Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

For a little over forty years, I have been fairly acquainted with the happenings among brethren. But in my wildest imaginations I never could have predicted the various and sundry positions that have been publicized among brethren on the marriage question. I have been shocked to find how much conservative brethren have been affected by loose teaching on the marriage issue. Frankly, nothing that happens among liberal brethren shocks me now. They have been laying the foundations of all kinds of liberal doctrines for decades.

When I was just a boy preacher, I used to hear brethren preach about the weird view on marriage held by brother E.C. Fuqua, then living in the Ft. Worth, Texas area, and then the publisher of an interesting journal called the Vindicator. So far as I knew then, he was the only brother advocating that unscriptural marriages were made to be scriptural ones after baptism. Brethren who opposed brother Fuqua’s position charged that he believed baptism washed away wives. Sometime later some similar (though not identical) doctrines were attributed to brother Lloyd Moyer, then of California. Since then the names of quite a few otherwise conservative brethren have been associated with similar positions. Some arrive at their conclusions quite differently than others, but they all come out at the same place: nearly any marriage can be justified, and we can almost tear Matthew 19:9 out of our New Testament!

Some brethren may not appreciate my saying so, but this loose position is found among conservative brethren almost exclusively in the Western States. I express here no opinion as to why that is. But just to show what I am talking about, let me just state that I can name on one hand all the preaching brethren whom I know who take one of these loose marriage positions and who live East of the Mississippi River, and still have a finger or two left over! But it Appears from what is being said and done that big problems could lie before us over the marriage question. There may be some innocent speculations about the Bible, but even if there is, the marriage and divorce issue is not one of them. If these loose marriage doctrines are taught in churches, the churches of the saints will become the churches of the sinners. Moses Lard, one of the pioneer preachers once said that churches were becoming virtual Noah’s Arks: full of clean and unclean things! If loose marriage doctrine prevails, churches will be filled with adulterers. Brethren should remember: if it is alright to preach it, it is alright to practice it.

Bifurcating the Gospel

For about one hundred years there have been some denominational writers who pretend to see some great differences between “gospel” and “doctrine.” The word “bifurcate” means “to divide into two branches or parts,” and some brethren also have divided the gospel into two separate parts. Space limitations preclude documenting the origin of this gospel-doctrine differentiation among denominational scholars, but it is not difficult to document its presence in the writings of our brethren. Many of the brethren who are advocating that we must not draw lines of fellowship on the marriage subject undergird their argumentation with some form of the assumption that we must have unity on gospel, but we must have “unity in diversity” on doctrine.

Back in the early 1950s, when I was just beginning to preach, brethren G.A. Dunn, Carl Ketcherside, and Leroy Garrett (and many others) were arguing that churches could not utilize full-time, paid evangelists to work with them, because one could not preach the gospel to the church. Instead, one must preach the gospel to the world, and one must teach the doctrine to the church. Lot me give you an example of their teaching (or is it preaching?):

Now, the idea of preaching the gospel to the church, is one that is not held forth in the New Testament scriptures…. My friends, there is a great difference between preaching and teaching. I want you to know that you cannot preach the gospel to the church and here is a good place for us to center this discussion. Let my good brother Wallace put his finger on that passage in the New Testament scriptures where it indicates that anyone every preached a gospel sermon to the church (Carl Ketcherside, Wallace-Ketcherside Debate [Paragould, AR], pp. 21,22).

Even yet I can see the bantum G.K. Wallace challenging Ketcherside to prove his gospel-doctrine differentiation by preaching a while, then to shift gears and to teach us a while, so we could see the difference. Modern purveyors of this bifurcation of the gospel might like to accept that Wallace challenge today. If so, they can be accommodated, I am sure. Brother Leroy Garrett also taught the gospel-doctrine distinction (or did he preach it?). I guess he would have had to preach the gospel part of the distinction, and teach the doctrine part. And that could get confusing, even for a man of his intellectual stature.

Now note, in all 122 times there is not one instance, unless these two that have been introduced are possible exceptions, there is not one instance where the gospel was ever preached to the church (Leroy Garrett, Humble-Garrett Debate, p. 25).

The Unity-In-Diversity Advocates

About thirty years ago brethren Garrett and Ketcherside began to make a different usage of the gospel-doctrine differentiation. They then preached that we had to be united on “gospel” (though they never agreed on exactly how many facts comprised the gospel; later it was “one fact and one act”. . . faith and baptism), but could have all kinds of diversity regarding doctrine. Note carefully what they said back then:

Few other errors have worked the mischief that has resulted from confusing the faith with the letters of instruction, admonition and exhortation to the people of God who had embraced the one faith. It was that which made them the people of God. Because of this error there has grown up that curious postulate which makes a specific degree of knowledge of doctrinal deductions essential for acceptance into “fellowship.” All sorts of creeds, both written and unwritten, have thus been devised, and are now expounded as if creed-making was the will of God for preachers and elders . . . . The gospel consists of seven facts about a person. Those facts are the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification of Jesus . . . . The gospel is not the collation of apostolic writings forming the new covenant scriptures. The gospel is the glad news about a person, while the apostolic letters are composed of commendations, exhortations, warnings and criticism, sent to those who have accepted that person as Lord (Carl Ketcherside, Mission Messenger, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 130,132).

Preaching the gospel is for the world, Its design is to call men out, to enroll them in the school of Christ (Carl Ketcherside, Mission Messenger, Vol. 36, No. 5, p. 71).

The gospel is to be announced, proclaimed or heralded to the world. It is to be preached in all the world and to every creature. It is the euaggetion, the evangel, designed for the lost, and its purpose is to announce that divine love became effective and the word which was with God and was God became incarnate, and through him we have been reconciled to the Father. This message is not for the saved. You cannot evangelize saved persons. The new covenant scriptures know nothing of “preaching the gospel” to the saints of God. Such an expression would have seemed ridiculous and unintelligible to the apostles . . . . The gospel is the seed, the sperm, by which we are begotten. The doctrine is the bread upon which the children feed, and by which they grow. . . . It is easily demonstrated that not one apostolic letter is a part of the gospel of Christ. Every such letter was written to those who heard, believed, and accepted the gospel. . . . As long as preachers mistakenly assume that the gospel embraces the entire new covenant scriptures they will brand as unbelievers those who truly believe in Jesus but may be mistaken about some point of interpretation in one of the epistles (Carl Ketcherside, Mission Messenger, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 19-21).

Later still was brother Edward Fudge’s usage of the gospel-doctrine differentiation in the Grace-Unity Debate.

Any error which denies this “gospel” condemns, because it denies that which saves. . . . There is another sort of apostolic teaching, designed for a different purpose. Most of the epistles come here. This teaching does not give life; it sustains it. It is not to tell men how to be saved but how to live after they are saved and urge them to stay saved. . . . (2) We should learn to make a biblical distinction between teaching necessary for salvation in the first place and teaching designed to aid our growth in Christ. Otherwise we will be condemning each other for spiritual immaturity or unwillful ignorance – a thing never done by New Testament writers (Edward Fudge, “Truth, Error, and the Grace of God,” Reprint of Articles, pp. 9,4).

Is it only an accident of history that these brethren were on their way to denominational ecumenicity when they made their gospel-doctrine differentiation? Look around us. How many of the Fudge cohorts and minions are still with conservative churches? Very few, if any.

It is unfair to attribute to specific individuals positions they do not specifically espouse, and I make no such indictments about particular brethren among us. However, let me state that I recently have purchased most of the publications (books, debates, tracts) on the current marriage controversy, and I found repeatedly that heavy battles were waged as to whether Matthew 19:9 was gospel or doctrine. Peruse the Roy Deaver-James Bales Debate, if you doubt my word.

What About Gospel-Doctrine?

Biblically, there isjust on Body of Truth, but it is called by many different names in Scripture. But this should pose no problem to knowledgeable brethren. The church has many different descriptive terms (body, kingdom, vineyard, temple, family, etc.), yet there is but one church. In likemanner a Christian is denominated by different descriptions (believer, disciple, brother, saint, servant, heir, son, etc.), but there is no substantive difference. We speak of sin as transgressions, lawlessness, iniquities, disobedience, backslidings, and we call salvation, redemption, remission, reconciliation, cleansing, sanctification, and all seem to understand easily. Why is it then that some want to make a big distinction between gospel and doctrine, when there are scores of other New Testament terms used to describe the body of truth, and no additional distinctions are made? Though I may become tedious in documenting this point, please bear with me while we survey the New Testament to see what the will of God is called.

The Faith

(Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22; 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:13; Gal. 3:23; Eph. 4:13; Col. 1:23; 2:7; 1 Tim. 1:2; 3:13; 4:1; 5:8; 6:10,12; Tit. 1:2,13; 3:15; 1 Pet. 5:9; Jude 3).

“word of faith” (Rom. 10:8)

“one faith” (Eph. 4:5)

“the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27)

“the faith of Christ” (Phil. 3:9)

“the faith of the Lord Jesus” (Jas. 2:1)

The Gospel

(Matt. 11:5; Mk. 1:15; 13:10; 16:15; Lk. 4:18; 7:22; 9:6; 20:1; Acts 8:25; 14:7,21; 16:10; Rom. 1:15; 16:10; 11:28; 15:20; 1 Cor. 1: 17; 4:15; 9:14,16,17; 15: 1; 2 Cor. 8:18; Gal. 1: 11; 3:8; 4:13; Eph. 3:6; Phil. 1: 5,7,12; 2:2; 4:3; 4:15; Col. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:4; 2 Tim. 1:8,10; Phile. 13).

“the gospel of the circumcision . . . uncircumcision” (Gal. 2:7)

“the gospel of God” (Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:2,8,9; 1 Pet. 1:17)

“the glorious gospel of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4)

“the gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:16; 15:19,29; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 9:13,15; Gal. 1:17; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 3:2)

“Christ’s gospel” (2 Cor. 2:12)

“the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14)

“the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:11)

“the gospel of the kingdom of God” (Mk. 1:14)

“the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:5; Col. 1:5)

“the word of the gospel” (Acts 15:7)

“the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24)

“the gospel of peace” (Rom. 10: 15; Eph. 6:15)

“the gospel of your salvation” (Eph. 1:13)

“the mystery of the gospel” (Eph. 6:19)

“this gospel” (Matt. 26:13; Mk. 14:9)

“the everlasting gospel” (Rev. 14:6)

“my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:8)

“that gospel” (Gal. 2:2)

“the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27)

The Truth

(Mk. 12:32; Jn. 5:33; 8:32; 8:40,44,45; 8:46; 14:6; 16:7; 17:17,19; Rom. 1: 18,25; 2:8; 1 Cor. 13:6; 2 Cor. 4:2; 12:6; 13:8; Gal. 3:1; 4:16; 5:7; Eph. 4:15; 2 Thess. 2:10,12,13; 1 Tim. 4:2; 3:15; 4:3; 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:18,25; 3:7,8; 4:4; Tit. 1:1,14; Heb. 10:26; Jas. 3:14; 5:19; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 Jn. 1:6,8; 2:21; 3:19; 2 Jn. 1; 3 Jn. 1,3,8,12).

“the truth of God” (Rom, 3:7; 15:8)

“the truth in Christ” (Rom. 9:1)

“the truth of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:10; 1 Tim. 2:7)

“the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:5; Col. 1:5)

“the truth in Jesus” (Eph. 4:21)

The Word

(Acts 6:4; 8:4; 10: 36,44; 11: 19; 14:25; 16:6; 17: 11; Rom. 10:8; Gal. 6:6; Eph. 5:26; Phil. 1:14; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Tim, 4:2).

“the word of the Lord” (Acts 8:25; 11:16; 13:48,49; 15:35,36; 16:32; 18:11; 1 Thess. 1:8; 4:15; 2 Thess. 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:25)

“the word of Christ” (Col. 3:16)

“the word of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:10)

“the word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 1:13; 2 Tim. 2:15)

“the word of faith” (Rom. 10:8)

“the word of the gospel” (Acts 15:7)

“the word of knowledge” (1 Cor. 12:8)

“the word of wisdom” (1 Cor. 12:8)

“the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19)

“the word of doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:7)

“the word of his grace” (Acts 14:3; 20:32)

“the word of promise” (Rom. 9:9)

“the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3)

“the word of righteousness” (Heb. 5:13)

“the word of life” (Phil. 2:16; 1 Jn. 1:1)

“the word of my patience” (Rev. 3:10)

“the word of the truth of the gospel” (Col. 1:5)

“the word of the oath” (Heb. 7:28)

“the word of exhortation” (Heb. 13:22)

The Way

(Jn. 14:4,6; Acts 24:14; Rom. 3:12; Heb. 5:12; 12:13).

“the way of God in truth” (Matt. 22:16; Mk. 12:14)

“the way of God” (Lk. 20:21)

“the way of peace” (Lk. 1:79; Rom. 3:17)

“the way of the Lord” (Matt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk. 3:4; Jn. 1:23; Acts 16:17; 18)

“the way of truth” (2 Pet. 2:2)

“the way of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:21)

“the right way” (2 Pet. 2:15)

The Doctrine

(Jn. 7:17; Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 3:16).

“doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2; Tit. 2:7; 2 Jn. 10)

“word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17)

“doctrine of the Lord” (Acts 13:12) Note: Doctrine is here taught to aliens!

“the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3)

“sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1)

“good doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6)

“apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42)

“doctrine of Christ” (Heb. 6:1; 2 Jn. 9)

“form of doctrine” (Rom. 6:17) – “doctrine” here used of Plan of Salvation!

“His doctrine” (Matt. 7:28; 22:33; Mk. 4:2; 11:18; 12:38; Lk. 4:32; Jn. 18:19; 1 Tim. 6:1)

“the doctrine of God our Savior” (Tit. 2:10)

Conclusion

Having enumerated and documented that well over seventy different terms are used in the New Testament to refer to the same Body of Truth, is it not preposterous to try to take only two of those terms (“Gospel” and “Doctrine”), and to try to dichotomize, fragment, compartmentalize them into separate bodies of truth? Why not then do the same for all the other terms (the way, the faith, the word, the truth) and make them into separate bodies of truth? And once one had done that, then why not try to make some arbitrary difference among all the sub-headings we have cited under the major headings? The methodology of error is strictly arbitrary, and is made to fit whatever they want to fit, and that only.

No sharp gospel-doctrine differentiation is found in the New Testament. The gospel is to be preached to both saints (Rom. 1:7,15,16) and sinners (Mk. 16:15,16). The doctrine is to be preached to both saints (1 Cor. 4:17; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 4:2; Acts 2:42) and to sinners (Rom. 6:17,18; Acts 5:28; 13:5,7,8,10,12; 17:19). In the New Testament, things which are in some places called “gospel” are in other places called “doctrine” (see Rom. 6:17,18 and 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 1:16). And that which matures the Christian is called both “gospel” (Gal. 2:14; Eph. 6:15; 1 Tim. 1:10, 11) and “doctrine” (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42). Virtually no audience is ever 100 percent saints or 100 percent sinners. In mixed audiences which one would one teach/preach: “gospel” or “doctrine,” both, or neither?

I suggest that you preserve this entire issue of Guardian of Truth. You will have future occasions to use it. Watch for some to argue that we have to be united upon the essentials of the gospel, but that we have much room for disagreement (diversity) about doctrine . . . particularly about the subject of marriage and divorce. When that happens, then remember where the pseudo-differences between gospel and doctrine have landed brethren in the past.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 13-15
January 2, 1992

By Bill Cavender

I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1-3).

Each member of the body of Christ, the church (Col. 1:18,24), is plainly taught by our Lord to make a definite effort to keep the unity of the Spirit (the unity which the Spirit produces among believers) in the bond of peace. “Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” . . . “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Rom. 12:16-18; 14:19). The sincere, diligent practice of these Scriptures, the expressed will of our Heavenly Father, would well eliminate false teachings, opinionism, strifes and divisions among us, and bring us into obedience to Jesus, our Master. Many are not making such sincere efforts.

The will of God, the doctrine of Jesus Christ, revealed in the New Testament, is plain, sensible, reasonable and understandable (Jn. 7:14-18; Matt. 7:21-23,28,29). The gospel of Christ is revealed in such words, phrases and sentences that, when preached and taught, honest-hearted men and women can understand, faith can be created in their hearts (Rom. 10:13-17), and many will obey the truth (1 Cor. 2:8-13; 15:1-4; Acts 17:10-12; 18:8). The apostles of Jesus went everywhere preaching the word of Truth and thousands of sinners understood, believed and then obeyed the word (Mk. 16:19-20; Acts 2:41,47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 11:22-26; Col. 1:23). It is false and unthinkable that the God of heaven would teach us that we must hear, believe and obey his will to be saved here and hereafter, then reveal such a will and testament so obtuse, difficult, mystical, technical and involved that it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to decipher it for the common, ordinary, reasonable person who would consider it. If one reads all the papers and bulletins of our brethren, and realizes all the debates, controversies, disagreements and discussions going on among “sound” brethren, he is made to think that no one can understand the word of God. It is highly inconsistent and hypocritical for us as a people, claiming to believe the Scriptures, telling our friends and neighbors in the world about us how simple and understandable the word of God is, and then belie those statements by our own controversies, foolish and divisive opinions, and practices. If we (“conservative brethren”) cannot understand simple, clear statements in God’s word on such subjects as the Deity and humanity of Jesus while he was in this world in the form of a man; or his will regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage; or the nature, function and purpose of the church of our Lord, and all other such relatively simple subjects, who are we to be telling anybody, anything, about how simple and understandable the word of God is? No wonder there is disunity and divisions among brethren rather than peace, unity and goodwill. No wonder we are a laughing-stock to sensible people outside and inside the body of Christ who are aware of our internal feudings, factions and fightings.

Everything our Father is, and has done and said, demonstrates his will regarding oneness and unity. There is one God, one Godhead, comprised of three persons, a Trinity in unity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:20; Col. 2:9; Matt. 18-20; 3:13-17; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6). Our God created one universe, one world, a triune creation of space, matter and time. The universe operates harmoniously, without variation, all of its parts and purposes so arranged and synchronized to function as a whole (Psa. 19:1-14; Rom. 1:20). Man, the offspring of God, made in his image, is a triune being, composed of body, soul and spirit (Gen. 1:26-27; Acts 17:24-3 1; I Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4:12). All human beings are to love and care for each other by God’s will (Lk. 10:36-37; Matt. 22:34-40; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 6:9-10, etc.). Warfare, violence, murders, conflicts, hatreds, envies, jealousies, discords, strifes and divisions exist among people in the world and in the church because humans do not learn and practice God’s will regarding proper standards of decorum, conduct and behavior. There is a tremendous lack of true brotherly love, compassion, patience, kindness and consideration among us and among peoples of the world. The “golden rule” has been changed to the “iron rule,” and “sounding brass and a thinkling cymbal” are substituted for “speaking the same things” in far too many circumstances and relationships (Matt. 7:12).

Marriage, home, family, is the basic relationship and unit of society – the nation, the church, the community. Marriage – one man with one woman for life – duly united by his holy will, bound together in the love of God and for each other, dwelling together in peace and compassion so long as they both shall live, in his will for all of mankind (Rom. 7:1-4; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21; Heb. 13:4; 1 Cor. 7:1-11). Death is the only honorable means by which a marriage is dissolved. Immorality (fornication, adultery) is the only dishonorable way for a marriage to be dissolved, the innocent party being permitted to divorce the guilty partner, and to remarry. The guilty party is not granted liberty nor given concession to remarry (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18). Our Father’s intent is that a husband and wife should truly be one in mind, life, body, aim, purpose, love and devotion to each other for their lifetimes (1 Pet. 3:17; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Cor. 7:1-11).

The gospel of redemption and salvation, conceived in the eternal councils of the Godhead, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Rom. 11:33-36; 2 Tim. 1:8-12), is a plan designed to produce peace between God and man, and between all human beings who are obedient to the gospel. “But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For lie is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us . . . for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph. 2:13-22).

The church of Christ is a holy temple in the Lord, a habitation of God through the Spirit. We are builded together in the body of Christ as saints, brethren, children of God and fellow-citizens in this holy, spiritual family and building (1 Pet. 2:5-10; 1 Cor. 12:12-27). In such heavenly realms and relationships, we are to live in peace with each other. We are to think and speak alike. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). “If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others . . . Do all things without grumbling or disputing; that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and preserved generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:1-4,14-15, NASV).

It is the prayer, desire and will of our Lord Jesus that we should be united together in peace. He prayed that the apostles would be one (Jn. 17:11); that all believers would be one (Jn. 17:20-23); and that all of us should behold his glory and be where he is (Jn. 17:24-26). The “oneness” and “unity” which our Saviour prayed for and about is that which is taught us in all the Scriptures given thus far in this paper. We can attain to this unity and oneness if we want to do so. Our Father has never commanded the impossible. Whatever he tells and teaches us, we can do – if we set our minds, hearts, purposes and actions to this end.

Unity, peace and good will among brethren should be so desirable that we would sincerely and truly make a personal, definite effort to comply with our Father’s will. Our love and appreciation for our Lord, and his love and death for us, should prompt obedience to his word. Our love and care for the church, our brethren, and for the souls of all our friends, neighbors and family members, would compel us to go the second, third, and fourth miles to be united with each other, in harmony with the revealed truth of God in the New Testament.

Some of the ways we can do this are these: (1) We can shift our emphasis from fighting and arguing with one another, to fighting sin, the devil, worldliness, denominationalism, Catholicism, humanism, etc., among the peoples of the world. (2) We can go back to basics, to the first principles, to teach those plain New Testament truths and doctrines which create and identify the true church of Christ. (3) We can begin to visit with, and have home Bible studies with, people not Christians and teach them the gospel, how to become Christians, and how to live a sober, righteous and godly life in Christ Jesus. (4) We preachers can get out of our offices, get away from our typewriters, computers and gadgets, get out of our church buildings, go out where the people are and the world is, and try to go into the places where the gospel has not been preached and where the church does not exist. (5) We can cease using papers published by brethren and churches for discussions of opinions and foolish questions which engender strife. No one’s opinion or matters of personal faith or “conscience” are necessary to salvation, and are not to be bound upon anyone in their service and worship to God. We have so many divisive opinions among us nowadays, so many written and unwritten party “shibboleths,” that we are rapidly appearing as a sect, a party of divided people, who have no certain foundations, doctrines and directions to offer the world of saints and sinners alike, and are not sure anymore of anything we say and teach. We are “shooting ourselves in the feet,” decimating ourselves in numbers, diminishing our resources by divisions, beginning churches which are not needed, and discouraging brethren who do want to do God’s will. There is hardly a growing “conservative” church of Christ anymore, i.e., growing by baptisms, restorations, and internal spiritual development.

The only way we can reverse our circumstances is to obey the will of our Father regarding our mind and conduct, to truly, each one of us, keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 3-5
January 2, 1992

By Aude McKee

Fellowship is a problem for God’s people and it is one of those problems that, by its very nature, never goes away. You can look back in the history of the church here in America and observe that issues that at one time were “on the front burner,” were fought and at least for a time, relegated to a position of less importance. But as surely as the sun rises in the morning, new issues were bound to be created and so the problem of who and what to fellowship has always been and always will be a problem. In my lifetime I have seen premillennialism, both old and new “Ketchersideism,” institutionalism and social gospelism rear their ugly heads to trouble the church. Needless to say, in each situation, long and difficult battles had to be fought. Individuals had to search the Scriptures to determine the truth about each issue, and local churches had the problem of deciding who was worthy of fellowship.

The problem of divorce and remarriage has always been somewhat of a difficulty for the Lord’s church, but only in recent years has it grown to the place where it is one of major proportions. It has often been said that anything, of a moral nature, that troubles the nation will eventually trouble the church and our generation has seen respect for marriage and the home drop to the lowest level this nation has ever known. And so, there is not a church of God in the land that does not face the problem of fellowship in regard to those divorced and remarried.

However, this article does not deal with whether or not to fellowship those living in adultery as the result of unscriptural divorces and remarriages. This article assumes that each local church knows the truth about these matters and refuses fellowship to those unworthy. The problem we address is the inconsistency of denying fellowship to those unscripturally divorced and remarried, and then upholding the hands of those who, at least in principle, have been responsible for the unscriptural relationships these people find themselves in. We suggest some passages and some examples that may address the problem.

In 1 John 1:3, John points out that the apostles’ fellowship with God and Jesus was based upon what they had “seen, heard and declared.” In addition, his reader’s fellowship with them (the apostles) had to be on the same basis. Fellowship with God and Christ, the teachers and the taught, was all determined from the same teaching. You can’t imagine anyone being out of fellowship with those who followed the apostles, and in fellowship with the apostles at the same time! There are preachers today who are teaching that the guilty party of Matthew 19:9 is free to remarry along with the innocent party. Others affirm aliens are not amenable to the authority of Christ, and so the restrictions of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 do not apply to them. A few are saying that fornication occurs at the time of the divorce, and so all that is required to marry again without sin is to repent of the sin of divorcing, In addition to these, a number of other attempts to evade the force of Matthew 19:9 are being propagated, but these illustrate what this article is all about. Some churches will not accept folks in fellowship who attempt to justify their present marriages on such teaching, but those same churches will turn around and have fellowship with the preachers responsible for those people taking such a stand!

While we have our Bibles open to 1 John 1, look at verses 6 and 7. In these verses the basis of fellowship is clearly stated. “If we walk in the light. . . ” The question before us is whether or not a preacher is walking in the light when he teaches error – error so dangerous that souls are jeopardized? Exodus 7 is the account of Israel’s battle with Amalek and his people. As the battle progressed, Aaron and Hur went to the top of a hill, and as long as Moses held his hands in the air, Israel prevailed. But Moses got tired and so in order for Israel to continue winning, Aaron and Hur held Moses’ hands in the air. Do you think for one minute that Aaron and Hur would have been justified in holding up Moses’ hands if by so doing it would have resulted in Israel’s defeat? Can we uphold the hands of a preacher if by so doing we assist him in taking souls to hell?

Now look at 2 John 9-11. It is clearly stated that anyone who goes onward and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, has forfeited the fellowship of God. Then the Holy Spirit had John to instruct us as to our attitude toward those caught up in such error by saying that we could not do anything that would leave the impression that we are bidding the false teacher God speed. In fact, if we do (v. 11), we become a partaker of his evil deeds. All of those who have divorced and remarried contrary to the teaching of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are addressed in verse 9, and all who uphold those responsible for bringing in these false doctrines are addressed in verses 10 and 11.

In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul told Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” Was Paul telling Timothy to go slow in bidding a man God speed lest he become a partaker of other men’s sins? Regardless of what “lay hands on” meant, Timothy was certainly warned in no uncertain terms that he dare not be “a partaker of other men’s sins.” The question before us is, do we violate the prohibitions of 1 Timothy 5:22 when we endorse (have fellowship with) those who teach the unscripturally divorced and remarried that they are right before God? I am convinced that most of us have “emotional problems.” Too often, when we face the application of truth, our emotions get in the way. Our love for a member of the family, a friend of long-standing, or whoever, clouds our thinking and affects our decisions. It is not always easy to say and mean, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth; command and I will obey.”

Ephesians 5:8-11 is a passage that deals directly with the problems before us. “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk as children of light. . . proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Does false teaching fall in the category of “unfruitful works of darkness”? If teaching an unscripturally divorced and remarried individual that helshe can remain in that relationship and stay in fellowship with God is a “work of darkness, ” then surely havingfellowship with that teacher would be condemned. Now go back and read verse 9: “For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth.” If I teach truth I am bearing the fruit of the Spirit. If I teach error it had to come from some source other than the Holy Spirit!

In Acts 18 and 19, a situation developed that may shed some light on the problem under discussion in this article. Apollos, a preacher who was mighty in the Scriptures and eloquent in his delivery, came to Ephesus and taught false doctrine. His error was fundamental – he was teaching that when people were baptized they looked forward to the sacrifice that would cleanse them from sin. When Paul arrived in Ephesus he found twelve men who had been baptized believing the false doctrine taught by Apollos. Now in this whole affair, two fundamental corrections took place. The first involved getting the preacher straightened out. Acquila and Priscilla took care of this. They “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Paul remedied the second problem by teaching those twelve men that scriptural baptism was “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Now it is interesting that both parties involved in error made corrections. The preacher “cleaned up his act,” and those misled by this false teaching corrected their lives by obeying the truth taught by Paul. Let’s ask a couple of questions. Do you think the church in Ephesus would have extended fellowship to those twelve men if they had not obeyed the truth Paul taught them? And then, do you think Paul and his friends would have continued to give Apollos the right hand of fellowship if he had persisted in teaching John’s baptism? If your answer to the first question is “no,” how could you answer “yes” to the second question?

In the beginning of this article I named a number of problems that have plagued spiritual Zion over the years. I would never be guilty of minimizing those problems and the terrible havoc that was wrought by them. But the divorce and remarriage issue is one that strikes at the heart of homes of people world-wide, and it has to do with the morality of God’s people. May God help us to pause, take a step back, look at what we are doing to the kingdom of Christ and the souls of eternity-bound mortals, and then determine to hew the line regardless of what it may cost.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 7-8
January 2, 1992

By Weldon E. Warnock

Who is responsible for the division that exists among us over divorce and remarriage? Have some of us been too intolerant concerning divergent views? Is the issue so obscure that we can never know for sure the truth of the matter, and because of uncertainty, we must forever moderate our position on divorce and remarriage?

Let me say candidly and frankly that what God reveals about divorce and remarriage is just as plain and clear as what he says about any other theme relevant to our behavior. Jehovah doesn’t camouflage his will for us in vague nomenclature. We can, and must understand his eternal truth (Psa. 119:104,130; Jn. 8:32; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17). Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). One doesn’t need a Philadelphia lawyer to understand this passage. He might need someone to help him misunderstand it, particularly a preacher who has a new theory to articulate.

Brother H. Leo Boles wrote back in 1933, “The words of Jesus, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, condemn remarriage of a divorced one, and condemn it in terms which admit of no misunderstanding (emphasis mine, wew). The Savior mentions one, and only one, cause for putting away one party to the marriage union. ” Read Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-16,28,39 and see what God says about marriage, divorce and remarriage. We learn: (1) Those who have never been married may marry. (2) Those whose former companion is dead may marry. (3) Those who have put away their companion for fornication may marry. (4) Those who have a living former companion who was not put away for fornication may not marry. (5) Those who marry anyone who has a former companion (still living) who was not put away for fornication may not lawfully marry. (6) Those who were put away for sexual infidelity may not marry.

Who Is Responsible?

The cause of division and conflict among us is not what Jesus and his apostles taught, but rather what they didn’t teach. This is always the case. Those who teach, both privately and publicly, the following unscriptural positions on divorce and remarriage are the ones responsible for dividing brethren and breaching fellowship:

1. Only the church is under the New Covenant and Matthew 19:9 is addressed only to Christians. This would exclude conditions of salvation for everybody because repentance and baptism, conditions of salvation, are part of the New Covenant (Acts 2:38). Hence, this position infers universal damnation. Too, Jesus said, “whosoever,” not just the church.

2. Every marriage, including polygamy, is acceptable with God. Our Lord said in Matthew 19:5, “a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife” (not wives). Marriage is monogamous and for life (Matt. 19:5-6; Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39).

3. Alien sinners are not amenable to the law of Christ. The great commission is universal (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:47), therefore, aliens are under the gospel of Christ. Those who reject Jesus and his word will be judged by his word (Jn. 12:48).

4. One may continue in whatever marital state he is in after baptism. Not only does this allow one to live in adultery, but such reasoning would also logically permit a person to continue an incestuous, homosexual or polygamous marriage, and, you can throw in drunkenness, idolatry, thievery, denominationalism, to name a few. Are you ready for all of this?

5. The guilty party, in a case of marital infidelity, is as free to marry as the innocent party. Matthew 19:9 needs to be read more closely (and believed). Jesus said the man who puts away his wife and marries another commits (keeps on committing) adultery. This is what Jesus said about the guilty party. On the other hand, if he puts her away for fornication, then he is the innocent party and may remarry. Simple, isn’t it?

Years Past

Go back 50 to 100 years and we find a general consensus on divorce and remarriage. The preachers spoke by and large with one voice. Divorce was taught to be wrong, except for the cause of adultery. Preachers consistently contended that only fornication constituted grounds for divorce.

In the 1930s P.W. Stonestreet argued in a series of articles in the Gospel Advocate “that the Bible teaches the privilege of divorce and remarriage under certain conditions is quite generally conceded.” He concluded his series by advocating that only two things can break the marriage bond – death and fornication, and in both cases remarriage is permissible, but where there was separation for other causes, which is sometimes granted, remarriage is not allowed.

H. Leo Boles wrote in the Gospel Advocate, 1933, “All Bible students know that God recognizes but one cause for absolute divorce (divorce recognized by God as well as the state). This is adultery or fornication.” The preceding statements under the sub-heading, “Years Past,” are based on the excellent article, “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in Church History, ” by Steve Wolfgang (Guardian of Truth, Jan. 4, 1990). Brother Wolfgang concludes the article with this observation, to which I concur:

My own “footnote” would be to say that it seems clear to me that some present-day views, advocated by some increasingly vocal brethren who seem bent on justifying almost every kind second (or later) marriage regardless of cause, would have been greeted with abhorrence by the vast majority of the brethren quoted here (those years ago, wew).

Again, we ask: Who is contributing to the conflict over the divorce and remarriage issue? The answer is apparent when we contrast the positions espoused today with the view of the vast majority of brethren in years gone by, as well as a great number today, I believe. Brethren stood together then in unanimity of mind pertaining to divorce and remarriage. We can too, if we hold fast to what Jesus said on the subject.

Bob Waldron aptly stated, “In the marriage, divorce, and remarriage controversy, it would be nice if we could avoid division, and I fervently hope that widespread division does not occur. Nevertheless, the prevalence of divorce, and the increase among those who hold positions on marriage and divorce which clearly contradict plain Bible teaching will force the controversy upon us” (Is It Lawjul? A Comprehensive Study of Divorce, p. 440).

Why Unity in Diversity is Not the Answer

Some are proposing that all of us accept one another, regardless of one’s position on divorce and remarriage, so that a cleavage can be avoided. “After all, this issue is not clear, so we need to have a broad tolerance for each other,” we are told. We have heard that before. It is known as “unity in diversity,” which is one of the most cunning, subtle, slipperly, double-tongued, nefarious doctrines to “come down the pike.” It is a doctrine of compromise with error. The consequences are far-reaching:

1. It weakens our confidence in the Scriptures. We are told that what the Bible teaches on divorce and remarriage is somewhat hazy and, therefore, we cannot be absolutely sure what the truth is. Hence, let’s not allow our differences on this issue to break fellowship. If we cannot know what the Bible teaches on divorce and remarriage, then perhaps we cannot know what the Bible teaches on the Lord’s supper, the kind of music in worship, whether there are to be elders and deacons, women preachers and a host of other things, even including baptism. Brethren, we can know for certain (Lk. 1:4; Jn. 7:17; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:3; 1 Jn. 1:3-5; 2:21).

2. It gives respectability to false doctrines. Regardless of how you dress up error, such as upholding an adulterous relationship, it is still error. Paul wrote, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). We should never lend dignity to perversions of truth.

3. It encourages many young preachers and immature members to compromise biblical truth. Observe the areas of the country where tolerance is strongly promoted toward dissimilar views on divorce and remarriage and you will find a loose attitude manifested in regard to the various positions. No one is right or wrong. Truth becomes subjective. You get the impression that a position on the critical issue of divorce and remarriage is no more serious than a preference for the model of car you drive. Friend, we don’t choose a position from Matthew 19:9; it is the position.

4. It instills a false sense of security. Men and women remain in sin while at the same time being approved and applauded by men. The word of God is not preached, and those living in sin are told they are in good standing before God. They are to realize that they don’t have the Father and the Son if they fail to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9).

5. It fosters brethren to be men-pleasers. Those that are pleased in reference to divorce and remarriage may be children who are remarried, or a marriage partner, the elders or those in the congregation. Everybody is accommodated and the need for distinguishing the things that differ (Phil. 1:9) is eliminated. “Harmony” and “peace” are enjoyed by all. Everything runs smoothly. Yet, but iniquity goes unchallenged! Men are pleased but the angels of heaven weep. Consider the fearless apostle Paul when he said, “for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:1).

In closing, we need to heed the advice J.W. MeGarvey gave to J.P. Sewell in 1902: “You are on the right road, and whatever you do, don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. . . . It won’t work.” (McGarvey was referring to the innovations of the Christian Church, wew.)

May the Lord help us to be faithful and loyal to him in all things regardless of the sacrifice we must make. Let’s teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 11-12
January 2, 1992