Each teach competes with the other for new members, views each other’s disciplinary actions with suspicion, and belittles the other in private conversation. Suspicion replaces respect when brethren quit communicating with one another.

Surely brethren have had enough of this are ready for warm, personal relationships with each other. Are there no peacemakers among us who can help in solving these problems?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 7, pp. 198, 216-217
April 4, 1985