Truth Magazine

By Thomas F. Eaves, Sr.

Webster defines watchdog as a dog kept to guard property. A dog that guards against loss, waste, theft, or undesirable practices. A watchdog is a dog which guards against the loss of something valuable.

One of the most valuable things in our world today is the Gospel. It is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), calls sinners to God (2 Thess. 2:14), and produces faith in the hearts of God’s creatures (Rom. 10:17).

The apostle Paul recognized that some were false brethren (2 Cor. 11:26), and that some would depart from the truth (1 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:14). This great teacher of God’s word charged that men not teach a different doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3) than that which came from God (Gal. 1:8-10). Some erred concerning the truth and were rebuked by Paul (2 Tim. 2:17-18). These were identified by name and their false doctrine condemned in keeping with Paul’s own instructions in Romans 16:17.

Paul rebuked sin (Gal. 5:19-21), false teachers (2 Tim. 4:3), hypocritical Christians (2 Tim. 3:1-5) and erring brethren (Gal. 2:11). The great man of God defended God’s doctrine of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15; Acts 23:6), grace (Rom. 5:206:4), and the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Gal. 4:21-31). Paul acted through love (Eph. 4:15), conviction (1 Cor. 9:16, Acts 20:27), and was guarding God’s word from loss, waste, theft, and undesirable practices.

He sums up his activities on this earth, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7). Today when faithful preachers follow the example of Paul some cry, “Brotherhood Watchdogs.”

Several months ago when Randy Mayeux (Preacher for the Preston Road Church of Christ) made the statement, “I have preached and believed that the New Testament teaches that salvation is a free gift of God, period. You are saved by grace alone,” several brethren pointed out that salvation is not by anything alone. The Bible teaches that the sinner is saved by: Grace (Eph. 2:8), Mercy (Tit. 3:5), Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:21), Life of Christ (Rom. 5:10), Blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9), Gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:4), Faith (Rom. 5:1), Word (Jas. 2:24), Calling on the Lord (Rom. 10:13), Baptism (1 Pet. 3:2 1), Hope (Rom. 8:24), and sinners save themselves (Acts 2:40). When such inconsistency is pointed out, instead of honoring God’s word the cry goes forth “Brotherhood watchdogs!”

Larry James’ (Preacher for the Richardson East congregation in Richardson, Texas) statement, “And so I would conclude that to praise God from the heart with an instrument of music is not wrong, it’s not sinful nor will it result in anyone being lost, and to condemn someone who uses such an approach I think is a terrible mistake,” was not allowed to go unchallenged. But when compared with the truth of God’s Word (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; 13:15), the truth was not glorified but the cry goes forth, “Brotherhood watchdogs!”

When a college uses speakers on its lectureships who have in debates, books or recorded speeches upheld teachings which are contrary to the word of God, why are they defended and the ones who pointed out the false teachings labeled as “Brotherhood watchdogs”?

There seems to be a tendency today to defend the false teachers and condemn the contender for the faith (Jude 3). The great prophet Isaiah wrote, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isa. 5:20). If Paul lived today would he be labeled as a “brotherhood watchdog” for rebuking Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, and Peter? Where is our allegiance today? It should be with Christ and his word (Gal. 1:10).

If proving all things and holding fast to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21), and contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3) makes a brotherhood watchdog, then woof, woof!!

(Note: This article from the July-Sept. 1990 In Word and Doctrine shows that many liberal churches are having severe problems trying to keep rampant error out. The same cry, “watchdog,” is occasionally heard among conservative brethren. This is a tactic of the devil who tries to intimidate and silence his opposition. “We are not ignorant of his devices” [2 Cor. 2:11]. Ron Halbrook, 654 Gray St., West Columbia, TX 77476).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 64, 79
February 7, 1991

Last winter I assisted Ron Halbrook in his debate with Jack Freeman on divorce and remarriage. During that debate, I met for the first time several of the preachers from the West Coast who agreed with brother Freeman’s position on divorce and remarriage (or at least disagreed with the position held by the editor and staff writers of Guardian of Truth). Among those present was brother Glen Lovelady who ran the overhead projector for and assisted brother Freeman.

During the debate, I generally was impressed with the warm attitude manifested toward one another and the willingness to study the issues which divide us. One of the complaints which I heard was that Guardian of Truth was only publishing one side of the issue.

Although Guardian of Truth had published material representing another point of view on this subject (for example, Jerry Bassett’s material in the discussion with Weldon Warnock), neither the editor nor this paper has taken a neutral position on the divorce/remarriage controversy. Nevertheless, I wanted to give my brethren, who were so kind to me in Las Vegas, an opportunity to present their side in our pages.

Inasmuch as brother Lovelady was one who complained about only one side being published, I invited him to participate in a discussion on the subject to be published in Guardian of Truth. The result is the discussion which follows between brother Lovelady and brother Caldwell.

Both brethren have pressed their points in a gentlemanly fashion, have been co-operative on minor points of disagreement, and otherwise shown themselves to be honorable. I commend the exchange to you for your study.

Brother Lovelady desired a six article exchange which included two propositions of three exchanges each. He desired to discuss the marriages of those who had previously divorced for some reason other than fornication. He does not believe they must separate and live alone for the rest of their lives. Should there be enough interest for a second discussion, Guardian of Truth will be glad to print it. Let me hear from you.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, p. 43
January 17, 1991

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.

In our first response, we called for all to recognize that any right to marry another after divorce from one’s original mate must be granted by God. That is true because “God hath joined together” (bound with a yoke-, Matt. 19:6) and because God has “bound by the law” (Rom. 7:2). Paul emphasized God’s control of the right to remarry by saying, “if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. ” She might disregard the law, leave her husband, and marry another while her husband lives. If she does, however, she is an adulteress not only because she was bound to her husband but because she was also bound by the law of God (v. 3). Therein lies the problem of the supposed “common horse-sense” illustration of two hands held together (Art. 2, Para. 13). It does not provide for the hand of God! Those who believe the guilty fornicator may marry another must show from Scripture that God who held both hands in marriage, turned the fornicator’s hand loose when he released the other!

The sole appeal to Scripture is based on two alleged “principles. ” The first affirms “that a putting away for fornication breaks the bond between the two of them” (Matt. 19:9). While it is true that God releases one who puts away a fornicating mate, Jesus also said, “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” The issue is not whether the divorced fornicator is still a spouse but whether Jesus authorizes him to marry another without becoming an adulterer (see also Lk. 16:18; Matt. 5:32).

The second, argued from 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, assumes the thing to be proved: i.e., that the put-away fornicator is loosed by God from the constraints of law. These verses do not set forth the conditions of “loosing”! That must be determined elsewhere in Scripture. Furthermore the word “loosed” does not require either a divorce or having ever been bound. The position is actually predicated upon the reasoning that when one is loosed, the other must be loosed. Again, the issue is not simply whether one is still a spouse but whether God authorizes a proposed marriage. An example of God’s having restricted the right to marry when one was no longer the spouse of anyone is found in Moses’ law. In the case of a put-away woman who married another but whose second husband died, the Lord instructed, “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife” (Deut. 24:4). You see, the issue turns on what God authorizes, not on whether one is now a spouse. The position states that there are only two choices (Art. 2, Para. 11, 12): mates bound to each other and mates no longer bound. There is a third choice: a putting away for fornication in which one is loosed from the constraints of God’s law and the other is not.

In the second paragraph of our first response, I said, “The issue before us involves a basic question of biblical authority. ” The proposition reads, “The Scripture teaches that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.” Please observe carefully how the proposition is defended with regard to biblical authority:

Article 1, paragraph 3: “. . . many of you are guilty of making a law.” Response: Who is making law? Law sometimes restricts. God (not we) has restricted the right to marry another. Law sometimes frees (or grants rights). God has not freed the fornicator (. . . if so, show us the passage). When one gives men a right in a restricted matter which God did not give them, it is he who is in the business of “human legislation” and it is he who must face the “far reaching evil consequences”!

Article 1, paragraph 4: With regard to the proposition, the “Scripture teaches” is defined with the phrase “imparts information by implication. ” While we all realize that God sometimes authorizes through “necessary inference,” we must ask, “Is the guilty fornicator to rest his eternal salvation on an ‘implication’ which assumes that because the one who puts away for fornication is freed (loosed), the put-away fornicator must also be freed?” That assumption is the sum and substance of the position.

Article 1, paragraph 5: In answer to the question, “Where is the authority,” it is said, “Show me a passage that authorizes the put-away fornicator to plant corn! And then I will give you a passage that authorizes him to have a marriage. ” All this really says is that one has no such passage. There is no reason here to say that unless one thinks he does not need a passage! But does this provide the authority needed to marry when God has not granted the right?

Article 1, paragraph 6.- “. . . the New Testament does not deal with the put-away fornicator. ” Response: Why then affirm that “the Scriptures teach ” that he may marry another?

Article 1, paragraph 6.- “I call to witness” other brethren. Response: We want to hear from God, not the brethren. In the second article, the better part of two more paragraphs are spent defending the use of McGarvey. We will gladly examine evidence that McGarvey (six years before he died) allowed his name to be attached to a book containing “man-made laws and rules not found in the New Testament” which would later “cause him to turn over in his grave.” Nevertheless, if it is so, it proves nothing!

Article 1, paragraph 7; Article 2, paragraph 11: 46A divorce for fornication does to the marriage bond, what death does to it.” Response: It is pure assumption to claim that marriage severed by death and marriage severed by fornication are scripturally parallel. God specifically authorizes the living party to marry another after the mate dies and he specifically authorizes the one who puts away a mate for fornication to marry another. But where does he authorize thefornicator to marry another? The position compares a fornicator to a man who kills his wife. The parallel is flawed in that he fornicator has been put away (with God’s approval) and the killer has done the putting away. Again, however, if we were to grant that the killer may marry another based on Romans 7:14, that would not authorize in any way the guilty fornicator to marry another.

Article 1, paragraphs 13,9: “Some brethren have already decided on who can have a marriage.” “God did not leave it up to you and me to decide who should be allowed to marry . . . as long as they are loose. . . ” Response: Amen, and neither did he leave it to us to decide who is loosed. Do those holding this position not see that they are the ones deciding who may marry another without sin.

Article 2, paragraphs 1, 4, 10: “. . . I shall fight for them until you brethren come up with ‘a direct confirmation from God, ‘ that the put-away fornicator” cannot marry. Response: “Christian Church” preachers say, “I will fight for the instrument until you come up with ‘a direct confirmation from God’ that we cannot use it.” Such reasoning is simply an effort to shift the responsibility for having to establish the proposition by the New Testament.

Article 2, paragraph 3.- “Let God deal with the put-away fornicator as he wishes, but let’s not jeopardize our relationship, fellowship and salvation over him.” Response: shall we say this about those divorced and remarried for causes other than fornication?

Article 2, paragraph 5: ‘You all have gone beyond a ‘thus saith the Lord… and “in light of 1 Timothy 4:3” (which condemns “forbidding to marry,” cgc), “I will have no part in it.” Response: “Does one ‘forbid to marry’ when he refuses to accept that those divorced for causes other than fornication may marry others?” This accents the fact that this position advocates granting the right of marriage to fornicators while denying it to many non-fornicators!

Article 2, paragraph 10; Article 1, paragraph 1]: “The New Testarnent does speak about ‘the right’ of one who is ‘loose from a wife’ (1 Cor. 7:27-28).” “This passage does apply to the put-away fornicator.” This position needs to clarify whether it will argue that the Scripture speaks about the guilty fornicator or not. Article 2, paragraph 9 says, “I told him in thefirst article that the New Testament does not deal with him. It doesn’t say he can and it likewise doesn’t say he can’t. ” The position wants it both ways. If the Scriptures do not say “he can” the position is surrendered by default. Remember, the proposition reads, “The Scripture teaches that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.”

Article 2, paragraph 13: “We reason that he can marry only because he is ‘loose from a wife’ (1 Cor. 7:27-28).” Response: Give us Scripture (not human reasoning) that he is in fact loosed by God.

Article 2, paragraph 15.- “If he is fit for heaven he would be fit for marriage, if he is ‘loose from a wife.”‘ Response: Is a righteous Christian whose husband put her away for some cause other than fornication, fit for heaven? May she marry again? I am reminded again of “Christian Church” preachers who argue, “If the instrument is fit for heaven, it is fit for the church.” Once more, the thing to be proved is whether God has loosed this man.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 50-51
January 17, 1991

By Larry Ray Hafley

Many Scriptures testify to the suffering of our Lord Jesus (1 Pet. 2:21; 3:18; 4:1). We cannot imagine the depths of his pain and agony. However, that is not our duty. It is not our responsibility to conjecture or to sense his physical, mental and emotional torment and trauma. It is, rather, our task to partake in “the fellowship of his sufferings” (Phil. 3:10). We must share in the provisions, the blessings, that resulted from his sufferings. One might have himself mocked, spat on, beaten and crucified in order to parallel Christ’s abuse and death. This would not, though, allow one to participate in the true sufferings of Christ.”

The only way one may truly share in his sufferings is to receive the grace that his sacrifice secured. “Being made conformable unto his death” (Phil. 3:10) does not require literal, physical crucifixion. It does demand literal, spiritual crucifixion (Gal. 2:20; 6:14). The old man must be put to death. The body of sin must be shed and the new man must be put on (Eph. 4:22-24; Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 2:12,13; 3:1-10).

Christians have communion, fellowship, partnership, in the body and blood of the Son of God. This is no light matter. It is a supreme, sublime privilege (1 Cor. 10:16-21). Indeed, it is proper to reflect and remember the Lord’s death and its shame and humiliation (1 Cor. 11). Because of that, we are bound to look unto Jesus and consider him, “lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds” (Heb. 12:2-4).

One may despise the blood of the covenant and crucify to himself the Son of God afresh (Heb. 6:6; 10:29). This is not true appreciation. It is apostasy, abandonment. It is to join the mob that called for his death. It is to beat and spit on him again. Would you consider such a literal course of action? Would you voluntarily participate in killing Christ? God forbid! That is what we do when we obey lust and sin.

Sin and its consequences are bad enough, but the thought of crucifying the Lord makes it unbearable. Our sins put him on the cross once, and that is enough! God grant that we never do it again. Live unto him. Die unto the world. Be raised to walk in newness of life, never to die again. That is why Jesus suffered, and it is sufficient.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, p. 41
January 17, 1991