Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

When brother Willis asked me to prepare this special issue, I understood the highly controversial nature of the subject. It is no secret that brethren across this country do not speak as one voice on this issue. At the age of sixteen, that fact became clear to me. As a teenager, I saw the horrible consequences of brethren teaching and practicing different doctrines on this subject in the local church of which I was a member. I saw with a broken heart the fruits of adultery and broken homes that came from false teaching on this subject. Years have passed since those sad days, but the tragic results of differences between brethren over divorce and remarriage have only become more evident and distressing. In almost every local congregation across this country, the issues in this realm of study are being discussed. Congregations are beginning to divide at an increasing rate.

Brethren, it should be obvious that we need to study the various facets of this subject diligently. This special issue has been designed to aid in that task. The topics are arranged into four major divisions so as to challenge us to think and study upon the subject as we seek unity on the basis of the truth.

(1) Introductory articles

(2) Exegetical studies

(3) Historical perspectives

(4) Refutation of errors

I believe the truth has been taught and hope it will be carefully and prayerfully considered. My thanks go to each writer for his time and effort expended in this task.

As brother Cavender so eloquently stated in his introduction, the responsibility for determining the truth on this issue and the application thereof to our fellowship rests with each local church and each individual Christian. Each local church will face decisions about the lawful bounds of their fellowship and they must apply the teaching of God’s word. Each of us will face situations in which we must determine whom we will receive as a brother or sister in Christ. Those decisions are our responsibility. No man, group of men, paper or school has the right to create a line of fellowship not drawn by the Scripture. Nor does any man, group of men, paper or school have the right to erase a line of fellowship which is drawn by the Scripture. We must “speak as the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent” on this and every other matter of faith, if we are to walk worthily of our calling and keep the unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:1-3). If we go beyond Christ’s doctrine in our fellowship, we will forsake our fellowship with him (2 Jn. 9-11).

In recent months, some brethren who claim they believe the truth have taken exception to those who have tried to teach that truth and oppose error on this subject. Some objections have arisen from the identifying of well-known and respected gospel preachers who have taught errors regarding divorce and remarriage. Other objections have been based on the manner in which the errors were opposed. We must remember the example of Bible writers who named both the error and the teacher of the error in their attempts to counteract the soul-damning effects of false teaching. Let us never become so attached to any man that we sit in silence while the error taught leads souls to remain in a sinful practice and be lost eternally. There is no doubt that all of us make mistakes in our judgment as we uphold truth and oppose error. If the reader sees a better way to oppose and expose the errors reviewed in this issue, please correct our mistakes and do it right. May we all hear the words of our faithful brother, Connie W. Adams, in a recent article (Searching The Scriptures [Nov. 19891, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp. 539-540) exhorting us in this matter:

Whether we used good judgment in such identification is now a moot point. The fact is, the pernicious doctrine is being taught, souls are being encouraged to remain in adultery, the peace of local churches is being disrupted. When you fellows get your noses back in joint, would you please take up the sword of the Spirit and help to expose this doctrine for what it is and warn of the devastating moral consequences? Do you really believe that adultery is a matter of indifference with God? That one may, or may not, practice it without divine approval or disapproval? I know how you will answer it. And when you do, you will have to remove it from the realm of things considered in Romans 14. If you know a better way to approach the problem, then by all means do it, but please approach the problem. “Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:11).

To that I have but one comment, “Amen!”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, p. 28
January 4, 1990

By Darrel Haub

The phrase quoted as a title of this article is taken from Nehemiah 8:5 which describes the people’s initial response to Ezra’s opening of the book of God’s law in their presence. This was not a fleeting response because, we read in Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra read from this book from morning till midday, and while the Levites helped them to understand what was read the people stood in their place (Neh. 8:7). Also we notice in this matter that they were able to maintain a worshipful attitude throughout (Neh. 8:6). This led to the restored observance of the Feast of Booths which lasted seven days (Neh. 8:13-18). Every day, for the seven days of this feast, Ezra read from the book and the people responded like the the first day. After this great time of worship conducted during the first eight days of the seventh month, the people of Israel returned for more reading and worship on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (Neh. 9:1-3). This reading and worship led to confession of sins and reformation of lives. There are lessons for us in this example of those events.

The first lesson we can learn from this is the proper conduct while God’s word is being read and explained. Is this not what we do in our Bible study and sermon periods of service? In far too many cases today we have become lax in demeanor in our gatherings to the point that reverence is not apparent. It is not uncommon to see all sorts of activity going on among those assembled to consider God’s word. This is so much so that those of the world notice our lack of respect for the purpose of our gathering. Children may not act quietly all of the time and that is normal but, in some cases, it is other adults who make them this way, much to the dismay of their parents who are trying to teach them proper conduct in services. There is a time to play with children but not when we are assembled to consider God’s word. It is distractive to others and our own concentration to be passing children around like toys. How can we think about spiritual matters while we are amusing ourselves with how cute our children or grandchildren are? Brethren, I do not see this happening among those who stood to listen to Ezra and the Levites. Do you?

A second lesson to learn from this event is the fact that they participated in lengthy services each day for eight days and then, with but few weeks between, they returned for more. In my lifetime we have reduced our gospel meetings from two weeks length to, in some cases, a week-end. We can hardly tolerate six days of daily assembling. Saturday evening services are far too much! Sermons must be short today, some say. Even though school lectures normally run about 50 minutes, sermons which include reading from God’s word with explanation to help us understand the meaning must be no longer than 30 minutes with a rare exception of possibly 35 minutes on occasion. Brethren, we need to evaluate our attitudes in this matter. Even the TV news is so brief we often do not get the full picture from it. I am afraid that our restriction on sermon lengths is doing this to our Bible knowledge also. With our society becoming more depraved each day, do we not need more gatherings to consider God’s word? Let us encourage our elders to plan more and longer periods of study by our full attendance at all services of gospel meetings and Bible classes. In too many cases the last two or three days of a gospel meeting are mostly attended by visitors from area churches. This ought not be. Was it in Nehemiah’s day?

This event also teaches us something about the work we who stand before assembled Christians should be doing. Ezra and the Levites read from the Word of God and helped the people to understand its meaning. I doubt that this was entertaining. It was not designed to be. It was instructional. Are we not tempted in some cases to search for something new to preach? We dare not allow this search to take us to theologians for authority in our lessons. Quotes from scholars might be used well to help us understand what the Word says, but ought not be used in the place of God’s Word. Illustrations well used help make the lesson come alive and become implanted in our memories, but they ought not become our lesson instead of the reading and explanation of God’s word. Even men as great as Paul only taught the simple gospel to men who were accustomed to hearing and responding to great orators (1 Cor. 2). It is not our responsibility to be like Paul? Yes it is. Every Christian ought to demand this of our preachers. But alas, in far too many cases we see the desire for entertaining speeches which is evidenced in the fact that few come to hear Bible based preaching while crowds flock to hear lessons long on entertainment and short on substance.

The final lesson that I want to draw from this event is that it took this extended reading of God’s word with the explanation of its meaning to eventually lead Israel to repent of and confess their sins. Have you ever asked yourself, “Why are we not converting more people today?” In some cases we are not even saving our own children. Could it be because we have reduced our activities of reading God’s word and helping people to understand it so that the word is not able to work in their hearts? I have read from men who have conducted longer gospel meetings who have said that often the latter days of the meeting bring most of the responses. Today we end our meeting when the most fruit is yet to be harvested.

Let us close this article with an observation. The people in Nehemiah’s day were very ready for the reading of God’s word in order to know it. You see, they had just come out of seventy years of Babylonian captivity. This captivity was so impressive that they never returned to idolatry again. Today we who are Christians have been released from the bondage of sin and are traveling the road to heaven. How are we going to make it without the benefit of knowing God’s word? Knowledge of that word is gained by reading it, learning what it means.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 2, pp. 39-40
January 18, 1990

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven (Matt. 7:21).

Three procedures are crucial in determining and doing the will of God: information, interpretation, and application. Error in any of these causes one to miss the mark. So, care must be exercised at each, juncture.

Information

All Scripture is inspired of God, able to make one wise unto salvation, and furnish the man of God unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:14-16). Therein is God’s complete and final revelation to man all the information needed to do God’s will (Jude 3).

Knowledgeable Bible students, good concordances, commentaries, good articles, good books or other helps may great assist us in finding the needed information, but we must accept only the Scriptures as divine authority. The noble Bereans had an open mind to receive help from those who preached to them, but they were careful to “search the Scriptures daily to see if the things were so” (Acts 17:11). Such is an excellent practice.

One needs all the information on a subject before deciding what God’s will is on that subject. One verse, one chapter or even one book seldom has all of the information needed. For example, the steps in becoming a Christian are put together by combining the information from several passages. The same is true of what God expects of us in worship to him and other aspects of his will.

Interpretation

After gathering information from the sacred text, one must correctly interpret it. Even though we often hear, “Oh, that is just your interpretation,” from some whom we try to teach, “interpret” is not a bad word. Brethren sometimes, out of frustration, reply, “We do not interpret, we just take what it says.” Perhaps it would be more profitable and accurate to ask such a person to show us wherein we have misinterpreted or mishandled the word of Truth. We also rightly deplore the Catholic idea that the Scriptures must be officially interpreted by the Church.

So, if, by “interpret,” one means arbitrarily giving the Scripture a meaning that suits him, then no one has the right to interpret. However, if by “interpret” one means determining the correct meaning in the light of context, word definitions, idioms, etc., then we must do a lot of interpreting. Words must be considered in the light of their definitions, contexts (general and immediate), historical settings, etc. For example, David said, “I prevented the dawning of the morning” (Psa. 119:147 – KJV). Did David keep the sun from rising? Looking up the archaic definition of “prevent” (to go before or precede) helps to understand that David simply meant that he got up before daylight. It took a little “interpreting,” but we now know what David was really saying.

“Oh,” but you say, “I still think we should always just take the words at face value without any interpreting.” It is not always that simple. Sometime ago, while visiting my hometown, I met a brother, whom I had known from childhood. He asked if I had heard that a certain married couple, whom we had both known for years, had been separated. When I expressed surprise, he said, “Well, it must be true, because last week during our meeting down at (he called the name of the place), she (the wife) came forward at the invitation song and the preacher said she had ‘left her first love.”‘ How could I argue with evidence like that? It is obvious that my friend accepted the words, at least in his mind, at their face value – without interpretation,

So, while no one has the right to interpret, or more correctly misinterpret, Scripture any way he chooses, everyone has an obligation to interpret correctly.

Application

After searching the Scriptures for information and correctly interpreting it, thus having a clear understanding of the teaching, one must proceed to application. He must translate his knowledge into faith and practice. He must apply what he has learned to situations at hand. For example, he reads that “lasciviousness” will keep one from the heavenly kingdom. He correctly interprets the term. Now, he must apply it to certain speech, gestures, clothing, etc.

We learn from the Scriptures that New Testament congregations were always autonomous. We must apply this principle to the structure of congregations today to see if we are in harmony with it.

It is important that we understand both principles and applications. It is my conviction, based on observation, that the same basic problems repeat themselves among brethren because of a failure to grasp both principles and applications. Some understand scriptural principles quite well, but have problems progressing from principle to present-day application with any degree of accuracy. They may believe the New Testament teaching of the autonomy of the local church, yet not see that “associations,” “conventions” and “sponsoring churches” violate the autonomy principle. They understand that the Bible commands “modest apparel,” but are hard pressed to name any specific clothing that should be considered immodest.

Conversely, some have learned, from applications they have heard teachers make, that certain things are right or wrong. So, they may vigorously defend certain practices while opposing things that are exact parallels in principle. Or they may oppose certain things while accepting parallel items. For “ample, some have heard so much preaching against certain immodest articles of clothing that they would not be caught in public wearing these items. Yet, let a new style come along that may be just as sensual as what they already accept as wrong and they are the first to wear the new thing – maybe even to church. Or they may be heard speaking and seen gesturing in a way that reflects as much immodesty of character as anything anyone has ever worn. They believe certain things are “immodest” without having really learned anything about modesty.

The failure to understand both principle and application spells trouble down the road. An analysis of the institutional controversy of the ’50s and ’60s illustrates this problem. Generally speaking, all sides of the institutional/sponsoring church controversy taught the same principles. It was rare to find a preacher who would not say that: (1) the church is sufficient to do all that God gave the church to do, and (2) the Bible teaches congregational autonomy. The differences arose over the application and/or misapplication of these principles. The divisive controversies of the 1800s and early 1900s had left most brethren with the deep conviction that churches of Christ should not support “missionary societies” nor use “the instrument” in worship. No preacher, on either side of the issues of the 1950s and 1960s, wanted to be identified as endorsing either the societies or mechanical instruments of music in worship. Most of them had heard from their youth that such innovations were wrong and to be avoided. However, many showed their lack of understanding of the principles that made the societies and instruments unscriptural innovations. They had learned the applications well but had failed to grasp principles.

They did not see that the principle that makes it wrong to build and maintain societies through which churches do their preaching work, also makes it wrong for churches to build and maintain benevolence societies through which churches care for the needy. They had trouble seeing that the same principles that make instrumental music wrong, also makes other innovations to the work and worship of the church wrong. While many held steadfastly to the principles, they did not apply the principles across the board. As the years passed, many have abandoned the principles. They have come to see that they cannot consistently hold to the principle of congregational autonomy while supporting institutions and “sponsoring churches,” so they no longer believe in the autonomy principle. Some have seen that they cannot maintain the principle that we must have command, example, or necessary inference for all that we do in religion while practicing many of the innovations (such as the many “ministries” and “ministers” not found in the New Testament) of the past few decades. So, many no longer make any pretense of holding to such a principle of authority.

This is why it is so vitally important for those who still have a deep respect for scriptural authority to spare no effort in fully collecting, properly understanding, and correctly applying the information contained in the Book. Once we understand the principles with their applications, we need to fully teach them. It is not enough to just teach scriptural principles without making clear and logical applications as we teach. Nor is it enough just to list the specific applications without making every effort to help folks fully understand the principles behind the applications. Let us learn skillfully to combine the two unto the edifying of the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 2, pp. 38, 55
January 18, 1990

By Irvin Himmel 

A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones (Prov. 17:22).

This proverb, like many others, draws a contrast. The difference is between a merry heart and a broken spirit. The former does good; the latter is detrimental.

Merry Heart

The heart under consideration is not the physical organ that pumps the blood. The heart which is brought into focus here is the mind – the heart which thinks, reasons, understands, purposes, and has emotions.

One’s heart is the center of his life. The tone of the heart (thoughts and attitudes) affects the whole life. If it is a merry heart, there is joy, cheerfulness, and pleasantness present. A cheerful outlook relates to the manner in which problems are handled, how well one does in his work, and the ability to get along with people.

A number of factors contribute to a joyful heart. The following are significant:

1. Peace with God. The heart may seem merry due to laughter and humor, fun and jovial conversation. However, there can be no deep spiritual joy in the heart without favor with God. The gospel of Christ is God’s remedy for sin and guilt. It shows us how to have peace with God. It reveals the way of salvation. One who has submitted to Christ through obedience to the gospel has good reason for true joy. To the saints at Colosse, Paul wrote, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful” (Col. 3:15).

2. Strong Faith. The New Testament teaches us to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). The child of God is given assurance of all things for which he is taught to hope by faith. And faith gives conviction of things in the unseen realm (Heb. 11:1). The joy that we have in Christ grows out of strong faith. Paul wrote to the Philippians about the “joy of faith” (Phil. 1:25). Many who profess religion have no real joy in their hearts because they are so weak in faith.

3. Active Service. Joy comes to the heart of the Christian who participates actively in the Lord’s work. There is diligence in Bible study, regularity in prayer, faithfulness in assembling with the brethren, earnestness in doing good, carefulness in righteous conduct, and unselfishness in service. The joy produced by this active participation is the delight of faith in action.

4. Contentment. Paul wrote, “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” (Phil. 4:11). Again he mentioned that “godliness with contentment is great gain” (1 Tim. 5:6). The person with a merry heart has learned to make the best of his situation, whatever his circumstances.

A merry or joyful heart does good like a medicine which is just the right prescription. A cheerful disposition is a valuable asset.

Broken Spirit

A broken spirit has the opposite effect of a merry heart. It dries up the bones, which is a way of saying that it saps life and paralyzes hope.

“The spirit is the power of self-consciousness which, according as it is lifted up or broken, also lifts up or breaks down the condition of the body” (F. Delitzsch).

There is a definite relationship between one’s mental attitude and his bodily health. Many illnesses are not due to organic causes at all. “They are the results of our attitudes rather than the ills of the body. . . A person who always dwells on the negative aspects is a pessimistic person in all he does and thinks. However, it is foolish to attribute all ills to ‘a broken spirit.’ A broken arm is a broken arm despite any mental attitude you may have about it. Any amount of thinking will not replace a good cast. But the merry heart not only prevents many problems, it also helps to cure them” (Chas. W. Turner).

The following are some of the causes of a crushed spirit:

1. Bringing the future into the present. We need to learn to live one day at a time. Jesus said, “Therefore do not be anxious for tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:34, NASB).

2. Burden of guilt. An individual who feels the heavy weight of sin pressing down on his soul may be broken in spirit. He needs to turn to the Lord for forgiveness.

3. Gloom. Some folks live on despair and misery. They make others around them miserable. They always look on the dark side of things. In gloom there is no merit. Dejection and melancholy break the human spirit.

‘Nothing has such a direct tendency to ruin health and waste our life as grief, anxiety, fretfulness, bad tempers, etc.” (A. Clarke).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 2, p. 45
January 18, 1990