Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

For over a century, Baptist preachers in debates with our ‘brethren in this country on baptism have made emotional appeals over the hypothetical man on the way to be baptized who was killed by a falling tree limb. Their attempt was to blunt the clarity of Bible teaching on the subject through the appeal to emotion. They asked, “Do you Campbellites want to send this good man to hell just because he hasn’t been dipped in water yet?” Many people have fallen for the ploy and have remained in error to the damnation of their souls.

For thirty years, our institutional brethren have wanted to focus on the support of “orphan homes” by the church from its treasury. Why? Because they desire to capitalize upon the emotional nature of the issue in order to move people to follow in their unauthorized practices without a rational consideration of scriptural principles involved. In some debates, they placed a sack of fertilizer and a baby bottle on the stage. They asked, “Why will you anti’s take a dollar out of the treasury to buy this fertilizer for the church lawn, but won’t take a dollar out of the treasury to feed a poor, starving baby?” Many brethren fell for the ploy and apostatized from the truth resulting in the division of countless churches.

During a recent lecture program, I attended an open forum at which the divorce and remarriage issue was discussed. One man recounted the case of a couple he had known long ago. It seems that the woman had been married at the age of sixteen for “a few months” before the marriage ended in divorce without scriptural cause. Later, she heard the truth and was baptized. As time went on, she “fell in love” with a Christian and married him. They had four children and were pillars in a local church. After several years, the facts regarding this woman’s first marriage and divorce were revealed. The brethren of the local church decided that they could not be in fellowship with the couple as long as they continued in their unlawful sexual union. The man recounting the story then asked, “Are you brethren wanting to break up fine families like this over one mistake made by people before they obeyed the gospel? Are you wanting to bring heartache, not just on a man and his wife, but also on poor, innocent children who need a father and mother?” No Scripture was cited, but the appeal to emotion was clear. Move over tree limb! Shove the fertilizer and baby bottle to the side! The latest ploy to evade truth is off and running and it is ready to bring division in our day!

Is it any wonder that the cases related to justify acceptance of a divorce and remarriage not in harmony with Matthew 19:9 always involve one so doing before he was baptized? Of course not, that is where the teacher of error sees an emotional appeal. However, the effort almost never has the justification of such cases as its sole end. When that is accepted, the next step will be to justify unlawfully divorced and remarried Christians. The end will be the justifying of anyone continuing in any legal marriage regardless of past’, marriages and divorces not in keeping with God’s will. Some of our brethren are already saying, “Marriage is always holy’ – no matter who – no matter when.” Some are even ready’, to apply this reasoning to polygamy in countries where such is legal! I have been present when such was justified. Though we will focus on the amenability of the alien to Christ’s law in the gospel regarding divorce and remarriage, let us never be so naive as to think the error stops there. It never does! When Pandora’s box defending the violation of Christ’s law is opened, a flood of evil will come out.

Mutually Exclusive Positions

Those seeking to justify the continuance of a marriage not in keeping with the teaching of Matthew 19:9 are prone to making mutually exclusive arguments. On the one hand, they say that the alien is not amenable to Christ’s teaching regarding divorce and remarriage because it is part of the gospel which governs only the Christian, not the alien. On the other hand, they affirm that baptism cleanses one of all sin involved in the unlawful union, thus freeing one to continue in such. They cannot have it both ways! If Christ’s law regarding divorce and remarriage does not apply to the alien, there is no sin to cleanse with regards to such marriages. After all, where there is no law, there can be no sin (Rom. 4:15). But if such marriages do involve sin, it must be as a result of coming under the scope of Christ’s regulation as stated in Matthew 19:9. Those taking both sides of the issue need to recognize their inconsistency.

Universal Reign of Christ

The idea being refuted in this article is that the alien is condemned as a sinner under one law (sometimes called “the moral law” or “the law of sin and death”) and comes under the regulation of the gospel when he becomes a Christian or citizen of the kingdom. Thus, the advocate of this position maintains that Christ’s statements of Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 are to the Christian only and are “kingdom laws” which do not regulate the fife of an alien sinner. This is the position being refuted in this article. It will be referred to as the “two law theory” and the “non-amenability theory” in this discussion.

The absolute, universal sovereignty of Christ in this dispensation is a point of clear Bible teaching. Jesus claimed all authority in heaven and on earth at the point of his ascension (Matt. 28:18). At that time, the prophecy of Psalm 110 regarding the Messiah sitting to reign at the right hand of God began fulfillment (cf. Lk. 22:67-69; Mk. 16:19-20; Acts 2:29-36). We are also told that his reign at the right hand of God will end at the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:2128). Thus, we are now living in the time of that reign.

But who is under Christ’s rule according to Psalm 110? The writer says two classes are under such: (1) his enemies and (2) his people who offer themselves willingly (v. 2). By what means does he rule these two classes? By different laws or by differing uses of the same law? We must consider both possibilities in light of divine teaching. Those believing the alien is not amenable to Christ’s rule by means of the gospel jump to the conclusion that two laws are necessitated by the fact that two distinct classes are present. That conclusion is not logical. In this state, prisoners in the penitentiary are under the law of Texas and so am I. However, the law treats those “enemies” of the state differently than it treats me – two results, but one law. Let’s see if the Scripture shows us the means of Christ’s rule and the extent of its governing power.

The Hebrew writer tells us that God spoke to rule men in various ways in past times, but now speaks solely through the Son (Heb. 1:1-3). The message he decleared by his authority is the gospel which was to be preached to every creature (Matt. 28:18 cf. Mk. 16:15). That message of Christ was declared by his apostles as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26; 16:13-14). Peter confirms this by saying that the gospel foretold by the prophets was “announced unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven” (1 Pet. 1:10- 12). These facts present a path of study we need to examine in order to aid our understanding of the question at hand. First, it is clear that Christ rules through his gospel. Second, that gospel which is Christ’s means of rule was declared by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if we can go to the Scripture and see who was called upon to obey the message announced by the Holy Spirit, we will know who is amenable to that gospel. Let’s see what the Scripture says.

The obvious book to examine in this study is the book of Acts. In chapter 2, the gospel was declared “by the Holy Spirit” and a multitude of Jews were called upon to obey. In chapter 8, the Samaritans are the recipients of the message preached “by the Holy Spirit” and they were to obey (Acts 8:4-25). The chapter concludes with the account of the proclamation of the message “by the Holy Spirit” to the Ethiopian and his obedience to it (Acts 8:26-40). Chapters 10 and 11 record Cornelius’ receiving the same gospel “by the Holy Spirit” and obeying it. Throughout the book, we find case after case where the gospel is preached “by the Holy Spirit” to Jews and Gentiles, aliens and Christians, and all alike are called to obey. The terms used denote no distinction between the message preached to the Jew and Gentile, alien and Christians. The terms “gospel,” “word of God,” “word of the Lord,” “the word,” “the faith,” “the right ways of the Lord,” “the teaching of the Lord,” “the word of his grace,” and other terms are used synonymously. They denote the message preached to both Christian and non-Christian. There is not the slightest hint of the alien being condemned under one law and living in salvation under another law, the gospel. The very book that ought to clearly show the two laws in action, if the “two law theory” were correct, is the book which shows one message, the gospel, as the means of Christ’s rule.

Nature of God’s Covenants

The proponents of the “non-amenability theory” often base much of their argument upon a false idea regarding covenants. They take the modern use of the word “covenant” as made between people in our time and assume God’s covenants with men are of the same nature. They say a covenant is that which is binding only after both parties agree to it. Without that agreement, they claim, the covenant is not in force. They are fond of citing Israel’s agreement to the old covenant and assume that this acceptance made it binding. Therefore, they reason that one must accept the new covenant (i.e. in faith and obedience) before it is binding upon him.

However, the Bible clearl y shows their foundational assumption to be incorrect. In studies examining the nature of God’s covenant, the contrast between two types of covenants in the ancient world is routinely pointed out to introduce the subject. A parity covenant was made between two parties of equal power, as in a business partnership. In this type of covenant, both parties participated in the formation of its provisions and had to agree to the finished product before it became binding. A suzerainty or vassal covenant was made between a stronger party and a weaker party, such as the conqueror and the conquered. The stronger party formed the provisions and commanded them to the weaker party. The weaker party was bound by those provisions at the point of the command. When the weaker party agreed to live by the covenant, it did not cause the covenant to become binding, but marked the commitment to obey a covenant already binding by commandment.

Which type of covenant describes the relation between God and man? God speaks of the old covenant as “my covenant” which was commanded of Israel at the point of Jehovah’s giving it to Moses while upon Mt. Sinai before the people ever heard of the provisions (Exod. 19:1-8). Deuteronomy 4:1-14 recounts that fact to the generation which went into the land saying, “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform ” (v. 13). God’s laws are given as suzerainty covenants, not parity covenants. Man has no right to negotiate the regulations or to block its binding power through rejecting the covenant. Man is obligated to live in accordance with God’s dictated regulation or suffer the consequences. It may also be noted that the new covenant was of the same type. Thus, the Hebrew writer speaks of it as a testament made by a testator becoming binding at his death (Heb. 9:15-17).

The Gospel Condemns Aliens of Sin

The whole “two law theory” rests upon the idea that the alien cannot be condemned under the regulations of the gospel. If one verse could be shown to deny that idea, the whole thing would have to crumble as just another false theory of human origin. Let’s listen to the work of God as it destroys the foundation of this theory. In a context dealing with the coming of the Holy Spirit to reveal the gospel, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit “when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (Jn. 16:8). Who will be convicted? The world! Not just the Christian, but the world. That is one verse and one would be enough, but God’s word is not through yet. Paul says that “God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:16). Does Paul mean just the secrets of Christians? No, not according to the context. The secrets of all men are judged by means of the gospel. That is two verses and two is more than enough, but the Bible is not through yet.

The context of 1 Peter 4 provides a clear, detailed refutation of the “two law theory.” Verses one through six contrast the alien sinners (“they”) with the Christians (“ye”) repeatedly. “They” were walking in sin and thought it strange that “ye” did not act like “them,” so “they” spoke evil of “you” (v. 4). Verse 5 says that some “shall give account to him that is ready to judge the living and the dead. ” But who is it that will give account? And by what means or law shall they be judged? Verse 7 answers those questions, “For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” Peter says the gospel was preached to some who were “dead” for the very purpose of judging them while “in the flesh” that they might “live” spiritually. In other words, the gospel was preached to those who were spiritually dead calling them to spiritual life. The dead of this verse are identified with “they” (aliens) throughout the context. What is it that condemned these aliens as sinners? It was the gospel. Aliens, thus, are regulated by the law of the gospel. Those who listen to God’s word will accept its destruction of this false doctrine!

Consequences of the Error

As with most error, the “non-amenability theory” has consequences more far-reaching than its advocates would wish. They claim that the teaching of Christ in Matthew 19 is uniquely a part of the gospel, thus, only binding upon Christians. While I would deny that premise, believing that Matthew 19 merely explains God’s law as he intended it from Genesis 2, let me grant it for the sake of argument. If the alien is not amenable to Christ’s law regarding divorce and remarriage, the alien is not amenable to any regulation which is uniquely a part of that gospel.

How then can we preach against the use of instrumental music in denominational worship? Are they not aliens? How could the practice be judged sinful by aliens if the regulation of the gospel does not apply to them? How can we oppose the boards and conferences of the denominational world? How can we even show the papacy to be a sinful arrangement of organization if aliens (and I presume that these brethren agree Catholics are aliens) are not amenable to regulations regarding the organization of the church which is uniquely a part of the gospel?

The brethren pushing this false doctrine better take a long look at the grave consquences. If they are right, they bett r throw away every sermon outline they have on the errors of denominationalism. If aliens are not amenable to the gospel, such sermons are without any legitimate basis!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 14-16
January 4, 1990

By Donnie V. Rader

When a couple gets a divorce for the cause of fornication, can the guilty party scripturally remarry? While a number of brethren have answered that question in the affirmative, our Lord answers in the negative (Matt. 19:9). The idea that some have is this: if the guilty is no longer married to the innocent, then the guilty party is free to remarry. The advocates of this position think that if one of the parties is loosed, both are loosed, thus allowing a scriptural remarriage.

In this article we want to consider the basic problem that the advocates of this position have, reasons why the guilty party cannot remarry and a few of the efforts made to justify this position.

Confusion On The Marriage And The Bond

The basic problem with the position that says that the guilty party can remarry is that it confuses the marriage and the bond. I have not seen anything from any of the advocates of this position that indicates they think the marriage and the bond are distinct. They believe that the marriage and the bond are the same. Thus, if a couple is no longer married, they are no longer bound to each other. To apply it to the case of the guilty party, since the put away fornicator is no longer married, it is thought that he is no longer bound and is free to remarry.

Romans 7:2-3 shows that there is a difference in the marriage and the bond. The woman in this text is bound to her first husband even though she is married to another. This bond is the reason that the second marriage is adulterous. Marriage is a relationship entered into by agreement and ratified by compliance with civil law. The bond is a covenant with God that joins one to his mate.

It is possible to be bound to one and married to another. Such is the case in Romans 7:2-3. The woman is “bound by the law to her husband” even though she is “married to another man.” It is also possible for one to be released from the yoke and the other party not. Matthew 19:9 says that the man who puts away his wife for fornication may script rally marry another. Thus, he is loosed. However, the one who marries the woman who is put away commits adultery. Thus, she is still bound. God has loosed the innocent who has put away his mate for fornication. God has not loosed the guilty (Matt. 19:9).

When Jack married Jill, God yoked (joined) them together (Matt. 19:6). However, when Jack put Jill away for fornication, God released him from the yoke, while Jill is still yoked (bound, Matt. 19:9).

When the confusion concerning the marriage and the bond is cleared up, the fact that the guilty party cannot scripturally marry can be easily seen.

The Guilty Party Is Not Authorized To Remarry

If we have any respect for the Lord and his authority, we understand that to act without authority is a sin (2 Jn. 9). We cannot afford to be presumptuous, thinking that God’s silence is permission to act. Hebrews 7:14 illustrates the principle that God’s silence is prohibitive (there is no authority), not permissive. Jesus could not be a priest on earth for he was of the tribe of Judah “of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.”

God has authorized the innocent party to put away his/her mate for fornication and remarry (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). There is no passage that authorizes the put away fornicator to remarry! Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10: 11-12 and Luke 16:18 do not grant such a right. Nor does any other passage provide the needed authority. To use human reasoning won’t do. To say that no passage forbids it won’t work. We must respect the authority of God in this area as well as in the work, organization and worship of the church. I oppose the guilty party remarrying on the same basis as I oppose instrumental music in worship – no authority!

The Guilty Party Is Forbidden To Remarry

Not only does the Bible not authorize remarriage for the guilty party, but it emphatically forbids it.

Jesus stated that when a put away one remarries he commits adultery. “. . . and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32b). “. . . and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9b). “. . . and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16:18).

Carefully note that there is no exception phrase in this clause just quoted. The exception is the first clause applies to the one who puts his mate away. Obviously, when the put away one remarries, he commits adultery.

Efforts Made To Justify The Guilty Party Remarrying

It is argued that fornication severs the marriage at the point it is committed. Thus, we are told that when the marriage is dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty and the guilty is no longer married to the innocent. Thus, both are free to remarry. Lloyd Moyer, among others, argued this point. “The marriage ceases to be that which God ordained when one of the two parties of the marriage joins his body to that of someone other than the person to whom he is married” (Frost-Moyer Exchange, p. 8). Moyer developed his argument further by saying, “When a marriage is thus dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty, nor is the guilty any longer married to the innocent. No marriage exists. Where no marriage exists, the parties may marry someone else” (Ibid., p. 10).

Again, Moyer and all those that advocate that the guilty party can remarry confuse the marriage and the bond. He assumes that if they are no longer married, they are no longer bound. We have already demonstrated otherwise.

Fornication is the cause and not the divorce itself. Jesus said that a man could put his wife away “for fornication.” The fornication is committed before the divorce takes place. Otherwise, a man could commit fornication and his wife would be unmarried and not even know it. Thus, she unknowingly would be living with a man to whom she is not even married. How absurd!

Glen W. Lovelady argued that the put away fornicator could not commit adultery if he is no longer married to his first mate. “Preachers today are feeling the force of the question, how could the put away fornicator commit adultery, if he remarried, not having a spouse? . . . If he is not bound and he marries one who is free to marry, how could he commit adultery? ” (Bible Forum, November 1977, Vol. 1, no. 3, p. 11) Lovelady makes the same mistake that Moyer made which is a failure to distinguish the marriage and the bond. He assumes that if the guilty party is no longer married (because he has been put away) that he is no longer bound. Such is an assumption without proof. Since there is no authority for the guilty party to remarry and he is forbidden by Matthew 19:9 to do so, we must conclude that God has bound him and not loosed him to remarry. Yes, it is true that he is not married. However, that doesn’t mean that he is not bound. Don’t forget that Romans 7:2-3 demonstrates that there is a distinction in the marriage and the bond. Using the same logic I could argue that the one who puts his wife away for a cause other than fornication can remarry. I could reason that he is no longer married since he put his spouse away. Thus, he is free to remarry. To the contrary, Jesus said that, when he remarries, he commits adultery (Matt. 19:9).

It has been argued that if the innocent is loosed, the guilty is automatically loosed as well. Such illustrations as the following have been given. “Tie your two hands together and let each hand represent one of the two parties to a marriage. Cut the string. Which hand is freed? Both!” (Roland H. Worth, Jr., Divorce And Remarriage, p. 11) The man and his wife are not the only elements in the bond. Romans 7:2-3 tells us that God’s law (one mate for life) binds the two together. The two are bound by God’s law to each other. One mate could be free while the other is still bound by the law. So, if we want to use the illustration of a rope, we would have the man and his wife tied together, but also to the law of God. Thus, if a man is untied (due to his wife’s fornication) she is still tied by the law of God.

There has been an effort to re-define adultery to prove that those entering any second marriage can continue in that marriage and not separate. Olan Hicks argues that the word translated adultery “refers to the act of remarrying itself” (What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Nashville: 1978, p. 28). Hicks further argued, “This establishes, if we take precisely what the scriptures say, omitting human opinion entirely, that the ‘adultery’ which is to be repented of in this case, consists of two actions, ‘putting away’ and ‘marrying another'” (Ibid., p. 29). Again Hicks wrote, “Does the adultery Jesus spoke of occur when one puts away his wife and marries another or does it occur later when he cohabits with the second wife? How can we insist that it is the later when Jesus specifically said it was the former?” (Ibid., p. 28) Hicks says the same thing in his new and expanded book by the same title (What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Joplin, 1987, pp. 149-161). Truman Scott argued the same basic position in his debate with Wayne Jackson in 1982 (Divorce & Remarriage – A Study Discussion, Stockton: 1983).

This redefining of adultery lends comfort to the advocates that say that the guilty party can remarry. When he does remarry he does not commit adultery by continuing to live with that mate.

The term adultery is not used that way in the Bible. Jesus said that a man who looks upon a woman and lusts after her has committed adultery in his heart (Matt. 5:28). Was he fantasizing about breaking the covenant (divorcing and remarrying) or sexual relations? In John 8 the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus whom they said was caught in the “very act” of adultery (v. 4). Was she caught in the act of divorcing and remarrying (breaking wedlock) or in the sexual act? Ezekial 16 tells the parable of the unfaithful wife. What verse 32 calls “adultery” the context calls “fornication” (v. 15), harlotry (vv. 15-16), “whoredom” (w. 25-26), and taking “strangers instead of her husband” (v. 32). Furthermore, there is no lexicon or passage that would justify this arbitrary definition of adultery.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 17-18
January 4, 1990

By Tom M. Roberts

It has been suggested by sectarians and brethren alike that any use of human reasoning ability in arriving at an understanding of the Bible makes any such conclusions suspect. We are told that no one should bind any other than direct statements as limits of fellowship. Specifically, inferences and examples are to be excluded as binding authority from the Scriptures because we must use human intellect to tell which, if any, examples and inferences have that binding force. This use of the human intellect, we are told, thrusts any conclusions we reach into the realm of opinion and should never be made a test of fellowship. Among sectarians, it is stated thusly: “No one can see the Bible alike. You interpret it your way and I will interpret it my way. One way is just as good as another. ” Among brethren, there is a call for a “new hermeneutic” which would exclude a but direct commands or statements and which would permit the same situation as that describing the sectarians. In fact, some brethren are rejecting any “doctrine” as important, accepting only the deity of Christ as a limit to fellowship. The argument common to both groups is that our reasoning is faulty, unity upon God’s word is impossible and that fellowship must be inclusive of every position short of the rejection of Jesus’ deity. While sectarians have occupied this position for centuries (resulting in permissiveness toward every kind of error), it is disconcerting to see brethren embrace such a fallacy. We need to see clearly that God has required the use of human reasoning in understanding his will.

Absolute Truth

If truth is relative (subjective), each man is right in what he believes, regardless of the Bible or of the belief of others. Humanism advocates the relativity of truth to the individual and his circumstances. They aver that stealing is wrong only if you believe it to be wrong; abortion is wrong only if it hurts your conscience; incest is wrong only if it is wrong for you (however, it might be right for another). To them, “man is the measure of all things.” Truth, therefore, is to be changed to fit the circumstances.

But the truth is not relative, it is absolute (objective). The world is round even if I maintain that it is flat. Baptism is for the remission of sins whether I understand that, disagree, or have never heard about it. Jesus Christ is the Son of God whether I concur or not. In other words, truth does not need my permission or consent to be truth. It is truth and will be truth with or without my acceptance or obedience.

God has spoken (Heb. 1:1,2). His spoken Word is truth (Jn. 8:32; 16:13). And God requires of me that I understand his word. “Whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the win of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). “And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). Such Scriptures could be multiplied: Jude 3; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Peter 1:3; Galatians 1:6-8; 2 John 9-11, et al.

Lest I be charged with believing in “perfectionism” (that one knows every answer to every question), let me state that God’s word has built into it an area in which brethren may hold different judgments (opinions) and still be in fellowship (Rom. 14), but that we must agree on matters of faith (Jude 3). But many are guilty of relegating every item of faith into the. area of opinion, making nonsense of the gospel of Christ.

If truth is absolute (arid it is), then I must seek to understand it lest I fall short of what God has said to us. And it should be noted, that absolute truth has been given to mankind for his benefit. It is relevant to our needs, given by inspiration to safe-guard its contents, having a purpose (the salvation of our souls), and it will judge us (Jn. 12:48). It is folly to say that man cannot understand the instruction given specifically to us by God. Is God not able to speak to us on our level, in an understandable manner? Is he not able to create a creature capable of receiving communication from his Maker? Either view is an indictment of God and his wisdom and/or ability. As the pioneer preacher Benjamin Franklin put it, “The Bible as it is, is addressed to man as he is, that he might become what God would have him to be.” Yes, brethren, I am charged with understanding the will of God and it requires of me that I use the native intelligence placed there by God at the creation. Adam understood more than the deity of God. He understood the revelation of the divine will and was held accountable for the violation of it. There was no one around to tell Adam that eating the forbidden fruit was right if he thought it to be right, except the Devil. The same God has spoken to the descendants of Adam and we had better listen, for we are accountable.

Reason Limited Only to Direct Statements?

It is affirmed that we are able to understand direct statements and commands by our human reasoning but not examples or inferences. “Inferences,” we are told, require human reasoning to decide when one is “necessary.” Also, we have to decide when one example is binding and another is not. Therefore, since we have difficulty in deciding, it is concluded that it is impossible to decide. Like the foolish mother that threw the baby out with the bath water, some would throw out all inferences and examples.

But before we deal with inferences and examples, let us back up a step. Is it not true also that we must use human reasoning with direct statements and commands as well? Are all commands binding on us today? What about the Ten Commandments? If you do not bind the Sabbath today, why not? Did you have to use some reasoning ability to determine that the law of Moses is not bound today? Have you burned any incense or killed any animals as sacrifices lately? Why not? Do you tithe? Do you observe Passover? Why not? But, more basic than that, since your name is not found anywhere in the Bible, how did you reason to the position that you have any obligations at all toward God? Should only the ancients serve God?

The point that I am making should be plain. Human reasoning is a necessity in determining which commands or positive statements, or, in fact, if any of the Bible is bound on us today. To state otherwise is to make the Bible into an absurdity, and it is not the Bible that is absurd.

As proof that God requires the use of human reason in understanding inferences, some passages should be considered. When the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus about the resurrection, he rebuked them for not reasoning and making an indifference from what God implied. “But Jesus answered and said unto di6n, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. . . Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:29-32). That “God was not the God of the dead, but of the living” was an inference that the Sadducees should have drawn from Scripture was obvious. Should it be less obvious to us? Ignore this at your own peril: God holds us accountable when he implies something that we should infer.

The parables also teach by inference. In Matthew 21:33-45, the Pharisees “perceived” that he spake of them (v. 45). Many of the parables contain implications by God that we should understand.

In Hebrews 7:11-17, it is implied that the silence of the Scriptures is binding. I have seen some treat this principle with disdain, but the objective truth contained there will stand the carping of modern Sadducees. The people to whom the writer addressed the letter understood the point, as should any person who has read the Law. Jesus could not be priest on earth. Why? Was there a command that excluded him? No, but an inference was there that he could not serve since Moses “spake nothing” of the tribe of Judah serving, Was this inference any less binding than a stated command? Did it require human reasoning to understand it?

As for apostolic examples, it is readily admitted that not all examples give binding authority for us today. But are you sure that none of them do? Paul said, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). “1 beseech you therefore, be ye followers of me” (1 Cor. 4:16). “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord” (1 Thess. 1:6). “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14).

Were the first century Christians not discerning enough to know that they had no responsibility to follow churches that did wrong (like Corinth) or apostles that did wrong (like Peter)? Don’t you believe they could tell the difference and follow Paul “as he followed Christ”? If not, what is the force of these passages exhorting them to “follow” others? Were they not to follow Paul because he was right? And was he not right because he followed Christ? Would this be a sufficient background command to bind the example on early Christians? Or on us?

“Now these things were our examples” (1 Cor. 10:6). “. . . leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). “. . so walk, even as ye have us for an example” (Phil. 3:17). Who says that examples do not bind? Did you learn it from these verses?

Yes, it takes reasoning power to know that we should follow some examples and not follow others. Some examples are good and some are bad, but we can know the difference. Also, some examples are of incidentals and some are binding. But we can tell the difference because of the Scriptures and because of the reasoning ability that God gave us.

Reverse the Process

If you disagree about the binding force of examples and inferences because it takes the ability to reason (and our reasoning may be faulty), then you must also apply this argument to direct statements and commands. I challenge you to be consistent. And if commands have no binding force, let us face it, the Bible is vain and empty and our faith is ludicrous.

Either the Bible leads and guides through the power of the Holy Spirit in an intelligible manner or it does not. God has addressed man on a level commensurate with his ability to comprehend or he hasn’t. Truth is absolute or it is not. The choice is clear. “Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 749-750
December 21, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote. Cyril Ponnamperunis, review of Francis Crick, Life Itself. Its Origin and Nature, in New Scientist, 13 May 1982, p. 435.

We have been, considering some of the alternatives proposed to replace the concept that the universe was created by a Divine being. Modem hypotheses which attempt to do so usually postulate some chemical broth and/or make unprovable assumptions about the supposed nature of the early atmosphere – and still aren’t able to explain how the early atmosphere or chemicals came to be to begin with, thus begging the question. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, attempting to calculate the likelihood of such events occurring came to the conclusion that “an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now . . . cannot decide” such chemical origins are probable or impossible; indeed, “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. . . ” (Life Itself, p. 88).

In truth, Crick’s “profound insight into the processes of molecular biology and his awareness of the difficulties” are, in the words of Cyril Ponnamperuma, a tacit admission that “it is not a problem that can be solved by scientific methods in terrestrial laboratories” (New Scientist, 13 May 1982, p. 435). Such difficulties lead Crick to postulate the doctrine of “panspermia” (i.e., that the seed of life are everywhere in the universe), which Crick thinks may have “traveled in the head of an unmanned spaceship sent to earth by a higher civilization which had developed elsewhere” (Life Itself, pp. 15-16).

Ponnamperuma (director of the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution at the University of Maryland, noted for work done with the Murchison meteorite) notes that “with great frankness, Francis Crick tells us that his wife described his book as science fiction.” Adds Ponnamperuma, “I cannot help but agree with her.” Others, this author included, will add a hearty “Amen.”

One can begin to appreciate the difficulty of accepting ideas postulated by those who reject faith in a Creator as an explanation for the origins of life when one recognizes the improbability (or even impossibility) of demonstrating by the canons of science as we know it how life began in a naturalistic manner. Especially is this true of Crick’s “panspermia” – the concept that life began elsewhere and was transported to earth in space ships. Leaving aside the question of how one could ever test such a hypothesis in any conclusive way, we wonder: If some “creationist” were to postulate something as ludicrous and unsupported by any reasonable interpretation of scientific data, wouldn’t he be laughed off the stage?

But whether you think panspermia is science fiction highly likely, it ought to be obvious that it only makes the problem of human knowledge of the origins of life even greater. If we cannot determine through scientific discovery what happened on this planet, how on earth (pardon the pun) can we discern how it arose elsewhere? Such concepts remove any knowledge based on the principles of scientific discovery.

Of course, one could accept the concept (also unprovable by scientific methodology) that God created the heaven and the earth. Why is that more difficult to believe than panspermia, or chemical evolution, each of which require large doses of pure faith to accept? Ponnamperuma’s review of Life Itself (13 May 1982 New Scientist, p. 435) summarizes it nicely: “If life did not begin on earth by natural processes, unless of course we subscribe to the concept of special creation, life must have originated somewhere else and colonized the earth.”

Why should two of these views, which derive as much from metaphysics as physics, and require as much credulity to accept as the idea of Divine creation “in the beginning,” be any more acceptable to modern minds than theism? We are reminded of a statement attributed to the British scientist, Sir Arthur Keith. Speaking of what may be called the “general theory” of evolution (the moleculesto-man theory), Keith is reported to have said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable; the reason it is acceptable is because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.”

It is certainly not out of order for anyone to hold a view of origins which may correspond to some aspects of current scientific theory but which also relies greatly on faith. But don’t call that “science” – or look down your nose at someone else’s view of origins as less “scientific.” You might get a “Crick” in your neck.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, p. 748
December 21, 1989