Watchman Magazine

So many Christians are burdened with the fearful question, “Am I good enough for God, good enough to go to heaven, good enough not to embarrass the church and my family? Am I as good as others? Am I as good as I can be?”

While those questions are surely superior to the spiritual indifference that some Christians harbor, they can also become an unbearable burden. Our human imperfections — minor and major, regular and occasional — stare us in the face through God’s revelation and constantly remind us what kind of people we are (James 1:23-24). We are all flawed by our own particular sins and weaknesses and in need of grace, both from our fellow men and more importantly, from God. The questions, though, are not seeking grace; they are seeking human achievement and earned reward. Those questions will invariably lead to painful answers.

Share This

• Continue reading

We have asserted that Bible Authority can be established from the written scriptures in three ways: Expressed Statement, Approved Example, and Necessary Inference. In this article we deal with the third means, Necessary Inference.

The concept is ridiculed by many as being a legalistic, and humanly devised means of establishing authority. We will show from scripture that this is not so. However, to begin, let’s note that we often learn things by inference.

In communication, people often imply things, without explicitly stating them. Body language, gestures, and inflection often reveal implications not revealed in the words themselves.

The same thing is true with the written word, and can be demonstrated time and again from the scriptures.

Share This

• Continue reading

Feature editor’s note: This writer recently returned from an preaching effort in the Philippines.  Brother Osborne’s article is timely, showing as it does the significance of current issues among brethren in the U.S. to faithful brethren in other countries and to efforts  to take the gospel to the lost of the world. (Steve Wallace)

For several years, the South Livingston church of Christ has supported brother Domie Jacob in his work of preaching the gospel in the Philippines. We have been thankful for his faithfulness to the truth and have admired his diligent and effective work in service to the Master. Having just returned from a brief stay with brother Domie, I would like the members of this congregation to know a little more about the faith, diligence and effectiveness of this dear brother.

Share This

• Continue reading

"Preach the word," was Paul’s instruction to Timothy, the young evangelist (2 Tim. 4:2). The apostle Peter also said, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11). Though they lived in the "Golden Age of Greece" when philosophy was so prevalent, both of these inspired apostles directed evangelists to base their preaching solidly on God’s revealed word. In fact, Paul made direct reference to the difference between human wisdom and divine wisdom when he wrote to the church at Corinth, an ancient pagan city. "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Cor. 1:20). The wisdom of the world did not acknowledge even the existence of God. "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (v. 21).

Share This

• Continue reading

Many are aware of the debate over preemptive action in relation to Iraq. The president made the case for it and won many supporters. Still some protested and tried to stop any real action. Now, on this side of the war, level-headed people can see the president was and is right. Acting before a dangerous enemy can do harm is the intelligent way to go.

A similar debate over preemptive action exists among brethren. One idea is that whatever goes on elsewhere is none of our concern. It matters not what is happening on the west coast or east coast, in Florida or Kentucky, or even across town. Just mind the local work and leave everything else alone. (Of course, in giving this advice they violate their own precept by telling others what to do). The other idea is that what happens elsewhere will eventually affect the local brethren in one way or another. Therefore, addressing it is the wise course of action. The former is wrong, the latter right.

Share This

• Continue reading

The assertion of this series of articles has been that the Lord’s teaching regarding marriage and divorce is straightforward, and easily understood.  Simply stated, it is:  One man, One woman, for a lifetime.

Further, it is asserted that the one exception to this rule regarding the lifetime nature of the marriage commitment is found when a spouse is guilty of the treachery of fornication.  In this case, Jesus declared the innocent’s right to remarry.  Note again the passage from Matthew 19, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (vs. 9).

The right to remarry is extended only to the innocent party, and only in the one case of fornication.  Otherwise, Paul indicated that the marriage bond is a lifetime commitment. (cf. Romans 7:2).

Share This

• Continue reading

When error is taught religiously, history shows people to be divided into one of three groups.  First, there are those who advocate the error.  Second, there are those who combat the error.  And, finally, there are those who seek to minimize the differences, thus compromising with the error.  Issues in the past 150 years have shown this to be true with the battles over the instrument in worship, and with the institutional issues that troubled brethren in the middle of the last century.

The same circumstance can be seen in the division of brethren over what the Bible teaches concerning marriage and divorce.   There are the false teachers who advocate the error, the faithful brethren who combat the error, and a sizable number of brethren who seek to maintain fellowship with those who teach the error.  As is commonly the case, the compromisers have turned to the 14th chapter of Romans, abusing that text in an attempt to justify their compromise with the false teacher.

Share This

• Continue reading

In the January 2001 issue of Watchman Magazine, Terence Sheridan and Harry Osborne debated the following proposition under the heading, "Biblical Putting Away."

The scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.

Sheridan affirmed the proposition, while Osborne denied it.  In defense of his proposition, Sheridan used an example of a woman who was innocent of fornication, and divorced by her adulterous mate.  In order for said woman to have complied with God’s law as per Matthew 19:9, Sheridan stated:

"She needed to (1) renounce her bond with Bob; (2) comply with civil law; and (3) obtain civil recognition that the marriage is no longer functioning. She needed to do this before Bob did. She needed to do it for the cause of Bob’s fornication if she wanted to remarry." (First affirmative).

While we do not deny that the woman is required by God’s law to renounce her bond to the man, and comply with civil law, the claim that she had to initiate the procedure and obtain the civil judgment is a position which cannot be sustained by the scriptures.  Osborne did a good job of answering Sheridan’s contentions, and those interested are encouraged to visit the Watchman site, and read the entire debate.  Note the following scriptural and logical fallacies to the position:

Share This

• Continue reading

To define the “mental divorce” position, we refer to both formal propositions, and a common scenario.  First, the proposition, which some who advocate the position have signed:

The scriptures teach that the innocent person (free of fornication) who has been put away without God’s or his/her approval and against whom adultery has been committed may remarry.

Next, the scenario, which establishes the contention in plain language:

When Jack puts away Jill for a reason other than fornication, though he obtains a civil divorce, they are not really divorced.  It is called divorce only “accomodatively”.  If Jack then remarries another woman, he is guilty of adultery.  So, he can now be mentally put away by Jill.  This is the real divorce.  Now, Jill is free to remarry.

Both the above proposition and the scenario is used by Donnie Rader in his book, Divorce and Remarriage:  What Does the Text Say, page 74.  Rader states, “Actually this is an effort by some to justify remarriage following an unlawful divorce.”

Share This

• Continue reading