Truth Magazine

By Donald P Ames

Morals here in America have declined at an increasingly rapid pace during recent years, and little evidence is available to show any reason for optimism that such is going to slow down. Movies have become more and more vulgar, with emphasis on sex purely for the sake of a sex scene. Books continue to sink lower and lower in the mire, and now it has even become so commonplace, the President’s wife feels safe speaking out in favor of sexual experimentation outside of marriage, and calculates it will gain her more favor than disfavor, commenting that society has moved forward far enough “we ought to become more tolerant in our views” of such.

But while morality has continued to decline, God’s standards have not! The Word of God has not relaxed its position regarding the fact such is not to be tolerated (Heb. 13:4), and that those who practice such things shall not enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6-9-10, Gal. 5:19-21). In view of such, we need to speak forth plainly and strongly that society may learn the dangers it is rushing headlong into.

The problem is growing, and pretending it does not exist is certainly no way to confront it. But how fast is it growing? According to a recent AP release in the Gary Post-Tribune, October 25, 1975, the problem is growing by leaps and bounds, and affecting younger and younger people every year. Dr. Gerry Oliva, medical director of the Planned Parent Federation, reports they are now receiving requests for birth control pills, etc. from children as young as 9 years old! “Agency counselors throughout the country are totally overwhelmed by these kids,” she said. Reporting on California alone, she noted the birth rate in girls 12 years old has jumped from 18 in 1966 to 32 in 1974-nearly a 100 per cent increase.

In Rockville, Maryland, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Health Statistics (a bureau of the Dept. of HEW) reports that of the 3,136,965 births in the U.S. in 1973, there were 12,861 births to girls under 15 years of age. Of that total, 11,412 were first births, 276 were second births, 15 were third births, and 8 were fourth births! There were also 1,150 births for which the center did not know the birth order.

Certainly this points to a growing trend that is alarming. It shows a lack of concern on parents’ part, and a rapidly loosing of morals on the young peoples’ part. It also reveals a great need for more lessons on pre-marital sex and situations that lead to such, as well as refutation of the “new morality.” It shows a need for lessons directed to those involved-both young and parents! We also need to emphasize that getting married “to cover up” such is not making it any more pleasing in God’s eyes, nor can such be justified on the basis “I had to be popular.” Sin is sin, and needs to be exposed as sin-not “great sins” and “little sins,” but just plain sin.

But to add to the problem, the National Organization for Women (NOW) has finally decided to show their true colors, and join efforts with those seeking to justify homosexuals and lesbians. Strong promoters for the falsely so-called “Equal Rights Amendment,” they have frequently been accused of this goal from the start, only to claim we did not truly represent them. But in a recent four-day conference in Philadelphia, the members of NOW gave their organization a “mandate” to work for lesbians’ rights. “Another successful resolution increased funding of NOW’s Task Force on Sexuality and Lesbianism, and for the first time the organization spoke out in support of homosexual rights” (Gary PostTribune, October 28, 1975; emp. mine-DPA).

Dismissing the opposition as minor “philosophical” differences, “Ms. Decrew” (liberal president of NOW) said such differences “would be eased by moving on with planned programs.” And what does that include? She went on, “Our proposals have opened the way for new women to join the organization who might have felt uncomfortable before-poor women, gay women, minority women” (emp. mine-DPA). Of course nothing was said of those who might be “uncomfortable” to stay in an organization seeking to justify and support these lesbians. No wonder the differences would “be eased”-if they did not like the “packing the conference” with lesbians and homosexuals, they could get out! (Of course that has been the ultimate conclusion they have been after all along, and the results of their goal to get the ERA passed).

Certainly this action, combined with the favorable news coverage being given homosexuals and other “gay” people of today is not going to make our task any easier. We are going to have to begin to speak out and to be heard. America is fast going down the road of moral decay and will become the same kind of stench in the Lord’s nostrils the Jews were when God said, “Were they ashamed because of the abominations they have done? They were not even ashamed at all; They did not even know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time that I punish them, They shall be cast down” (Jer. 6:15).

America needs to wake up! But even more important, we as Christians need to also wake up and lift up our voices against such before the tide becomes so strong it can no longer be swept back. Sex is good and acceptable where God put it-in the marriage relationship! But misuses and perversions of it as practiced by many today is not what God planned, and will result in the fall of this nation and souls lost in eternal damnation. And the latter should be of concern to us all!

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 11
January 15, 1976

By H.L. Bruce

The fact that God has taught on a theme should arrest our will and propensities to a complete deference to His teachings. His truth is exceedingly important! Our will is so insignificant! His truth’s majestic! Our propensities mundane! We. are wholly inadequate to direct, design and pursue the way of life of our own merit. Jeremiah expressed it this way, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Isaiah told Israel, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9).

In Israel, men were not authorities. They were not qualified to be. They were inadequate. Their need for Divine guidance was more than evident. Their tendency to stray was ever present. In evidence of this we read, “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doeth not know, my people doeth not consider” (Isa. 1:3).

The limitations of men in the field of authoritative adequacy are pretty well unvaried. If men of our time had the ability to chart their own course through life and into the life beyond, then the death of Christ and the giving of his will was unnecessary.

It is necessary for all of us to prostrate our will before the Divine throne in acceptance of the judgments which God gave through His sinless Son before we can ever be acceptable in heaven’s sight. We must be brought low and realize our ineptness before God, and lay the accommodations of our own will along with the servitude to all human passion on the altar that we may perceive the avenues of Divine justice in God’s restrictions and expressed favors toward men.

The apostle Peter exhorted, “Humble yourselves, therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:6). The truth as revealed in the will of God, should be the course of our objectives at all times. It is by the truth that the soul is purified (1 Pet. 1:22), that men are made free (Jno. 8:32), in which we are to walk (3 Jno. 3); and by which we will ultimately be judged (Jno. 12:48). God’s word is truth Ono. 17:17). In view of this the teachings of the scripture on any subject, and upon all doctrines taught, should arrest our most careful and submissive thought.

Today we need to take time to become informed, and to inform others, or, else suffer the results of the consequence of Divine displeasure. In many areas of neglected warnings and study, God’s people have suffered irreversible consequences. Popularity, pride, prestige and acceptance among men, of every sort, is at times best served through the avoidance of controversial material. Such unholy objectives can but passively occupy the mind of the one who is a defender of the truth and a contender for the faith. We cannot allow our personal likes, dislikes or the disposition to please men to subdue our need to subject our will to the will of God’s designated Potentate. The apostle Paul expressed his attitude and need in these words, “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Therefore, all dispositions to please self, friend, foe, relative or brother must be removed from the will of him who profits from deep drinking of God’s eternal truth. Every man should be influenced to thus subdue self.

The moral code revealed by inspiration, in God’s volume constrains our will to the specifications there in contained. The one who follows the works of the flesh, . . . shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:1921). One of the accomplishments of God’s grace is that we, through it, are urged to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world (see Titus 2:11-12).

It is obviously proper for concern to be expressed with regard to any subject upon which God has taught. The subject of divorce is within this scope. It should be our desire to exercise all actions and do all instructions only in accord with what God has expressed in his revealed will for us. We should never allow our emotions, sympathies or practices to take the lead in the formulation of views and expression of thought.

There are some dangers that we would all do well to by pass: (1) We could merely give detatched advice in vague generalities which could but faintly be interpreted as either corrective or instructive in nature. (2) Laws could also be made which bind beyond Divine restriction. (3) Looseness can be expressed and encouraged which give liberties beyond authorized proclamation.

We need to be explicit and neither make nor break laws. The weighty and momentous question is, “What is God’s Law?” God has revealed it to us through His Word. But we must study, search and investigate it that we may understand and apply the instruction contained therein. When souls of men are involved and eternal destiny is in the balances the gravity of the thought is inescapable.

In everything we do we must have both divine sanction and legal right. The requirements of both God’s law and civil law are in harmony. The Bible teaches that to reject civil law is to waiver at God’s ordinance (see Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Marriage, according to Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:1-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Rom. 7:1-4; et al, involves the leaving of parents, cleaving to companion, becoming one flesh, with both civil and Divine sanction.

The Divine purpose of marriage is also revealed in God’s Word. Fornication is avoided, companionship established and the human race equitably populated through a union between man and woman that was designed by God to abide throughout life (1 Cor. 7:2; 6:17-18; Gen. 2:18; Matt. 19:5-6; Rom. 7:1-4).

God, in His Word, has been very precise as to conditions and circumstances under which a marriage may terminate. There is the expressed implication in the fact when two people take each other for life companions that death is the determining factor in marital cessation. This is the consideration in Matt. 19:6, where Jesus taught, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” To this the Holy Spirit, through the apostle Paul agreed in the illustration of Romans 7:1-4; where he said, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

To this Jesus made exception in Matt. 19:9; 5:32. There He taught that if the companion be guilty of fornication that the innocent party has a right to put the guilty party away and exercise personal license to remarry. Liberty is not expressed or implied to the guilty party to either disengage his marriage, because of his personal guilt, or to benefit thereby by the contract of another marriage. If so, where is the Bible text that so indicates?

According to the Bible the person who has a right to remarriage is the one whose companion has either died or been put away for the specific guilt of fornication. (Please read Rom. 7:3-4 and Matt. 19:9 in reverential and Godly fear in view of the time when we must all stand before Him who shall judge us according to His word.)

There is a line of erroneous reasoning, which bypasses the need’ for Divine authority. This doctrine teaches that if a married person is guilty of fornication that he has thus dissolved his marriage, and if he has dissolved his marriage that he is not married; being thus not married he is in no sense bound to his former companion; consequently may remarry.

That line of rationality, however accommodating and desirable it may be … however many problems, if true, it may solve, is hardly short of expressed subterfuge and is wholly lacking in either Divine expression or implication.

A person cannot, by the authority of Christ, teach the guilty party that God, Christ or the Holy Spirit has extended any such liberties. The reason that such cannot be done is quite simple: There is neither page, paragraph nor line in the entirety of God’s revelation that so indicates.

According to God’s Word people who have never had a companion have a right to take one (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5-6). If one’s companion has deceased, the remaining companion may, with God’s approval, remarry (1 Tim. 5:16; Rom. 7:3-4). Or, if one’s companion is guilty of fornication, the innocent party has a God-given right to put him (or her) away because of this, and elect to remarry'(Matt. 19:9).

But, the Bible no where teaches that the guilty is extended the license and accomodation, due to his own guilt, to be free and thus remarry. Such conclusion depends exclusively upon rationality and speculation.

Even the reasoning is fallacious. The fallacy is in the form of a “non-sequitur” line of thought. Webster defines “non-sequitur,”. . .It does not follow: an inference that does not follow from the premise; specifically a fallacy resulting from a simpler conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from a transposition of a condition and its consequence” (7th edition, page 574).

There you have it: It simply doesn’t follow that because a person has been immoral, ungodly and messed up his life by committing fornication, that the Lord has authorized or extended license to him to remarry.

The erroneous “non-sequitur” reasoning is relied heavily upon by those who conclude that “living in adultery” is not the idea of Matt. 19:9. “Committeth adultery” is from a Greek verb in the present indicative active which indicates progressive action in the present time; continuous, or linear, action in the present time, is the idea (see Essentials of New Testament Greek, by Ray Summers, page 11).

Also William H. Davis had this to say, “Continued action, or a state of incompletion is denoted by present tense-this kind of action is called durative or linear. The action of the verb is shown in progress, as going on” (Davis’ Grammar, page 25). Sometimes it is argued that since punctiliar, or point action has been expressed through the present verb form that the adultry of Matt. 19:9 is a one time affair. Such reasoning is faulty and depends upon the same erroneous reasoning as just mentioned. To be more explicit, IT SIMPLY DOESN’T FOLLOW that because in some isolated instance the present indicative active form is so utilized that such is the precise case in Matt. 19:9.

Another indication that adultery on the part of one who has remarried, utilizing his own guilt, is something that is continuous, consequently lived in, can be seen in that the time element of one being bound and resultant guilt, as per Rom. 7:3-4 is so long as her husband is alive.

My friends, IT SIMPLY DOESN’T FOLLOW THAT A PERSON MAY REMARRY AS A RESULT OF A BROKEN MARRIAGE DUE TO HIS OWN GUILT. It simply doesn’t follow that because punctilious action MAY be expressed by a present verb form in some isolated case that it WAS so utilized in Matt. 19:9.

It does follow, though, that as long as an innocent companion lives the other party has no right, with Divine sanction to another mate.

This is a grave matter. Souls are involved and all views held by men cannot be right. Many are wrong: the consequences of which leave many in adultery while being taught erroneously that they, through their own guilt could remarry. It is absolutely necessary to lay aside all prejudice and pride and humbly submit to God’s will in order to go to heaven. The divorce question herein discussed is important and should be neither ignored nor taken lightly. Those guilty of adultery will not go to heaven impenitently. It is a distressing thought to even consider standing before God, in judgment and contemplate the disappointment of the adulterers who were led to believe that they are innocent, by those extending liberties which God never extended. “For our God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:28). Next week, 1 Corinthians 7:15-Issue and Perspective.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 8-10
January 15, 1976

By James Sanders

Everyone nowadays has some scheme or plot for setting things aright. He knows what is wrong and how to correct it. Colleges, for example, are filled with students who have found the solution to the world’s woes. And yet – these same students usually cannot even find their razors in the morning. Even churches are not without assault. Every congregation has those who have nothing to offer but criticism. “The personal work program will never work.” “No need to have a meeting – no one would come anyway.” “The only way we’ll ever solve our problems here is to hold a few funerals.” And on it goes. Nothing is right and everything is wrong.

In the political sphere there is even more turmoil. Just about everyone knows what is wrong with the country and how to remedy it. But come to think of it, I cannot recall a time when it was ever right. There have been times when it was right for you and you and you – but never all at the same time. Perhaps rather than trying to remedy something we should be trying to make out with what we’ve got.l Some time ago, I ran across a new solution to the war in Indochina. It seems Paul Lindstorm, a denominational preacher in Illinois, has discovered a new work for a church. Lindstorm announced that unless the then President Nixon took action by the middle of May to free American prisoners – he with his elite commando unit of 105 American volunteers and thirteen foreign mercenaries would storm the Communist POW camps and release the prisoners themselves.2 You read it right. Won’t we ever get Church separated from State? Preachers (in some cases even gospel preachers) are in politics more than the politicians are. Everything is in chaos. The world is just like an insane asylum. There is not a person in it who will admit that he is crazy.

Problems and solutions – how should the Christian view them? Is there no balm in Gilead (Jer. 8:22)? “In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him” (Ecc. 7:14).

Our devotion to the Lord must not vary. It cannot be affected by outward events and circumstances. In the day of prosperity (and it is but a day), we are to be joyful. With gladness of heart we are to serve Him. And in the day of adversity (and that too is but a day), the servant of the Lord must consider. There is a judgment to come which will rectify all seeming irregularities. We must be patient for greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world (1 Jno. 4:4b). “The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof” (Psa. 97:1). This world belongs to Him who made it. This is my Father’s world.

Of personal calamities, let the servant of the Lord again consider: “Difficulties are God’s errands; and when we are sent upon them we should esteem it a proof of God’s confidence – as a compliment from Him.”3

1. Donald Day, The Autobiography of Will Rogers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1949), p. 292.

2. “World Scene,” Christianity Today, May 12, 1972, p. 48.

3. Henry Ward Beecher.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 7-8
January 15, 1976

By Norman E. Fultz

Almost never is there an abundance of workers for any facet of service in the Lord’s church, and filling the vacancies is therefore not an easy task; and the persons charged with the responsibilities of making assignments do not have enviable tasks, for they are often the object of criticism because of some of the assignments made. The question of whom to use in public service or teaching roles is a live one in most congregations. Since various factors are involved, some are often used whose use is of questionable wisdom. It is a common practice in too many congregations to use, both in the public worship periods and in the teaching programs, some members who are plainly unfaithful. Their use often results in sneers and ridicule against the church as a whole.

But, someone querries, who are the unfaithful? There are several factors that may be considered. Unfaithfulness in attendance is by no means the only barometer, but certainly should not be ignored. Hebrews 10:25 is still in the Bible. General unfaithfulness in daily living is a fact often unchallenged in some who are used in the work of the church. Paul advised the Philippians, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ . . .” (Phil. 1:27). The New International Version renders the passage, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” But unfaithfulness might better be understood by considering faithfulness. Faithfulness encompasses continuing in the doctrine of the apostles (Acts 2:42), of Christ (2 Jn. 9), holding the traditions of the apostles (2 Thes. 2:15). It signifies being full of faith and living a life harmonious to the word of faith. Unfaithfulness is a failure in this regard.

What possible reasons could one give for using the unfaithful? Sometimes the person involved is a prominent person in the community and a nominal member of the church. The use of such prominent citizens is prestigious. Or the use of some who are unfaithful may be brought about by pressure exerted by some influential members, themselves not as spiritual as they should be and who because of friendship with and sentiment toward the unfaithful appeal for his use. In still other instances, the unfaithfulness may not always be known by the faithful. There always have been hypocrites.

When objections are raised about the use of those in question, in an effort to justify their use, it is argued that their use may encourage them to become faithful. But there is another side to that coin. Their use might just blind them to their own unfaithfulness – “After all, I must not be too bad since they still use me?” Or their use might encourage less diligence from others who see them being used in spite of their unfaithfulness

In an attempt further to justify the use of some who are not faithful, the question is often sneeringly raised, “Who is to make the judgment since no one is perfect?” Admittedly there are some problems, but let us not forget that we do have a standard. And there is such a thing as one who is spiritual (Gal. 6:1), one who is faithful (2 Tim. 2:2), and one who holds fast the faithful word (Tit. 1:9). Let us therefore be wary lest we create an irreverent situation by making use of some who ought not be used (Psa. 24:3-4). And, like it or not, someone does have to make judgments.

Some “not-so-hypothetical” situations can illustrate the awkwardness caused by using the unfaithful. Suppose a fellow who engages in social drinking is a Bible class teacher. What can be expected of him when questions arise from the class regarding the use of intoxicating beverages by the child of God? Or suppose a fellow who does not know what a night service of the church even looks like is making the announcements. He admonishes everyone to be back for the evening and midweek service, but everyone knows he has no intention of being there when he says it. Or what about the teacher of a class who frequently forsakes the assembling of the saints trying to adequately instruct the class which has progressed to Hebrews 10:25? Or the person who lets every ball game, horse show, or other amusement come between him and the services of the church trying to drive home a lesson on “seeking first the kingdom” (Mat. 6:33)? Not only does the use of the unfaithful create an air of awkwardness, but must surely be laughable to some members and to aliens and repugnant to God.

Whom then should we use? Well, I have known a few coaches of basketball teams through the years, and it seems fairly standard procedure for them to make use of the team members who show up for practice and who follow the rules calculated to keep them in proper shape. And I have even known of a few instances where some players who did not feel like they needed the practice had their uniforms taken away from them or where they were penalized by having to warm the bench for a few games. But there are some Biblical principles we might profitably notice, negatively and positively.

There are some things that do not determine who should be used. Physical age of the child of God should not prohibit. Gideon was “the least” (probably meaning the youngest) in his father’s house; but God could use him to deliver Israel from Midian (Judges 6:15); and Samuel was a child when God first spoke through him (1 Sam. 3:1-18); and do not forget the four Hebrew children of Daniel 1-2. On the other, hand, Moses was eighty when God called him from the burning bush to go and deliver Israel from Egypt (Acts 7:23,30). One’s educational standing need not deter. Of Peter and John it is said, “they were unlearned and ignorant me” (Acts 4:13), but of Paul that he had “much learning” (Acts 26:24). Yet all accomplished much in the Lord’s cause. Furthermore, material .possessions are not a determinant. Gideon’s family was poor in Manasseh (Judges 6:15); but Abraham was “very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. 13:2), and both of them made the honor roll of Hebrews 11.

There are some things, though, that should determine who is used in the public service of the church. Since there are some that are spiritual (Gal. 6:1; Rom. 8:5-8), some who are faithful (2 Tim. 2:2), some who are learning (Heb. 5:12-14) and growing (1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:18), let these be used. The service of the Lord should be conducted by those whose lives reflect His teaching, not by those whose use make the church a laughingstock and a reproach.

It would be well for us to remember that we can “be a vessel of honor, sanctified, and meet (fit or useful) for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” But to do so, one must “purge himself” of those things that are dishonourable (2 Tim. 2:20-21).

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 6-7
January 15, 1976