Truth Magazine

By Dusty Owens

EVERY SMALL CHILD FROM MY ERA WAS given a Tinker Toy set to help develop his creativity and ingenuity. I was no exception. You could follow the pictures and build what the designer had in mind, or use your own imagination and arrange the pieces just any way that suited your fancy. There were enough parts of various shapes and sizes to accommodate most any conceivable concoction.

What does that have to do with religion? Well, it makes about as much sense to make a religion out of Tinker Toys, as it does anything else man has invented that God has not specified and approved.

God has always given man specific instructions to please Him, all the way from Adam and Eve, the Patriarchs, Moses and Israel, to Jesus Christ and the Christian age. On all matters pertaining to religion, God has always made known His will through the Bible. People have not been satisfied to follow these requirements, but instead, fashion their own religions by taking pieces from the imaginations of men, and mixing in the additions, subtractions and perversions of what Clod has revealed. One group assembles pieces to build a religion that meets with their own approval, while another group does the same with different pieces. Hence, Tinker Toy religion!

This problem is as old as man. The Bible is replete with examples of people assuming they can change what God ordered. Adam and Eve ignored God’s command, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17), and they died! Cain offered a sacrifice to God that did not please Him (Gen. 4:4-7). God called it sin! When Moses revealed God’s Law to the Israelites, he warned, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). As it turned out, every generation thereafter was punished when they corrupted the “commandments of Jehovah”!

Under the Law of Christ the principle is the same. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema (accursed). As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:6-9). God considers this serious business; notice: “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace” (5:4; Rev. 22:18-19).

There is only one true religion today. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). It doesn’t pay to “tinker around” with God’s religion as He revealed it in His word. Every Tinker Toy religion will be destroyed!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, p. 103
February 21, 1985

By Johnny Stringer

The Rule And The Exception

When God established the institution of marriage, He intended it to be permanent, though He tolerated some deviation from that ideal for a while. Reverting to God’s original intention regarding marriage, the law of Christ forbids divorce. Jesus declared, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). Those who marry are bound to each other for as long as they both live (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). This being true, neither has the right to remarry a second mate as long as the first spouse lives; the second marriage of a divorced person is adulterous, because the divorced person is still bound to the first spouse (Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3).

There is one exception to this rule. When one puts away his spouse for the cause of fornication, he bears no guilt; he is no longer bound to the first mate, and free to marry another. Jesus made this exception when He affirmed, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

The term which is translated “fornication” is a broad term which includes any illicit sexual intercourse. Adultery is a more specific term, referring to fornication involving a married person. Inasmuch as the persons under discussion in Matt. 19:9 were married, the fornication to which Jesus referred was adultery.

Who Is Released?

When a divorce occurs for the cause of fornication, the only one released and free to remarry is the innocent party – the one who puts away the guilty spouse. The guilty spouse is not free to remarry. It is quite clearly said that if the one who is put away remarries, the second marriage is adulterous (Matt. 5:32; 19:19).

In reference to the Lord’s explicit statement that the one who is put away is not free to remarry, some say that Jesus was talking only about the one who was put away for some reason other than fornication. They argue that the one who was put away can remarry if that one was put away for fornication. They thus read into the text something that is not there. Jesus simply said that the one put away had no right to remarry – period; He did not add, “unless she was put away for fornication.” If we take Jesus’ statement as it is, the one who is put away has no right to remarry, regardless of the reason.

Morever, those who take this position would give the guilty fornicator a privilege that someone who was unjustly put away does not have. According to this position, if a woman is the innocent victim of a jerk who put her away for no good reason, she has no right to remarry, while the one who was justly put away for fornication does have that right. Who can believe this? Such is the consequence of reading into the text what Jesus did not say.

Some have difficulty accepting the fact that one party can be released while the other is not. Picturing two people bound to each other by a chain, they point out that when the chain is broken so as to release one, the other is also released. The only problem with this illustration is that those who are bound to each other in marriage are not bound by a chain. They are bound by the law of God. Since it is God’s law that binds them, He is the only One who can release them from their contractual obligations; and He can release one without releasing the other, if He so chooses.

The fact is, the only one God has released is the one who puts away his spouse for the cause of fornication. Nowhere do we read that He has released the guilty party also. Who, then, can presume to say that he is released? It should not seem strange to us that one is released while the other is not; for even in man’s legal affairs, it is sometimes the case that one party is released from a contract while the other party is not.

Fornication Must Precede The Putting Away

In order for one to be free to remarry, the fornication must be the reason for putting away his spouse. It is plain from the wording of Matthew 19:9 that the putting away must be for the cause of fornication; hence, one cannot claim the right to remarry on the basis of fornication that came after the putting away.

Sometimes a couple makes the decision to divorce for some reason other than fornication. Then later on, when one remarries, thus committing adultery, the other one claims the right to remarry on the basis of that adultery. This person’s claim is without scriptural warrant, for when he put away his spouse, it was not for the cause of fornication.

In fact, Jesus taught that if the divorced partner does proceed to commit adultery, the one who divorced her is held partly responsible before God. He “causeth her to commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32). This is because he put her into the position in which she was tempted to seek an adulterous relationship. If both agree to the unscriptural divorce, then each one shares some responsibility for the other one’s adultery which results from the divorce.

Though fornication must be the reason for the putting away, I know of no scriptural principle which demands that fornication be specifically named in the legal papers as the cause. If the party who is divorcing his spouse knows that to be the reason, and if God knows that to be the reason, then, so far as I can see, the scriptural requirement is fulfilled. In order that others might know that he is acting in accordance with God’s Word and that he is not defying God’s law, one should make others aware that it is for fornication, even if such is not specifically stated in the legal papers.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 3, pp. 75-76
February 7, 1985

By Lewis Willis

Let me share with you some thoughts on a couple of unrelated ideas which have come before me recently.

“My Father Was My Wife”

Now, don’t let that title trip you up. You will notice it is a quotation. I received a letter last week from someone who is apparently a listener to our Bible Talk call-in radio broadcast. The purpose of the author was to instruct me concerning reincarnation. For all of us dummies, reincarnation is the same person returning to live after death, but coming in a different body, or several different bodies. The lengthy statement I received pointed out that these different bodies we inhabit are provided to us as a “golden opportunity” which affords us time to desert Satan. Actually, it is both a punishment and an opportunity. Because we serve Satan in one body, when we die we are given another one until such time as we start serving God. Once we serve God in one of these many bodies, we are privileged to go to heaven and be with God. Or, so my letter writing friend wants me to think.

I suppose the writer had in mind convincing me of this fantastic theory. The packet included photostat copies from a book by Helen Wambach entitled Life Before Life. Mrs. Wambach had interviewed a number of people who told of their former lives in other bodies. For instance, Case A-511 said, “I knew my mother before when were were both males, and she was a close friend and comrade. I knew my father before, and I had resentment feelings toward him . . . .” Case A-143 said, “Yes, my mother had been my sister, my father and my child before. I saw many people I would know in this life, some of them I have not met yet.” Case A-398 reported, “My mother was my mother in a lifetime in 500 B.C. and I didn’t necessarily like her then either.” Ole A-398 is surely an unlucky person! That’s a family tie that goes back a long way, doesn’t it? Case A-460 said, “My mother was a close male friend from a past life. My father was my wife whom I used to treat cruelly in a past life.” You thought I just made up the title of this article, didn’t you? (All quotes from Life Before Life, p. 96).

I usually don’t say much about letters like this, but I felt that I just had to say something about this one. It was one of those anonymous letters. In fact, it was signed, “Anonymous Me.” But if the author really believes what I am being led to believe, I wonder why the letter was not signed, “Anonymous Us”? I keep remembering that the Scripture says, “. . .it is appointed unto men once to die. . .” (Heb. 9:27). However, someone who would believe something so ridiculous as the above idea would not allow themselves to be confused with the Scriptures. The Bible tells us we are all going to have to give account of ourselves unto God (Rom. 14:12). Why do I feel my correspondent does not have to worry about answering in the Judgment? Unaccountable people do not have to give account!

Baby Fae’s Heart Transplant

On Friday (10/26/84), doctors in Loma Linda, California, transplanted a baboon heart into a 17-day-old infant called “Baby Fae.” This has aroused the ire of animal lovers and has been discussed as a serious ethical question to be dealt with by the medical community especially. One of our members asked me what I thought about it. After a considerable amount of thought, I decided I wanted to make a comment.

It seems to me that, considered from a medical point of view, the human heart is nothing more than a muscle that moves the blood through the body. It is not the seat of our intellect and emotions. This is contrary to prevailing religous thought. For years people have touched their chests and affirmed concerning their religious convictions, “You’ll never take away from me what I feel right here in my heart.” This gesture is made when beliefs are challenged with the teaching of God’s word. Apparently most people think that the physical heart is the place where they hold their convictions. The old-time preachers used to distinguish between the blood pumping muscle and the brain by referring to the brain as the “Bible heart.” I think they were exactly right. Solomon said, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he . ..” (Prov. 23:7). Now we know that we think with our brain and not our blood pump. It seems to me that this answers the ethical question of replacing the physical heart with an animal heart.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 3, pp. 74-75
February 7, 1985

By Jim Venturino

In a previous issue we introduced the theory that Catholicism bases its teaching regarding the seriousness of sin on situation ethics. With the aid of Webster’s Dictionary situation ethics can be defined as, “the principles of moral values or conduct as determined by the relative combination of circumstances at a certain moment.” Joseph Fletcher, in his book Situation Ethics: the New Morality, agrees that all rules or absolute standards are obsolete: “It holds flatly that there is only one principle, love, without prefabricated recipes for what it means in practice, and that all other so-called principles or maxims are relative to particular, concrete situations!” (p. 36). The Catholic Church fully embraces this doctrine when they define serious (mortal) sin and tell what conditions are necessary for a serious sin to exist:

Sin, mortal – The transgression in a grave matter of law which is made with full advertance (attention or notice, JRV) and full consent. . . Full advertance or full consent is absent when there is external violence, when an act is committed while half asleep or drunk. . . (Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, p. 529).

To sin mortally, our offense must be seriously wrong, we must fully realize it is seriously wrong and we must fully want to choose our way over God’s. In sinning mortally one makes a basic choice of his own way over God’s, and is willing to repudiate his friendship with God over this choice . . . . Not all serious wrongs are mortal sins. Many people do seriously wrong things without fully realizing they are such, e.g. the millions who have little or no knowledge of Christ’s moral teachings, the many nominal Catholics who do not sufficiently know their religion, or some converts before studying Catholicism. Some do seriously wrong things, but do not fully want to do them; people often act under pressing mental strain, or from deeply rooted bad habits. Most would rarely, if ever, make a fundamental and lasting choice of their way over God’s (Christ Among Us, pp. 283-284).

To commit a serious sin the person must know the offense is seriously evil and must freely choose to do it. Many people do serious evil without knowing or understanding the act is serious, and therefore do not commit serious sin. Others do not have full control of their wills such as some alcoholics, suicides, mental patients; in some cases conscious or unconscious emotional drives inhibit freedom and therefore reduce responsibility. The amount of clear knowledge and freedom of will varies in different people and even in the same person at different times of his life and conditions the degree of moral offense (The New Parish Catechism, p. 25).

There’s the proof! Catholicism and situation ethics both rely on the relative circumstance of the moment in judging moral actions. Responsibility can be reduced depending upon circumstances such as drunkenness, sleep, bad habits, etc. Furthermore, a premium is placed on ignorance. A person must act with full knowledge and consent to be guilty of mortal sin. If this is true, then our Lord and the apostle Peter sinned in condemning the Jews for their rejection and murder of the Prince of life (Acts 3:14-15). Jesus said their sin would cause the kingdom to be taken from them and subject them to the sentence of hell, unless they repented (Mt. 21:33-44; 23:29-39). Because they were lost, Peter told the Jews to “repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away” (Acts 3:19a). Refusal to repent and turn to Christ would condemn them to hell even though they had acted in ignorance (Acts 3:17; Mt. 23:33,39). These people were guilty of a serious sin worthy of eternal punishment even though they did not fully realize what they were doing and were not making a basic choice against God by repudiating their friendship with God. “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30). “So then do not be foolish, but understand what the wilt of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).

“In an individual instance what tells a person whether the action, thought or omission is a serious or a less serious sin?” (The New Parish Catechism, p. 25). The Bible says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). God “has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness” through Christ (Acts 17:31). That judgment will be based on our deeds and thoughts as compared with the word of God which is the standard of righteousness (Rom. 1:17; Jn. 12:48; Heb. 4:12; 2 Cor. 5:10).

Catholicism disagrees with God’s word in this matter. Catholics teach that “Each person must follow his own conscience in judging whether an action is sinful and how serious it might be” (Christ Among Us, p. 285). In answering its own question, The New Parish Catechism shows the awful truth of the Catholic position:

Conscience tells each person whether a sin is serious or less serious (venial). Conscience is our human intelligence judging moral evil and good. One’s background, education, family training, environment have distinct bearings on the reports of conscience. Conscience is the ultimate judge of our moral actions . . . . Only the individual can make a decision in each case, even when he is in error. Neither God nor the Church can do it for him.

Are they really serious in claiming that God cannot decide if I have committed a serious sin unless my conscience condemns me? Saul of Tarsus was guided by a “perfectly good conscience” when he was persecuting the church (Acts 23:1;. 26:9-11). Was Jesus wrong then in rebuking him for persecuting Him (Acts 9:5)? Was the Holy Spirit in error when He instructed Paul to have the Corinthians judge the immoral brother, and remove that wicked man from their presence by delivering him over to Satan (1 Cor. 5:1-13)?

Were both of these men subject to eternal punishment even though there consciences were not condemning them? The Bible clearly teaches that peace of conscience does not determine our eternal destiny. “I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from god” (1 Cor. 4:4-5).

I believe it is clear that Catholicism teaches a system of ethics (“the discipline of dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation – Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary), based on the situation of the moment and the conscience of the sinner. On the other hand the Bible teaches:

A man’s way is not in himself; Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps (Jer. 10:23).

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death (Prov. 14:12).

And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship me teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men (Mt. 15:6-9).

Each person must decide for himself where to cast his vote of allegiance. The candidates and their positions are clearly set before us. But remember the campaign promises of our Lord: eternal life for those that obey His word (Heb. 5:9; Jn. 8:31-32); eternal punishment for those who go beyond the teachings of Christ and follow after a blind guide (Mt. 15:14; 2 Jn. 9; Gal. 1:6-20). “Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; . . . And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:14-15).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 3, pp. 73, 77
February 7, 1985