Truth Magazine

By Glen W. Lovelady

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

I have been invited by the editor of this paper to write three articles on this very controversial subject. I want to thank him for this opportunity. I understand that brother Colly Caldwell of Tampa, Florida, the Dean and Vice-President of Florida College will be my respondent. I am both honored and impressed by this invitation. I handed in two propositions, but they have decided only to deal with the put-away fornicator.

I am excited about reading and hearing that many preachers today are now coming forth about the person who was put-away unjustly having a recourse, because Civil Law cannot take away his/her God-given right according to Matthew 19:9, which allows this person to put his spouse away for fornication when adultery is committed. Brother Marshall Patton debated her rights in the Searching the Scriptures back in 1987. So don’t tell me debates don’t do any good, for we are making a lot of head-way. You can read what I had to say about this in the Smith-Lovelady Debate held in 1976 (pp. 32-35, 119-123). Many preachers say that they agree on this point but will not come out of the closet because of peer pressure. God help us! Preachers need to speak out and encourage men like brother Patton and maybe we can turn this thinking around. Maybe there is hope for us yet!

Now to our subject, does the put-away fornicator have any rights? I am not writing this article or debating this issue because he is some kind of a hero or even a person worthy of my effort. Every put-away fornicator will spend eternity in Hell, except he repents and is baptized in the case of the alien sinner (Acts 2:38) or prays after he repents as a member of the church (Acts 8:22). 1 am only dealing with this issue because I believe that many are guilty of making a law in this matter.

Foy E. Wallace said it this way [Sermon on the Mount, p. 411: “The preacher has no course of action revealed, and to establish one would result in human legislation, more far reaching evil consequences than the moral effects of divorcement limited to the person involved.”

Now to the proposition for discussion. I affirm that the Scripture (the Bible) teaches (imparts information by implication) that the put-away fornicator (the one who was divorced because of unfaithfulness) can marry another without committing sin (since he is no longer bound in a marriage and since he is no longer a spouse, then he would not commit adultery if he chose to remarry). I believe that he is guilty of adultery from his past action, but since his former spouse has put him away for fornication, they are no longer married. The marriage-bond has been destroyed or dissolved and based upon that fact he is free to marry another without committing adultery.

You ask, “Where is the authority for the put-away fornicator to marry?” Jesus, in Matthew 21:23-24, answered by saying, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell me, I in likewise will tell you.” “Where is the authority for him to do anything?” Brother Ron Halbrook said in his debate with brother Jack Freeman that this person “doesn’t have the right to do anything.” If he/she doesn’t have the right/authority to do anything, then he has no rights at all. He cannot plant corn, eat pie, go to church services, or have a marriage according to this line of reasoning. If we are not going to take him behind the church building and hang him high, then this person has the same human rights that we have, and that is why he can plant corn, eat pie, go to church services, and have a marriage. 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.

I am not the only one who understands that the New Testament does not deal with the put-away fornicator. I call to witness:

J.W. McGarvey: “Whether it would be adultery to marry a woman who had been put away on account of fornication, is neither affirmed nor denied. No doubt such a woman is at liberty to marry again if she can, seeing that the bond which bound her to her husband is broken ” (Commenting on Matthew and Mark [1875], p. 165).

R.L. Whiteside: “(A) Evidently had a right to marry again. So far as I know, this may have been given (B) [the put-away fornicator] a right to marry also. On that point no one can speak with authority, for nothing is said about it. – If you are in doubt as to the conduct of another, give him the benefit of the doubt” (Reflection, p. 411).

Foy E. Wallace: “With no course of action legislated, revealed or prescribed, we cannot make one without human legislation. It is certain, however, that if the Lord Jesus Christ had intended a course of action in these cases, he would not have left it for preachers to prescribe, but would have Himself legislated it” (Sermon on the Mount, p. 41).

The only restraint of law in the New Testament about who cannot marry are those who are already bound in a marriage. In Matthew 5:32; 19:9 Jesus stated that all who remarry after divorce will commit adultery, except it (the divorce) is for fornication. Since his divorce was for fornication, he would not commit adultery if he remarried. A divorce for fornication does to the marriage bond, what death does to it. Whatever you have against, or can say against the put-away fornicator, you can apply the same reasoning to the man who killed his wife.

Please consider the scenarios below.

Death

Bill got drunk one night and killed his wife. He had to go to jail for manslaughter. After fulfilling his sentence, he came out of prison, after years of agony over the loss of his marriage.

The Put-Away Fornicator

Bob had an affair one night and his wife put him away for fornication, His wife remarried and he cried over the loss of his marriage and his family for about the same time that Bill spent in prison.

1. They both (Bill and Bob) obey the gospel of Christ.

2. They were both guilty of putting asunder what God had joined together.

3. Bill was guilty of killing his wife, while Bob was guilty of fornication.

4. But now they are forgiven (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

5. They were bound in a marriage, but now they are “loose from a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27-28). What sin would they commit if they remarried?

They could not be guilty of committing adultery because all the scholars agree on the definition of adultery “unlawful sexual intercourse with the spouse of another.” Neither of these men has a spouse, and based upon this fact, we have no business charging them with the sin of adultery if and when they do remarry.

God did not leave it up to you and me to decide who should be allowed to marry, or marry another as long as they are “loose from a wife/husband. ” In the special issue of this paper dated January 4, 1990, brother Bill Cavender said, “The innocent party must be sure that he or she is really innocent and did not by temperment, evil words, ugly attitudes, hurtful deeds, and a malignant spirit, drive hislher companion to distraction, distress, unhappiness, and then unfaithfulness.”

So we ask, “Will the real innocent mate please stand up?” I remember brother Luther Blackmon telling me many years ago, that he felt that he could not remarry after his wife ran off with another man. He felt guilty, in some way of contributing to the situation, thereby sharing the guilt; as a result, he was not innocent in his own mind. I told him that I could live with his decision, but that I did not want him forcing his opinion on me, if my wife ran off with another man. In Romans 7:3 Paul stated that if you are still bound in a marriage, then you would commit adultery if you married another. That is the same restraint as found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Romans 7:14 does not apply to the putaway fornicator because he is not bound in a marriage.

The next passage is found in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Paul states that if you are divorced, not for fornication, then you are to remain unmarried (to another), or be reconciled to your spouse. Marrying another, while in this condition, causes one to commit adultery, because you still have a spouse! This does not apply to the put-away fornicator, since he is no longer a spouse, and has no spouse. The next passage is found in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. Paul states that if you are “loosed from a wife,” then you would not sin if you married. This passage does apply to the put-away fornicator, because he is no longer “bound to a wife.” He is “loosed from a wife.”

We can put ourselves through all kinds of mental gymnastics and generate many different opinions about the put-away fornicator, but when all is said and done, we will still be faced with the principle, that he is loosed from a spouse, and can remarry without committing adultery, whether you like it or not! Of course, we must of necessity recognize his responsibility to “marry in the Lord,” or more specifically, to marry one that is free to marry him. Brother Cecil Douthitt pointed this out many years ago, stating that this adverbial phrase tells one “how” to marry, not to “whom.” The same phrase can be found in Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:18; and this one in 1 Corinthians 7:39. I am aware that brethren make a “law” about the application of this passage just as they have about the put-away fornicator; but I have no certain interest in man-made laws or opinions. I have enough to do trying to keep up with the Laws of God.

According to brother Cavender, not even the innocent one can remarry, unless he/she was really innocent, and I mean flawless. Do you now see why God did not leave this up to you and me? All God said was this: “Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned” (1 Cor. 7:27-28). Who is loosed from a wife is all we need to figure out. If one is loose from a wife, then he can marry without sin.

The one that is “loose from a wife” is no longer “bound to a wife” and if you are not “bound to a wife” then you are free to have one, and this is God’s way for us to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:2). 1 affirm that the put-away fornicator is “loosed from a wife.” What do you say? I only know of two answers: Bound or Loose. In Hebrews 13:4, God says, “Marriage is honorable in all, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” “No need for that Lord, because some brethren have already decided on who can have a marriage.” God forbid! I plead with you brethren, stay out of God’s business. Better yet, let the put-away fornicator read this debate and let him decide for himself, for he alone must give account of himself before God (Rom. 14:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 44-45
January 17, 1991

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