Truth Magazine

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

By Michael R. Baggett

It has crossed my mind very often lately as to “how” we can spread, or hold forth, the Word of Life more effectively.

While visiting the library today, I noticed something that really motivated my thinking. The religious section of the bookshelves were absent of good commentaries, restoration works, or even any resemblance of writing which could help the public understand God’s Word? Are there any books that persuade men to obey its conditions which are set forth? Upon close observation, you may find, as I have found, works that “discredit” the Bible instead of encouraging belief of it! You might find a set of Baptist commentaries, a Book of Mormon, or two or three books written by Billy Graham, and not one sound work, outside of the Bible itself, on the entire shelve!

Well, am I upset over nothing? Should I be concerned? What about you? Should you be concerned? Certainly, everyone who loves the cause of the truth, will be concerned about such circumstances. I’ll say this: it should concern every Christian when libraries, hospitals, and public areas in general, are bombarded with Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and Calvinistic literature, and some poor soul may be out there searching for the truth who has never even heard of the Church of Christ! Now, don’t doubt this last statement! “I” had never “heard” of the church of Christ until I was about 21 years old! We must assume there are other precious souls who have never heard of the Church of Christ! Brethren, a poor soul, who is searching for the truth, will read any and all literature he can get his hands on; I know – I was one of them! We must assume there are honest, truth-seeking, men and women, who go in and out of these public places daily, “hungering and thirsting after righteousness.” We should be concerned enough to want to give them a “fair chance.”

Here are a few suggestions for your consideration:

1. Donate a good commentary to the library such as B.W. Johnson’s New Testament With Notes.

2. Donate good books dealing with restoration, or a good work such as The New Testament Church, by Roy Cogdill.

3. Leave lesson commentaries and magazines which deal with “first principles.” (Leave them on tables, and newspaper stands.)

4. Leave gospel tracts in libraries, hospitals, and other areas.

5. Finally, visit these areas regularly to replace tracts, and notice who is reading the donated books. Perhaps you can arrange a study.

Brethren, let’s do everything in our power to teach the gospel (Matt. 28:19,20). After all, it is our continuous duty to “hold forth the word of life” (Phil. 2:15,16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, p. 483
August 17, 1989

By Jerry F. Bassett

Brother Weldon E. Warnock, in reviewing my article “Not Under Bondage,” began by referring to “those brethren who see another cause for divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15,” then quoted James D. Bales, eventually touched on my “football coach” illustration, and closed implying that I had refused to discuss with him what God requires of divorced and remarried aliens.

I did not refuse to discuss the alien question with brother Warnock. In a letter dated 3-30-89, I asked him to look at my exchange with Ken Leach when it appears and suggested that he might be interested in doing something of the same kind in GOT. I said, “. . A would simply submit the same material with whatever modifications might be in order. As with brother Leach, I would expect you, in turn, to write an affirmation of what you believe, i.e., that aliens who have divorced for causes other than fornication and then married another person must divorce in order to be saved in Christ.” Further, I would expect equal space to respond without editorial censorship.

Brother Bales is more than adequate to answer for himself. When quoted, however, he (and Bassett) should at least be represented accurately. Neither of us holds that 1 Corinthians 7:15 provides a “cause for divorce.” To the contrary, verses 12-13 forbid the believer to divorce the unbelieving partner. Verse 15, then, does not state a cause for divorce. Instead, it declares the status of a believer who is victimized by a resentful unbeliever.

Look at brother Warnock’s notice of my “football coach” illustration. He thinks, and has me saying, all married people are on “the same team.” Notice, however, that Paul (and therefore Bassett also) distinguished between marriages consisting of two believers and those consisting of a believer and an unbeliever.

Even if Warnock was correct in asserting that both of the foregoing categories of married persons are on the same team, he would be incorrect in using either my illustration or the Scriptures to assert that different players would not be given different rules to play the same game. Football rules allow players on defense to tackle, offensive players may not. Considering the offensive team alone, receivers may run downfield on a pass play, down lineman may not. Yet, the very purpose of these distinctions is to make the game viable and fair.

Warnock contradicts Paul at 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. Paul said that what he wrote to a marriage consisting of two believers had been spoken by. the Lord. On the other hand, he claimed that what he had to say to a marriage consisting of a believer married to an unbeliever had not been spoken by the Lord. Clearly, then, what Paul wrote to believers married to unbelievers was something other than what the Lord had spoken. But Warnock, in effect, asserts that what Paul said is the same for both of these categories. If Warnock is right, Paul must have erred.

Warnock thinks God’s loosing the believer to remarry who is divorced by an unbeliever, while requiring believers divorced by a believer to remain unmarried, would be unfair “dangerous business” because it would allow the former to remarry as often as he can find an unbeliever who will divorce him. But this same thinking disparages God’s wisdom in loosing the spouse of a fornicator. One could seek morally weak partners, divorce them when they become unfaithful, and thus marry over and over. Fatuous nonsense! Who has ever heard of a Christian in either of these categories marrying for the purpose of divorcing and remarrying?

Commentators

One must remember that commentators are mere humans, and that what they say is therefore uninspired, human opinion. If their views are consistent with the Bible, their comments may be helpful, but the reverse is also true. For example, notice Neandor’s comment on Paul’s meaning at 1 Corinthians 7:15, “. . that a married Christian person cannot be forced to remain with a heathen consort. ” Warnock agrees, saying Paul “means that a Christian is not a slave to men, even a marriage partner.” But Paul was projecting a case in which the unbeliever would divorce the believer. Was any Corinthian so dull that Paul had to tell him he could not be forced to remain with a pagan who would not have 1im? This is tantamount to telling a rodeo bronc rider that he must stay in the saddle for seven seconds, but if the horse throws him off he doesn’t have to stay on!

Were I to stake my case on a commentator, I would prefer a brother reputed for his piety and reverence as well as his knowledge and keen, analytical mind. I speak of the late R.L. Whiteside. Arguing that “not under bondage” means freedom from the marriage bond, Whiteside went on to say, “Such a condition had not arisen during the personal ministry of Jesus, and there was no occasion for him to mention it. It did arise in Paul’s day, and he gave commandment covering this new development. When we get so set in our opinions that we cannot accept a plain declaration of Holy Writ, we should not complain at the denominations for doing the same thing. And we say that the apostles were the final revelators of the will of Christ, and yet we go back on this principle in dealing with 1 Cor. 7:15” (Reflections, pp. 416, 421).

Running to the Greek

If one cannot find what he teaches in any of the several very fine English translations of the New Testament now available to us, but is determined to teach it anyway, where can he go for help? Commonly, such people run to the Greek. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses turn to the Greek at John 1:1 to argue that Jesus Christ is a lower case “god.” Baptists argue that baptism cannot be essential to the remission of sins because the number and person of the verbs “repent” and “be baptized” differ at Acts 2:38. Instrumental music advocates insist their instrument is in psalmos and psallo at Ephesians 5:19. And many of us remember that the sponsoring church advocates finally “found” their organizational corruption in the Greek of Philippians 4:15. Regrettably, Brother Warnock pursues the same course. Thus, I must answer to the best of my ability. However, does anyone really think he would resort to this nit-picking of the Greek if he could find his doctrine in the English translations made available to us by the expertise of linguistic scholars? In a word, no!

Douloo and Deo

Refreshingly, Warnock acknowledges that Arndt and Gingrich say douloo (“bondage”) is used figuratively at 1 Corinthians 7:15. So do Thayer (p. 158) and Kittel (Vol. II, p. 279).

Furthermore, deo must also be used figuratively in order to refer to marriage. Its basic meaning is “to bind, tie, fasten” (Thayer, p. 131). Thayer says it applies 4 4prop. ” (literally) to the tying of an animal (Matt. 21:2) and the chaining of a prisoner (Acts 12:6). How, then, can such a word possibly refer to marriage? It has to be used figuratively! “Metaph.,” Thayer says, means “to bind, i.e., put under obligation, sc. (namely) of law, duty, etc.” and it is here that he cites Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:27,39. Thus a word which is used literally of tying animals and binding prisoners can be used to refer to marriage through a figurative application.

So can douloo. In fact, Thayer treats douloo exactly as he does deo. He says the basic meaning is “to make a slave of, to reduce to bondage” (p. 158). Applied 44prop.” (literally) it refers to literal slavery (Acts 7:6). But used “metaph.” (figuratively) it means “to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity in some matter.” This describes the legal side of marriage, and this is precisely where Thayer places 1 Corinthians 7:15. If deo can be used of marriage, so can douloo, and for the same reason. Each is used figuratively in passages which speak of nothing else but marriage.

Failing to appreciate the figurative use of douloo, Warnock states, “. . Ahe only kind of slavery that a believer has ever been under was before conversion.” This is absolutely false. Christians must be slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6:18). Paul enslaved himself to those to whom he preached (1 Cor. 9:19).

Some object to the idea Paul would use douloo only once (out of eight uses in the N.T.) to mean marriage while using deo three times (out of forty-four uses in the N.T.). Well, of the thirty-six times hapto is used in the N.T., it means sexual touching only once (1 Cor. 7:1). But spoken by the Lord, once is enough to establish meaning.

The Perfect Tense

Dedoulotai, (“not under bondage” [NUB] at 1 Cor. 7:15) is the perfect indicative of douloo. Warnock says “. – it would not permit it (i.e., “is not under bondage,” or “is NUB”) to mean the marriage bond.” He quotes Monroe Tharp who says, “The brother or sister has not been enslaved and is still not enslaved.” He thinks “is NUB” should be translated “has not been enslaved” despite the fact that he cannot cite even one major English version which so translates it. Then he turns to Davis’ grammar. Unfortunately, Warnock stopped reading Davis one paragraph too soon. Davis wrote, “The perfect tense as tense is timeless. But in the indicative the time element is present. The perfect indicative generally expresses the present result of a past action. It then has to do with the past and the present” (Sect. 368, p. 152, emphasis supplied). For example, if a man dies, his wife is loosed (Rom. 7:2). The woman’s loosed state is the present result. The past action producing this result is her husband’s death.

So also at 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul said, “. . a brother or a sister is not under bondage (the present result) in such cases.” What case did Paul refer to which constitutes the past action producing this result? Listen to him, “But if the unbeliever departs. . . . ” Warnock apparently agrees that this departure is divorce. Paul is saying, then, that the believer is not under bondage as a result of being divorced by the unbeliever. He cannot, therefore, refer to anything other than the marriage bond.

Brother Warnock, if you ever do baptize someone whose spouse therefore threatens divorce action, what will you do? Will you run him/her through the foregoing commentators and Greek acrobatics? Or will you simply speak as the oracles of God? This one will ask, “What if my spouse divorces me?” Say, “. . . a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” This one will ask further, “Would I then be free to remarry?” Say, ” . . . a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. ” And having said precisely what the Bible says, be content with the thought, “Enough said!”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 468-469
August 3, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Sir William S. Gilbert said, “I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can’t help it. I was born sneering.”

Indeed, if man is but a compound complex combination of mutant molecules, merely a quivering mass of protein and protoplasm bound and skewered to a skeleton of bones, why should he not sneer and jeer rather than fear God? The question awaits an answer. Fellow organic blobs, the echoes of silence are deafening.

A master musician of yesteryear said, “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14). The reverse and converse is, ” I will praise no one or nothing; for I am simply an accident of eons, a tragedy of chance.” Man observes his fortuitous surroundings and proudly proclaims himself lord of an evolutionary time chain. He crowns himself with glory and honor because he reckons that he is more noble than a pig in a sty. Says who? Certainly not the pig. He would not desert the comfort of mud for a professor’s hopeless existence. And pity the poor professor. He cannot enjoy the mud from whence he came. Ali, but unbelief has its rewards. He can savor the pig from he whom descended.

Does an unbeliever ever question his humanistic, atheistic philosophy? Does he ever, in the solitude of a cold, dark night, ponder his origin, mission and destiny? Does he ever silently wonder if there is a God? Does he ever ask, in the silent recesses of his denied and banished soul, if there is a Supreme Being who created him and his environment? Does he ever dream of whether or not there is a slight chance of life beyond the grave? Does he ever dare to risk the thought that there may be a day of Judgment which will hold him accountable for his deeds? Does he ever waver and doubt his philosophic presuppositions regarding his origin, nature and purpose? Does he ever wish to believe and hope for something besides death and the grave? Does he ever long for something besides becoming food for worms? Does he even think that just maybe. . . . Nah, he assures us with a shrug of the shoulders, he never considers such things. But, then again, neither does the pig.

Evolution of a Preacher’s Pride

Abraham Lincoln said, “I am nothing. Truth is everything”

Many men, many Christians, begin with that assumption. They enjoy a measure of success because truth will buoy its bearers. They develop a feeling, an air of importance and significance, that should be reserved for truth. Their ultimate decline is a downward spiral of personal pride. From the humble spirit manifest in Lincoln’s words, “I am nothing. Truth is everything,” the descending steps and stages of pride are:

“I am almost nothing. Truth is everything.”

“I am a little something. Truth is almost everything.”

“I am something. Truth is something.”

“I am something. Truth is relative but important.”

“I am something. Truth is relative.”

“I am everything. Truth is not obtainable.”

“I am truth.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, p. 487
August 17, 1989