Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In the January issue of Restoration Review, editor Leroy Garrett again attempted to prove that a divorce which occurs for an unscriptural reason does not prohibit remarriage in the sight of God. The first part of this January article was filled with testimony from members of the Lord’s church who were divorced for reasons other than fornication and remarried who had been “persecuted” by congregations which believed such relationships were adulterous. Inasmuch as the testimony of humans does not constitute Bible authority, I am not going to respond to this section of Garrett’s article. The fact that some have suffered the consequences of their sins does not alter the fact that what they did was sinful. I experienced the same types of tuggings of my heart when I read these testimonies as when I read Must The Young Die Too? Just as the murder is right, neither does pathetic stories prove that adultery is right. (Must the Young Die Too? does not try to prove that murder is not sinful.) Both are heart rending but neither can alter the Lord’s law.

One thing seems to have been accomplished in my first article: I did prove that the phrase “living in adultery” is scriptural (cf. Truth Magazine, XIX:53, November 20, 1975, pp. 11-14). Regarding the concept of “living in adultery,” Garrett asserted in his June issue,

“Needless to say that we do not read of living in adultery in the Bible, and, if one stops to think about it, it is one of those expressions that is sheer nonsense” (p. 102).

However, in my reply, I cited Col. 3:5-7 as proof that one can “live” in adultery to proof that the concept is a biblical one. As a rejoinder, Garrett wrote,

“One might point to Col. 36-7 where Paul lists several sins, such as immorality and covetousness, and then sayst ‘In these you once walked, when you lived in them,’ and come up with the idea of living in adultery. This would be alright, for this refers to practicing these particular sins. But our people do not use ‘living In adultery’ In this sense, for they apply It to people they believe to he ‘unscripturally married'” (p. 204).

At least we have gotten Garrett to admit that “living in adultery” is scriptural terminology. Now, I need to get him to see that the application of the term can include those who are having sexual relations with someone other than their scriptural mate. Brother Garrett, we are charging that every time a person participates in sexual intercourse with any partner other than his scriptural mate, he is practicing adultery. If the relationship is continuous, he can scripturally be described as “living in adultery.”

In the latter part of his article, the editor of Restoration Review listed four points which he thought proved his contention that a person who has divorced and remarried without the sin of sexual unfaithfulness being the cause of the divorce has the right to live with the second companion. Since these four points are the heart of his article, my reply shall center on them. Here is Garrett’s first point:

“1. All people who are legally married are indeed married and therefore cannot he guilty of adultery in their relation with each other.”

In this argument, Garrett argued that adultery is “sexual intercourse outside marriage” and, since, these people are married to each other they cannot possibly be guilty of “adultery.” The problem with this is in the statement “all people who are legally married are indeed married.” That simply is not true! As proof, consider the following evidences:

1. Rom. 7:2-“So then if, while her husband liveth, she he married to another man, she shall he called an adulteress

2. Mt. 5:32-“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

3. Mt. 19:9-“And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her which Is put away doth commit adultery.”

You can read similar statements in Mk. 10:12 and Lk. 16:18. Each of these passages reveal that adultery was committed in the act of sexual intercourse with one to whom the party was married. Garrett’s first point is obviously in conflict with the revealed word of God.

Garrett’s second main point was this:

“2. Adultery is a God-designated sin, but ‘Living in Adultery’ is a man-designated sin, and therefore is no sin.”

Previously, I have proven that “living in adultery” is scriptural terminology to describe persistence in the sin of adultery (cf. Col. 3:5-7). Garrett even admitted this. Jesus Himself is the One who labeled marriages of the nature previously described as “adultery.” I think, therefore, that I am on safe ground in using the terminology which He employed. Lk. 16:18; Mk. 10:12; and Mt. 5:32; 19:9 all reveal that any person who remarries following a divorce which occurred for some reason other than fornication is guilty of adultery. Since God inspired the Bible, I think I am safe in labeling those involved in these marriages as guilty of “adultery.” This is a God-designated sin!

The third point of Garret’s article is as follows:

“3. Sins committed in divorce and remarriage are not as reparable as are many other sins.”

Garrett was trying to offset the arguments used against him regarding the necessity of repentance; he said,

“You bear it said that if a man steals a horse and then repents, he ought to return the horse; if he steals another man’s wife and then repents, he ought to give the wife back. In short, one ought to quit sinning when he repents, whatever it is. But it is not so simple as that. A horse is mere property, a thing, something easily negotiable. When a man ‘steals’ another inan’s wife it is far more than possessing another’s property. He sleeps with her, and Paul says when this happens he becomes one body with her (1 Cor. 6:16). An old relationship has been broken and a new one begun. If the man lives with her without legally marrying her, her husband might take her back and forgive her, like Hosea did. If he marries her, it becomes more complex, certainly after many years when there are children and even grandchildren. To pull that old bromide on such people, ‘If one steals a horse, etc.,’ is to he asinine and ridiculous. Returning property or money is one thing, but to demand measures that wreck still another marriage and still another family is something else” (pp. 204-205).

No one has ever said that one sin is as easy to correct as any other sin. When one commits murder, he can never restore the life which is lost. Although he repents and seeks forgiveness, he might still be put to death for his sin. Similarly, the marriage broken for unscriptural reasons might be unable to be reconciled. To such situations, Paul said, “And unto the married I command, yet Dot I, but the Lord, Let Dot the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11). In the event that reconciliation is impossible, Paul commanded the Christian to live a single life. Garrett does not believe the plain statements of scripture when they contradict his own ideas!

In this section, Garrett also said, “The person whose life is strewn with a string of broken marriages can come to Jesus like any other sinner. Jesus will take him as he is, forgive his past, and sanctify his present marriage, teaching him that repentance means that he will quit his sin of divorce and remain married this time” (p. 205). Brother Garrett, where can I read in my Bible where Jesus ever said that He would “sanctify” air adulterous relationship? I think that is a man-designated idea and not God-designated! By the way, would it make any difference on which side of baptism the life was “strewn with a string of broken marriages” for God to accept the sinner? Does God have one marriage code for unbelievers and a different one for believers’! Or, will God accept and “sanctify” the present marriage of the penitent Christian?

In his final point, Garrett wrote,

“4. Divorce is not an unpardonable sin.”

No one has said that it was, Brother Garrett! We have simply said that one must cease committing the act of adultery before God will forgive him. Please do not misrepresent us.

Conclusion

Again, we have noticed how Brother Garrett has distorted the scriptures to teach what God has riot revealed. Let me remind you of what James wrote. He said, “For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not commit murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (Jas. 2:11). The point being made by James is that the same God gave all of the commandments; if a person rebels against any one commandment, he has rebelled against the very same authority which gave any and all of them. Thus, the man who under one given set of circumstances will rebel against one commandment will, under similar conditions, rebel against any other commandment revealed by God. Leroy Garrett has rebelled against the revelation of God on a number of points such as marriage, divorce, and remarriage, instrumental music, institutionalism, etc. Not only has he personally refused to accept God’s revelation on these subjects, he has also made fun of those of us who do accept God’s revelation. Such a person is a transgressor of God’s law and unworthy of being considered a teacher of the law.

Truth Magazine XX: 27, pp. 426-428
July 8, 1976

By Keith Sharp

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7).

Our federal government has a policy of granting American citizenship to those aliens who meet lawfully stipulated requirements. But, even though a former alien has become a naturalized citizen, he can forfeit the privileges of citizenship in our Republic by failure to demonstrate loyalty to the nation and obedience to its laws.

In the beatitudes, the Master announced the qualities of character that citizens of the kingdom of Heaven are required to possess. The first four beatitudes describe the requisites of character one must possess to gain citizenship in the kingdom. The final four announce qualities of character necessary for one to maintain that citizenship.

The fifth beatitude, recorded in Matthew 5:7, reveals the first of these marks of character demanded for maintaining our citizenship in God’s kingdom. It is true that our gaining entrance into the kingdom is dependent upon the mercy of the Father (John 3:5; Tit. 3:5). However, this new birth is not conditioned upon our extending mercy to others. Rather, this is a condition upon which we continue to enjoy the Father’s abundant mercy.

What is the lesson of the fifth beatitude? We shall discover this by finding the answers to three other questions:

How can we be merciful? Of course, a merciful person is one who shows mercy. But, what is “mercy”? Two words, “mercy” and “compassion,” are closely related to one another. “Compassion” is sympathy for those in need of help. It means we actually suffer with those who suffer (cf. 1 Cor. 12:26). “Compassion” is what a loving mother feels when she weeps with and for her injured child. The one who has compassion puts himself in the place of the one who is in need. “Compassion” leads to “mercy.” “Mercy” is actually relieving those in need. It is the action that results from compassion. The Samaritan of the Lord’s parable “had compassion on” the injured traveler. As the result the compassionate Samaritan “showed mercy on him” (Luke 10:25-37), i.e., he relieved his needs. Mercy assumes that the recipient is actually in need and that the giver has the ability to supply the need.

We demonstrate mercy to others by forgiving them when they wrong us (Matt. 18:21-35), by helping them when they are in need (Matt. 25:34-40), and by not being harsh in our judgment of them (Luke 6:36-38; Matt. 7:1-5). All these manifestations of mercy will be far easier if we first “put ourselves in their shoes.”

In what way do the merciful obtain mercy? The supreme example of mercy is the coming of the Son of God to this earth. We were in desperate need of salvation (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He, alorte could save us (John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; 13:23). He came and lived as a man, thus literally putting Himself in our place (Phil. 2:5-8). As the result, Christians have a great and merciful High Priest Who has been through all the temptations and trials we can encounter. Thus understanding, He gives us help in our trials and ministers His own blood before the mercy seat on high as the propitiation for our sins when we come to the Father through Him in prayer (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:14-16). But, His mercy to us, extended to us in the forgiveness of our sins and the help to meet temptations, as we pray, is conditioned upon our being merciful to others (Matt. 6:12,14,15).

Why do the merciful obtain God’s mercy? It is God’s purpose that we, as His children, become more and more like Him (2 Pet. 1:24). The Father is supremely merciful (Exod. 34:5-7; Psalm 103:8). When we demonstrate mercy, we show that we are becoming “partakers of the divine nature” and will be fit companions for God in eternity. Thus, God in turn abundantly blesses us with mercy in the form of strength and forgiveness.

In no action do we more accurately imitate our merciful Father than in showing mercy. If God so abundantly showers us with His mercy, should we not also be merciful, that He might continue to bless us?

“Not to the man of dollars,

Not to the man of deeds,

Not unto craft and cunning,

Not unto human creeds;

Not to the one whose passion

Is for the world’s renown,

Not in the form of fashion

Cometh a blessing down.

“But to the one whose spirit

Yearns for the great and good;

Unto the one whose storehouse

Yieldeth the hungry food;

Unto the one who labors

Fearless of foe or frown;

Unto the kindly-hearted,

Cometh a blessing down.”

Mary Frances Tucker

Truth Magazine XX: 27, pp. 425-426
July 8, 1976

By David O. Lanius, Jr.

The name Christian is one of the most misused Words in our vocabulary. The term is used only three times in the Scriptures (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), and each time it has reference to individuals who are followers, disciples, or even trailers of Christ. It is always used as a noun, never as an adjective.

Many have assumed the name Christian rather than having it assigned to them by God. Let us notice that there are many such people today in this generation.

Not all good people are Christians. Just because we are good moral people it does not mean we have met the requirements for being a child of God (Christian). Nicodemus and Cornelius were both good men (John 3:1-5; Acts 10), but neither were born-again believers. Each had to hear and obey to become a child of God.

Not all religious people are Christians. There were heathens during the day of the apostle Paul who were called religious (Acts 17:22). Paul thought himself to be religious before -his own conversion, but he learned that his religion was in vain. There are two types of religion, pure and vain (Jas. 1:26-27), and most religions are vain and false.

Joining or attending a church of your choice does not make one a Christian just as sitting in a corn field will not make one a farmer. This is one of the greatest problems today, thinking one can be a Christian no matter which church they might attend. The Bible speaks of one church (Eph. 4:4; Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18). There were only Christians in the beginning of the First Century. There were no such things as “hyphenated” Christians. The term Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, etc. Christian simply did not exist.

At this point of our article we need to consider a question, “Just who are Christians?” First we would note that all who have obeyed the gospel from the heart (Rom. 6:16-18) are Christians. In obeying the gospel from the heart it means we have done as God has instructed us. Those who are really children of God are those who have heard the word of God (Rom. 10:17); believed the word (Mark 16:16); repented of their sins (Luke 13:3-5; cf. 2 Cor. 7:10); confessed their faith in Christ (Matt. 10:32-33; Rom. 10.:9-10; Acts 8:37; and have been baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26-27). At this point of time one becomes a Christian, a child of God, a member of the Lord’s church (Acts 2:47).

After becoming a child of God it is always very important that we continue in the paths of righteousness. Christ left us the perfect example to follow (1 Pet. 2:21-22), and if we follow this example we will be pleasing to God. There are those who are children of God who really cannot consider themselves Christians because they have fallen back into the world (cf. Gal.5:4). One cannot call himself a Christian if he refuses to follow his leader, and truly Christ is the leader, or head of the saved (Acts 2:47; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23). If you have been a Christian then why not repent of your sins, and pray to God that they might be forgiven, using Jesus as your Intercessor and Mediator (Acts 8:18-24; John 1:1-2). May we all stop now and ask, “Can I really consider myself a follower or disciple of Jesus”?

Let us be simply Christians doing the Lord’s will in the Lord’s church. Are you a Christian? If not obey today while there is time and opportunity. If you are a faithful Christian continue to help spread this message of Christ. The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.

Truth Magazine XX: 27, pp. 424-425
July 8, 1976

By David A. Webb

What better illustration could be given to show the necessity of unity and cooperation among members within the Lord’s church than to compare that church, with its many members, with the human body. The illustration is used many times to stress the absolute importance of functioning as the head (Christ) directs.

We are all aware that the members of a body which is in perfect physical health will function only upon the receipt of a “message” sent from the brain through the central nervous system. When a “short circuit” develops in this delicate electrical system trouble occurs. This may result in the rather obvious involuntary movement of the various effected members of the body, causing a loss of proper “motor control.” Such a condition exists in every body to some extent, the twitching of an eye, or the sudden shiver from a blast of cold air. These minute, involuntary movements of various members of the body do not effect the overall ability of the body to function in an otherwise normal fashion.

The problem becomes serious when a member of the body involuntarily moves on a regular basis, and to such a degree that normal body functions are hampered.

Carl Ketcherside, unlike the apostle Paul, would have the body of Christ composed of members joined together but functioning independently from each other and independently from the brain itself. No body can function in unity unless each member functions the same way. ‘The sensory receptors in the right hand should react in the same manner as the sensory receptors in the left hand when they come in contact with a hot object. The hand that quickly reacts by withdrawing is functioning in harmony with impulses from the brain, but the hand that remains to be burned has a defect in its delicate system of nerves connecting it to the brain.

Carl Ketcherside’s “Body of Christ” is one that has its right hand functioning differently than its left. He apparently sees no problem in allowing one to withdraw from a harmful environment and allowing the other to burn, Obviously such a condition is not typical of a healthy body that functions together in harmony.

On the other hand, the apostle Paul pictures the body of Christ functioning together as one working unit for the benefit of every member. Every part of the body is guided by the same head, and they all operate in the same manner when suddenly introduced to a harmful environment.

Every person who is directed by all of the teachings of Christ will be united with every other person who is directed by those same teachings. They will be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). This does not restrict some independent movement (Rom. 14), but will insure that such movement will never impair the function of the body of Christ.

Any other condition would be considered as unhealthy by the Great Physician Himself.

Truth Magazine XX: 27, p. 423
July 8, 1976