Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Christ’s basic law on marriage is just not that hard to understand! We realize some difficult questions arise regarding complicated circumstances into which men get themselves; even here, a safe course can always be found. “The practice of divorce was an ancient and traditional custom, which Moses limited by insisting on a definite motive, and on a regular bill of divorce” (John Peter Lange, Matthew [Philip Schaff, trans. and ed.], p. 115). In contrast to the “writing of divorcement” allowed by God through Moses, Jesus said, “But I say unto you . . . … God’s law under Moses required death for adultery, but allowed a man to give his wife “a writing of divorcement” if she was guilty of some other shameful or offensive thing. Christ revoked the latter permission, made marriage a lifetime bond, and allowed divorce only on grounds of sexual immorality (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18).

Men seem obsessed with finding loopholes in the marriage law given by Christ. The theories are as numerous as the flies on a watermelon rind at a roadside park on a hot, August day. On the other hand, a few brethren have overreacted in their effort to counter the theories which broaden Christ’s law. They want His law to be even stricter. In view of all this ferment, we ask, “What shall we do with Christ’s law on marriage?”

Shall we bend it to modern times? “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men?” Paul said he was “a bond-servant of Christ” and therefore he did not preach a message which was “according to man. I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:9-12). He warned the Romans against being “conformed to this world” or “age.” Instead of trying to change the will of Christ, they were to be “transformed” or changed by it (Rom. 12:1-2).

Tighten it or loosen it? Jesus defined the extent of His authority when He said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). He also explained that He would exercise His authority from the Father’s right hand through the Apostles, when He said, “Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18; NASB). Men have tried to loosen the requirements of Christ (I Jn. 2:4; Rom. 6: 1) and to tighten those requirements (1 Tim. 4:3). Either way, men break out of and proceed outside the boundary of Christ’s law – they “have not God” (2 Jn. 9).

Alfred Plummer in his commentary on Matthew tries to make the law of Christ tighter than it is by eliminating the part of his law dealing with divorce and remarriage. He understands what Matthew reported Christ as teaching, but he tries to erase it! Speaking of Matthew 5:32, he says, “According to this passage, Christ said. . . . nothing short of adultery justified divorce, but adultery did justify it. It is very improbable that Christ did teach this. If we want His true teaching we must go to Mark and Luke. . . .” He says someone added the words “except for fornication” in Matthew 19, and that “saving for the cause of fornication” in Matthew 5 was not “part of the original Sermon” (pp. 81-82, 259-260). In other words, he just subtracts the part that does not fit according to his own thinking.

Allow elders or preachers to set it aside? Some who are in adulterous unions or wish to enter such sinful relationships seem to think that if they can just find a preacher or elder to approve, all will be well! So they go from preacher to preacher and elder to elder until… sure enough, they find one who says, “Yes, I think in your case, it will be all right.” Sometimes Such parties lie to a preacher in order to get him to “say a ceremony,” apparently thinking if they fool the preacher they have fooled God. They seem to think it works like this: What man hath joined together, God must recognize. The truth is that when they are bound to an original mate by God’s law, no man on earth can unjoin them and rejoin them to new mates. The law of God stands no matter how many “magic formulas” some ungodly preacher mutters in a ceremony. “Fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:3).

Allow it to drive people away? Yes, if God’s law on marriage “runs people off,” then so be it – we cannot change God’s law! ‘ In Luke 16:1-18, Jesus uses His law on marriage as an example of something the Pharisees would not be willing to obey. This law would be a barrier to them entering “the kingdom of God.” But Christ did not change His law “to attract them” or “to keep them, and then maybe we can help them later.” The same message that converted 3,000 in Acts 2 turned men into raging murderers in Acts 7. If men do not want God’s word, God will deal with them, but He will not change His word to suit them.

Change it. to suit “needs” of family or friends? The changes some seek in the strictness of Christ’s law just “happen to fit” the “needs” of someone in their family, a friend ‘ or themselves! No matter how much we claim to love our family and friends, we cannot change God’s law for them. Their true need is to submit to Christ’s teaching, no matter what the cost; true love will do all in its power to get them to submit to Christ (1 Jn. 5:1-3). If Christ’s law offends them, we must remember Christ told us to expect this in many cases: “I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” (Matt. 10:34ff).

Study it! The man of God delights “in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night” (Ps. 1), The noble Bereans “searched the scriptures daily,” and Paul told the young preacher Timothy, “Meditate upon these things. . . . Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine” (Acts 17:11; 1 Tim. 4:15-16). A little meditation reveals that any position which denies the application of Christ’s law on marriage to aliens is a position based on a dangerous fallacy. The false premise is that those outside the Lord’s kingdom are not held accountable for breaking the law of Christ. But that is the only law God has put into effect today. If the unconverted are not held responsible or guilty for breaking it, then they are as perfectly innocent as new-born babes. If the unconverted are “sinners,” then they have transgressed “the law” – the law of Christ, the only divine law in effect during the Gospel Age (1 Jn. 3:4; Gal. 6:2).

A little meditation reveals that those people who claim there is no scriptural basis for divorce and remarriage base their argument on a false premise. They claim Christ allowed divorce and remarriage in His recorded statements, but that in so doing He was only explaining the law of Moses. Such a claim overlooks the preparatory work of Christ in laying down principles in preparation for His kingdom. Also, those who make the argument need to study Moses’ law. That law required death for the adulteress, not “a writing of divorcement” with guarantee of the right of remarriage! God’s law under Moses allowed divorce for several reasons other than adultery; in contrast, the law of Christ allows divorce and remarriage only on the grounds of adultery or sexual immorality.

Obey it! No matter what the cost, we must submit to the law of Christ. “He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matt. 10:39). We shall all be “judged by the law of liberty” – the law of King Christ. We must look “into the perfect law of liberty,” continue “therein,” and “fulfill the royal law” in order to please Christ (Jas. 1:25; 2:8f). A man who keeps “the whole law” except for his continuing in an adulterous relationship, “is guilty of all” (Jas. 2:10-11).

Teach it! Christ wants His word carried to “all nations” and to “every creature” (Matt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15). But before men can be converted, they must realize they are sinners – violators of the divine law of Christ (Jn. 16:8; Rom. 3:23). Many have violated Christ’s law on marriage; only when they realize they are guilty of this and other sins, will they come for cleansing in the blood. Christ’s law must constantly be taught to Christians “to stir you up by putting you in remembrance” (2 Pet. 1:13; 3:1-2). As one young lady, a Christian with serious marriage problems, recently said, “I was baptized when about 13; why were brethren not teaching more on these things then during my formative years?” All of us need reminding in a time when more husbands and wives in the church are violating the marital bond to seek the pleasures of sin for a season.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 16, pp. 489-490
August 18, 1983

By Lewis Willis

Jesus taught the Jewish ruler Nicodemus “except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3). As a result of this teaching, there can be no doubt about the necessity of a new birth if a man has any desire to go to Heaven. The apostle Peter expanded upon this teaching, affirming, “being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:23). From this, we discover that the birth envisioned is a spiritual birth. Nicodemas, at first, could not understand “born again” because he was thinking of a physical birth. He knew such to be impossible. But not so, spiritually speaking.

The new birth is the process by which we pass from spiritual death to spiritual life. The apostle Paul declares that Christ has “quickened” or made alive those who were “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2: 1). As a consequence of the new birth those who were dead in sin (thus, separated from God) are now said to be “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2). Being, then, dead to sin, such do not live any longer therein. The life they live is declared to be new. The watery burial of baptism is the transition point. Hear the apostle Paul: “Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). The new life does not begin until the new birth has occurred – that is only reasonable. Thus, Paul calls this born again individual a 6 4 new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17). This new creature is blessed with the opportunity of entering that wonderful realm, as the poet said, “of beginning again.” He is a Christian, a child of God, a citizen in the kingdom of Heaven and a member of the body of Christ. Such should be the pursuit of every responsible individual.

Simple enough, right? Wrong! Maybe it is a throwback to the Jimmy Carter days when everyone was talking about the “born again Christian,” as though there were some other kind of Christian. Or, perhaps some folks have just discovered the Bible teaching about the new birth and are trying to implement it. Whatever, the “boat of truth” has already sailed and they are still on the dock, or, they fell off of the gangplank.

To illustrate this fact, The Akron Beacon Journal (1/10/83) printed the following short article: “The Episcopal Church in Los Angeles is tackling religious competition head-on. In a television advertisement geared to Southern California Christians of all persuasions, the welcome mat could hardly be more expansive: ‘The Episcopal Church welcomes you – regardless of race, creed, color or the number of times you have been born.’

“Inspiration was hardly divine; the words were created by a group of Episcopalians at St. Luke’s Church in Minneapolis.”

Several things occurred to me when I read this article. The TV ads are said to be geared to “Christians of all persuasions.” This, of course, refers to the so-called Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Catholic Christians, etc. I wonder if they would welcome Jewish Christians, Hindu Christians or Atheist Christians? This Baskin-Robbins, 31-flavors of Christians is a concept that is foreign to the teaching of the Word of God and is as phony as a three dollar bill. As for me, I’ll just remain a plain ole vanilla, New Testament-type Christian.

Adventurism in advertising might sell products, but it obviously does great injury to the teaching of the Scriptures. The words for the ad are said to have been “created” by a group of Episcopalians. I would be willing to testify to the truthfulness of this declaration. I assure you, neither the words nor the idea came from the New Testament.

But the part that really gets me is the welcome regardless “of the number of times you have been born.” How many times can a person be born into the family of God? Obviously the same number of times you can be born into your father’s physical family. I would like to think that the words were selected by the St. Luke’s Church pre-school class. However, they probably came from the long-studied theology of her preachers. I was just thinkin’ – to say you are welcome no matter how many times you have been born is about as logical as saying you are welcome no matter how.many heads you’ve got. But let us be careful in making such suggestions, they may show up in a church. TV ad campaign.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 16, p. 488
August 18, 1983

By Larry Houchen

The book of Acts is a book of conversions – in other words it tells how people became Christians. There are about eight cases of conversions in the book. Note the attitude of the baptized believers in the following passages: “. . . they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart” (Acts 2:46); “and there was much rejoicing in that city” (8:8); “. . . but went on his way rejoicing” (8:39); “and he brought them into his house and set food Wore them, and rejoiced greatly” (16:34). What were the reasons for the first century Christians to rejoice? What ought the Christian’s attitude be toward someone who obeys the gospel?

The first century Christians rejoiced because they were converts. According to Webster, the word convert is derived from the Latin word convertere which meant “to turn around; transform.” The early Christians were comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were converted from “the letter of the law” – they had much to rejoice about. The Gentiles were converted from immoralities and various heathen practices – they, too, had much to rejoice about. Sometimes,’those of us who have been “raised in the church” take for granted the many blessings which we enjoy in Christ. Some of us have never been “wrapped up” in Catholicism or denominationalism; some have not engaged in the immoralities or yielded to the temptations which are so typical during the teenage years. Therefore, we sometimes fail to fully appreciate the drastic change that has been made when one decides to obey the Lord by being baptized for his past sins.

The early Christians rejoiced when they were baptized because they had taken such an important step. The second most important step which one takes in life is marriage. Choosing a marriage partner for life is no small matter. Yet, the most important step in life is to obey the Lord in baptism. The thought that we try to impress upon those desiring to be baptized is that they are about to consummate a commitment. Baptism is not something one does without serious thought about what baptism is and should do. Baptism delivers one from the domain of darkness and transfers him to the kingdom (the church) of God’s beloved Son (Colossians 1: 13). It causes one to be freed from sin in regard to no longer being a slave to it and makes him a slave of righteousness (Romans 6:18). How, then, can we not rejoice in this transformation?

Unfortunately, baptism has been relegated to a relatively insignificant act in the minds of some Christians. For an “ample, during announcements a baptism will be mentioned almost as a second thought after other not so important announcements have been made. This writer is aware that announcements are not necessarily given in their order of importance, but a baptism ought to be the exception – that is what Christianity is all about! Some time ago, a couple of young men were baptized after the services. One(of the deacons went around spreading the word and several who were getting into their cars to leave returned to the building – that is the way it should be. Christians should not feel right about leaving the premises knowing that a baptism is about to take place. (Of course, the shyness of the one being baptized may dictate an exception.) Perhaps the deacons or others could be contacted when someone obeys the gospel during the week and they in turn notify the remainder of the congregation. Why should such an occasion for rejoicing be postponed? If you had won an automobile or cash on a television game show, you would be contacting your friends pronto.

Brethren, baptism needs to be restored to its rightful place in our minds – perhaps it has in intellect but not in practice. Perhaps some of the suggestions that have been made will help to accomplish that. “Rejoice with those who rejoice . . . ” (Romans 12:15).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 16, p. 487
August 18, 1983

By Larry Ray Hafley

I. Introduction:

A. Definition of the Doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

1. “All those whom God has predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, by His almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

“This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it” (The Westminister Confession of Faith, Chapter 10).

2. “As Calvinists we hold that the condition of men since the fall is such that if left to themselves they would continue in their state of rebellion and refuse all offers of salvation. Christ would then have died in vain. But since it was promised that He should see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied, the effects of that sacrifice have not been left suspended upon the whim of man’s changeable and sinful will. Rather, the work of God in redemption has been rendered effective through the mission of the Holy Spirit who so operates on the chosen people that they are brought to repentance and faith, and thus made heirs of eternal life” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 163).

3. Irresistible – “that cannot be successfully resisted or opposed” (Webster).

B. This doctrine logically follows other Calvinistic tenets and teachings.

I . If one is totally depraved as Calvinism alleges that he is, i.e., “opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil,” then it follows that God must alter this state, for one in that condition could do nothing toward righteousness.

2. Our study, therefore, must focus on the state or condition of the sinner. Further, we must see the operation of the Spirit in the conviction and conversion of the sinner.

II. Discussion:

A. True, the sinner is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). But what does this mean?

1. Calvinism equates deadness of sinner with a dead body. As one would not command a corpse to act in order to have life, so one cannot tell a “dead” sinner to act.

2. But the sinner’s death is not one of inability to act.

a. Sinner “walked” and “lived” in lusts (Eph. 2:2, 3; Col. 3:7 – NASB).

b. While acting, he was said to be dead, but how, in what sense?

(1) Obviously, not like a dead body, a corpse.

(2) “Dead in sins” equals separation from God’s favor, unforgiven (Isa. 59:1, 2; Col. 1:21; 1 Tim. 5:6).

(3) To be “quickened” (made alive) is to be forgiven all trespasses (Col. 2:13), hence, to be dead is to be unforgiven.

c. Calvinistic argument for irresistible grace is thus based on a false definition of death as regards the sinner.

d. Observe Calvinistic arguments that are based on this false concept.

(1) The resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of Lazarus are given as examples of how God irresistibly quickens the dead sinner (Boettner, pp. 165, 168). Neither could resist the call to life – “It was not possible” (Acts 2:24).

(2) The sinner is “dead.” God must quicken them as He did Christ and as Christ did Lazarus (Jn. 5:21, 25).

(a) Yes, the voice (word) of the Son of God quickens (Psa. 119:50; Jn. 6:44, 45, 63, 68).

(b) Note: “they that hear shall live” (Jn. 5:25), but dead sinner may choose not to hear (Acts 13:26, 38, 39, 46; Matt. 13:15).

— Calvinist Objection, One must hear voice of Son of God, not voice of preacher.

— Answer To Objection: To hear preaching of the truth is to hear the voice of the Son of God (cf. Lk. 16:29; Acts 13:27; 15:21; Lk. 10:16). Calvinists assume immediate, direct speaking of Spirit.

3. Consider the opposite view, the “dead” saint (Rom. 6:2; Col. 3:3).

a. The saint is declared “dead” just as alien is, but in what sense? If being dead is compared to corpse as dead sinner is, saint is inactive (Eph. 2: 10)!

b. “Dead to sins” (1 Pet. 2:24) simply means separated from sins. As “dead in sins” means separated from God by sin (Col. 1:21), so “dead to sins” means alienated from guilt of sins.

c. Though saint is “dead to sins,” he can choose to sin (1 Jn. 1:8-10; Rom. 6:13; 8:12, 13). So, sinner “dead in sins” can choose to obey (Rom. 6:16-18).

d. Compare case of Adam. He was certainly “dead to sin,” and “totally hereditarily righteous. “

(1) It did not take a direct operation of the devil’s unholy spirit to move and motivate him. The devil used words and motives. While “dead” to sins, Adam heard, believed and obeyed.

(2) Cannot God appeal to one through words and motives as the devil did, or is the devil’s word more powerful than God’s gospel?

B. New Testament illustration and demonstrations of resistible and acceptable grace.

1 . First, it is the word of God, the gospel, which produces faith (Jn. 17:20; 20:30; 3 1; Acts 14: 1; 15:7; Rom. 10: 17). Even the devil knows this (Lk. 8:11, 12; 1 Thess. 2:16).

2. The Holy Spirit convicts and converts the sinner, but how does He do it?

a. Through words of the Spirit (see Acts 2:4, 22, 29, 36-41).

b. By preaching the gospel “with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven” (I Pet. 1: 12), Peter:

(1) Convicted men of murder (Acts 3:13-15).

(2) Urged them to repent and turn for forgiveness (Acts 3:19, 26).

(3) And “many of them which heard the word believed” (Acts 4:4).

3. The Holy Spirit can be resisted (Acts 6:10; 7:51-55). He was resisted by refusing the word preached (Acts 13:44-46).

III. Conclusion:

A. Objections to the Doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

1. It makes God responsible for every lost person. All are lost because God did not act on them. See statements in creed.

2. No person has ever been found who was saved, born again, where the gospel has not gone (cf. Jonah and Rom. 10:14).

3. It denies the all-sufficiency of the gospel as God’s power unto salvation.

B. What is your reaction to the word of the Spirit? Your reaction will determine your eternal destiny (Rom. 6:16-18; Acts 13:46).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 16, pp. 485-486
August 18, 1983