Truth Magazine

By William C. Sexton

In our land today there are so many marriage problems; divorce increased 109 percent from 1962 to 1974! In each divorce there is a violation of God’s law involved. That being true, then souls are in danger. In addition to that, hearts are saddened in each and every case of divorce. Therefore, I wish to look at this subject, challenging our minds to consider the matter seriously. I hope that we may be able to better understand the subject, so that we may keep ourselves as God would have us and, then, possibly to assist others to avoid the dangers and heartache.

I am well aware of the emotional aspect of this subject and the difficulty of discussing it objectively. However, I challenge each reader to consider the concept and the consequences as objectively as possible. First, try hard to understand the idea-what is involved and the basis for it; secondly, evaluate it which can be done only after one really and accurately understands it; thirdly, think in terms of individual and congregational response to the teachings. It is not an easy subject to deal with, regardless of the position that you hold or the approach you choose. The hardness is due to these facts: (1) so many people are involved; (2) it deals with one of the most important relationships of mankind Yet these factors make it even more reasonable that we try hard to understand and act rightly.

1. God does have a law, regarding marriage. Some deny that we are under “any law” today. They proclaim loudly that we are under “grace.” They can and do point to the scriptures, which on the surface seem to support their view: “. . . for ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Other passages Gal. 2:16; Rom. 5:20-21; seem to support that idea.

However, before one accepts that proposition, I would refer him to some other passages which show that this view is not correct: “. . . (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without the law” (1 Cor. 9:21). “Bear ye one another’s burden, and fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed (Jas. 1:25). God’s grace is extended through teachings (Tit. 2:11-12; Acts 20:32). That grace that brings salvation has appeared and it teaches us to deny some things and to do others. The word of His grace is a source of strength by which we as Christians are to build. That book, which is a part of His grace, will be the standard by which we are judged (Jn. 12:48; Jas. 2:12). So, it is a “perfect” law and it gives freedom; thus it is a book or law of “liberty.” He who will reject that and continue to proclaim that we are not under law but under grace is not going to be helped by God’s grace, until and unless he has a change of heart.

God’s law on marriage consists of all He has said on the subject that is applicable today! Therefore, we need, I suggest, to gather all that He has said on the subject and then separate that which is not applicable today. For example, we see from Matt. 19:8 that some things were given because of hard hearts; likewise, in 1 Cor. 7:26 we are told that some things were for the “present distress;” thus they would not be applicable today. Passages that are to be considered as being in this law are: Gen. 2:24-25; Matt. 19:4-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:1-6. Other passages may be relevant too. But, surely these passages are adequate to convince the unprejudiced mind that we are under a “law” today. It is the law of Christ.

Some of the main points of that law then are: (1) One male and one female being joined together with God having a part in making and establishing that relationship (Matt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9). They are to leave father and mother and cleave unto one another and this is to be for life; (2) There is a three-fold purpose in marriage. Companionship is the first mentioned (Gen. 2:18). Procreation-bearing children-is a second purpose to be achieved in marriage (1 Tim. 2:15; 5:14). To prevent immorality is a third reason for marriage (1 Cor. 7:2-5). (3) Not to put away one the other in the marriage relationship is an important part of the Lord’s Law for man today (1 Cor. 7:10).

From the above we conclude that God does have a law for people today to govern and regulate men and women in this primary relationship. This relationship is the most important of all relationships which every person is a part of in our society. This relationship functions to mold and shape the character of each individual; as the family goes, so goes the society. God, being concerned about the people, their state here and now, and their eternal destiny, has given rules, laws, or regulations to assist man in his’ character-building and earthly behavior which affects his whole being both temporarily and eternally.

II. Violations can occur! Vows taken can be violated. As two people are joined together in marriage, there is an exchanging of vows. Each person promises to take and recognize the other as his lawfully wedded spouse. They promise to love, cherish, and care for each other in all kinds of circumstances. They promise to “forsake” all others and to keep themselves for each other exclusively. These promises are made before other witnesses and usually before God-that is, mention of His name is made in many cases but of course not by all. However, Christians recognize that God has a part in the marriage if it is a real marriage, even if God’s name is not mentioned. The scriptures point to the seriousness of taking a “vow” and then not keeping it (Ecc. 5:4-5; Deut. 23:21-22).

Scriptures are violated both positively and negatively when a divorce occurs! Jesus says if a man puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causes her to commit “adultery” (Mt. 5:32). He also says that if a man puts away his wife, except it be for fornication and marries another, he commits adultery and he who marries the one put away commits adultery (Matt. 19:9). In Matt. 5:32 when Jesus said that when a man puts away his wife without fornication he causes her to commit adultery, He evidently was saying that she is placed in a condition that is very likely to cause her to remarry and thus “commit” adultery. Some have tried to make the Lord say the moment that a woman is put away for no cause of her own she is guilty of adultery. That is neither reasonable nor scriptural.

Paul, expanding somewhat upon what Jesus had said, in I Cor. 7 said that neither the husband nor the wife is to “depart” (v. 10). “But,” he continued, if a departure does take platc, then “let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; . . .” (v. 11). The same principles apply to the husband, as is stated in the last clause of the verse. He, also, deals with the believer and the unbeliever’s relationship and obligations and privileges (vs. 12-16). The believer is obligated to remain in the relationship with the unbeliever if the unbeliever wishes to retain this relationship. However, each individual is to place the Lord first (Matt. 10:37-39; Lk. 14:25-33); if one cannot maintain this relationship and serve the Lord too, then he is to choose to serve the Lord. The believer is not to “depart” from his unbelieving spouse, but if the unbelieving spouse depart for this reason, then the believer is to remain faithful to God and allow the unbeliever to “depart.” If a spouse dies, the living can remarry “only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2-3).

With this information before us, I suggest that the following are violations of God’s law on marriage. (1) Pre-marital sex, which is called “fornication” in the scriptures, is a violation because marriage is the only acceptable place for sexual activity. (2) Extra-martial sex is a violation because it brings in a person other than the two that have the rightful duty and privilege to each other. (3) Post-maritial sex is condemned for the same reason stated above: God allows sexual activity only between a man and woman who are married to each other. (4) Homosexual activities are condemned; they are violations of God’s law on marriage which approves of a male and female being joined together so as to have sexual activity. All of these acts are engaged in by many in our land today, and some “religious teachers” have spoken out in favor of accepting people into the fellowship of the saints who so act.

III. Consequences of the violations: To violate these rules, any one or all of them, is to be guilty of sin which causes a soul to be lost (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 5:3-5; Heb. 13:4; Gal. 5:19-21). These passages clearly state that any of these violations is a transgression and will keep one from heaven, unless they are forgiven!

To have the forgiveness of sins, one must meet God’s requirements; His terms of salvation. If one is a child of God and violates any of these laws, he must: (1) repent of his sin; (2) he must confess that sin; (3) he must ask God .to forgive him (Acts 8:17-24; 1 Jn. 1:5-10). If one is not a child of God, to be forgiven of his sin, he must: (1) believe in Jesus Christ (Jn. 8:24); (2) repent of his sins (Acts 17:30-31); (3) confess his faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 8:36-39); (4) be baptized in water for the remission of sins, to have them washed away by the blood of Christ, to become a member of the body of Christ (Acts 2:37-41; 22:16; 1 Cor. 12:13). Unless God’s terms of salvation are complied with, a man’s sins will remain with him till the judgment. And if they are not forgiven prior to that time, they’ll cause us misery for an eternity (Rev. 22:11; 20:12-15).

Beloved, it is clear that this subject is one of eternal importance. I pray that you and I will search the scriptures and our lives to see if we are clean in the eyes of God because we have met His terms of pardon. If we have not, then we need to be persuaded to commit ourselves to His will. Having done that, then we need to go to work helping others to gain the knowledge and then the faith necessary to comply with His will. Remember that His grace has brought us the revelation of His word and His power and goodness has preserved it for us. However, we must read, understand, and apply it in our lives if we are to profit from it.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 682-684
November 3, 1977

By Keith Sharp

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thence forth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men (Matt. 5:13).

The theme of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7) is the righteousness of the kingdom of Heaven. The Master began His discourse by describing the righteous character of the citizens of that kingdom and announcing the resultant state of blessedness in the beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12). The final beatitude revealed how the world will treat the citizens of the kingdom. They will be persecuted for their very righteousness (Matt. 5:10-12). Then, in Matthew 5:13-16, the great Teacher instructed His disciples how they should in turn act toward the world. This passage reveals the relationship of the righteous citizens of the heavenly kingdom to the wicked world.

The Lord announced, “Ye are the salt of the earth.” This is a figure of speech called a “metaphor”-an implied comparison. Disciples are in some ways like salt. How are we like salt? Before the invention of refrigeration and among people who could not afford good meat, salt was even more important than it is to us. According to Barclay, the Greeks called salt “divine,” and Romans claimed, “There is nothing more useful than sun and salt.” Unknown to most people, Christians are of utmost utility to the world.

The foremost function of salt in ancient times was to preserve meat. Salt was rubbed thoroughly into the meat to prevent its spoilage. The most High has always and, through His mighty Son, yet does rule the kingdoms of men, giving them to whomsoever He will (I)an. 4:25; Rev. 19:11-15). He rules and judges in righteousness (Ps. 9:8; 97:2). The righteous lives of His saints preserve any nation. Without such preservative, God will soon destroy even our nation (cf. Gen. 18:22-32).

It is also the role of salt to flavor food. I enjoy an egg for breakfast, but, without salt, the egg is unpalatable to me (cf. Job 6:6). Christians make the world palatable to the Lord, else He would spew it out.

We are the salt “of the earth.” Salt is useless unless it is applied to food. Keeping it in the pantry accomplishes nothing. It must be within yet different from the world. We must be in, although not of, the world (Jn. 17:14-18). The child of God who retires as a recluse to the wilderness is valueless as salt. To be useful, we must associate with people of the world.

But, we must be careful lest we lose our “savor,” i.e., saltiness. Salt in Palestine was dug from the earth and was impure, being mixed with clay. If left exposed to the weather, the salt content would largely dissolve, leaving only useless clay with enough saltiness to sterilize any soil upon which it was cast. We as Christians can fall from grace, abandoning our lives of righteousness. We walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7), but we must take heed lest we lose that faith (Heb. 3:12-13).

Wherewith shall unsavory salt be salted? “Salt is a remedy for unsavory meat, but there is no remedy for unsavory salt” (Matthew Henry). When a child of God, one who is thoroughly acquainted with the Word of God, loses his faith, there is nothing to restore that faith until his attitude changes (cf. Mk. 9:50; Heb. 6:4-6), for the Word of God, which he has rejected, is the instrument for producing faith (Rom. 10:17).

Such unsavory salt “is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men” (cf. also Lk. 14:34-35). Sterile and sterilizing salty clay was worse than useless; it was a detriment. It could not be used on food, nor could it be cast on the field. It was carefully swept up and thrown on the roadway, where it could do no harm. It was thus trampled under foot. Christians who have lost their real faith, as demonstrated by sinful or indifferent lives, are the very hypocrites that people of the world use as an excuse not to be Christians. They are worse than useless. They hinder the work of the church in turning away the lost, discouraging the faithful and leading astray the immature.

Christian, what kind of salt are you? Do you help preserve and make palatable our nation to God? Or, are you yourself an unsavory hindrance to the cause of Christ? Ye are indeed the salt of the earth.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 681-682
November 3, 1977

By Lewis Willis

DALLAS (AP)-The Texas Legislature should legalize prostitution, according to the opinion of the congregation of the Richardson Unitarian Church.

Herb Croner, chairman of the church’s Social Action Committee, told newsmen Wednesday that the legislature should make provisions for legalized and controlled prostitution which would make exploitation of the profession by criminal elements impossible.

Corner said the congregation “goes on record strongly condemning the Dallas city ordinance which empowers a nonlegally trained person (police officer) to judge whether or not a person Is prostitute or a panderer.”

The Dallas City Council recently passed an ordinance to combat open prostitution in the Cedar Springs-Osk Lawn area Croner, whose seven-member committee was authorized to take the stand by a recent majority vote of the church’s 75 members, said that a section of the city could be set aside for “declared prostitutes” to practice their trade.

He added that it would be illegal for them to do business outside that area.

“Other Unitarian churches In the area mar not share out viewpoint on the issue,” Croner said.

The foregoing article appeared in the Amarillo GlobeTimes on Nov. 18, 1976. It is another remarkable manifestation of the social / spiritual climate in which we must live. With strong “religious” forces such as this, Satan need not lift a hand in bringing us to condemnation as a people. We might very likely handle his job more rapidly than he would himself. Through the years if a solid stand of conviction had been taken against sin and wickedness by religionists, Satan would have at least had a more difficult battle. Ironically, however, as religious leaders have joined his forces, he has not had to fight. Preachers, such as the one in this newspaper article, have joyfully brought entire congregations into the ranks of the Devil. They have stepped forward to be the leaders in open rebellion against God and His Will. And many are wondering if there is any point at which these people will stop!

Perhaps to understand the Unitarian Church would be somewhat enlightening. This is a fellowship where one is encouraged to develop his own individual faith. No formal statement of faith and conviction is required to enter this fellowship. You can believe in God, Christ, the Scriptures, etc., but such is not required to become a member of this denomination. The “Supreme Being, whatever you perceive Him, Her or It to be” concept is the reigning principle of Unitarianism. So, with a group of people unable to even agree on the existence of God, it should not be too surprising what they might say or do respecting simple morality. Above all, we must guard ourselves that we not embrace these watered down, humanistic, damnable views respecting those things which God has legislated.

If God has spoken on any subject, He has spoken concerning fornication, and prostitution is fornication gone to seed! He spoke of the Gentiles being filled with fornication (Rom. 1:29), and declared their condemnation. He enjoined that men flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18). He pronounced that among those works of the flesh which will prevent entrance into Heaven is the sin of fornication (Gal. 5:19ff). Among the saints, the Lord decreed that fornication should not exist (Eph. 5:3). The Christian is to put to death or mortify sins such as fornication (Col. 3:5). God said His will is that men abstain from fornication (1 Thess. 4:3). Sodom and the cities of the plain were overthrown because they gave themselves unto fornication (Jude 7). Can there be any doubt about God’s will?

There is absolutely no way to misunderstand God’s will on this subject. And, persistence in it is to defy Almighty God and live in open rebellion against Him. This is precisely what has been and is being done in regard to prostitution. Since men are insistent upon practicing such, regardless of the cost, the criminal element of society has profiteered by making such filth available. And, to and behold, instead of crying out against the sin, some silly Dallas religious committee has advanced a solution for the world. If people are going to do it, legalize it! That is a most wonderful solution. And, their liberal, broad-mindedness will be extolled by many as the zenith of wisdom. To be sure, it is “wisdom,” not of God, but of this world! And, the wisdom of this world is the curse of humanity and it always will be.

But, why not try applying this solution (?) to other acts of men. It should be obvious that men are going to steal, just as they will go to the prostitutes. So why not have the state legislature legalize stealing? And men are going to lie. Why not legalize lying? And men will murder other men. Why not legalize murder? Why didn’t the Associated Press ask the spokesman for this Unitarian committee about these other forms of vice, crime and corruption?

The Apostle Paul, by inspiration, issued a warning. We would be well advised to heed that warning in the adoption of attitudes and actions with regard to moral conduct. He wrote, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Apparently some religious organizations are deceived into thinking that civil authority can legislate God’s Law out of existence. No! They only act to place a social stamp of appproval upon sin. Actually, these religious leaders are only encouraging men to continue to defy the Living God. And, God shall not overlook this rebellion or those who lead in it!

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 680-681
November 3, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Major Contribution or Characteristic in Approach to Unity: During the period of the Renaissance Councils, neither popes nor secular rulers were the center of unity; the councils themselves claimed greater power. In various kinds of quarrels, the popes had weakened their position and created division. In the early 1400’s, three different men claimed to be the true pope at the same time. “Men looked with new hope to the great series of Councils which began with Constance” in 1414 (Rouse and Neill, p. 22).

The Conciliar theory gained credence during the Renaissance. This theory claimed that the Church as a whole had power from God to guard the truth; the Pope was merely “the executive of a power residing in all members” of the body. “The community of the faithful transferred this power to the pope,” but could take it back if he misused it. If the pope errs, the Church, “represented in a council,” can remove him and elect a new pope (Dvornik, p. 69). Thus the council, as a representative of the universal Church, was considered superior to the pope, as a representative of the Church. In short, the council was superior to the pope in stating doctrine and creating unity. The Conciliar view held sway for about a hundred years, but then the popes reasserted “their own position as the centre of unity for the Christian world” (Rouse and Neill, p. 22).

Council of Constance, 1414

Pope John XXIII called this council as a concession to the demands of Emperor-Elect Sigismund. In return, Sigismund pledged to give his allegiance to the Pope. But after the Council convened, the Pope vanished in an effort to wreck the Council; not to be outdone, Sigismund forbad the Council to dissolve! The end result was that this Council asserted the preeminent authority of councils. In the Sacrosancta decree, “the Council declared itself an ecumenical assembly with full jurisdiction given it by Christ. Therefore, all Christians, even the pope, must obey its decisions in matters of faith, of union, and of Church reform” (Dvornik, p. 72).

On another front, the Council condemned early reformers John Wyclif (English) and John Huss (Czech). Huss came to Constance with assurances of protection, but was tricked. He was turned over to “the secular arm” and burned at the stake July 6, 1415. This “provoked a new storm in Central Europe which disturbed the peace of the Church for many years to come” (Dvornik, p. 73).

Wyclif had been dead since 1384, but he managed to die of more natural causes, escaping the clutches of the “authorities” who would have liked his head. The Council continued to meet and act through 1418. In 1415, it “condemned Wyclif on 260 different counts, ordered his writings to be burned, and directed that his bones be exhumed and cast out of consecrated ground” (Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, p. 666). Not only was Wyclif hated for his writings and sending out itinerate preachers, both of which plagued the Roman Catholic Church many years after his death, but also “it was due to Wyclif and those kindled by him that the entire Bible was made available in the English of the fourteenth century” (Ibid., p. 664). At any rate, in keeping with the council’s edict and the Pope’s command, Wyclif’s slumbering remains at Lutterworth, Leicestershire, England, were dug up and burned. But this did not stop the rumblings that were to become a deafening roar in the Protestant Reformation. As Fuller put it in his Church History, the ashes of Wyclif were thrown “into Swift, a neighboring brook, running hard by. Thus this brook has conveyed his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into the narrow seas, then into the main ocean; and thus the ashes of Wyclif are the emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispersed all the world over” (cited by Charles Knight, Half-Hours With the Best Authors, p. 74).

Council of Basle (Ferrara-Florence-Rome-Lausanne), 1431-1449

The Council of Basle (also spelled Basel) was originally called by Pope Martin V under pressure from the bishops; it was continued by his successor Eugenius IV. But it broke into two factions which continued to meet off and on at separate places for several years. One group moved from Basle to Lausanne, spanning the years 1431-1449. The other group moved from Basle to Ferrara to Florence to Rome, covering the years 1431-1445.

The Council of Basle-Lausanne (1431-1449) strongly asserted the authority of councils over popes. The 1432 session claimed the synod derived “its power directly from our Lord Jesus Christ” and that all men, “not excepting the Roman Pontiff himself, are bound to obey it” (Rowe, pp. 268-269). In 1433, the Council forced Pope Eugenius to revoke his own bull dissolving the Council. Finally in 1438-39, the Council deposed Eugenius from office and a new pope was elected, though some nations recognized Eugenius until he died four years later. The Council was evicted from Basle in 1448 and moved to Lausanne; it finally ended in 1449 after Pope Felix V resigned to make way for unity around a more acceptable candidate. Several other actions of this Council include reconciliation of moderate Hussites (1433), some reform ideas, and efforts at unity with the Eastern Church.

The Council of Basle-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (14311445) represents the papal faction, as opposed to the group pressing the Conciliar theory. In 1437, the Pope tried to transfer the Council to Ferrara, “but the majority of the members revolted, refusing to obey the papal order” (Dvornik, p. 77). A minority group supporting the Pope did convene at Ferrara in 1438, and again at Florence in 1439. This Council convened in Rome for the last time, beginning in 1443. It established union with the Greek Church after agreeing on the nature of the Holy Spirit, on purgatory, the Eucharist, and above all on the primacy of Rome. Other unions were effected with certain Armenians, Copts (an Egyptian group), Syrians, and Cyprians. In 1453, the last Emperor of Constantinople died in battle with the Moslems; Constantinople became the capital of the new Ottoman Empire. A new Patriarch was appointed by Mohammed II and the unions with Rome were repudiated.

Lateran Council, 1512

Pope Julius II called this Council at the Lateran Church in Rome as a means of offsetting a synod convened by King Louis XII of France. Louis XII was extending his power in Italy, an action which the Lateran Council tried to oppose. Also, reforms were effected, but they “failed to attack the most crying abuses” (Dvornik, p. 81). That was nothing unusual. Doubtless some efforts at reform by the Church were sincere; but all too often, they were like the concessions made by the old Roman Empire to the so called barbarian hordes-simply intended to pacify a troublesome party.

Truth Magazine XXI: 43, pp. 679-680
November 3, 1977