Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished (Prov. 16:5).

Like unbelief, pride is found at the root of all rebellion against God. It is an attitude of heart which keeps the creature from bowing in submission to the Creator.

Pride Defined

We commonly use the word pride in both a good sense and a bad sense. When we use the word to denote reasonable self-respect, that is a good sense. Every person needs to maintain self-dignity. An individual who has absolutely no respect for himself is in bad shape. To say that one takes pride in his work usually means that he wants to do his work well.

“Pride is never used in a good sense in the Bible but is always condemned” (E.M. Zerr). The Bible speaks of pride in the sense of vanity, haughtiness, arrogance, conceit, inordinate self-esteem, or egotism. Pride often manifests itself in boastfulness and the seeking of honor, attention, or acclaim. Pride multiples disobedience.

Three Examples

(1) Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in the days of Daniel, was lifted up with pride. Walking in his palace, the king said, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” (Dan. 4:30) God knocked this arrogant king from his pedestal by taking away his sanity. Nebuchadnezzar was driven from among men, ate grass as oxen eat it, became wet with the dew of heaven, and his hair grew like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws. After his reason returned, the king of Babylon honored the king of heaven, acknowledging that those who “walk in pride” God is able to abase (4:37).

(2) The Edomites, dwelling in what they thought was an impregnable natural fortress, felt secure even when they sided with the enemies of God’s people. At various times in history they showed hostility toward the Israelites. The prophet Obadiah foretold the doom of Edorn. Said the prophet, “The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?” Obadiah continued, “Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord” (Obad. 3,4). God did in fact knock the Edomites from their “nest among the stars.”

(3) The Pharisee in the parable in Luke 18:9-14 is a classic example of pride. In the temple this arrogant fellow prayed thus with himself, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” After giving thanks that he was such a fine dude, he boasted of his works. “I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.” What folly for a man to brag before his Maker! In contrast to the proud Pharisee, the humble publican confessed that he was a sinner and asked for mercy.

Pride and Abomination

An “abomination” is something loathsome, utterly detestable, disgusting, or hated. When the writer of Proverbs listed six things, yea seven, which are an abomination to God, the first on the list was “a proud look” (Prov. 6:16, 17). In harmony with this, our text says, “Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord.” No matter how man may consider pride, God finds it disgusting.

Though Hand Join in Hand

In 11:21, this proverb is found: “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.” The expression “though hand join in hand” is taken by some to be striking hands as a pledge, therefore it means that something is made sure. The New American Standard Bible renders it “assuredly.” If this be the correct rendition, our text is saying that assuredly the proud in heart will not escape punishment.

Another view is that “though hand join in hand” means joining with others in whatever is under consideration. If this be the preferred meaning, our text is saying of the proud in heart, although others may hold hands with them in their unrighteous ways, God will punish them. The fact that many are involved in a wicked practice does not make it less abominable to God. Evil confederates will not get one off the hook. “The power of sinners cannot secure them against God, though they strengthen themselves with both hands. Though they may strengthen one another with their confederacies and combinations, joining forces against God, they shall not escape his righteous judgment” (Matthew Henry).

Pride and Punishment

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18). Jesus said, “For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Lk. 14:11; 18:14). If people do not humble themselves to serve God, they will be abased with everlasting misery in the world to come. “When pride cometh, then cometh shame” (Prov. 11:2). Men and women who are too proud to bow to the will of God must face eternal shame.

Let us cast away pride and learn true humility of heart. “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:5,6).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, p. 486
August 17, 1989

By Weldon E. Warnock

Those brethren who see another cause for divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15 claim that “bondage” in v. 15 is the marriage bond and they assert that when Paul said, “is not under bondage,” the apostle meant, “not under the bondage of marriage,” and the believer is free to marry again. James Bales wrote, “The only bondage this believer had ever been in to this unbeliever was the bondage of marriage . . . the context proves that “bondage” refers to marriage . . . the only bondage discussed in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 was the marriage bondage” (Not Under Bondage, pp. 62,68,91).

The Greek word for “bondage” in the text is dedoulotai, 3rd per. sing. perfect, ind. pass. of douloo. Thayer says it means “to make a slave of, reduce to bondage” (p. 158). After Thayer gives the definition of douloo he interprets its usage in 1 Corinthians 7:15 as “to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter.” He does not say this is the marriage bond. Vine states “to make a slave of, to bring into bondage.” Arndt-Gingrich define it to “make someone a slave of (doulos), enslave, subject” (p. 205). They say it means figuratively, “be bound (as a slave).” Kittel says, “The basic meaning is ‘to make a slave,’ ‘to enslave… (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 279).

It becomes apparent to me, after reading the preceding definitions, that Paul did not have the loosening of nuptial vows in mind when he said “not under bondage.” When the apostle spoke of being bound in marriage (1 Cor. 7:25,39), he used deo, not douloo. It is odd that Paul switched words in the same chapter if “bondage.” (douloo) in v. 15 is speaking of marriage also. The word dedoulotai (bondage) suggests that the believer was not a bond servant to the unbeliever or a slave to man, even though the person was a marriage partner. Paul said the same thing in a general way in 1 Corinthians 7:23, “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants men.” This principle is specifically applied to the marriage relationship in v. 15.

Neander wrote, as quoted in Lange’s commentary: “The Apostle only means, that in matters of religious conviction, one person cannot be the slave of another, (that a married Christian person cannot be forced to remain with a heathen consort, if the latter will not allow the exercise of his own religious views. Under such circumstances separation should be allowed: but concerning liberty to marry again, nothing is said”).

Grosheide wrote that “the members of the church of Christ are not subject to an unbeliever” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 166). Barnes said, “Many have supposed that this means they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife or husband had gone away. . . . But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle” (1 Corinthians, p. 119). Robertson and Plummer state all that is meant is “that he or she need not feel so bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation” (Commentary on First Corinthians).

Caverno, in the LS.B.E. (Vol. 2, p. 866) said, “But Paul has not said in that verse or anywhere else that a Christian partner deserted by a heathen may be married to someone else. All he said is: ‘If the unbelieving depart: the brother or sister is not under bondage (dedoulotai) in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.’ To say that a deserted partner ‘hath not been enslaved’ is not to say that he or she may be remarried. ” Cavemo also says that “Paul has not modified Christ in any respect.”

None of the preceding commentators thought that “not under bondage” meant “loosed from the marriage bond with a right to remarry.” There are a few commentators who differ, but the evidence to me is too strong that “bondage” is not referring to the marriage bond, but rather it means that a Christian is not a slave to men, even a marriage partner.

The tense of the word dedoulotai would not permit it to mean the marriage bond. The word is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense would mean the brother or sister had not been in bondage and is still not under bondage to the unbeliever. However, the believer would certainly have been in bondage if the marriage bond is indicated.

Monroe Tharp, professor of Greek at the Bear Valley School of Preaching (Denver, Colorado), as quoted by Roy Lanier, Sr. said: “The Greek perfect tense is used here to show the meaning: ‘The brother or sister has not been enslaved and is still not enslaved.’ One could not be released from slavery who had never been enslaved.’ One could not be released from slavery who had never been enslaved” (Your Marriage Can Be Great, p. 471).

Marshall’s Interlinear translates “not under bondage” to mean “has not been enslaved.” The Pulpit Commentary says, “has not been enslaved.” Since the word dedoulotai means “to make someone a slave, enslave, subject” (Arndt and Gingrich), the only kind of slavery that a believer had ever been under was before conversion. From the time of conversion, the Christian has not been enslaved. Keep in mind that Tharp, Marshall’s Interlinear and the Pulpit Commentary said the believer “has not been enslaved.”

The perfect tense is a combination of punctiliar action and durative action (Davis’ Greek Grammar, p. 152). Dedoulotai is perfect tense. Therefore, it has punctiliar (completed) action and durative (linear) action. The idea would be that at conversion the Christian becomes free from bondage (completed action) and continues free (durative action) from bondage. As a Christian, one has never been in moral and spiritual bondage to men, but is a servant or slave of the Lord Jesus Christ. Quoting the apostle Paul again, “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants (slaves) of men.” A Christian is not under bondage to any man, whether it be in marriage, slavery, government or business. In 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul simply means that the believer is not to give up Christianity or compromise truth in order to save the marriage with an unbeliever. He or she is “not under bondage in such cases” or any other case or matter that has to do with human relationships.

Nobody has proved that the marriage bond is broken or loosed on the basis of an unbeliever divorcing a believer. Brethren arbitrarily make the word “bondage” mean the marriage bond. There is no evidence that “bondage” means the marriage bond. Their position sanctions the remarriage of believers who have been deserted by unbelievers -without proving that “bondage” means the marriage bond. This is dangerous business. Their view permits the deserted believer to marry ‘an unbeliever who has divorced a dozen wives or husbands. The result of this kind of thinking has God showing more favor to Christians deserted by unbelievers than he does to Christians deserted by Christians. The former can remarry as many times as he/she is deserted, but the latter cannot remarry unless the deserter is put away for fornication.

Concerning brother Bassett’s illustration of a college football coach and his players, all the players are on the team and all play by the same rules. The coach would not give one set of rules for football to the veteran players and a different set of rules for the new players. Yet, this is what brother Bassett has Paul doing for married couples.

The believers married to believers (illustrated by veteran players) must remain unmarried if there is a divorce or be reconciled to his/her mate. This is one set of rules for a married couple. However, for the believers married to unbelievers (illustrated by new players), they may remarry someone else if the unbeliever departs. Here is another set of rules for a married couple, according to brother Bassett. This is the same team (the married team, per brother Bassett’s illustration), but brother Bassett has it playing by different rules. I believe the football example better illustrates my position than it does brother Bassett’s.

I had proposed to brother Bassett that we discuss this issue on a broader scale, namely, whether unbelievers desiring to be baptized who have divorced and remarried without the cause of fornication, may remain together (cohabit) as husband and wife, but he informed me that he had agreed to have an exchange on this topic with brother Ken Leach in Sentry Magazine. In my judgment it would have been profitable to discuss the proposition in both papers Guardian of Truth and Sentry Magazine.

Alien sinners, having divorced their wives/husbands without the cause of fornication, and are living with their second, third or fourth marriage-partner, are told by brother Bassett, as well as others, that they may continue to live together (cohabit) after they are baptized. This position affects far more people than whether “bondage” in 1 Corinthians 7:15 means the marriage bond. I have never seen, personally, a case where the unbeliever put away his/her mate on the grounds that he/she was a Christian.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 466-467
August 3, 1989

By Bill H. Reeves

The age-old question is this: shall it be the autonomous local church, according to Divine Wisdom, or centralization (with attending institutionalism), according to human wisdom?

History is replete with examples of promotions of centralization. In the first centuries there was a movement away from the New Testament picture of churches of Christ, led by their elders (Acts 14:23), and being the only entity for collective action, to a distin6tion between the terms “bishop” and “elder,” and then on to the elevation of the bishops over the elders, of metropolitan bishops over those of smaller areas, and finally of a pope over all. In the last century the movement of centralization revolved around the missionary society. A number of these sprang up, and finally they were merged into the United Christian Missionary Society.

Again, in this century, the same mistake is being propagated. After the Second World War, a crop of “sponsoring churches” (centralization at work!) was soon in evidence. As in the past, when a large number of entities are seen to be overlapping in their work and financing, engaged in the same general work, the practicality of human wisdom dictates that the next step be amalgamation. This leads to “efficiency” (as well as to tighter control from headquarters). So, the next step in the U.S. among the liberal churches of Christ will be the formation of some kind of national conference or association of the many sponsoring churches. The specter of the Missionary Society has kept this from happening so far, but as respect for authority lessens in the land, and “Book-chapter-and verse” preaching is heard less and less, a new generation will be insistent upon “nationalizing” our efforts. After nationalization, of course, comes universal oversight, and we have then arrived at Rome! The time for this is not ripe (expedient) just yet in the U.S., given the Anglo mentality, or outlook.

However, in Latin-America (Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador), the nationalized church already exists! The American liberal churches, which sponsor “the work” (as they unscripturally conceive the matter) in these countries, are fully aware of the phenomenon, and support it. As for the U.S., it simply is not expedient just yet to promote such! The Latin mentality is ripe for such a promotion, given the conditioning of the Latin mind by the “strong man concept” of their histories, in their dictators and in the Catholic priests of their churches. They are fully accustomed to centralized domination.

It is my conviction that the American liberal churches are using the “foreign field” (“mission fields”) as a place to soften the Anglo mind and to establish precedents for future moves within the U.S. The “Church of Christ Hospital” will come shortly, now that for years “we have had Church of Christ clinics” in other countries. With the church nationalized in other countries, why not here? (Of course I’m not a prophet, but I do read history.)

National Corporation of the Church of Christ

The following page is a translation of a letter sent by the President of the nationalized church in the Dominican Republic. Note the officers and titles of the Board of Directors. Conservative churches in that country, which refuse to participate in the National Church, have been threatened by liberal brethren there for using the term “Church of Christ” (on signs, on buildings, etc.), saying that it is illegal. Note the “third request.” The “sixth” says that the 50 or more local churches are independent, but the “fifth” threatens any that breaks the statutes of the corporation!

In February of ’88 the Shenendoah church of Christ (a more conservative, liberal church) in San Antonio, TX had a lectureship on liberalism and digression, and hosted a two-day debate between brother Jack Holt of Sinton, TX and brother Buster Dobbs of Houston, TX, on the “Sponsoring-church” issue. In this debate the following two transparencies (prepared by brother Wayne Partain) were presented by brother Holt. The only reply made by brother Dobbs was that he did not approve of abuses!

Note the chart in the next column

1. A church in Houston, TX, receiving money from other churches, sponsors a “work.” It is in Honduras, C.A. This is done through its “Minister of Missions” (brother Harris Goodwin), who at the same time is the President of the “Church of Christ of the Republic of Honduras.” Brother Harris Goodwin (the one who in 1945 urged me and brother Partain to go to Mexico to preach in Spanish!) is also the head of the Baxter Institute in the capital city of Honduras, Tegucigalpa.

Sponsoring Churches Produce The Nationalized Church of Christ

Many Churches, Individuals, Send to Garden Oaks Church of Christ Houston, Texas

So It Can Sponsor Work, Honduras

Through Its Minister of Missions, Who Is

President, Board of Directors of the Corporation Called

“Church of Christ of the Republic of Honduras”

Whose Stated Purpose Is to Establish and Maintain:

Churches, A Publishing House,

Schools, Charitable Organizations

To Develop the Whole Man: Spiritually, Socially, Economically

The Tree Is Known By Its Fruit Sponsoring Church Fruit:

1. Churches pay monthly quota to church of Christ corporation in El Salvador

2. Nationwide council meetings: preachers, leaders, decide for churches, Nicaragua

3. “Organization of church not limited to local congregation.”D. Shappley, P. Rico

4. Juan Monroy, Spain, fellowships denominations. Principle organizer of 5th Denomination Congress

What Happens If Oppose Sponsoring Church?

1. Can’t own property as church of Christ

2. Can’t use name church of Christ

3. No more Bibles, songbooks, tracts, literature

4. Accused of being anti-cups, classes. etc.

5. If go hear anti’s, don’t come back here!

6. Letter to government, Dominican Republic, urges no privileges (tax exemption) for churches not authorized by national church of Christ corporation

7. Threat of arrest in Venezuela if preach, establish churches of Christ

8. Accused of being with contras, Nicaragua

1. In El Salvador, the member-churches of the national body pay monthly quotas for operating the machinery of the organization.

2. In Nicaragua there is a national council, made up of preachers, who make decisions for the churches which belong to the national body.

3. In a public debate in Puerto Rico several years ago, brother Dewayne Shappley argued that there are two divine organizations, not just one. I put on the board “local church” and a passage (Phil. 1:1) and then asked him to put in a blank just below Philippians 1:1 the passage which speaks of it. The debate terminated without his attempting to fill in the blanks! He was contending that the messengers of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23) were an “organization”‘ which answers today to a group of preachers who promote a project and call upon churches everywhere to finance them! Following the formal debate each night, the audience was permitted to ask questions. One asked: If a church refuses to send to the project of the preachers, does it sin? (Of course, it would if the organization is a divine one.) For five minutes or so brother Shappley dodged the question, which required a simple yes or no, and never answered. Again, the same brother put to him the same question. This time he talked a few minutes, and finally said, “No.” He had to admit that his “second organization” wasn’t very divine!

4. Brother Juan Monroy in Spain, fellowships Protestant denominations. He is active in promoting denominational congresses in Spain. This is all very well known by many liberal preachers and churches in the U.S., but they still fellowship, support, and use him widely, specially in “global campaigns” and graduating exercises of brotherhood preacher-schools.

6. In El Salvador, a preacher went to the “headquarters” of the national body to get more songbooks, supplied to the headquarters from U.S. liberal churches. He was told that he would no longer be given songbooks, since he and the church where he preached were allowing the “antis” to visit them and speak. (A number of individuals in the U.S. have since made available to conservative brethren in El Salvador songbooks for use in the-services.) Such is an example of the control exercised by national bodies, in spite of their denials to be controlling the churches.

7. Liberal leaders tell their converts that the “antis” don’t use individual cups in the service of the Lord’s Supper, that we don’t have Bible classes in the church building,”and other such lies, in order to prejudice minds.

8. In a letter dated May 10, 1989 brother Ruben Amador, of Houston, TX, who had just returned from Venezuela, writes: Bob “Brown, faced with the loss of the churches in Barquisimeto and Caracas and several of the preachers in these areas, accused me before the men present . . . of entering Venezuela illegally. (Claiming civil, exclusive right over who can invite preachers to enter Venezuela, they claim that any preacher entering otherwise is entering illegally.) He said that he had no other alternative but to report me to the immigration officials to stop my entry into Venezuela. This will be the second time My name will be reported to the government officials if Brown goes through with his plan.”

9. Brother Wayne Partain, of San Antonio, TX was accused by liberal “leaders” in Nicaragua of being with the Contras, and therefore he had to appear before a government official to explain his presence in Nicaragua (to preach the gospel).

The following is my translation of a letter of December 12, 1987, sent from Barquisimeto, Venezuela:

“Gentlemen Ministers and Assistant Leaders:

The block of Ministers of the Church of Christ of the West Central Region, in their two reunions this year, have established the need as a Civil Association (corporation, or body politic – BHR) for National Statutes that would give it the structure of a National Church, inasmuch as the Church is established in nearly all of the country.

“In like manner that a National Directory be determined, with its functions, and also the Administrative and Juridical-Legal profile of the local Churches as members of the National Civil Association and as entities administratively autonomous.

“In our purpose of contributing our collaboration in the matter, we have consulted with expert lawyers in the matter and have detected that the present registry is local, of the city of Caracas, and has no profile for the member churches.

“Understanding that the Church now is National, it is for that reason that we present to you this preliminary draft of the National Statutes for your revision and acquisition, since it is a legal necessity with which we have to comply as a National Civil Association, which is provided in the laws of the country.

“This preliminary draft is realized on the reform of the registry of the Church of Caracas.

“Enclosed is a copy of the described draft.”

“Grateful for the attention given to the present, we subscribe to you, Attentively, Ministers of the block of Churches of the West Central Region.”

Some brethren in Venezuela have been questioning the scripturalness of the National Constitution. They have been taught the truth on the authority, the organization and the work of the local church. But they have been told recently that all this was simply a “manner or method” of doing the work land that no violation of the Scripture is being committed. (These mature Christians, who are questioning the scripturalness of it all, are the ones opening doors of opportunity for us to encourage them in their, battle against liberalism. Brother Wayne Partain and I have preached in Venezuela in recent years, brother Ruben Amador has gone twice this year, and brother Joe Soto is to go there again even as I write).

Sunday, May 14, of this year, brother Harris Goodwin, from Garden Oaks church in Houston, TX, editor of a Spanish, religious journal, director of the Baxter Preachers School in Honduras, and director of the National Church in Honduras, was to be in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. Because of this visit brother Bob Brown and the other national zone leaders (“missionaries”) had invited all of the churches in Caracas to meet as one church in “Central Park. ” Nearly all of the liberal churches had agreed to their proposal. But one congregation in Caracas, already disenchanted with the National Church concept, refused to give in to the demands of the national leaders, and were going ahead with their services as usual. The national leaders are beginning to call this church “antis.”

In Ecuador identification cards have been prepared and issued for preachers and others to use. A copy of the card is here presented.

The first four lines say: Republic of Ecuador, Identification Document, Church of Christ, Legal Entity No. 835.

The rest of side one is for the name and address, signature, etc. of the cardholder. There is also a line for his right thumb print!

On the reverse side of the card, more information is required, and the card itself is to be signed by the President and Secretary (of the church in Ecuador)!

In a letter addressed to “To Whom It May Concern,” dated February 7, 1977, Ed Sewell writes:

“I, Noyles Edward Sewell Sellman, immigrant resident in Ecuador since 1966, in the capacity of Superior Missionary (emphasis mine – BHR) of the Church of Christ, certify that I personally know Mr. Segundo Aurelio Ramos Moya as being a preacher-evangelist of the Church of Christ in Riobamba and the province of Chimborazo; and I testify that Mr. Ramos is authorized by the Church of Christ as being the one in charge of the province of Chimborazo, and who receives a monthly remuneration of the Church of Christ in the amount of six thousand sucres.”

This needs no comment!

Some U.S. liberal churches, sponsoring “works” in foreign countries, by employing the unscriptural concept of centralization, contribute to the idea of a centralized, national church.

The following information appears on the letter-head of the Forest Park church in Valdosta, GA.

On page one, note:

1. This church sets forth three main thrusts of sponsored work in Panama: Medical Technology, Christian Education, and a Cross. The gospel is last in the order! Indeed our liberal brethren are putting their own schemes before the gospel!

2. This church has two addresses: one in Valdosta, GA, and another one in a foreign country! How can this be? How can one church at the same time have a street address in the U.S. and a post-office box number in Panama? Well, it is easy, given the concept of a church in one country dominating and controlling all the churches in another country.

3. Note also the title of brother Bob Bryson. He is not one of the elders. What, then, is a “Coordinator”? Our liberal brethren never cease to surprise us with more and newer titles for their unscriptural positions.

One page two, under the general heading of Panama Missions, note:

1. This Valdosta, GA church operates a preachers’ training school to supply the churches in Panama with preachers.

2. This church sponsors (centralizes money) the financial support of preachers in Panama. I have known cases in which the preachers do not know just which church sends to their support; the sponsoring church gathers it up and sends it on.)

3. Money is sent to Panama for supporting Panamanian Medical Students. (This is where the “Medical Technology” comes in. It is the sectarian concept of evangelism through benevolence – that is, hand out the loaves and fishes, and then preach to them!)

4. This church sends money to Panama for the erecting of church buildings. This in turn makes the local churches anemic, and dependent upon the American churches to supply them meeting houses.

5. Why so many “Doctors” on the Advisory Group? And why do elders of a local church need a group of advisors, made up of men of many different places? Note the name of Julio Cruz. He was (maybe still is) the head of the Pan American Bible School in Panama City when a couple of years ago in Changuinola, Panama I presented this very material of this Valdosta, GA church’s letterhead. Brother Cruz was present in the audience, but when given the opportunity to reply, refused to open his mouth.

Conclusion

It all began with a church taking upon itself the assignment of doing a work beyond its own responsibility, and asking other churches to “cooperate” in a “good work,” since the “means, method and manner” didn’t matter. So was born the “Sponsoring Church.” This article shows some of the fruit of the sponsoring church. Centralization has an appetite that is never satisfied, until a global, or universal, level of control is realized.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, pp. 484-485, 499-501, 504
August 17, 1989

By Weldon E. Warnock

This will conclude for now the exchange between brother Bassett and me. I appreciate his willingness to discuss these matters of concern and I trust it is profitable to all who read it.

Brother Bassett did not refuse to discuss the alien sinner question at a later date, but I was hoping to consider it presently because his position on 1 Corinthians 7:15 has this broad implication. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough to brother Bassett. It was not a future date that I had an immediate interest in, but now, instead of our ongoing exchange.

Have I misrepresented Bales and Bassett about 1 Corinthians 7:15 being another cause of divorce and remarriage? Bales wrote, “divorce and remarriage are under consideration in 1 Corinthians 7:15 although they are not the only things under consideration” (Not Under Bondage, p. 186). Bassett wrote a letter to Norton Dye (Dec. 3, 1987) stating, “Yes, I believe I Corinthians 7:15 adds another exception to the one Jesus stated at Matthew 19:9. ” Contrast this statement with what brother Bassett wrote in his reply to me: “Neither of us holds that 1 Corinthians 7:15 provides a ’cause for divorce.”‘ Brother Bassett is being “picky” about there being no cause for divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:15. The verse has “depart” (divorce) in it, and although the unbelieving depart, a divorce takes place, nevertheless, and brother Bassett says the divorce frees the believer to remarry. Wonder if brother Bassett would sanction a believer filing for divorce on the grounds of desertion by an unbeliever?

Whether brother Bassett will admit it or not he does have on his “football team” illustration unbelievers who are married to believers. Yet, he has a problem finding a position for his unbelievers to play as he really does not know for sure if the unbeliever is on the team. If the unbeliever is on the team, he has to play by the rules, but brother Bassett has no rules for the unbeliever as he/she is not subject to God’s marriage laws. So, the unbeliever may, according to Bassett’s position, play any way (and anywhere) he chooses. He may play lineman and run down the field for a pass, hold the opponent, illegally block, clip, run, out of bounds, or anything else he so pleases because he is not bound by the rules. Brother Bassett, you better give up the football illustration as it allows more than you would like to admit, or does it? Actually, Bassett wants two -sets of rules – one for the believers married to believers and one for believers married to unbelievers. But in football, both teams play only with one set of rules.

No, Warnock does not contradict Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. What brother Bassett does not see is that Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is setting forth God’s general law regarding marriage. Jesus, in his public ministry, stated this in Matthew 19:6. Our Lord had said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Then in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, the apostle makes application of the general law to three specific cases that, seemingly, the Corinthians had asked about. Jesus, in his public ministry, had not made application of the general law to specific cases like these: (1) Should the Christian man depart from the non-Christian wife who is content to dwell with him? (2) Should the Christian woman depart from the non-Christian man who is content to dwell with her? (3) What if the non-Christians’ companion leaves the Christian, not being content to dwell with him/her? In this connection, it would have been interesting if brother Bassett had told us what Jesus had said that was spoken to just believers.

I do not recall having said, and neither does brother Bassett, that a Christian should deviously marry an unbeliever so he/she could be in a better position to remarry, repeatedly. I did say, “Their view permits the deserted believer to marry an unbeliever who has divorced a dozen wives or husbands. The result of this kind of thinking has God showing more favor to Christians deserted by unbelievers than he does Christians deserted by Christians. The former can remarry as many times as he/she is deserted, but the latter cannot remarry unless the deserter is put away for fornication.”

Brother Bassett writes, “Was any Corithian so dull that Paul had to tell him he could not be forced to remain with a pagan who would not have him?” Some of the Corinthians were probably pretty dull, brother Bassett, but this is not the interpretation I placed on the passage. You build this straw man and then endeavor to tear it down. My position is that a believer is not under bondage to man, a marriage partner, to give up Christianity or compromise truth in order to save the marriage with an unbeliever (cf. 1 Cor. 7:23).

The rodeo bronc rider illustration is another misfire as it does not illustrate my position. Actually, it represents brother Bassett’s position as his position is that after the bronco rider is thrown off, he may get up, jump on another bronc and continue in the same contest.

Being unable or unwilling to answer the quotations of various denominational scholars, brother Bassett dismisses their comments by reminding us that they are uninspired humans – just like he is when he comments on 1 Corinthians 7:15. Brother Bassett likes what R.L. Whiteside (an uninspired human commentator) wrote on 1 Corinthians 7:15. In fact, he wrote, “Were I to stake my case on a commentator, I would prefer a brother reputed for piety and reverence as well as his knowledge and keen, analytical mind.” Well, let’s see how enthusiastic brother Bassett is about what brother Whiteside wrote on the following matter:

It is argued that aliens may divorce for any cause, and remarry; and then all their sins are forgiven when they obey the gospel; and it is argued that to say their sins are not forgiven is to say that they have committed the unpardonable sin. But there may be a wide difference between an unforgiven sin and an unpardonable sin. Repentance comes before forgiveness. If their marriage was a sin, can they repent of that sin and still continue it? If they were living in adultery, are we to be seriously told that obedience, or rather a form of obedience, to the gospel changed adultery into virtue? Where would such a theory lead? . . . .

It is argued also, as the alien is not in convenant relationship with the Lord, the Lord takes no notice of what he does; and that, not being under the law, he violates no law. But if that sort of reasoning is true, what makes an alien a sinner at all? (Reflections, pp. 410-411)

Do you agree with brother Whiteside concerning aliens, brother Bassett? Remember, you said you prefer a brother “reputed for piety and reverence as well as his knowledge and keen, analytical mind.” Will you take brother Whiteside on what he said about aliens?

After “running to the Greek” in his initial article (quoting Thayer, Wigram and Winter), brother Bassett criticizes me for “running to the Greek.” He compares my efforts to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, the Christian Church and the “sponsoring church” brethren. Brother Bassett, the difference between me and the preceding groups is that they cannot find their peculiar doctrine in the Greek and I can. You would have more in common with them than I do; like them, you cannot find your position, either in the Greek or in the English. Really, brother Bassett likes the Greek when it suits his purpose. He is not too fond of it in 1 Corinthians 7:15 because it does not teach his doctrine.

Concerning my response on deo and douloo, refer to my first article. In addition, notice that Thayer says of deo, “to be bound to one . . . of a wife, Ro. vii. 2; gunaiki, of a husband, 1 Co. vii. 27” (p. 131). However, Thayer, commenting on douloo, states, “to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter, 1 Cor. vii. 15 ” (p. 158). Wonder why Thayer said deo means to be bound to a wife or husband, but made no mention of wife, husband or marriage in his .remarks about douloo? Strange, isn’t it, unless douloo does not refer to marriage, which it doesn’t. Brother Bassett just assumes douloo means marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15 and tells people, far and wide, based totally on assumption, they are acceptable in the sight of God if they find themselves remarrying under such conditions. Friends, I would want something better than assumption.

Failing to quote all I said and taking a statement out of context, brother Bassett says I am wrong about the statement, “the only kind of slavery a believer has ever been under was before conversion.” Consult my first article and notice that the bondage intended was moral and spiritual slavery to men, whether in marriage, physical slavery, government or business. I specifically stated, “As a Christian, one has never been in moral and spiritual bondage to men, but is a servant or slave of the Lord Jesus Christ.” A slave of whom? The Lord Jesus Christ! By applying douloo (slavery) to the marriage bond, brother Bassett makes marriage slavery. Wonder how our wives feel about that?

For a brother not liking Greek, he uses it a lot. He makes an argument on hapto, saying of the 36 times it is used, it means sexual touching only once (1 Cor. 7:1). From this he concludes that douloo means marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15. The difference is that the lexicons specifically say that hapto means “carnal intercourse or cohabitation” (Thayer), but where does a lexicon say douloo means “marriage”? See the difference?

How brother Bassett’s quoting another sentence from Davis’ Grammar was unfortunate, I fail to grasp it. Davis states that the perfect tense is a combination of punctiliar action and durative action. Dedoulotai is perfect tense in 1 Corinthians 7:15. Therefore, it has punctiliar (completed) action and durative (linear) action. The idea would be that at conversion the Christian becomes free from bondage (completed action) and continues free (durative action) from bondage. Freedom is the present result from past action. All that Davis said on the matter in question conforms exactly to what I have said. Remember, Marshall’s Interlinear says, “has not been enslaved” (italics mine, wew), stated in plain English. Again, brother Bassett believes the perfect tense points back to the divorce. Before then, if he is correct, the Christian and non-Christian were bound (married), in slavery.

But before I conclude, I need also to ask brother Bassett if an alien comes to you wanting to be baptized 2 who has divorced and remarried 3 or 4 times without fornication being involved, and is presently married (cohabiting), will you run him/her through a rigmarole of human reasoning or will you simply speak as the oracles of God? This one will ask, “I have been married several times and have another’s spouse? ” Say, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” And having said precisely what the Bible says, be content with the thought, “Enough said!”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 470-471
August 3, 1989