Truth Magazine

By Roger Jackson

Would someone please tell me what it takes to get these preachers to answer material? Brother Warnock completely ignored some crucial questions, then he made arguments I never made and answered them. Are you afraid to answer what I asked, brother Warnock or are you waiting for your last negative so I cannot respond? These brethren pull this trick all the time and then report how they beat the “liberals” in their overblown reports full of false information, like Wayne Greeson did. If my opponent had information I could not deal with or questions I could not answer I would either change my doctrine or let someone else do the debating. I suggest that brother Warnock do one or the other or that Mr. Editor select a man who will!

Why did brother Warnock not give us that passage that he said obligates the church to “some orphans”? Must I beg him? When he gives it he will concede the debate and he knows it. Do you expect us to surrender to you with a problem like this? Give us the passage that authorizes the church to obey the laws of the land and to sing. I couldn’t find that in your “negative.” Brother Warnock says the church may support a widow, but he did not tell us, (1) if a widow must have a home, (2) if her home would be an institution apart from the church, (3) when the church does this supporting would it be supporting an institution apart from the church doing the work of the church, (4) if this home is a human institution, (5) if it is a human institution what is the church doing giving to a human institution (giving for its upkeep) when you (Warnock) say such is a sin. Quit hiding brother and give us some answers.

Brother Warnock first argues that an individual obligation cannot be discharged collectively. Then explain Galatians 6:6 for us. Did your brethren pay you individually Sunday? Did they practice religion by proxy? You didn’t even get the point. When the apostles requested that Paul remember the poor he said that they said, “we should remember the poor” (emphasis mine, rj). Paul remembered them through churches. If the “we” in Galatians 2:10 can include “churches” why cannot the “we” of Galatians 6:10 include churches? I know why you won’t answer questions.

The only argument brother Warnock will have in this debate is that a passage that names a Christian duty and specifies the individual Christian excludes the church. If this is not your position please state it. I contend (1) the rule is false, and (2) no preacher of his persuasion will apply it consistently. A sample: Warnock reasons that since the passage says “himself” it cannot mean “church.” I never argued any differently and never tried to make “himself” a church. But the passage is just as specific with reference to the work (fatherless and orphans) as it is as to who is to do it (according to him). However, in Searching the Scriptures (Vol. XXVII, No. 4, p. 374), you said “fatherless and widows” meant “all in distress or trouble of any kind.” Now just suppose you tell us why you insist that you can’t get “church” into “himself” but you can get all the distressed people of the world into “fatherless and widows”? Reader, this is why we will not give into these false teachers and their hobby!

To answer your question on James 1:27, why would an individual Christian who is unrelated to a widow relieve one who is not a widow indeed, since a widow indeed is one who has no one who can or will care for her? What would he be doing caring for someone who has someone to care for her? All you have proven is that there is a distinction within a class. You have not addressed the point of the argument, viz., the equal relationship of the two works. How could you have answered this when you do not even understand it? Neither did Greeson and Thrasher understand it and then had the gall to report that I seemed confused. The confusion was at the other table!

Warnock says the Bible says nothing about giving to any home! Mr. Editor said he believed it and so did all of his staff writers, so he insisted on the words “institutional home” being in the proposition. What is going on here? Either you two are just as divided as we are, brother, or somebody is practicing deceit. If you do not believe a church can contribute to any home, why not discuss what you believe?

It is a lot easier to make your own arguments and answer them isn’t it? That is what you did instead of answering mine. I never made one argument on the definition of the term “to visit.” However, I cannot resist the opportunity to expose some of the most foolish and fanatic suggestions you will ever hear from a supposedly sane man. A man who demonstrates in the process how desperate he is to save his hobby. It is a desperate man who has to argue that a jail is an institution for visiting those in prison! Brother Warnock do you not know the difference between a jail (a penal institution) and a home (a benevolent institution)? Do you not know that neither churches nor individuals should support denominational hospitals because it would support error? Do you not know that the church cannot engage in secular business like a state hospital? You said so in the Guardian (Vol. XXXIV, No. 13, p. 7). I agree with you. Mr. Webster defines a hospital as a place where the sick or injured are cared for (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 553). in case of a natural disaster, like a tornado, the church where you preach could not allow its building to be used to assist the injured who are non-saints because of your hobby and it could not be used to assist the brethren because it would be operating a “church of Christ hospital,” Deny it if you dare! I certainly agree with your syllogism provided we understand “hospital” to be an institution built and maintained by brethren, operated purely for benevolence in conjunction with Mr. Webster’s definition. Now answer my syllogism.

Brother Warnock conceded my point that a home is just as much implied in James 1:27 as a place is in Hebrews 10:25. The rest he said is smoke. If he thinks a construction company is a benevolent institution like a home he needs more help than I can give him. This is the logic (?) that keeps his hobby alive.

Brother Warnock says a church can provide a house, food, clothing and whatever else orphans need. Can they make the house a little bigger and take in 2? How about 22? If the state required incorporation, could it comply with the law? Thank you, brother Warnock, you have just conceded everything in my proposition!

I did not define the church to include a meeting house. I said that is what our language does. He cannot answer what I say without changing it.

Brother Warnock stated that my syllogism is invalid. I challenge him to prove it or admit he does not know what he is talking about. Validity relates to form and means the conclusion is demanded whether true or false. There are six rules of validity. Produce the one it violates. If the syllogism is invalid so is his for he employed the same form! I do not think he knows the first thing about validity.

Brother Warnock is operating on the rule that when a passage commands an action and names the individual, it does not authorize the church to do anything. This rule can be shown to be inconsistent because he believes the church may obey all of these individually commanded passages (Gal. 6:6; 2 Jn. 9-11; Col. 3:17; Jude 3). But on the other hand, I insist there is a principle of Bible interpretation that is sound and consistent:

Major Premise: All passages which relate to peculiarly religious matters are passages which apply with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian.

Minor Premise: James 1:27 is a passage which relates to peculiarly religious matters.

Conclusion: Therefore, James 1:27 is a passage which applies with equal force both to the church and to the individual Christian.

By “peculiarly religious matters” I mean those actions commanded of a Christian on the sole grounds that he is a Christian, not because he is a father (Eph. 6:4), or a provider (1 Tim. 5:8), or a laborer (Eph. 4:8), or a servant (Eph. 6:5), or a relative (1 Tim. 5:16). Find an action this principle violates or concede it. I gave five passages that your rule violates.

My argument on James 1:27 is the only part of the syllogism he challenged and is the only one I have to defend. I answered all of his objections and offer the above syllogism as further proof. Since James 1:27 relates equally to the church it proves the church has an obligation in child care. The church may provide a home for orphans since that is a basic need. The church cannot function as a home, hence must use the services of a home. The church may discharge this obligation by funds sent. This is all that is involved in my proposition. The syllogism is unquestionably valid, the premises are true, thus we have a sound argument and there is no answer to it.

In this debate already we have heard a man argue that a jail is a benevolent institution for visiting prisoners like a hospital is for visiting the sick. He has demonstrated that he does not know the difference between business enterprises like a construction company and a home for orphans. He does not seem to know what simple validity is, but thinks proving a premise wrong makes a syllogism invalid. He says the church has a responsibility to orphans, but will not give us the passage that assigns that responsibility. He practices deception saying the church may help orphans, when in reality he does not believe it can help any orphan on the basis of his being an orphan, but because he is a destitute saint. He is so desperate to cover the fact that he cannot answer my argument on the function of episkeptomai in the sentence that is James 1:27 that he changed it to the definition of the word and then tore that straw man to pieces. He says you just cannot get the church into a passage that addresses the individual, but cannot explain the fact that he never practices Galatians 6:6 if that is true. He argues that the “we” of Galatians 2:10 does not exclude the church, but will say the “we” of Galatians 6: 10 excludes it. He is sure that you cannot get “churches” into the “himself” of James 1:27, but has no problem getting every distressed or troubled person in the word into “the fatherless and widows” in the same passage. He knows how to give to a church, but does not know how to give to a home. He is in a debate opposing church contributions to a home, but indicates often that he does not know what a home is, or when a contribution is made to it.

Kind reader, you tell me how in five short pages (length of my copy) a man can have this many inconsistencies and blunders and still expect people to believe he has the truth? They can make it look good until they give the other side a chance to reply. That is exactly what happened when Wayne Greeson wrote a “review” of my debate with Thomas Thrasher and filled it with total inaccuracies and misrepresentations and the editor would not allow me a defense. The truth is Thrasher did no better than brother Warnock has done and this is the best any of then can do. I plead with you to renounce this disgraceful false doctrine and stand for the truth (Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 335-336
June 4, 1992

By Mike Willis

The teaching that the New Testament is a “love letter” rather than a code of law has the implication that the restoration plea is not valid because there is no pattern to be restored. Max Lucado was quoted by the Tulsa (OK) World as follows:

He said, “I have a gut feeling that we (the Church of Christ) have approached the Bible as an engineer, looking for a certain design or architectural code. And I think we find that everyone finds a different code. As a result, we split into 27-28 splinters or factions.

“There is no secret code. The Bible is a love letter as opposed to a blueprint. You don’t read a love letter the same way you read a blueprint” (quoted in Behold The Pattern by Goebel Music, 114).

By saying that the New Testament epistles are “love letters” rather than law, the writers imply that matters of revelation can be disobeyed without jeopardizing one’s soul. This teaching raises the question, “Is there a pattern to be restored?”

The Alternatives

There can only be one answer to the question posed. Either there is a pattern or there is not. If there are no patterns to be restored in the New Testament, there are no objective truths, no right or wrong ways to do anything in religion. All things are left to subjective judgment. If there are patterns revealed in the Bible, there are objective truths and those patterns must be respected. The conclusion then follows that all of the innovations and changes which have occurred since the first century must be carefully removed to return to the patterns of God’s word revealed in the Bible. The purpose of this article is to show that the New Testament does contain patterns for Christians to restore in the New Testament.

The Old Testament Patterns

The Old Testament was written “for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). The Old Testament reveals patterns for God’s people to follow.

1. The story of Cain and Abel’s worship reveals that there was a pattern for worship from the beginning (Gen. 4). This familiar story reveals that Cain’s worship was not accepted by God. Whatever reason a person identifies for God rejecting Cain’s worship (whether it was not a blood sacrifice or it was offered with a wrong attitude, etc.) that reason identifies a pattern which had to be followed.

2. God gave Noah a pattern for building the ark (Gen. 6-8). The Lord revealed how the ark was to be built and Noah was expected to build the ark according to the divinely revealed pattern.

3. The Lord gave a pattern for the construction of the tabernacle and its furnishings (Exod. 25:9,40; 26:30). Noah was approved of God only when he built all things “according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount. ” The details were minutely revealed.

4. Nadab and Abihu sinned when they departed from the pattern (Lev. 10:1-2). When these two sons of Aaron brought “strange fire, which the Lord commanded not,” they were immediately stricken with fire for their sin.

5. King Jeroboam of Israel sinned in departing from the pattern of divinely revealed worship (1 Kgs. 12:26-33). Jeroboam departed from the pattern of divine worship by erecting graven images to worship God, erecting altars in Bethel and Dan, changing the priesthood so that men of all tribes could serve, and changing the feast day. The Lord plainly said about this apostasy, “This thing became a sin” (1 Kgs. 12:30).

6. The message of the prophets confirms that the Lord revealed a pattern by which Israel was to be governed. Jeremiah’s familiar words emphasize this truth: “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls” (6:16). The “old paths” were the revealed pattern for worship.

The Old Testament reveals that God gave a law or a pattern to govern his people in Old Testament times. Some admit that the Old Testament was a law governing God’s people but deny that the New Testament is a law for men today.

The New Testament Patterns

That the Lord has revealed patterns for the Lord’s church is evident from the following facts:

1. The Lord gave the apostles the task of revealing a pattern. The Lord sent the Holy Spirit to them to guide them into all truth (Jn. 16:13). They were to preach “all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Whatever they “bound” on earth was first bound in heaven and whatever they “loosed” on earth was first loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18). Consequently, the early church adhered to the “apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). What came from their hands should be passed down from generation to generation (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2).

2. Every commandment and instruction warning about false doctrine operates upon the presupposition that there is a uniform pattern of doctrine from which men are not to depart. The New Testament warns against false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1; Matt. 7:15). When Paul wrote about the worship assemblies, he said, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). He warned against departures from the revealed doctrine (Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; Rom. 16:17-18; cf. 2 Jn. 9-11).

3. There was uniformity in the teaching to every church. Paul wrote the “same things” to the Philippians that he wrote others (Phil. 3:1). To Corinth, he said that Timothy would teach his “ways, which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17). What he taught the Corinthians about giving on the first day of the week, he taught the churches in Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1-2). He laid down the same organizational arrangement in all churches (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim, 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-11; Phil. 1:1). Although the people were located in different geographical regions and cultures, all followed the same pattern.

4. The manner in which the kingdom is spread necessitates a divinely revealed pattern. The kingdom is spread through sowing the seed of the kingdom, the word of God (Lk. 8:11). The same seed produces the same fruit wherever and whenever it is sown.

5. The Lord has revealed a law for the kingdom (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25). Passages which speak of “lawful” things imply the existence of a law (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Passages which speak of “lawlessness” imply the existence of a law (Matt. 7:23; for many other passages, consult anomia in a Greek lexicon).

6. When men departedfirom the law, they were called to repentance. When the Corinthian fornicator departed from God’s revelation, he was called to repentance and the church was to withdraw from him if fie chose not to repent (1 Cor. 5:1-11). When false teachers at Ephesus were teaching “strange doctrines,” they were called back to the pattern of sound words (1 Tim. 1:3-10).

All of these passages imply the existence of a divinely revealed standard of authority from which men were not to depart. Calling men who have departed from God’s revealed word back to that standard of authority is what is meant by the restoration principle.

Problems of No-Patternism

No one can consistently apply his no-patternism. At some point or the other, all men revert to an appeal for patterns. We are hearing some who do not like the implications of a revealed pattern on the organization and work of the church say that there no patterns. However, these same men appeal to a pattern for worship when some of their own number began to seek fellowship with the Christian Church. Those who are seeking fellowship with the Christian Church will look for a pattern of conversion to tell the Christian Church that they cannot fellowship the pious unimmersed. The pious unimmersed who have a broad view of fellowship will appeal to the pattern of God’s word to argue that homosexuals cannot be ordained to the ministry. The broad-minded evangelicals will appeal to the pattern of New Testament authority to argue that ecumenical fellowship with pagan religions is wrong. Most ecumenicals are not willing to extend fellowship to humanists and other atheists.

At some point, every person who claims allegiance to King Jesus is forced to admit that there is a pattern. The alternative is moral relativism – everything is acceptable to God. Antinomianism, libertine belief, is self-contradictory and wrong.

Conclusion

There is a divinely revealed word of God which governs the worship, organization, terms of admission, moral conduct, etc. of the Lord’s people, his church. Departures from that revelation are sinful. The restoration plea calls men back to that divinely revealed standard.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 322, 328
June 4, 1992

By Randy Cavender

Campaign America! If you have not heard of it before, let me assure you that it is not the current presidential campaign. It is another effort by churches of Christ across this country in the name of religion to preach the gospel of Christ. For several months now I have received information concerning this new television show that went on the air earlier this year. It is interesting to note several things about this work that are in violation of God’s pattern of work for the church in the New Testament! Let us study this new effort and see if it fits into God’s pattern!

God’s Pattern!

We first need to realize that God does have a pattern of work for the church. Over the years many have tried to deny this. If there were no pattern, we would have an “anything goes” type of religion. But the Bible teaches that we must do all things by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17). Furthermore, God has always had a pattern wherein he accomplished his purpose (Exod. 25:9,40; 26:30; Heb. 8:5). Even so, God’s pattern for Christians is found within his will. Paul admonished Timothy, “Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). It is important that God’s people insist on maintaining the pattern which God has given!

God’s Pattern for the Work of the Church!

Since God has instructed us to “hold fast the pattern of sound words” there must be a guide which we can follow. When one studies the New Testament concerning the work of the church, he will find that the church is to do its work within the confines of the local congregation! Regarding evangelism, we find that the local church was responsible for preaching the gospel. The church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). We further note that there is not one example of an organization above or beyond the local church that did this work! Notice some scriptural examples.

Antioch

“Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Now separate to me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:1-3).

Philippi

“Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent once and again for my necessities” (Phil. 4:15,16).

Thessalonica

“For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything” (1 Thess. 1:8).

Each of these congregation did its own work! They did not send their contributions to a missionary society or a sponsoring church in order to accomplish their God-given mission! Each church sent to the preacher directly, in this case the apostle Paul. Moveover, these congregations did their own work! They did not solicit contributions for a work beyond their capability. Hence, any organizational work of evangelism beyond the local church is in violation of God’s law and is a sin (1 Jn. 3:4).

Furthermore, we find that the elders of each local church were to oversee the flock of which they were a part! Note these examples:

Ephesus

“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:28-29).

Moreover, the apostle Peter instructed the elders to shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly” (1 Pet. 5:2). Elders are to oversee the work of which they are a part. When elders take the oversight of more than one congregation, they violate the pattern that God has given, which is sin (1 Jn. 3:4).

Kind reader, with these Scriptures firmly in our minds, let us investigate Campaign America and see if it fits the pattern that God has given in his word!

Campaign America

First of all, Campaign America is a violation of the patterns that we have studied thus far. For example, we find that this work depends on the contributions of more than one congregation in order to function! In the words of the Hillsboro elders: “The Hillsboro elders are asking congregation across the brotherhood to schedule special contributions in 1992” (Vol. II, No. 1; Special Contributions Requested). Furthermore, they say “The key to Campaign America’s success is local congregations’ financial involvement. And yes, individual Christians’ involvement. Without both, Campaign America will not be as effective as it can be” (Vol. II, No. 1; Your Involvement is Vital). Thus, this work depends on more than one local church! Yet, this goes beyond the pattern of the New Testament with each local church doing its own work in preaching the gospel!

Again, we see that the eldership of the Hillsboro church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee is the overseer of this work! Are they not overseeing the work of other churches? Are they not taking oversight of more than God has allowed? Mr. Bill Johnson said, “Campaign America is not a Hillsboro church program. Rather, it is a brotherhood program” (Vol. II, No. 1, A Message From the Field). Where in the New Testament can one find an example of a “brotherhood program” which is overseen by the elders of one local church?

Let us look for a moment at the work that Campaign America plans to do! “Campaign America is an evangelistic outreach which has strong involvement and benefit to local churches of Christ” (Vol. II, No. 1, 5-Point Plan Benefits Local Churches). Of their stated goals, one really sticks out to me above all the rest, that is, their targeted audience. “Campaign America is targeted to reach people ages 35-55 who are searching for God” (Vol. II, No. 2, Campaign America Targets Its Audience). Brethren in Christ, the Bible teaches all responsible men and women regardless of age who are in need of the gospel. Now I am sure that Campaign America would not turn down the opportunity to teach one who is not found in their “targeted audience,” but this does not go far enough! These individuals are allowing the changing world to change what God has commanded. God’s “targeted audience” is every creature. Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Thus, their program of evangelism takes away from God’s pattern those to whom we are to take the gospel of Christ!

Brethren, over the years, men have come up with missionary societies, sponsoring churches such as Herald of Truth, One Nation Under God and now Campaign America and other gimmicks which are not authorized in God’s word. These works, no matter how noble they may be, are in violation of God’s Divine Word! Practicing such works is sin (1 Jn. 3:4) and they will be ultimately rejected by our Heavenly Father (Matt. 7:21-23). Campaign America is not in harmony with God’s pattern of evangelism found in the New Testament. Will you not return to the pattern that God has given and do what he has said his way?

“Thus says the Lord” ‘Stand in the ways and see, and askfor the oldpaths, where the good way is, and walk in it,- then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it (Jer. 6:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 304-306
May 21, 1992

By Daniel H. King

Fornication has always been a sin, not only against God and holiness, but also against one’s own body. Throughout this period of sexual madness that our nation and the world has been experiencing, that is one fact which has been largely ignored. Paul noted this in making his argument against the licentious ways of the Corinthians: “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body; but he who commits immorality sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18).

According to Paul’s observation, no sin quite so intimately requires the total involvement of the physical anatomy as does immorality. Additionally, it puts the body completely at risk. The Bible attests that from very early times God has associated this sin with danger and even death. The twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers tells how the Israelites “began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab” (v. 1), and “Israel joined himself unto the Baal of Peor. ” Canaanite religion was a fertility cult and was inherently sexual in nature. People worshiped Baal and Asherah by means of union with cultic prostitutes (both male and female). There is ample attestation of this in the Scripture itself and also in outside sources such as the cuneiform texts from Ras Shamra, the excavated city of Ugarit, on the coast of Syria. Israel was tempted to join in with the worship and did so to his hurt. Immorality is dangerous! The Bible tells how Moses and the priests struck down some who engaged in this evil. But, almost in a footnote, it ends the story of the incident with these words: “And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand.” Imagine that! Twenty four thousand persons perished by a plague because of their immorality! Undoubtedly this plague was some sort of sexually transmitted disease. The brothel/shrine at Peor was not a safe place to visit!

Our young people need to be constantly warned that there is danger in sexual sin. While God has blessed the marital union (Heb. 13:4 – “the marriage bed is undefiled”), he has cursed pre- and extra-marital involvements: “fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4b). Too many of our foolish intellectual leaders are attempting to salvage their so-called “sexual revolution” by encouraging “safe sex,” i.e. sex with a protective condom. In reality, the only “safe sex” is that between two persons who are married and faithful to one another. We who believe Scripture must not hesitate to remind ourselves and others that the curse of God is upon those who commit sexual sin. Even if one takes the risk and gets lucky (does not contract a disease or seems not to pay the price of this folly), still the wages of sin is ultimately death (Rom. 6:23). It spells spiritual death now, and eternal separation from God in the world to come, regardless of the present physical repercussions or lack of them.

But those physical consequences may only be ignored at fantastic risk to one’s health and happiness. At this stage in our history venereal diseases are running rampant. Gonorrhea, syphilis, chancroid, lymphogranulorna venereum, granuloma inguinale, nongonococcal. urethritis (chlamydial infection), hepatitis infection (hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and “non-A, non-B” hepatitis), venereal warts (human papillomavirus), venereal herpes (herpes genitalis), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), etc, are all threats to public health. Herpes and AIDS are incurable; AIDS is always fatal. Contrary to public opinion, curing these diseases is not easy for the scientific community, nor is the solution merely to throw unlimited funds into research (as many in the homosexual community seem to think, especially with reference to AIDS; besides, why should the U.S. taxpayer be forced to pay for the socially irresponsible behavior of a few?). Not only are the causative organisms in these various diseases different structurally but they also represent distinct classes of micro-organisms: spirochetes, cocci, bacilli, and viruses. Hepatitis is a virus. It is not specifically a venereal disease, but is spread through sexual intimacy with infected persons. It can be fatal, lead to chronic hepatitis or even cirrhosis of the liver. Herpes and AIDS are also viral organisms, and so are the most difficult to prevent or interdict with medication. To date it has proven impossible to eradicate these various diseases because they are constantly being transmitted to new hosts by sexual activity of infected persons, knowingly or unknowingly.

The AIDS virus in particular strikes fear in the hearts of even the most casual in their views toward sexual “freedom.” The slow and excruciating death, punctuated by debilitating infections and unrelenting cancerous tumors, and the knowledge that there are no survivors, should be sufficient to give anyone pause before considering a “casual sexual encounter.” It seems that in this mysterious virus God has created a scourge worthy of the plague at Peor – calculated to punish those who have no respect for his Law!

Except in rare cases, there is no reason for the moral person to fear these deadly venereal plagues. The Lord has made a way to protect his people from such. In their faithfulness to God and their marital partner, or through simple self-control, Christians guard themselves from these infestations. As Jehovah said in the Old Testament, “the Lord will . . . afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt, which you have known” (Deut. 7:15). On the other hand, if we yield to immoral behavior, we should be forewarned that “he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). As Moses warned Israel: “Then the Lord will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues – great and prolonged plagues – and serious and prolonged sicknesses . . . and they shall cling to you” (Deut. 28:59-60).

The irresponsible mass media, in particular television and modern popular music, treats these very real dangers mostly as if they did not exist. Dramatic presentations have movie heroes like James Bond hopping from bed to bed with one beautiful woman after another, seemingly without consequences. Many young people have already discovered, to their frightened dismay, that this is how babies are conceived (though it is seldom so in the movies). Song lyrics make unlawful sexual encounters sound wistfully romantic. Again, however, they totally ignore the real-life implications of such doings. America’s spiraling illegitimacy rate attests to the fact that conception and birth are still the very natural result of heterosexual intimacy. Abortion, with its mental and physical scarring, is the stop-gap measure invented to rid our lives of these children conceived in “one night stand, non-committal relationships.

And then there are the diseases! We must not forget those diseases! Hollywood seems to, except when doing some concert on behalf of its AIDS victims. And even then the most its leading lights can contribute is a few dollars, a warning against “unprotected sex,” and more railing against the government for not somehow relieving us of this scourge. Dear friend, the only way we are going to put a halt to this AIDS epidemic is if we again respect the law of the Lord and limit sexual activity to the normal, male-female, marriage relationship. Otherwise, it will run its course when it has killed off, in toto, those infected with the virus. Do not be unwise enough to be one among them! It may be many years before some researcher stumbles upon the key that will unlock the mystery of a cure for this awful disease. If that happens, the many other serious health and life threatening side-effects of immorality will not have gone away.

We must know, even today, that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). If we are guilty of this sin, we are not only transgressing an ordinance of Heaven, but we are hurting ourselves, potentially destroying our own bodies!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, p. 322, 329
June 4, 1992