Truth Magazine

By H.E. Phillips

What we think, say and do bears consequences upon our own lives and impose an influence upon the lives of many other people in time, and will finally determine our destiny in eternity. It is fearful thought to ponder the effects of our teaching at the judgment. “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). The authority of Christ is the only standard of right and wrong.

The effect of divorce and remarriage upon this age and upon the church is frightening. Those false teachers who try to justify it and promote it among brethren are making havoc of the church, and they are holding the gospel in unrighteousness. Defending false teachers on any subject bears serious consequences.

A false teacher is one who teaches that which is not in harmony with Divine Truth. The truth of the gospel is not inherent in any of us; it has to be learned, and the only source of truth is the word of God (Jn. 17:17).

I have never known one to admit he was a false teacher, no matter what he taught. In fact, he not only denies it, but he charges me with being a false teacher when I point out his error.

A false teacher may be one with highest degrees from the best known colleges and universities, or a veteran of many years of preaching and teaching, or even a near relative or a best friend. Anyone, without regard for age, experience, scholarship, wealth, relationship, friendship, religious fervor, who does not teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is a false teacher.

There are at least four reasons why one would defend a false teacher on divorce and remarriage:

1. He does not know what the truth is.

2. He believes and shares the views of the false teacher.

3. He loves and reveres the false teacher more than the truth.

4. He is proud and obstinate, and he will not admit error.

Some of the effects of defending false teachers on divorce and remarriage are:

A. He forfeits his fellowship with God. The word “fellowship” is applied to all of the collective activity of Christians in the body of Christ, authorized by Christ. It is used in reference to benevolence, to preaching the gospel, in praise and worship to God, and in the finance of the work of the church.

There can be no fellowship with light and darkness. Paul said: “. . . for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? . . . Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:14-18).

One who preaches false doctrine on any subject, including divorce and remarriage, has no fellowship with God. He who defends a false teacher on any subject, including divorce and remarriage, has no fellowship with God. If that is not what the inspired apostle taught in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, I have no idea what the passage teaches.

We may claim fellowship one with another, but we can not have fellowship with God in anything that is not in harmony with the gospel. Fellowship with God depends upon abiding in the teaching of Christ.

B. He adversely affects his own ability to serve God. The effect upon one who defends false teachers on divorce and remarriage is very serious even if he does not recognize it. It greatly impairs his influence and ability to teach the truth on other subjects. Here are some of the effects upon him:

1. He is perceived as endorsing a doctrine that encourages fornication and adultery among young people both in and out of the church. He is defending and supporting those who boldly advocate such sins under the guise of teaching the gospel of Christ.

2. He reduces his ability and influence to convince and convict sinners of their sins. When one defends a teacher who advocates that divorced people for any cause may marry others who have been divorced and remarried, he is rendered ineffective in persuading other immoral sinners to repent and turn to God. We expect the guilty to deny this, nonetheless, it is true.

3. He reduces his ability to deal honestly with his own heart and conscience. The more one studies the word of God with an honest heart, the more truth he will learn. The more truth he learns, the more difficult it is to keep an honest heart and continue to defend the false teachers on divorce and remarriage. With the difficulty of maintaining an honest heart comes the conflict of conscience. Here will be the test of the person.

4. He becomes hostile and bitter toward those who oppose him. He begins to handle the word of God deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2), as also he does with statements of friends and brethren. Pride and arrogance dominate his thinking and he goes further from the truth in his reaction to those who challenge him for his defense of false teachers.

C. He becomes partaker with the sin of the false teacher. The apostle John tells us that we are not to receive those who transgress or go beyond the doctrine of Christ. Any point of teaching, practice or thinking that takes liberty with God’s word to ignore any part of it, and go beyond it, is following the false doctrine of which John speaks in 2 John 9,10.

If it is a sin to teach and practice anything contrary to the word of God, and it is, it is a sin for one to endorse and defend the false teachers. That is what 2 John 11 teaches.

D. He promotes the practice of sin. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:1,2). False teachers on divorce and remarriage appeal to those who are guilty and are looking for justification, or to those who want to enter an adulterous marriage, who have little or no knowledge of what Christ taught on the subject. Millions transgress the law of Christ every day because they are ignorant of the truth (Eph. 4:18; Acts 17:23; 2 Cor. 4:3,4). False teachers on divorce and remarriage exploit this ignorance of truth to spread their corrupt teaching. All who defend these false teachers are also guilty of promoting sin.

A sinner is one who transgresses the law of Christ. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This law is the doctrine of Christ in 2 John 9-10.

E. He holds the gospel in unrighteousness. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all un.-odliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). Those who teach false doctrines and those who defend the false teachers “hold down, restrain” the spread of the gospel by their unrighteousness. False teachers on divorce and remarriage encourage adultery and fornication by teaching a doctrine that promotes adulterous marriages.

The word of God teaches us to oppose false teachers and avoid them (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 4:14). We not only are to avoid the involvement in sin, but we are also to oppose openly the practice of sin. We must have “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Paul withstood Peter to the face because he had sinned (Gal. 2:11-14).

F. He disturbs the unity of the Spirit. “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:3-6).

Unity is of God, divisions are of men (1 Cor. 15:33). When one keeps the doctrine of Christ, he is in fellowship with God and with all who walk by the same rule. False doctrines create strife and divisions which cause souls to be lost in eternity.

The word of God is powerful (Heb. 4:12). It is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6;17). It is the perfect law of liberty (Jas. 1:25; 2:12); the law of the Spirit of life; the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). It is all-sufficient to perfect a man unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16,17). It provides all things that pertain to life and godliness (1 Pet. 1:3). We must study it and rightly divide it (2 Tim. 2:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 9-10
January 2, 1992

By Tom M. Roberts

It has become fashionable of late to suggest that a person cannot be called a false teacher or a position labeled as false doctrine unless it can be determined that the teacher is insincere or dishonest. Virtually any position known to man regarding any biblical matter can be covered by this logic and, once accepted, becomes unassailable without the ability to read hearts and judge motives. The ultimate end of such folly is that of compromise and open-ended fellowship unless hypocrisy and dishonesty can be proven. The word of God itself is not clear enough, we are told, to be the determinant factor and fellowship becomes a matter of subjective (as opposed to objective) reasoning.

As one writer said, “You may have noticed that I have said little about false doctrine. There is a reason for that: ‘false doctrine’ is an unscriptural term!” (“Refutation By Ridicule,” R. Andrew Parker, Sentry Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 1, March 31, 1991).

Someone else has asserted: “I do not regard (name deleted) as a false teacher . . . because I am persuaded by his conduct and his arguments that he honestly believes that he is faithful to God’s teaching on the subject” (“Divorce and Fellowship,” Ed Harrell, written speech at FC Open Forum, Feb. 1991).

Since my earliest years of preaching, I have had sectarian preachers attempt to justify their false teachings on the basis of an honest and sincere heart and the lack of clarity of the gospel message. It is most disconcerting to hear this from respected brethren.

The apostle Peter stated an opposite view rather clearly: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1). Paul also warned: “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). And again: “. . . and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. . . ” (1 Tim. 1:10). “Contrary doctrine” is prohibited, though the teacher even be an angel: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9).

Our proposition is before us, fairly stated, and the answer is no less manifest.

False Doctrine

Brethren, it is patently false that there is no such thing today as false doctrine or false teachers. Yes, it is true that pseudos refers to “a lie, conscious and intentional falsehood,” (see Thayer, et al). But it should be understood that not every brother who teaches “contrary doctrine” does so with conscious intent. Some surely do. However it is also true that one who deceives others may himself be deceived (2 Tim. 3:13), teaching error unintentionally. Is the “destructive heresy” any less evil because it is believed by the one who teaches it? Was Paul any less a blasphemer because he was honest (Acts 23:1)? Thayer also says that pseusma is “a falsehood, a lie; spec. the perfidy by which a man by sinning breaks faith with God.” Shall we be so naive as to suppose that no man ever broke faith with God through sin that was unintentional? Did David and Uzzah (2 Sam. 6) “break faith” with God by intentionally bringing the Ark of God home on a cart or was it an oversight? David understood that God punished them “because we did not seek Him according to the ordinance,” (1 Chron. 15:13), not for conscious intent to do wickedly. Thus we see that an act takes its nature (good or evil, moral or immoral, lie or truth) from its relation to God’s revelation and not from the attitude of the heart. Good intent and honesty cannot make false doctrine true!

Was the “man of God,” the prophet from Judah (1 Kings 13), any less dead (having been slain by a lion at the word of God) because he believed the voice of a lying prophet? He was deceived, having followed a “blind guide” (Matt. 15:14). Here is the clear example of one who is called a “man of God” breaking faith with God and paying the price because he believed a lie. Could this happen today? We are hearing it taught that one cannot break faith with God unless one is dishonest. But this does not fit the pattern of “sound words.”

Is False Doctrine Known Subjectively?

I know that Jesus can read hearts. Likewise, the apostles and inspired men and women could “discern spirits” (1 Cor. 12:10). But none this side of the miraculous age can judge whether a teacher is false by reading his heart. Brethren, the position that we can only know a man to be a false teacher when we adjudge him to be dishonest or insincere is so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous. This position throws the knowledge of truth vs. error into the realm of subjectivity, removing it from the objective standard: the word of God. It is an impossible situation, removing any credible assessment of right or wrong. The Baptists make this argument about their preacher who teaches that baptism is “because of” remission of sins. They say he “honestly believes that he is faithful to God’s teaching on the subject,” therefore he must be right. We say they are wrong because the teaching violates the word of God — regardless of how honest the teacher may be. Now, our brethren are saying that one who teaches adulterous marriages to be acceptable is to be received into fellowship because “he honestly believes that he is faithful to God’s teaching on the subject.” Is this not a double standard? Why is a Baptist wrong even though he has a sincere heart and our brother right because he has a sincere heart? Do only members of the church of Christ have honest hearts?

Another part of this fallacious argument that must be considered is that because there are so many different positions on the disputed subject, no one can be sure of where the truth actually lies; the word of God is just not clear on the subject. But again, clear to whom? And on which subjects?

Our Baptist friend, once again, teaches “salvation by faith alone” and makes six or seven arguments to prove that baptism is “because of” remission of sins. He insists that the Bible does not clearly teach what we insist that it does. We reply that one hundred faulty arguments do not change truth. “Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Now our brother argues that marriage, divorce and remarriage is such a complex situation, having six or seven different positions that no one can be sure of what truth really is, therefore we must allow our brother to teach his destructive view. Truthfully, these arguments to encourage fellowship on the marriage-divorce-remarriage issue are more dangerous, if possible, than the marriage-divorce-remarriage issue itself. Adulterous marriages, as sinful as they are, do not question the clarity of God’s revelation nor demand that we read hearts nor deny that other types of false teachers exist. I respectfully urge those who advocate continued fellowship with those who teach admittedly “unsound” and “contrary” doctrines to be extremely careful lest your arguments to open a door to these brethren make it impossible to close the door to any error.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 16-17
January 2, 1992

By Mike Willis

In recent years, the divorce and remarriage issue has become an issue receiving much attention among us. This has occurred because several brethren have begun publicly teaching matters long believed but held as private opinions. The issue came to a head after brother Homer Hailey preached in Belen, NM (March 1988) his long held conviction that God’s marriage law applied only to citizens of the kingdom. Later he published his book on the same subject, titled The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God (1991). During the same period of time, brother Jerry Bassett published his book Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (1991). Their false doctrines were immediately answered by several competent brethren.

As the issue was discussed among us, another group of brethren began teaching that the divorce and remarriage issue should not be made a test of fellowship. These brethren stated that they disagreed with those who took a loose view on divorce and remarriage but did not believe that this issue should be pressed to the point of fellowship. Consequently, preachers who take the “unity in diversity” approach to fellowship on the divorce and remarriage issue preach in churches which teach and practice what they admit to be unscriptural doctrinal on divorce and remarriage without rebuking the sinful conduct or unscriptural doctrine. In many respects this looser view of fellowship is a more dangerous doctrine than is the loose view of divorce and remarriage. If unity in diversity will work with reference to divorce and remarriage, why won’t it work on institutionalism, the sponsoring church, premillennialism, instrumental music in worship, water baptism, the deity of Christ, a whole range of moral issues, and any other doctrine revealed in God’s word? None of my brethren who have appealed for unity in diversity on the marriage question is willing to make application of the principles to the issues mentioned above, but there is no logical reason not to.

A variety of defenses have been offered to teach unity in diversity on the various views of divorce and remarriage. They include, but may not be limited to, the following: (a) it is just like the war question; (b) everyone practices unity in diversity; (c) the issue is not clearly revealed; (d) the teacher is good, honest and sincere and, therefore, is not a false teacher; (e) Romans 14 teaches that we should receive one another in such matters; (f) pressing this issue will lead to endless divisions; (g) we need to recognize the difference between important and unimportant issues. Many of our readers will recognize these arguments as the very arguments made by Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Edward Fudge in their teaching unity in diversity during the 1970s. Not everyone who has made one of these arguments would embrace the extremes of the Ketcherside movement. Too, we understand that brethren will differ on when enough time has passed for study of an issue before fellowship is broken (see 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6). Each brother must be allowed room to exercise his own conscience in such matters. But the issue of unity in diversity is not dead; it has manifested itself again in another place.

Because of the importance of this issue, we have assembled this special edition of Guardian of Truth to addresss the subject of fellowship as it pertains to divorce and remarriage. I am confident you will benefit from the study of this issue.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 1, 35
January 2, 1992

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

“Unity through restoration” is a phrase which Christians have used to describe agreement to share spiritual relationship and activity based upon mutual understanding and acceptance of truth as taught in the Scriptures. “Restoration” is a word we have adopted to signify the recovery of first century faith and practice in later centuries. We unashamedly believe that the faith and practice of Christians in the first century, when recorded in the New Testament with Divine approval, forms the pattern for God’s people until Christ returns (1 Cor. 4:6; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Tim. 4:6; 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2; 3:10,14; Tit. 1:9; 2 Jn. 9-11).

“Unity in diversity,” on the other hand, is a phrase which has been used to identify agreement to share spiritual relationship and activity while disagreeing on what the Bible teaches about mutually shared items of faith and practice. The phrase often describes denominational acceptance of totally divergent and even contradictory positions considered significant enough to separate people into different “fellowships” or denominations. Baptists and Methodists, for example, consider one another Christians and share some activities (such as Easter sunrise services). They recognize that their faith and practice are sufficiently different to keep them from being together, yet they claim to be united. The phrase has also been used to call for the uniting of those who hold differing views in “Christian churches” and “churches of Christ.” For example, advocates of “unity in diversity” want those who believe in using mechanical instruments of music in worship to join with those who do not, working and worshiping together in spite of their differences.

I have been asked to discuss which of these two approaches is biblical when we confront questions concerning divorce and remarriage.

Unequivocally, I affirm that biblical unity on any question about which God has spoken must be based upon what God says. It cannot be based upon man’s reasoning (Jer. 10:23). Amos rhetorically asked, “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3) “Walking together” indicates mutual, shared activity. If I am involved in an activity with another, I must agree, at least in that activity, or violate conscience by participation. In spiritual matters the basis of agreement must be the Word of God (Matt. 15:8-9).

Jesus prayed that all Christians “may be one” in God and in Christ just as he had prayed that those who were with him should be one (Jn. 17:20-21). How were the apostles one? The answer is in his prayer: “You gave them to Me and they have kept Your word” (v. 6); “They have known that all things which You have given Me are from You” (v. 7); “I have given to them the words which You have given Me and they have received them” (v. 8); “keep though Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are” (v. 11); “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name” (v. 12); “I have given them Your word” (v. 14); “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (v. 17); “for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (v. 19). There is no question that Jesus taught unity upon compliance with the word of God.

One asks, however, “But what about divorce and remarriage?” Two very direct references settle that in my mind. First, when answering questions about divorce and remarriage, Jesus asked, “Have you not read. . . ?” (Matt. 19:4) Jesus called for a “restoration” of the will of God in their practice by leading them back to the Word. He expected them to read, draw proper conclusions, and then apply God’s word to their questions. Second, when the disunited Corinthians needed answers to their questions concerning husbands and wives, they knew to go to God’s word. They wrote Paul who was a messenger for Christ. Paul responded with the commands and counsel of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:1-40). He did not call for unity on grounds other than “that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10). Some might say, “But Paul gave his own judgment in some of his statements on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7.” A careful reading of the text will clearly show that where Paul expresses his judgment it is either apostolic judgment guided by the Holy Spirit (vv. 25,40) and/or an admonition to follow a safe course in matters left to human decision (vv. 26-28). In either case, “serving the Lord without distraction” is primary (v. 36). The overriding concern of the chapter is: What does God say for us to do?

We must acknowledge at this point some biblical guidelines which are essential to “unity through restoration” and which are most helpful in applying this great principle to issues related to divorce and remarriage:

First, Christians make decisions about fellowship or unity in keeping with the following clear instruction: (a) we must preach and defend the Truth as revealed by God in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:1-5); (b) we must not teach error or sin (Gal. 1:6-10); (c) we must not practice anything we believe to be sin (1 Tim. 5:22; Matt. 15:1-14); (d) we must not condone or support error or sin in others (2 Jn. 9-11; 1 Cor. 5; Rev. 2:12-29); (e) we must not be hindered from accomplishing all which God expects of us (Matt. 7:21,24-27; Jas. 4:17; 2 Cor. 8:7; 13:7-11).

Second, some issues can be decided by appeal to Scripture. In these, intense study and reflection upon God’s Word is often required. We must be uncompromising where God has spoken but we must also be patient, kind and loving (Eph. 4:13; Col. 3:12-17) with those still in the process of learning. We are all still studying some subjects. Some other issues are not answered in Scripture and still others call for human judgment. To agree to remain united when we disagree on matters of opinion or human judgment is a separate matter and is not properly within the scope of what has traditionally been referred to as “unity in diversity.” Let us not confuse terminology and thus open doors to error.

Third, all decisions on unity must be decided personally or congregationally, not nationally or by some individual Christian or association of Christians for all other Christians. We are not bound to a human creed or human consortium. We appeal solely to Christ as our Head. We must never forget what we teach concerning: (a) the imperative responsibility of each Christian to act from his/her own open investigation of the Word of God; and (b) the autonomy of local congregations to act independent of outside oversight or intimidation. We should allow the Lord to decide whether we are united spiritually with those outside the sphere of our activity or influence. Generally, I am united with all whom God accepts and I am pleased to share spiritual relationship with anyone who is in good standing with the Lord. Specifically, fellowship is at issue when I meet a situation in which my life, responsibility, or influence is engaged and I must make a decision regarding what or with whom I will share active relationship. May God bless us with a spirit of wisdom and understanding that we may meet our grave responsibilities in this area of our spirituality!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 5-6
January 2, 1992