Truth Magazine

By Kevin Campbell

Most Christians recognize that false doctrine is to be identified, refuted, and opposed (1 Tim. 1: 19-20; 6:20-21; 2 Tim. 2:15-18). While I believe the Bible gives several reasons for doing just that, sometimes Christians only focus on one reason, namely that false doctrine is, as indicated, false. Certainly this is a good, scriptural reason for opposing false teaching and, if for no other reason, false teachers should be opposed on those grounds.

The Bible indicates that preachers and elders (as well as any who teach the word) are to “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13), to speak the things “which become sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1), and to be able by “sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers” (Tit. 1:9). The teacher of the word of God is not to go beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9-11) but is to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11). The Scriptures, which equip us for every good work and make us complete as Christians, are to be the standard by which our teaching is judged (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

There is however, another reason for opposing false doctrine. It is somewhat related to the reasons listed above but is itself distinct. We find this reason given in 2 Timothy 2:15-19, where Paul identified Hymanaeus and Philetus as teachers of a false doctrine, namely that the resurrection has already occurred. While this was a false teaching, the real damage is noted in the last part of verse 18, where Paul says that this teaching had resulted in the overthrow of the faith of some Christians. Apparently, those who were misled and had believed this doctrine were so dismayed by the implications of it (that they would not attain to the resurrection since it had already passed) that their faith was destroyed. This, I believe, is one of the greatest dangers of false doctrine. Not only is it false and incorrect, but it results in false conclusions which can and will result in a loss of faith, a feeling of security in a sinful state, or lead to sinful action itself. Let’s notice several examples of this:

1. Impossibility of Apostasy. Also known as “once saved, always saved,” this doctrine asserts that once a person is saved, he can never become lost again. The person who accepts this will then be deceived into thinking that he doesn’t need to repent of his sins and confess them to God in order to be forgiven (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9). He may also take the doctrine to its logical end by deciding to “live life in the fast lane” since he is going to go to heaven anyway. The Bible continually warns about the possibility of falling away from the Lord and even offers several examples of those who did (Heb. 3:12-4:1; 6:4-6; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; Gal. 5:4; Col. 1:22-23).

2. Individual Predestination. This belief, formulated by John Calvin, is that God alone decides who is saved and who is lost and that he does so unconditionally. In other words, you have no choice as to whether you will go to heaven or hell. God alone will decide. I recently talked with a woman who has been having trouble with this doctrine. The results of it were clearly seen in that she is very depressed and had come to the conclusion that God was against her and did not want her to be saved. The person who accepts this view will be led to believe that he is already saved by God and hence does not need to do anything or he will believe that God does not want him to be saved and will therefore not do anything to accept God’s grace. The truth is, God desires the salvation of every person and will save all who come to Jesus as the Savior and obey him and his word (1 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Heb. 5:8-9).

3. Premillennialism. The idea that Jesus will return to earth and set up an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years has been a hot item since the Middle East crisis. This doctrine however, shifts the emphasis from the death of Jesus Christ and his purpose to save mankind from sin, to a physical, earthly kingdom and peace on earth. This is precisely why the Jews crucified the Lord the first time he came. They were expecting an earthly kingdom, but when he came proclaiming a spiritual kingdom and salvation from sin, they rejected him, charged him falsely, and had him crucified. This doctrine will divert a Christian’s energy and hopes from life eternal to a temporal, earthly hope. Paul affirms in Ephesians 3:1-11 that God’s eternal purpose was not to establish an earthly kingdom of 1,000 years duration, but was to redeem man from sin through Jesus Christ and his death, reconciling the world to himself through the cross in the one body or church (Eph. 2:16; 1:22-23).

4. Salvation by Faith Only. Those who proclaim that all you need to do to be saved from sin is to “ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior and he will forgive you” are deceiving many people into thinking that they are already saved. First of all, nowhere in the Bible was anyone ever told to just “ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior” in order to be forgiven. When people heard the gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ’s blood and believed it, they were told to repent of their sins and be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mk. 16:16). Many are therefore led to believe that they are saved when they are not and will go no further in study to find out what they should do to be saved.

There are many other examples but I think those listed prove the point. False doctrine diverts people’s attention way from the Lord and his word and causes them have opes that are not realistic or else causes them to act in a way contrary to God’s will. For this reason, and others, false doctrine is to be opposed and the truth defended in the hopes at a soul might be saved. Let all who teach the word of God be sure that they teach the truth and are ready to avoid e “oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Tim. 6:20).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, pp. 406-407
July 4, 1991

By Dennis Ross

In the year 1967, I was 9 years old. My mother was single and trying to support herself and three boys, after divorcing my “father” 5 years earlier. There was no God in my life then. In that year, my mother met and married a man whom I consider to be my dad. In this 9th year of life I experienced some major changes, the first of which was an introduction to God through the Catholic religion, the second being a dad. The knowledge of God came about in two ways; through school and through the Catholic mass, or as one would say, “going to church.”

In that 9th year, God was as unknown to me as the kids at the new school in which my dad enrolled me. I quickly made friends though, and just as quickly realized that there indeed was a God. I realize now that the “god” of the Catholic religion is not the one you read of in the Bible. This knowledge came about through study and I firmly believe that if all men everywhere were to study the Bible with an open heart, they too would come to this realization. But man is such that he would rather worship a “god” that suits him than to study and worship the one true God found in the Bible!

Upon leaving home at the age of 18, I stopped “going to church,” but my belief in God never stopped. At that time and until I was 28, I believed that I was serving God in a manner that was pleasing to him. In reality I was pleasing myself. I would get high on pot and go hiking in God’s “church” and “be one with nature.” I tried to be nice to whomever I would meet and tried to do things in a way that was right. I truly believed that what I was doing was right in the sight of God, but the Bible taught me just how wrong I was (Matt. 15:8-9)! At the age of 20, my life took a change that led me to where I am now.

It’s funny how things that happen in one’s life can lead to things never before dreamed of. I was working at a restaurant when a guy with whom I had worked for three years quit. We were like brothers, and when he left, it truly affected me. I continued to work there though. About five months later he came to me with an opportunity to help establish a restaurant in a town 40 miles away. At first I said no, but later changed my mind. Was it the will of God or just pure luck, that at this place I would meet my future wife and through her Christ? Only God knows the answer, but I believe it was providential!

Sharon is very strong in the faith; why she married me I have no idea. When she married me I was not a Christian, but I thank God that she did. I now believe that a Christian should only marry another Christian (2 Cor. 6:14). Her Christian friends tried to tell her not to marry me, but she wouldn’t listen. She said she saw in me the potential of becoming a Christian. As for me, all I saw was love in her, and I still do! Through her I was introduced to the church of Christ. She truly lived the teaching found in 1 Peter 3:1-2.

After the experience of the Catholic religion, I believed that all religions were the same. I was in for a number of shocks when I first visited the local church of Christ that Sharon was a member of. The first was that the people met in a house. The second was that the one who did the preaching was Sharon’s best friend’s father. The third was the fact that he used the Bible when he preached. All of these were not what I had grown up with in the Catholic Church.

I believe to most Catholics, the idea of “church” means the building where the mass is held. Just walk inside of a big one and you will see what I mean. According to the Word of God, the church is those who have obeyed the gospel (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:13), with Jesus as the only head (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18). When Christians come together to worship God, they are the church. In many religions, the emphasis is on the structure, not the souls inside.

Many religions today require that the man go through some sort of school to get a degree showing that he knows the Word of God. That’s fine, if the man can apply the Word with wisdom and understanding. It’s one thing to be able to quote Scripture, but do they know what it means? The preacher I heard did not go to school to become a preacher; he became one through study (2 Tim. 2:15). In the commission that Christ gave (Matt. 28:19-20), we find that if we are taught that we must also teach, and those we teach must also teach and so on and so on, a never ending cycle. For the Catholic, there is no study, only what “the church” wants them to know. If a Catholic were to study, truly study the Word of God, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a Christian, if he obeyed the Word God declared.

When a man gets up to teach others about God, he needs to speak “as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). I have yet to see a priest use a Bible in a sermon. As a child, not once did I see the priest or the people with a Bible in hand. How can one fulfill the command given to Timothy and to us (2 Tim. 2:15) unless he has the Word of God with him? How could he “rightly divide the Word” unless he knows the Word? As you can see, these facts alone show how utterly false the Catholic religion is. It also showed me how right the true church of Christ really is.

I attended services on a somewhat regular basis and had even started a Bible study with the preacher. His studies with me were effective for when we reached baptism, I quit! Why? Because I knew that in order to obey the gospel I would have to give up the life that I was living. I was not willing to do that, so I stopped the studies and attending the services. Later, I started to study again with another preacher and finally obeyed the gospel. What insight my wife had and the life she lived truly reflected 1 Peter 3:1-2!

This overly long narrative leads me to where I am now, 31 years old, a Christian, and preaching the gospel. Sharon and I have been married almost ten years with two additions; Christopher (age 6) and David (age 2). I am currently involved in a preacher training program located at the Rose Avenue church of Christ in Bellflower, California. I decided to write this paper after a friend of mine said I should. He just happens to be the one who baptized me.

I chose the title I did because the family I belong to, as far as flesh and blood is concerned, is indeed a family of religions. Within this family there are Jews, Catholics, Humanists, Pentecostals, those who profess to be Christians but do not practice the religion found in the Word of God, and those who profess no religious conviction of any kind. In the Word of God, there is only one church, one faith, one obedience, and only one God (Eph. 4:4-6). Why did I leave my family of religions for Christ? The Bible commanded me to!

If you are in a family of religions, look around to see if they are following only the Bible or manmade doctrines. Study the Word of God and become approved unto God, not man! Jesus wants you!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, pp. 426-427
July 18, 1991

By Lewis Willis

A front-page article in the Akron Beacon Journal (4-29-91) reported the findings of a national survey on the moral codes of Americans. The article, by Bob Dart, was based on information from a 270-page book entitled, The Day America Told the Truth -What People Really Believe About Everything That Really Matters. The book was written by James Patterson and Peter Kim. Two thousand people at each of 50 locations across the country responded to their questionnaires in privacy. The findings were startling.

Here are some quotations from Dart’s Article. “Americans are making up their own rules and laws, the book concluded. . . We choose which laws of God we believe. There is absolutely no moral consensus in this country – as there was in the 1950s and 1960s. . . Religion plays almost no role in shaping most lives, the study found. . . Americans have lost faith in the institution of marriage, the survey showed. Nearly a third of the married respondents weren’t sure they still loved their spouses. . . Nine out of ten Americans lie regularly. . . Nearly a third of all married Americans have had an affair. . . A fifth of the nation’s children have lost their virginity by age 13 . . . For $ 10 million, 7 percent of the people would kill a stranger.”

The respondents were asked to list “The Ten Sleaziest Ways to Make a Living. ” The top four were: (1) Drug Dealer, (2) Organized crime Boss, (3) TV Evangelist, (4) Prostitute. If there was ever any doubt about the effect the Jim Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggarts have had on the public, this survey settles the question. They are regarded as worse than a prostitute! Make no mistake about it, religion in general has gotten a “black eye” from the escapades of these two characters. It is going to require an Herculean effort to reverse the damage which has been done. We should all think about this as we consider the influence we have on others from day to day.

It should not surprise us to learn that “Americans are making up their own rules and laws” in establishing acceptable conduct. Religion has been writing its own laws for centuries. Every denomination that has written its own Creed has done religiously what people are doing morally.

The study found that “religion plays almost no role in shaping most lives.” This is evidently true, for it becomes more and more difficult to persuade people to consider the appeal of religion. We see evidence of some of this same attitude among brethren. It is difficult to get some who call themselves Christians to even assemble for worship.

What could be more disturbing than to learn that people have “lost faith in the institution of marriage.” Every parent of a small child who will have to grow up and select a marriage partner must “shake in their boots” to hear of this development. Half of the marriages contracted today will end in divorce. If people have lost faith in marriage, what does the future hold? Parents and local churches, realizing what is happening, must concentrate special effort in teaching our young the Truth about marriage as God ordained it. Otherwise, the situation will worsen.

Basically, what is happening is that people want to sin, more than they want to do right. They do not want anyone, including God, to tell them that they cannot sin, or to condemn them for doing so. “Sin” is a word that creates discomfort and most people desire it removed from the American vocabulary. No amount of “wishing” will change God’s law about sin. He still says, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). This message from God can be understood by Americans! We may not like it, but we cannot change it! We deceive no one but ourselves when we become convinced that such Scriptures are untrue. Clearly, many people have deceived themselves when 7percent of Americans would kill a stranger for $10 million! The church has the urgent task of teaching the world and itself to live like God’s word says we should live. Our local news reported this week that a father had been arrested for killing his two-year old child and casting the baby’s body in a nearby river. One’s baby is not a “stranger.” The moral recession in our nation is worse than its economic recession!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, p. 391
July 4, 1991

By Weldon E. Warnock

A Review of the Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God by Homer Hailey

In this final portion of our review of brother Hailey’s book, we will deal with a variety of matters that has not been considered in the previous installments, at least as extensively as I desired, and reiterate in a brief, general way the things that are the crux of the issue. Let us notice first of all:

Abide in our calling. Brother Hailey wrote, “Furthermore, Paul said, ‘Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. . . . Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God’ (I Cor. 7:20,24); this included his answer to questions about marriage” (p. 66). If this passage proves that remarried divorced aliens may keep their mates after baptism, then it also proves that a polygamist may keep his several wives. The polygamist could say, “Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. “

Brother Hailey affirms that alien sinners are under the so-called universal moral law, “which has never been abrogated” (p. 49). Since this law allows polygamy, which brother Hailey says is “in harmony with his moral law” (p. 16), he cannot oppose or condemn, logically, plural marriages. The so-called universal moral law allowed polygamy. It has not been abrogated. Therefore, polygamy is now permissible. The consequences of his position clearly and conclusively upholds polygamy and concubinage. “Let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.” The Moslems, Mormons and other polygamists have been right all along if brother Hailey’s position is correct. In my opinion, this one thing alone should show that his reasoning is faulty.

Paul isn’t teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:20,24 that those who obey the gospel may remain in sinful relationships. Being circumcised or uncircumcised (vv. 18-19) and being a slave or a free man are not sinful conditions. These are cultural situations in which people may live the Christian life. It was not immoral for a person to serve as a slave. Paul is not approving slavery, but rather he is saying a slave is able to live as a Christian.

However, divorce and remarriage, without the cause of fornication, is sinful. Those living in such a relationship are living in adultery (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Col. 3:5-7). Brother Hailey denies “remarried non-believers, who through faith come to the blood of Christ, are living in an adulterous state” (p. 66), but the aforementioned passages teach otherwise. Having another man’s wife is sinful. Having another woman’s husband is sinful (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). Paul isn’t encouraging saints in 1 Corinthians 7:20,24 to live in sin. “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid” (Rom. 6:1-2).

No example of separation. “Also, there is no apostolic teaching or example of separation being demanded before baptism” (p. 68). Let me suggest that the demand for separation before baptism is in the same Scripture that demands separation for polygamous and incestuous marriages. If the relationship is morally wrong, we don’t need a specific Scripture or example that demands separation. We should automatically know that the marriage is sinful, and, hence, demands separation.

There is no apostolic teaching or example in the New Testament that specifically demands one give up bootlegging, playing the lottery, betting on horses, reading pornographic literature or engaging in mixed-swimming at the public pool, but there are principles that prohibit these practices. The same is true in regard to separation of those divorced and remarried without the cause of fornication.

Sinners can be forgiven. On pages 64, 65, brother Hailey devotes considerable space to establish that sinners can be forgiven. Words and phrases in the texts he quotes are put in bold face for the effect of emphasis. Seemingly, this is done to try to prove that all remarried nonbelievers who come to Christ may stay together, since they are forgiven. He sets forth the fact that sins may be remitted, blotted out, loosed, forgiven, and remembered no more. He states that we are justified by God’s grace and Jesus’ blood through faith, and that old things are passed away with all things becoming new.

To all of these verses introduced I wholeheartedly concur. But remember, they are just as applicable to the homosexual or the polygamist as they are to the remarried non-believer. God also forgives, blots out sin and cleanses the heart of his children. Does this prove that God’s children may continue in an adulterous relationship? Absolutely not! Neither may the non-believer. Repentance necessitates a turning away from sin to a life of righteousness and holiness.

The Corinthians were forgiven, loosed from the bondage of sin and had become new creatures in Christ, but they did not continue in the works of the flesh. They quit their sinful ways – “such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). God can and will forgive those living in an adulterous marriage, but they have to terminate their sinful relationship of cohabitation.

Not under bondage. Brother Hailey introduces 1 Corinthians 7:15 and contends “the Holy Spirit, through Paul, made an exception when he said that the believer is not under bondage (not bound, loosed, RSV) in certain cases” (p. 39). This is another exception for divorce and remarriage, he reasons, in addition to fornication (Matt. 19:9) for the believer. The fallacy in brother Hailey’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is that he assumes the word “bondage” means the marriage bond.

The Greek word for “bondage” in the text is dedoulotai, 3rd per. sing. perfect, ind. pass. of douloo. Arndt-Gingrich define it to “make someone a slave (doulos), enslave, subject” (p. 205). Kittel says, “The basic meaning is to make a slave, ‘to enslave'” (Vol. 2, p. 279) . It is apparent, after reading the preceding definitions, that Paul did not have loosening of marriage vows in mind when he said, “not under bondage.”

When Paul spoke of being bound in marriage (1 Cor. 7:27,39), he used dedesai and dedetai, both from the word deo, and not douloo that Paul used in v. 15. It is odd that the apostle switched words in the same chapter if “bondage” in v. 15 is speaking of marriage also. The word dedoulotai (bondage) suggests that the believer was not a bond-servant to the unbeliever or a slave to man, even though the person was a marriage partner. C. Caverno wrote in regard to 1 Corinthians 7:15, “But Paul has not said in that verse or any where else that a Christian partner deserted by a heathen may be married to someone else – To say that a deserted partner ‘hath not been enslaved’ is not to say that he or she may be remarried” (ISBE, Vol. 2, p. 866).

The tense of the word dedoulotai would not permit it to mean the marriage bond. The word is in the perfect tense. he perfect tense would mean the brother or sister had not been in bondage and is still not under bondage to the unbeliever. However, the believer would certainly have been in bondage if the marriage bond is indicated. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Alfred Marshall translates dedoulotai, “has not been enslaved.” One could not be released from slavery who had never been enslaved. (For a more extensive study of 1 Corinthians 7:15, read my tract, “If the Unbelieving Depart.”)

Universal moral law. “From the beginning God put man under moral law. The specific words in which the precepts of that law were expressed were not recorded and preserved” (p. 58). In his commentary on Isaiah, brother Hailey states, “It appears to this writer that God made a covenant in the beginning, or at some early date, which was not recorded and has therefore been lost to history” (p. 538). So, brother Hailey puts unbelievers under a law today that was not recorded or preserved, and has been lost to history.

Yet, this unrecorded, unpreserved and irretrievable law serves as a moral standard for people of the world, and by which they will be judged, according to brother Hailey. With all due respect, it seems to me that this whole concept of a universal moral law that supposedly began with Adam and ceases at the end of time is a product of human invention and imagination.

I can just as easily make a case for a universal religious law. Cain and Abel had a law of sacrifice by which they were governed, otherwise Cain’s sacrifice would not have been rejected and Abel’s accepted. Noah, a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet. 2:5), after the flood built an altar and offered acceptable sacrifices to Jehovah (Gen. 8:20-21). Noah’s walking with God, building an altar and worshiping Jehovah indicate a divine standard.

When Abraham reached Shechem, he built an altar unto Jehovah (Gen. 12:6-7). lie also built an altar between Bethel and Ai (Gen. 12:8), and one at Hebron (Gen. 13:18). Abraham kept the commandments, statutes and laws of the Lord (Gen. 26:5). Melchizedek was a King of righteousness, King of Salem (which is King of peace), and the priest of the most high God (Heb. 7:2; Gen. 14:17-20). Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. How did Abraham learn this? Why did Melchizedek bestow blessings upon Abraham (Heb. 7:1-10)? They had revelation from God.

Jethro, father-in-law of Moses, and priest of Midian, “took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God” (Exod. 18:12). Where did Jethro learn about these offerings and sacrifices? Obviously, from instruction of Jehovah. Job offered burnt offerings according to the number of his sons, stating, “It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts” (Job 1:5).

Paul indicts the Gentiles, among other things, for not worshipping and serving the Creator. He wrote, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). He also wrote, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:28).

Could we not just as logically assume that men are also sinners because they are violating God’s universal religious law as we could assume men are sinners by violating God’s so-called universal moral law? I suppose I could also assume that the universal religious law came in along side of Adam’s transgression (Rom. 5:20), and it will remain in force until the end of time (1 Cor. 15:55-56). If brother Hailey can assume this for moral law, I can assume it for religious law.

Reiterations

In summarizing this review of brother Hailey’s book we have established the following things:

(1) Genesis 2:18-24 sets forth the foundation for marriage as to its origin, purpose, intimacy and permanency. Polygamy and divorce and remarriage for every cause are departures from this divine pattern. God conceded these departures in the Old Testament times because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt. 19:8), permitting all nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16). He now commands men every where to repent (Acts 17:30). Jesus teaches that marriage is to be regulated by God’s original plan (Matt. 19:3-9).

(2) Matthew 19:9 is universal in its scope. It is “whosoever” puts away his wife and marries another, except for fornication, committeth adultery. Marriage is for unbelievers as well as believers. It is not a church ordinance, but is an institution that was inaugurated thousands of years before the church was established.

(3) The Gentiles before the cross were under law (Rom. 1:18-32; 2:14-15). This was, apparently, the law of the everlasting covenant (lsa. 24:5), or a “covenant of ancient times” (H.C. Leupold). Today, the Gentiles, and Jews, are under the universal law of Christ (Jn. 12:48; Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:47; Acts 3:22).

(4) Though unbelievers have not brought themselves under obedience to the covenant of Christ, nevertheless, they are accountable to it. The word “covenant” implies first and foremost the notion of “imposition, liability or obligation” (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, p. 255).

(5) Those divorced and remarried, except for fornication, are living in adultery. “Committeth adultery” is in the present tense, showing continuous action (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:10-11; Lk. 16:18). Paul teaches in Colossians 3:5-7 that we can live in adultery, though not with God’s approval.

(6) Repentance demands separation of an unscriptural marriage. It is not lawful for a person to have another’s husband/wife. Baptism does not wash away unlawful spouses. Adulterous marriages must be terminated.

(7) When we become Christians, we may abide only in relationships that are morally right. Sinful relationships, such as adultery, homosexuality and incest, must be ended.

(8) All sinners, regardless of how heinous the sin, may be forgiven. The blood of Jesus cleanseth from all sins, But we can’t persist in our sinful practices and expect to go to heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21). This includes unlawful marriages.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me state explicitly that I do not in any way accuse or imply that brother Hailey intentionally promotes or encourages divorce or promiscuity. Through sixty some years of preaching brother Hailey has preached (and taught in the classroom) holiness, godliness and purity of life. He has been outspoken against sexual immorality and all other works of the flesh. I have known him too long to be convinced otherwise. He is a man of integrity and honesty. However, on this issue before us I believe brother Hailey is honestly mistaken. Too, I believe the consequences of his position promote sexual immorality. I don’t charge him with believing or trying to defend adultery. I am simply saying that his arguments, pursued to their logical end, allow, permit and encourage sexual immorality. We believe his position to be false, totally unfounded by the Bible.

Before I began this review I wrote brother Hailey and told him that I was requested to review his book on marriage and divorce. As I expected, I received a kind and amicable reply from him. As brother Hailey and I would say concerning what we have written on this all important matter, “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Presently, intensive efforts are being made by some brethren to try to include in Romans 14 the divorce-remarriage question, such as espoused by brother Hailey and others. This attempt is a wresting of Paul’s teaching (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16), and a resuscitation of Carl Ketcherside’s nefarious doctrine of unity in diversity. Romans 14 deals with individual matters that are neither religiously nor morally wrong when conscientiously held or practiced by the individual. An adulterous relationship doesn’t fall into this category. Adultery was sinful yesterday, it is sinful today and it will be sinful tomorrow. How appalling it is of some brethren to have the inspired apostle Paul giving credence to immorality!

Brother Marshall Patton said it correctly on Romans 14 when he wrote, “Let no one conclude that every error of an individual nature falls within this area of tolerance. Obviously, sins of immorality, plainly revealed elsewhere, are not to be fellowshipped” (Answers For Our Hope, p. 309).

To classify under Romans 14 the position that alien sinners may keep their mates when they come to God, regardless of the circumstances, opens the floodgate for every ungodly and unscriptural practice that anyone can imagine. We cannot consistently oppose institutionalism or any other “ism,” while tolerating divorce and remarriage for every cause. It seems that whether many of us oppose or tolerate a false position depends on who it is that holds it. This should not be.

In the words of Micaiah, let us say, “As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak” (1 Kgs. 22:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, pp. 400-402
July 4, 1991