Truth Magazine

By Bobby Witherington

Matthew 19:6 records Jesus to say, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. ” In Romans 7:2 the apostle Paul wrote, “The woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives.” Of course, the husband is also bound by the same obligation. In fact, our Lord gave but one exception whereby a person may scripturally divorce his or her mate and remarry. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. ” God’s plan from the very beginning was one man for one woman, and one woman for one man. This being true, it is wise for both men and women to proceed with caution as they enter the marriage union. This caution requires that each of them, long before the wedding, be fully determined in at least two very important areas:

1. Each must be absolutely sure that he has a right to marry and be absolutely sure that the other party has a scriptural right to marry. A person who has a living mate, and whose mate was not put away for the cause of fornication does not, according to God’s law, have a right to marry. Poor housekeeping, insolence, arrogance, a bad temper, etc., however sinful and undesirable, do not constitute fornication and do not, therefore, provide scriptural grounds for re-marriage. In the marriage realm, especially, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” No God fearing person should marry one who is not free to marry, regardless of that person’s beauty, handsomeness, good qualities, or money.

2. Each party to a marriage must be fully determined to keep his or her companion. This means they will avoid trial marriages. It means that each will refuse to enter the marriage bond as long as he has reservations about either himself or his commitment to make it an until-death-do-you-part relationship and partnership. Each much realize that the relationship may not always be perfect – the trials may come in the form of poverty or wealth, or in numerous ways unforeseen. They should enter the marriage bond with the determination to make every success and, yes, every failure, a means for strengthening the marriage bond and enhancing mutual trust and tranquility. Neither party is ready for marriage unless or until he has fully made such a predetermination as that just described.

Of course, many have entered into marriage without having become fully determined in these two important areas. If you happen to be such a person, but your marriage is, in the eyes of God, a scriptural union, then we affirm that you should do all within your power to make it last. If your family circle is not broken on the outside, but is torn and splintered on the inside, then you should immediately go to work mending whatever is amiss and do all you can to produce a greater togetherness between you and your mate. To that end we plan to make specific recommendations in successive articles, the Lord willing.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 17, p. 519
September 5, 1991

By Ron Halbrook

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence (Jn. 18:36).

The separation of church and state is no mere accident or expediency, but was clearly taught by Jesus Christ so that even the wicked ruler Pontius Pilate understood him. God ordained his church and civil government as two separate institutions with different purposes. Rulers should honor God as the sustainer of the universe, of nations, and of governments (Jn. 19:11). Government officials should seek the providential help and blessing of God in doing the work he gave them to do, but cannot conduct the business of the church. God gave the church its own work and organization without the least semblance of civil, military, or political power. It has no right or authority from God to enter into such fields of action.

What does the Bible teach about the relationship between the church and politics?

1. Godly men should lead the assemblies of the church in fervent prayer for our rulers, from the highest to the lowest (1 Tim. 2:1-8).

2. The church teaches respectfor governments, laws, and officials (Rom. 13:1-7). God ordained civil government to restrain criminals and the evil deeds which destroy peace, safety, and order in a society, and to protect obedient citizens. Governments wield the sword as agents of God’s wrath against evildoers. God commands us to pay our taxes and to cooperate with our rulers.

3. The church preaches the positive duties of all men and the positive provisions of the gospel to all men, high and low (Matt. 22:37-40; Mk. 16:15-16). Men sin and fall into various violations of God’s law because they fail to love God first and to love their fellowman. God does not tolerate or excuse sin on the part of the highest ruler or of the lowest servant. Every sinner must believe in God’s Son and be baptized in submission to the authority of Christ in order to receive the remission of sins. No man will be saved on his own merits by attaining great honors in civil affairs or because of suffering great abuses and injustices in life.

4. Sin must be rebuked and condemned no matter who practices it (Matt. 3:1-12; Lk. 3:1-14; Mk. 6:17-18). John applied God’s Word to all men alike, including the common people, tax collectors, and soldiers. Some of his plainest rebukes were directed against arrogant, hypocritical, religious leaders. The unscriptural marriage of a king was condemned openly and pointedly. The same kind of preaching was done by Jesus and his apostles, and must be done today.

5. Individuals have liberty to participate or not in civil and political activities. The Bible authorizes governments but leaves the particular systems to the judgments of men. It authorizes citizenship without specifying degrees and levels of participation other than respect and obedience. Whether a person votes, serves in the military, joins a political party, takes part in campaigns, runs for office, and the like are matters left by God to the conscience of each person (cf. Rom. 14:5,17). Whatever decision is made, we must remember that God rules and overrules in nations, that we must act in keeping with moral principles rather than personal or political loyalties, that we must put such priorities as worship and the family above other interests, and that the most important thing we can do for our country is to live a godly life (Prov. 14:34).

6. The church’s mission is spiritual, not political. God established the church with a specified, limited work: to preach the gospel, worship God, and care for needy saints (1 Tim. 3:15; 5:16; Acts 2:42). The church is not a social welfare agency, an arm of civil government, a political institution, a secular school, or a recreational club. The church has not a minute or a penny to spend on such endeavors. While opposing immorality, dishonesty, and sin of every kind, it has no political program and endorses no candidate. It holds no political rallies, offers no candidate the pulpit as a platform for political speeches, makes no political donations, and has no political action committees at any level. The church of Christ registers no voters, organizes no voters, transports no voters to the polls, and finances no part of the voting process. Christ gave no authority in his word for the church to act in such matters. When the church so acts, it sins and rebels against Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; 2 Jn. 9). Let the church be the church and let the government be the government!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 489
August 15, 1991

By Dub McClish

As our Lord drew the Sermon of the Mount to a close, he gave the following warning: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:15-16). Do we still need this warning?

It is presently easier to find protectors of wolves among the sheep than to find those who will expose them. In fact, it is the common thing nowadays for the false teacher to be praised, endorsed, supported, and welcomed, while one who would correctly identify him as a wolf is treated as the wolf should be treated. How different from the Lord’s is the attitude of many brethren on this matter! We are not left to wonder how the apostolic church dealt with false teachers: They were watched for and, when discovered, they were marked, avoided, silenced, shunned, rejected, refused endorsement, and delivered to Satan (Acts 20:29-31; Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Tim. 1: 19-20; Tit. 1:10-11, 14; 3:10; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Now there may be some “witch-hunters … .. alarmists, ” and those who “play God” among us, but I doubt it. (if there are, the wolves greatly outnumbered them!) These and similar appellations are smokescreen words designed to mitigate the exposures of the false teachers without their having to answer for or repent of their errors. Such terms are designed to intimidate and silence the one who exposes the false teacher. They are employed to create prejudice against those who stand for the Truth and they are a favorite ploy of the liberals. (Ironically, false teachers who claim to abhor ~ ~ name-calling” and “labeling” don’t mind doing it themselves when they are being exposed!)

I know of no one who enjoys exposing sin or error in a brother or sister. I certainly do not. I would much rather always be able to commend and praise and never have to criticize or reprove. However, one is not really a Gospel preacher (or a true follower of Christ, whatever his work in the kingdom) who shrinks in cowardice from this necessary task.

If it makes me a “witch-hunter” or an “alarmist” to warn brethren of a “wolf” among the “flock” (or “flocks”), then I am such with Heaven’s blessing. If I am such a one, then what shall we call the Lord and his apostles who commanded and practiced this responsibility? If exposing false teachers is “playing God,” I would rather do that than “play the devil” by refusing the Lord’s mandate to do so. If one would be great in the Master’s eyes, he must be faithful to the charge to identify and expose false teachers, even if they are dear friends or even relatives. (Reprinted from The Shield of Faith, June 1991)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 493
August 15, 1991

By Burl Young

Some months ago our President said that he was “drawing a line in the sand” as pertains to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and possible invasion of Saudi Arabia. Since the President was speaking metaphorically, we realize that he meant that no more aggression would be tolerated. Likewise, it is time that we who are endeavoring to continue in God’s word, also draw a line. It will be the purpose of this article to show that the continuing ingress of liberalism will not be tolerated. Many reasons could be given, but we shall limit our thoughts to the line that God has drawn between truth and error.

For some time now it has been evident that a great difference exists between brethren in the Lord’s church. Some wish to become more and more tolerant of denominationalism, institutionalism and worldliness. On the other hand, those who are standing for truth can and will not tolerate such wavering. If this tolerance continues, it will allow the social drinker, adulterous person and denominational errorist to feel at case in Zion. Let us examine the above errors and what our actions should be toward them.

Where Has God Drawn the Line?

This question is not a hard one to answer if we will only look to God’s word. For instance, where did God draw the line concerning denominationalism? Did God through the Holy Spirit vacillate saying it makes no difference how we worship, or did he give a specific way? God is very specific in the condemnation of denominationalism. In 1 Corinthians, Paul says, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13)

The above passage should put to rest forever the idea that just any way is acceptable unto God. It does not prove that you or I am right, but proves that both cannot be right at the same time if we teach different and conflicting doctrines. So, as for the idea of denominationalism, God has drawn the line, I don’t have to draw one, but merely accept the one he has drawn.

Institutionalism has been, is, and will continue to be a thorn in the side of Christ’s precious Church. Where has God drawn the line concerning institutionalism? Has he taught that both ways are correct? Has he taught that it can not be discerned, or that it doesn’t really matter? The answer to all these questions can be answered very easily. God has drawn the line. The line of demarcation is the plain teaching of the Bible concerning the sufficiency of the church. Since God has told us that he purposed the church before the foundation of the world, we surely do not think that we mere mortals can improve upon it (Eph. 3:9-11). Since God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, it seems plausible that we should be able to read his word and understand what he wishes us to do in these matters. For instance there are differences between brethren about the support of human institutions. Since they cannot be found in the Scripture by direct command, necessary inference or apostolic example, it is easy to see that God has drawn the line forbidding us to participate in such schemes of men. God has drawn the line in the sand concerning these matters.

The final matter we shall examine in this area, is the area of worldliness. It would take more space and time than I have in this article to say much about such a damnable doctrine, but I will say a few things and then show where God has drawn the line.

God has drawn the line against social drinking. Some are teaching that we may drink a little, as long as we don’t get drunk. How much is that? Is it one drink? Two? How many? God has commanded us to abstain from evil (1 Thess. 5:22). Can we not be content to leave such an evil alone? God has drawn the line, we dare not pass.

God has drawn the line against adultery. Contrary to what the modern prophets proclaim, the Son of God declared, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” Is this not plain? God has drawn a line.

Finally, and most importantly, is the line of fellowship. After all, if the above teachings of the Bible are true and understandable (and they are), shall we continue to fellowship, endorse and hold in repute those who preach and teach things contrary to sound doctrine? The answer is an obvious and resounding no! God has drawn a line in his word, just as our President drew in the desert sands of the Mideast.

If brethren continue to demand respect for denominationalism, institutionalism and worldliness, there will be another split in the Lord’s Church. Let us pray that those who are advocating the placing of error under the guise of opinion, look once again to the line that God has drawn between truth and error and respect that line.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 492
August 15, 1991