Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 15
May 2, 1963
NUMBER 1, PAGE 2,11b

Marriage - As God Would Have It - (No. 3)

Gene Frost

IV. Attempts To Set Aside Law

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)

Any act that violates a law of God is sin. The act designated "idolatry" is a violation of God's law (1 John 5:21) and therefore is sin. The act designated "adultery" is a violation of God's law (Matt. 19) and therefore is sin. Let it further be observed that the act designated "idolatry" (or "adultery") which violates God's law before baptism is sin, and likewise when committed after baptism is sin. We mention this because certain theorists seek to set aside the consequence of the act after baptism in the case of "adultery," but not idolatry or other unlawful acts!

To Justify (?) An Act, Specifically Illicit Sexual Intercourse, Committed After Baptism Is Violation Of God's Law, The Theorist Must Deny That The Act Is Recognized By God, Or Deny That The Saint Is Amenable To Law, Or Deny That God Takes Account Of The Consequence, Sin. The Denial Of The Act Is The "Imputation Theory"; The Denial Of The Law Is "Antinomianism"; And The Denial Of The Sin Is The "Mercy Or Grace Theory." All Three Approaches Have Been Adopted By Theorists Desirous Of Escaping The Teachings Of Our Lord In Matthew 19. Beginning With The Last, We Notice The V. Mercy (or Grace) Theory.

Some theorists recognize the fact that the alien commits adultery when he cohabits with another's mate when such person is divorced and fornication is not the cause. He will readily admit therefore that the act in violation of the law, before and after baptism, results the same, in sin. But, the theorist will contend, the adulterer after baptism may continue this sinful relationship with impunity:

"The mistake made by those who require separations is that salvation to them is a work of righteousness rather than mercy and grace.... God's law never has, and never can make void the mercy of God....Some say, 'But it is not right for a man to go on living with a woman in adultery.' Then it is not right for a man to go on benefitting by the ten million dollars he did not repay." (And this theorist argues that whatever a person has unlawfully in his possession, he may keep as a Christian.)

This theorist reasons that salvation is without works of righteousness such as is necessitated by repentance, namely a cessation of the sinful act. If such be so, he contends, "This makes salvation a debt God owes those who separate in fulfillment of law, and destroys mercy and grace." In other words, the adulterer must not cease the act, must not dissolve the illicit relationship, upon penalty of being justified by works and not by grace!

Of course, the entire theory is based upon a confusion of the word "works"; it is the old Calvinistic dodge used on baptism. They (the Calvinists) reason: one is not justified by works; baptism is a work; therefore, one is justified without baptism. But what proves too much proves nothing. In the same manner, confusing "works," one may reason one is not justified by works; faith is a work (John 6:29); therefore, one is justified without faith. But not so. (Heb. 11:6) The error in all three conclusions is found in a shifting of terms in the major and minor premise. In the major premise (one is not justified by works) "works" refers to things of man's design or dependence upon man's exclusive efforts, whereas in the minor premise (baptism, faith, or repentance as a work) "works" as used here, refers to acts of obedience to God. (James 2:24) A false conclusion is drawn when the term "works" is shifted, involving two definitions to stand synonymous. This Is the mistake of the theorist who places the act of obedience, namely repentance, in the minor premise. As the Calvinist reasons to annul baptism, the marriage-theorist reasons to annul repentance!

Apparently there were some in the apostolic period who reasoned similarly to modern marriage-theorists: If we have to cease sin, then salvation is without grace for it is grace to forgive sin without being "required to meet some requirements." The apostle Paul anticipated the question and answered it, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid." (Rom. 6:1-2)

A variation of the above assumption — "God's law never has, and never can make void the mercy of God" — has been advanced by another brother. In the stead of "mercy" he supplies "love." He reasons that love is greater than faith which comes by the Word of God (1 Cor. 13:13) and concludes by this that the Word can never make void a love that adulterers may embrace. The adulterer's love is greater than God's law! This may sound so ridiculous to the reader uninitiated to the special "reasoning" of the marriage-theorists that he may think this position has been mis-represented; therefore, we quote:

"Did the gentle saviour, who defended the woman taken 'in the very act' of adultery leave a rule for his followers so severe in its application that LOVE the greatest thing in the world must bow to it and become second greatest?"

"All men are able to receive the gospel and be saved; therefore there are those who cannot receive Matthew 19:9, yet can be saved!! (Emphasis his)

Again, what proves too much proves nothing. If this contention were true, then whatever one loves he may have, for, remember, love is the greatest thing in the world and must never bow to anything, not even the word of God! (Forbid!) The absurd conclusions that may be drawn are too numerous to set forth. Such absurdity need not be given respectability by any lengthy reply. Needless to say that this is the "answer" every sensualist has desired to justify his "loves"; this justifies every denominationalist who "loves" his church and creed more than the Lord's body and Word; where is the limitation in application?

— 1900 Jenny Lind Ave., Fort Smith, Arkansas

(Continued from page two)