Abortion: Fleshly and Spiritual

By P. J. Casebolt

In recent years, abortion has become the center of much controversy, both religiously and politically. The very fact that the extent of this controversy is of recent origin should indicate that some are being influenced by popular custom rather than by moral principles.

Much of the abortion dispute centers around the time when abortion is performed and when life really begins from a medical or a spiritual standpoint. Personally, I believe that we can arrive at morally defensible positions on this important subject without turning the pulpit into a demonstration that would be more appropriate in a medical college laboratory, and without allowing the advocates of abortion to draw the battle lines from a purely scientific standpoint.

When we believe that God is the giver of life, and that man has a God-given spirit which activates the “also flesh” part of man (Gen. 6:3), then we need to let our Creator define the principles upon which we decide our earthly and eternal destinies. Maybe it will help us to look at the subject of abortion from both a fleshly and a spiritual standpoint. And I believe that man is in no position to separate the fleshly from the spiritual. Further, some common-sense questions and answers may help to clear the atmosphere around this subject which has been clouded by demonstrations centering around abortion clinics.

Even the sensitive matter of deciding between the life of the mother vs. the life of the child constitutes a very small percentage of the questions which arise from the abortion debate. But similar decisions must be made every day. In emergency care manuals, there is a chapter on “Triage,” which simply means a sorting out priorities which must be set in any life-threatening situation. In both the time of birth and the time of death, decisions must be made by families and by the medical profession, and it is difficult to make such decisions.

Rachel died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16-20), as did the wife of Phinehas (1 Sam. 4:19-22). Maybe with modern medical facilities, both the mothers and children could have been saved. I don’t know. Neither do I profess to know or dictate what should be done in similar situations today. But there are some things we can know, and it is with those things that we are more concerned.

Cyrus, the Persian king, was chosen and named by God some 100 years before he was born (Isa. 44:28; 45:1-4), and in the first year of that king’s reign, he began to fulfill the mission which God had planned for him (2 Chron. 36:22, 23). To Jeremiah, the Lord said, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 2:5).

God told Zacharias and Elisabeth that they would have a son, that his name would be John, “and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:13-15). At about the same time, Mary was told, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus” (Luke 1:31).

Similar examples from the Scriptures could be cited, but these are sufficient for us to ask some questions and reach some conclusions. Do you think that the mothers of Cyrus, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus should have considered an abortion, when God “knew” them even before they were conceived or born, and had their missions in life planned? It may be said that God revealed sufficient information to the mothers of John and Jesus that an abortion clinic was not an option, but nothing is said about the mothers of Cyrus and Jeremiah having such information.

How can prospective mothers today know what is in store for their unborn children? Where would the champions of abortion be if their mothers had decided to visit an abortion clinic? Sure, these may be hypothetical questions, but they should remind us that God is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9), the Giver of life, and that when in doubt as to the scientific or medical protocols of birth and life, we need to give at least equal consideration to what God’s will may be in the matter. If all women were to embrace the philosophy of abortion, the population of the world would not only decrease, but it would cease. And why should some women continue to accept the responsibilities of marriage and childbearing while the rest pursue a selfish course and in many cases simply satisfy the lust of fornication?

Let us consider the matter of figurative, or spiritual abortion, for many religious people become guilty of this practice, while voicing their opposition to fleshly abortion.

God had plans for fleshly Zion, as well as for spiritual Zion, and the two ideas are inseparably related. “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God” (Isa. 66:7-9). According to the premillenialist, God had plans to set up his kingdom, but he aborted those plans when the Jewish nation rejected their Messiah. God had said 700 years before Christ came that he would be rejected (Isa. 53:3), and some 300 years before Isaiah’s time, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (Ps. 2:6). And this was to be accomplished in spite  of the fact that kings and rulers would “set themselves . . . against his anointed” (Ps. 2:2; Acts 4:25-30). No, God did not allow some premillennial abortion clinic to abort his plans concerning the kingdom.

There are other religious people who oppose fleshly abortion, but set up their abortion clinics in an effort to keep people from being born into the family of God. As the Jews tried to hinder the establishment of Christ’s kingdom and those who would enter that kingdom (Matt. 11:12), “Elymas the sorcerer . . . withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith” (Acts 13:8). I have seen people who would not be born into the kingdom themselves, and who would also discourage others from being “born of water and of the Spirit” that they might enter the kingdom (cf. Matt. 23:13; John 3:5). As Nicodemus could not discern between a physical and a spiritual birth, so are some today unable to discern between a fleshly abortion and a spiritual abortion.

We are born into the family of God by the incorruptible seed of God’s word (1 Pet. 1:23), and that word tells us that we become children of God through faith and baptism (Gal. 3:26, 27). As the Lord hates “putting away” (Mal. 2:16), so does God hate abortion, whether it be fleshly or spiritual.

The Religion of Freemasonry

By Jarrod Jacobs

The religion of Masonry dates itself back to the time of Solomon. It is said that a man named Hiram Abiff (the widow’s son and architect of the Temple) was attacked by three of his fellow-workers (Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum) during construction of the Temple. These three men met Hiram after he had worshiped in the Temple, and one after another accosted and beat him because he refused to give them the Master Masons’ word, or secrets of the Master Mason, which would allow them to receive wages as a Master Mason in other countries after the Temple was built. At Hiram Abiff ’s refusal to tell any of the three the words, he was subsequently killed. A short time later, these three men were discovered as the murderers of Hiram Abiff and they were executed tor their crime.

Thus, begins the religion of Freemasonry. Hiram Abiff is put on an equal plane with Jesus Christ. Masons consider Hiram Abiff to be their redeemer. Please read the following (emphasis mine, JJ): “All antiquity solved the enigma of the existence of evil by supposing the existence of a Principle of Evil, of demons, fallen angels, an Ahriman, a Typhon, a Sivi, A Loki, or a Satan, that, first falling them- selves, and plunged into misery and darkness, tempted man to his fall and brought sin into the world. All believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state of successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer by whom the Evil Principal was to be overcome and Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. The belief was general that He was to be born of a virgin and suffer a painful death. The Hindus called him Krishma; the Chinese, Kiountse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhouvanai; the Egyptians, Horus; Plato, Love; the Scandinavians, Balder; the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram” (Kentucky Monitor xiv, iv).

Yes, dear readers, Masonry is a (false) religious organization, just like the Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Methodists, etc. In Albert Pike’s book, Morals and Dogma, Pike makes it clear that Masonry is a religion, and those who say otherwise, including those in the “Blue Lodge” (first three degrees of Masonry) are “intentionally misled by false interpretations. . . . deceived.” Pike says, “it is well enough for the mass of those called Masons to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees” (Morals and Dogma 819). From the pen of Mr. Pike, himself, we learn that people are deceived, and merely imagine that all is contained in the first three degrees of Masonry, You see, the “truth” has been reserved for the higher-ups in Masonry! Pike again says (emphasis mine, JJ), “Masonry, like all other religions, . . . conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts (skilled person, expert, JJ) and Sages (profoundly wise men, JJ), or the Elect (person or pawns worthy to be chosen, JJ), and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it or would pervert it” (Morals and Dogma 104-105). Not only is Masonry a religion, but they use tactics to fool and mislead those they consider “unworthy.” No wonder there are so many confused as to what Masonry is all about!

Further Proof That Masonry Is Considered to Be A Religious Institution

1.The Master’s Lodge represents“Sanctum Sanctorum,” the holy of holies in Solomon’s temple.

2. Such men as Albert Mackay and Albert Pike have said in no uncertain terms that Masonry is a religion. They have said that it is a religious institution in which the Lodge is used for “sacred and religious purposes.” Albert Mackey said that Freemasonry “will produce an active religious faith and lead in the end to a building not made with hands, eternal in the heaven.”

3. They teach that Masonry produces religious faith.

4. Masons have their own “worship” during their meetings. This includes: prayer and ceremonial songs such as: “Lord of all! below-above — Fill our hearts with truth and love, When dissolves this earthly tie, Take us to Thy lodge on high.” Another song they sing is, “Hail, Masonry divine, Glory of ages shine; Long may’st thou reign! Where’er thy lodges stand, May they have great command, And always grace the land, Thou art divine.”

5. Masonry teaches its own “new birth.” It teaches that salvation is in the Lodge, and that it gives light. Masons teach that a person outside the Lodge is in darkness, help- less, and ignorant. In fact in the first degree of Masonry, a potential candidate must stand outside the doors, and declare he is “in search of light.”

Yes, Masonry is a religion, and anyone claiming to be a Christian could not be a Mason any more than they could be a Christian and a Baptist at the same time.

Hiram Abiff

A man named “Hiram” is mentioned in the Bible in connection with the building of Solomon’s temple. This is found in 1 Kings 7:13-40 and 2 Chronicles 2:14-15. He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, his father being of Tyre. However, this man was one “skillful to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, timber, purple, blue, fine linen, crimson . . . to grave any manner of graving” (2 Chron. 2:14). He was also responsible for building the Temple pillars, Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21). He was a “cunning man” but the Bible says nothing about his being an architect on the Temple! Nor does the Bible give us his last name! Interestingly enough Hiram is not mentioned outside of these verses, and he most assuredly takes a back seat to Jesus Christ in the Bible! Yet the Masons want to hold up this man Hiram as something great, as their Redeemer! Why?

The Contradictions and Conflicts Between Christ and Masonry

The following reasons will make clear why a Christian cannot be a Mason:

1. Masonry claims the status of “religious institution,” therefore, it conflicts with the Bible when it says there is “one body” (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4; Col. 1:18, 24). Along this same line, we see that if Christ is the head of his one body, the church, then who is the head of the Masons?

2. In a related point, the Masons teach that the Lodge is a better institution than the church! They say, “No institution was ever raised upon a better principle or more solid foundation; nor were ever more excellent rules and useful maxims laid down” (Kentucky Monitor 53-34). Can anyone else see a problem here? The Bible says that the church was founded upon Christ (1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:6-8). According to them, their lodge has a “more solid foundation” than that! The Bible says that the church follows the “perfect law of liberty,” the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9; Jas. 1:25). The Masons say that the Lodge has “more excellent rules” than the Bible! Who can believe it? What true Christian would say, or believe such a thing?

3. The Masons claim their redeemer is Hiram Abiff. The Bible says our redeemer is Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19; Luke 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15). When a Christian becomes a Mason, does he now have two redeemers? No! He has a choice

to make, Christ or Hiram (Matt. 6:24).

4. Masonry practices “unity-in doctrinal-diversity” to the greatest degree. They speak of “one common altar of Masonry on which the Veda, Shastras (sacred books of Hinduism, JJ), Sade, Zend-Avesta (religious books of Iran and India, JJ), Koran (Muslim), and Bible shall lie untouched by sacrilegious hands, and at whose shrine the Hindoo, the Persian, the Assyrian, the Chaldean, the Egyptian, the Chinese, the Mohammedan, the Jew, and the Christian may kneel with one united voice celebrate the praises of the Supreme Architect of the Universe” (Kentucky Monitor 95). The Bible teaches that a Christian must “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them” (Eph. 5:11). A Mason cannot obey this verse. The Bible teaches that true unity comes when we all submit to the same standard, being of “one mind” and “striving together” (Phil. 1:27; 2:2). This cannot happen when all those various books are on the “same altar” of Masonry! The Bible says that Christians are not to have fellowship with those who do not live by and teach the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11). How could a Christian consider a Mason a “brother” in a religious sense when they are their own religious body, doing their own things? Jesus said those he considers “brothers” are those who do his will (Matt. 12:48-50). Are we doing his will when we endorse Masonry and its various teachings? Of course, not!

Conclusion

Why any Christian would want to be a Mason is beyond me. If one claims to be a Mason and a Christian “at the same time,” why not claim to be a Christian and a Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, or Jew, “at the same time”? It does not work! Freemasonry has no part in the life of a Christian. It is sinful.

Have Sinned . . . And Repented Not

By Dan King Sr.

Sin is principally an offence against the nature of our Holy God. It does denigrate the human spirit and diminish one’s estimation of himself, but that is not the point of forgiveness. Sin insults the holiness of God.

We cannot assume that the forgiveness of our sins is immediate and automatic, just because we enjoy a relationship with Jesus Christ. Many people today behave as if this were so. It is worthwhile therefore, to examine this important question.

Forgiveness for the alien sinner results from compliance with the will of God: (1) Faith in Christ (Acts 15:9 “cleansing their hearts by faith”); (2) Repentance regarding past sins committed (Acts 2:37, 38 “What must we do? Repent . . .”); (3) Confession of faith in Christ (Rom. 10:9, 10 “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”); and, (4) Baptism into Christ for remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). The consistency of all biblical examples of response to the gospel of Christ gives us the definite impression that there is a pattern for acceptance of the grace of God by the alien sinner. When those requirements are met by the submissive penitent, then God grants forgiveness of sins. This is what is sometimes referred to by Bible students as the “first law of pardon.”

In similar fashion, forgiveness of sin for the Christian results from compliance with the will of God for him or her: (1) Repent of the particular wickedness committed (Acts 8:22 “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness . . .”); (2) Prayer for forgiveness (Acts 8:22 “and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee . . .”). This passage assumes that there exists a pattern delivered to us by the apostles for access into the forgiveness of sin for the child of God also. Some Bible students have called it a “second law of pardon.”

Consistent with this pattern is John’s discussion of “walking in the light” and the momentary failures which may occur in our lives: “If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:6-9). This passage demands that we confess our sins, and so put them behind us. Making a clean break with sin is most important to the process, for otherwise we have not met the terms of pardon set by God in his word.

I believe that it is this situation which is described by Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians, when he wrote:

For I fear, lest by any means, when I come, I should find you not such as I would, and should myself be found of you such as ye would not; lest by any means there should be strife, jealousy, wraths, factions, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults; lest again when I come my God should humble me before you, and I should mourn for many of them that have sinned heretofore, and repented not of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they committed (12:20-21).

Evidently these church members were guilty of sin which they had “swept under the rug,” feeling that be- cause they had ceased committing the wrongs, they were therefore forgiven by God. Paul’s stern rebuke is clear evidence that one cannot merely “forgive himself ” by such personal fiat. This is the same thing as “pronouncing oneself forgiven!” More is assuredly required.

Behavior of this kind assumes that sin is against one’s own self, whereas the Bible says sin is against God. Sin is principally an offence against the nature of our Holy God. It does denigrate the human spirit and diminish one’s estimation of himself, but that is not the point of forgiveness. Sin insults the holiness of God: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And done that which is evil in thy sight; That thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, And be clear when thou judgest” (Ps. 51:4).

It also assumes that forgiveness takes place in one’s own mind, whereas the Bible says forgiveness takes place in the mind of God. David begs for God’s pardon, recognizing that he (God) is the offended party, and so, the one who must forgive: “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, That the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, And blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me” (Ps. 51:7-10).

Recently a major tax case was settled with the Internal Revenue Service by a country music star. He owed mil- lions to the IRS, and the Tax Service eventually settled for significantly less than was actually owed. He was forgiven of a rather large sum of money owed to the government in the form of taxes, interest, and fines. Note, please, that this forgiveness could never have been granted to him by his own “blotting it from his mind” or simply “forgetting about it.” The terms of repayment and forgiveness were set by the IRS. He met the conditions and was absolved from payment of the remainder. God does the pardoning, and sets the conditions of our pardon, just as the IRS did for him!

Finally, it assumes that we may set our own pattern of pardon, whereas the Bible teaches that God sets the terms of pardon and has left us a pattern for receiving forgiveness in Scripture. As Paul put it in rebuke of the Corinthians for setting their own standards of right, “What, came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?” (1 Cor. 14:36). We must follow the divine patterns: “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Sin must be renounced and repented of to be for- given. We ought not to want any unpleasant surprises at the final judgment. Jesus says there will be some (Matt. 7:21ff ). Make a clean break with any sinful practice in your life now by repenting and confessing it to God if it is of a private nature, and to God and your Christian friends if it is publicly known. Do not make a small matter of it by simply considering it a part of the past, though, for the stakes are far too high! When God blots it out of his book of remembrance, then and only then, may we dismiss it from our minds, forget about it, and go on with our lives.

A Prospective Preacher’s Credentials

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Olen Holderby, a faithful evangelist in Alameda, California, gave me a copy of a guideline for selecting a preacher which had been drawn up for use in a local church. Brother Holderby withheld the identity of the church involved. It is not germane to our purpose, so we shall pass it along and make a few observations.

Things of Interest in a Prospective Preacher for the Church In . . .

1. Member of the Lord’s Church
2. Good References

3. Resume Should Be Provided

4. Good Pulpit Speaker

A. Simple Speaker

B. Capable in Presentation

C. Comfortable

D. Shows Good Preparation

E. Know the Truth and Presents it Well

F. Energetic

5. Interested in Beginning Cottage Classes

A. In Addition Has Demonstrated Himself as a Capable Teacher

6. Good Reputation

7. Has a Sincere and Strong Desire to Serve the Lord

8. Has Experience in Young People’s Classes

A. As a Teacher

B. Some Suggested Subject Matter

9. Has a Good Outlook on the Following Items:

A. Visiting Those Who Have Fallen Away

B. The Potentials for this Congregation

C. Working with the Group Here In . . .

D. Has a Desire for the Work In . . .

10. Is Ready to Work with the Group (as the group should be ready to work with him and his family)

11. Has a Desire to Teach the Word of God by Scriptures and Not By Man Made Design

12. An Individual Who Does Not Feel as Though Divorce and Remarriage Is a Platform for the Lord’s Church

13. One Who Loves the Lord and Does His Will

14. In General, a Man Around the Age of 45-50 Years

Observations And Reflections

First, since divorce and remarriage are not to be considered as “A Platform for the Lord’s Church,” it will help us to know what a “platform” is. Webster says it is “a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons . . . stands.” If the preacher should not feel that marriage and divorce is one of “the principles on which” the church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” stands, should the elders, deacons, and brethren “feel” the same? If gospel preachers can “feel” Matthew 5:32; 19:9 are not part of the principled platform and pattern of the truth on divorce and remarriage, how do we deny the Baptist preacher the right to “feel that baptism is not part of the platform for salvation” (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16)? I thought we were to walk by faith, not by feeling (2 Cor. 5:7).

Second, if one should critically comment on the guide- lines above, would he be violating that local church’s autonomy? If “yes,” must he remain mute and not question item number “12”? If “no,” how do we qualify an issue to see whether or not criticizing it will result in a violation of a church’s autonomy — music in worship, premillennialism, institutionalism?

Third, if an “Individual . . . Does Not Feel as Though Divorce And Remarriage Is a Platform For The Lord’s Church,” may he also feel the same about homosexual marriages and polygamy? If he “Does Not Feel as Though (Homosexuality And Polygamy Are . . .) Platform(s) For The Lord’s Church,” should he be regarded as a “prospective preacher”? If not, why the one and not the other?

Too, along this same line, what shall we say about social drinking, dancing, immodest apparel, gambling, “and such like”? Is “An Individual Who Does Not Feel as Though Opposition to Social Drinking Is a Platform For The Lord’s Church” a prospective preacher?

Fourth, just how does one who “Knows the Truth and Presents it Well” (qualification # 4E) avoid the truth and application of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9? If one “knows the truth”; namely, that “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery,” shall he be permitted to “present it well,” or not at all?

If a couple in an unscriptural marriage (as per Matt. 5:32 and 19:9) should present themselves for membership in that local church, would their petition be a “platform” for reception or rejection? Would the preacher who “Knows the Truth and Presents it Well” be allowed to do so? (What if a well-known preacher who endorses the marriage of the couple living in adultery were preaching that morning? Could the brethren accept their widely known brother but reject the couple who practices what he preaches?)

Fifth, how do we “square” items number eleven and thirteen with item number 12? Surely, “One Who Loves the Lord and Does His Will,” and who will “Teach the Word of God by Scriptures and Not by Man Made Design,” will insist on applying the Lord’s teaching to those who are living in marriages contrary to it.

Sixth, if a brother in that local church puts away his wife and marries another without the cause of fornication, should the preacher “Feel as Though (That Man’s) Divorce and Remarriage Is a Platform for the Lord’s Church”? Or, shall that man be allowed to divorce his wife without the cause of fornication, marry another, and still be received? When (and for whom) is divorce and remarriage a “plat- form” and when is it not? Perhaps those responsible for the standards above will favor us with an answer.

Worse yet, what if a “prospective preacher” comes for a “try out” and what if he fits their bill of particulars in every area, and, then, as they are about to offer him the work, he says, “Brethren, now that we agree that ‘divorce and remarriage is not a platform for the Lord’s church,’ let me tell you that my present wife is my second one. I put away my first wife because we just could not get along. I’m sorry for that, but now I’m happily married, and I’m glad this second marriage is not going to be a problem with you brethren.” What then? Does divorce and remarriage suddenly become a platform? Or is it only a “platform” for accepting a preacher but not a “regular” member?

Seventh, the “prospective preacher” must be one who visits “Those Who Have Fallen Away” (# 9A). Have those who have divorced and remarried without the cause of fornication “fallen away”? If a single, young brother marries a lady who has been put away, has he “fallen away,” since “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9b)? If so, does divorce and remarriage then become a “platform for the Lord’s church”? If so, what if the preacher who was employed because he did not consider divorce and remarriage a “platform for the Lord’s church,” refuses to treat it as such in the case of the young man cited above? What if the preacher does not view the young man as having fallen away while the rest of the church does? Can divorce and remarriage suddenly become a platform for the brethren but not the preacher?

Eighth, item number five says, “Interested in Beginning Cottage Classes.” Suppose the preacher “Who Does Not Feel as Though Divorce and Remarriage Is a Platform for the Lord’s Church” begins a “cottage class” with a couple and teaches them the truth. After much study, they ex- press a desire to become Christians. As they prepare to be baptized, they inform the preacher that they have both been unscripturally married and divorced and that this has kept a Baptist church from accepting them, and they wonder if it will be a problem “in the Church of Christ.” What, then?

This very thing has happened to me. I have taught folks who were interested in becoming Christians and who, suddenly, spoke about other churches refusing them over their “marriage situation.” Tell us, ye who say that marriage and divorce should not be a platform for the Lord’s church, what shall we say to such a couple? Do we baptize and accept them without repentance and allow them to continue living in adultery? What should the preacher do? If he refuses to baptize them until they repent and cease living in adultery, has he made “divorce and remarriage . . . a platform for the Lord’s church”? These are real predicaments of sin. They cannot be shrugged off by refusing to face the issue and by dismissing it as a matter that should not be a “platform for the Lord’s church.”

Ninth, will someone explain to me the difference between placing divorce and remarriage in Romans 14 and the acceptance of the stipulation of qualification number 12? Just tell me how that item 12 is wrong but that placing the issue in Romans 14 and accepting the same people in adulterous marriages is right.

Finally, how many things can you insert in item number 12 above? How about baptism? Max Lucado would insert it into number 12. What of mechanical instruments of music in worship? Rubel Shelly would place it in number 12. Like unto baptism, music, and divorce and remarriage, what else could be placed in item number 12? How many things shall we refuse as “a platform for the Lord’s church”? No matter how broad is your list, the next generation will expand it — “they will increase unto more ungodliness” and “evil men and seducers shall wax.