Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
September 26, 1963
NUMBER 21, PAGE 1,10-11a

Moyer's Reply To Frost's Review -- (No. I)

Lloyd Moyer

Before entering the discussion, permit me to state that my position on this question or any other subject represents the fruits of my study of God's Word and what I believe to be the truth and should not be taken as necessarily representing the position held by either of my brothers (or anyone else). They can speak for themselves. Also, let me state that this is not an effort to reply to all nine articles which have appeared in the Guardian written by brother Gene Frost.

It might be well for the reader to go back and read my two articles on "Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage," which appeared in the August 22nd, and 29th issues of The Gospel Guardian. Then read brother Gene Frost's review of these in the September 5th, 12th and 19th issues of the same paper.

In an exchange of this kind, especially on this subject, extreme caution should be exercised by all writers against an improper attitude, attributing to the other person consequences which he does not accept nor teach, and of branding the other with a prejudicial title or doctrine. All who have had experience in debating know that this is a most difficult thing. Yet, if truth is to be elicited, this must be avoided as much as is humanly possible.

Let me again make a plea for a calm study of this question without any drawing of lines of fellowship and branding as heretics those who might not be in full agreement on this question. Rather let us study with an open mind. What brother Frost states concerning our mutual esteem and friendship for one another is certainly correct and I have no ill-feeling whatsoever. We have long been friends and co-workers.

Points Of Agreement

In order to review the problem objectively, and to eliminate misunderstanding concerning what I teach on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, and that all may see that small part of brother Frost's review which is pertinent to the discussion (the larger portion being irrelevant and prejudicial), let us state the points wherein we are agreed:

1. That God ordained one man and one woman come together as husband and wife, and this for life. (I cited Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31; Matt. 19:6.)

2. That the two become one flesh and "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder," and that only God can dissever a marriage. (I pointed out that "this arrangement cannot be set aside by man without sin." Also, 'When this act — illicit or unlawful sexual intercourse — takes place a third party has been added to the two party affair which God ordained. God will not tolerate such a state.")

The reader may judge why brother Frost falsely accused me of teaching that a man could enter marriage wholly because of his "LUST" for a woman with the intent of leaving her and going to another anytime he might desire, with God approving. He says, "A person is released from this yoke only upon the condition set forth by God himself." However, brother Frost later contradicts himself on this point and says, "God has NOT and does NOT loose the guilty party." So, he does NOT believe that there are any conditions set forth by God dissevering a marriage. His argument (?) on Rom. 7:1-3 shows that he believes that ONLY physical death COMPLETELY dissevers the marriage.

I said in my tract that this is exactly what the "must separate" and "forbidding to marry" theorist would have to do.

3. That if a person puts away (divorces) his mate for any cause other than fornication, and marries another, he is guilty of adultery. (I emphasized this in my tract.)

4. We both oppose "free love and easy divorce" (Frost falsely accused me of advocating such) and its resultant evils on society. (I said, "Every effort should be exerted to combat this flaunting of God's law.")

5. We both deplore the "modifying" or toning down God's standard to "justify" worldly practices. (Gene accuses me of allowing the evil influence of an immoral society to determine what I teach.) He says, "Its Advocate" is "brother Lloyd Moyer." I could with equal force say that he allows traditionalism to determine what he teaches, but I would be as out of order as he, should I do so. No one should allow traditionalism nor a justification of worldly practices to "influence our (his) study and consequently our (his) teaching." I am concerned with neither traditionalism nor worldly justification, but I am concerned with what the teaching of God is and that all conform to that standard.

6. That no person can deliberately, willfully, and presumptuously plan to destroy his marriage that he might be free to marry another, without God's disapproval. (I definitely pointed this out in my tract.) Yet, brother Frost attributes to me the teaching of this very thing. Why?

7. That the divine requirements of God must be met before God will recognize or sanction a marriage. (Frost again falsely accuses me of saying something that I did not say. "Brother Moyer teaches that there are only three elements of marriage and that all three are subject to man] " I did say, "AT LEAST [not only] three...." I taught that these were NOT subject to man but that man was and is subject to these divine commands, and that when man meets these elements "God recognizes a marriage." Exactly as God recognizes a person as saved when that person meets God's demands of at least four things: (1) Faith, (2) Repentance, (3) Confession, and (4) Baptism. I guess brother Frost would conclude that these are "subject to man" and that the whole thing "is carnal" because man must exercise his choice in accepting or rejecting them! He says, concerning my position on marriage, "God's only role in this concept is simply to recognize the status quo." Since God recognizes a person as a sinner until he obeys the gospel [by accepting the elements God ordained] and God recognizes that person as saved when he does accept the terms and obeys the gospel; I suppose brother Frost would level the same charge, that "God's only role in this concept is simply to recognize the status quo," and that the whole thing is "carnal"! And Frost would have to say that "divine element" [sanction] is left out of the plan of salvation. The truth is that the divine sanction is inherent in meeting the demands of God in marriage the same as it is in meeting the demands of God in obeying the gospel. [Apparently brother Frost could not answer my arguments and therefore, had to build up a "straw-man" so he could knock him down.])

8. That a habitual fornicator (before marriage) can be forgiven of his fornications at baptism, contract a marriage, live with his wife in obedience to the Lord and go to heaven. We both believe this (In stating that this man can be forgiven do we endorse "free love" or "encourage others" to practice immorality? God forbid! Then why does Frost level such a charge at me?)

9. Our study is not to open the gates to immorality, but that we might make proper application of God's law of pardon to an existing situation. (Any and all charges of advocating or encouraging a violation of God's law are out of order, unfair and prejudicial.)

10. That God does not look with approval on any sin whether "for profit" or not, and that one cannot mock God by presumptuously sinning! See next point.

11. That "Jesus pointed out that to act with ulterior motive, though in agreement with the litter of the law, is yet to sin." (G.F., Art. 1) I pointed out, "I think I can see a difference in doing something 'ignorantly in unbelief' (1 Tim. 1:13) and in 'willfully' sinning. (Heb. 10:26) There is always the danger of 'presumptuous sin'...." Gene's position presents the same difficulty of one in "agreement with the letter of the law" yet commits "sin." Example: A wife falls in love with another man, she simply "defrauds" her husband his sexual dues until he turns to another woman, and commits adultery; then the wife divorces him and marries her lover. Does Gene endorse her second marriage? She has followed "the letter of the Law." Is she free because she forced her husband, by defrauding him, to another woman? It is not a question of whether she sins, but can she marry again. Gene's theory teaches that she can. Hence, the same charges he leveled against my position can with equal force, be leveled against Gene's theory.

12. That it is wrong to advocate sin "in order to correct the situation in which a man has involved himself through unscriptural divorce."

All the statements that tend to prejudice people by implying that I do not believe these points is false. There may be other points which could be listed but these are enough to reveal to the reader that the greater part of brother Frost's efforts were simply to throw up a "smoke screen" and erect a "straw-man" by trying to make me teach something that he could meet.

Point Of Disagreement

Our point of disagreement hinges on when a marriage ceases to be what God ordained and is put asunder by the law of God and the parties "loosed" from the marriage. Brother Frost does not believe that God has a law whereby both parties of a marriage are "loosed" from the bond of marriage. He believes that at least one party is bound to the marriage for life, even though fornication is involved. "God has not and does not loose the guilty party!" (G. F.)

I believe that fornication (illicit intercourse) defiles and adulterates the marriage so that it ceases to be the one flesh that God ordained and that Jesus gives this cause for "putting asunder" of a marriage. (Matt. 19:9) I do not believe that there is any such thing as a "half marriage." Brother Frost does. I believe that if fornication breaks the bond for the innocent, it also breaks the bond for the guilty. Brother Frost labels this as a "new theory." He says it is the "latest to come to his attention." It is not as new as he would have you believe. Brother McGarvey states in commenting on Matt. 19:9 concerning the woman "who had been put away on account of fornication...." "No doubt such a woman is at liberty to marry again if she can, seeing that the bond which bound her to her husband is broken." (Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 165, Emp. mine, L. M.) (See previous articles for complete argument on this point.)

God either has a law whereby the marriage bond is broken or He does not. I believe God has such a law. Brother Frost does NOT believe God has such a law. This is our difference. I shall show in subsequent articles that brother Frost perverts the scriptures and Greek as he has perverted my position.

41325 Kathlean, Freemont, California