1. Believe in the one true God (Hebrews 11:6).
2. Believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
3. Believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (John 20:30-31).
4. Marry someone who believes in God, in the Bible as God’s inspired word, and in Jesus Christ as the Son
of God.
5. Both partners strive with all of their hearts to live a life of walking in the light of God’s word (1 John 1:7).
6. The partners in the marriage love each other as the Bible teaches (1 Corinthians 13:1-7; Ephesians 5: 22-32; Matthew 22:34-40).
7. Especially be kind and thoughtful to one another every hour of every day.
8. If one partner should be unkind to the other, then let him/her repent and lovingly apologize for having been unkind.
9. Let the one who has been wounded graciously accept the apology and forgive—without reservation— the offender.
10. Do not go to sleep at night with some antagonism between you.
11. If one spouse becomes angry, let the other strive especially hard to remain calm and in such a frame of mind as to be kind even in the face of unkindness.
12. Be thankful for each other, and thank God for each other.
13. Become a Christian [if you are not one already, gws] by obeying the Gospel of Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).
14. Live the Christian life before your children (they will very likely be a tremendous joy to you throughout your life).
15. Do not bring up the mistakes of the past—in fact, forget them!
16. Be the husband or wife to each other that Christ wants you to be—recognize your intimate responsibilities (1 Corinthians 7:1-5).
17. Be good at saying, “Thank you,” and “I’m sorry.”
18. Be good at saying, “I really appreciate what you did when you did what you did.”
19. Be good at saying, “You really look good in that dress, and your hair really looks good, and….”
20. Never leave home without an affectionate farewell; kiss and say, “I love you, dear.”
21. Never meet each other without saying something like this, “Hi, Dear, I missed you; I love you.”
22. If there is something which you do not especially like, instead of blasting out with a roar of harsh criticism, why not begin like this, “My dear, there is something I would like, and I would like to learn what your reaction to it is”—then tell what is on your mind.
23. If your spouse brings up some point of criticism, accept it with love and concern, remembering that no one is perfect and that you very likely need the criticism which he/she is giving you.
24. When you do wrong, do not hesitate to apologize for it.
25. Always remember that marriage is for life—”until death do you part”—and that the main purpose of marriage is that the two of you (husband and wife) will help each other (and your children) to live for God during earthly life and to go to heaven after this earthly life is over.
[Editor’s note: Brother Thomas B. Warren will probably most be remembered for his debates with atheists—particularly those with Antony G. N. Flew and Wallace I. Matson. Those great discussions certainly ought to be “required” reading for college students and young adults. He also wrote Have Atheists Proved There Is No God?
After his work against atheism, he might be most noted for his outstanding work on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. His logic was unassailable, and it held against all attempts to try to get around it. The reason for his great success in this realm was that he was setting forth what the Scriptures teach. Many have taken issue with the material he presented in Keeping the Lock in Wedlock, and even more have ignored it (doing just as they please), but no one has ever exposed a flaw in his reasoning.
Brother Warren, however, was not only concerned about unscriptural divorces and subsequent unauthorized “unions,” he was also a great encourager that first marriages succeed, as the “25 Reasons” article demonstrates. He also wrote Marriage is for Those Who Love God and One Another and edited the book Your Marriage Can Be Great! A healthy preparation for marriage and the application of Biblical principles by both partners within the marriage would prevent many of the divorces that occur each year.
Although brother Warren spent much of his time in these endeavors, he also had an excellent exchange on the subject of salvation—the necessity of baptism—in The Warren-Ballard Debate. He wrote a book years later on this all-important subject of becoming a Christian—The Bible Only Makes Christians Only—and the Only Christians, which should also be “required” reading. If the fundamental precepts contained in this book had been studied by every congregation of the Lord’s church, there would not be nearly so many churches that have become apostate.
In his spare time, brother Warren also found the time to write an assortment of other books: a devotional one (A Sun And Shield For Troubled Hearts), two on Biblical interpretation (Logic and the Bible and When Is An Example Binding?), one on anti-ism (Lectures On Church Cooperation And Orphan Homes), and one that exalted Christ (Jesus—The LAMB who is a LION).
All of his work is appreciated by many and needs to remain available; the 25 rules for marriage should be practiced by all married couples.]
ATTACKS AGAINST BROTHER WARREN
Gary W. Summers
In looking up information about brother Thomas B. Warren, I came across something called “Matthew’s Blog” and something titled, “Musings on Spiritual Matters.” Not having the time to blog or facebook or twitter or whatever, I usually ignore such things, but this article came up third under the “Warren” listing, and the introductory words were eye-catching, since the author had some sort of complaint about brother Warren.
Matthew says that, while he was at the Brown Trail School of Preaching, he reached a conclusion: “About six months into the time there, I had a realization. Warren was not right.” (Probably, he had a reaction to Warren’s materials being taught at Brown Trail.) His explanation of the statement is provided below:
But Warren was not God in giving his methodology for reasoning. Pure logic is not the only measure of Biblical interpretation. Lockian methodology is not the inspired style of logic of God. It is a man made device to facilitate reasoning. I rejected Warren’s methods because he removed emotion, grace, mercy, and the human condition from interpretation. God does not always go by the letter of the law, he also takes in account the spirit of the law.
When I finish writing a critique of these words, I plan to send it to Matthew’s Blog, and I trust he will be able to see the emotion that motivates my response even though I intend to use logic and reasoning to answer him and the other spiritual pygmies who chimed in on his blog. One wonders if they ever had the intestinal fortitude to speak to him face to face about his short-comings; they are welcome to pick on me instead, even though I am a poor substitute.
Matthew, first of all, neither brother Warren nor anyone else claimed that he was God in giving his methodology for reasoning. This expression of contempt for brother Warren, issued seven years after his death (November 30, 2007), is insulting, assumes what is not true, and is a straw man argument.
Second, did someone say that pure logic was the only measure of Biblical interpretation? Whether it is or not is irrelevant to this point: the Holy Spirit used logic in composing the Word; Jesus used logic in facing His adversaries. Do you have a problem with Warren’s use of logic or how he applied it?
Third, while it is good that you have enough education to have learned the name of John Locke, it is still the case the Jesus used logic centuries before Locke was born. Your dislike of Locke and his methods is fine—so long as you can point out the flaws with his system. Can you? Where does Locke differ from the Scriptures? Did he “invent” some principles of logic that are not Biblically sound? If so, please tell us all.
Fourth, concerning your main and unsubstantiated complaint that you “rejected Warren’s methods because he removed emotion, grace, mercy, and the human condition from interpretation,” I don’t know where you were in 1976, 1978, and 1980, but I was present for all three of Warren’s debates against atheists, in which he used logic effectively. Would you have had him stand before these men and try to emote them into accepting the truth? Few would have attended beyond the first night if all brother Warren did was talk about God’s grace and mercy rather than make his case for the existence of God. Actually, Warren expressed many emotions in the course of the debate, but his emotions were under control, as they are supposed to be.
But enough about brother Warren, Matthew; you denigrate the Lord Jesus Christ who combined grace, mercy, love, compassion, and logic in His ministry. Do you wish to accuse Him of lacking these things when He gave people either-or choices?
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad (Matt. 12:30).
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many there be that go in by it. Because narrow is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it (Matt. 7:13-14).
Why, just consider how much of God’s grace and compassion are lacking in these two verses. Everyone knows we’re all just trying to get to heaven and there are many roads that take us there. How “narrow”-minded to say the ultimate destinies are heaven and hell. Is that what you tell your friends, Matthew, or have you been educated beyond that? And what about the first statement? It implies that those who follow Muhammad and Buddha are against Christ and therefore lost. Or are we not going to bother with implication? Is that too Lockian?
In John 8:39 the Jews said that Abraham was their Father. Jesus responded with a logical argument: If they were truly Abraham’s children, they would have done the same works he did, but they did not. They sought to kill Him for telling them the truth—something Abraham would not have done. Simply put, Jesus is saying, If A (they were Abraham’s children), then B (they would do the same works he did). But they did not do B (since they tried to kill Him for telling the truth), therefore they were not A (Abraham’s children). This is a demonstration of the contrapositive. Matthew, do you reject this point, and is Jesus devoid of grace and mercy for reasoning this way?
Jesus made another logical argument: Those who are of God hear God. When people do not hear, the reason is that they are not of God (John 8:45-47). Jesus once again uses the contrapositive. [If a statement, such as If A, then B, is true, then its contrapositive (If not B, then not A) is also true.] Is the concept of contrapositive “a man made device to facilitate reasoning” or something that God designed when He made the universe? Does man invent logic or did God (and we just discover its operating principles)?
In Matthew 21:24, Jesus asked the chief priests and the elders whether the baptism of John was from God or from men. He gave them the horns of a dilemma, and they could not safely answer either way. If they spoke the truth (that they thought it was from men), they would have lost favor with the people who counted John as a prophet. If they answered that his baptism was from God, they would have been embarrassed, since they had not believed. So they said they did not know. (The reason most brethren do not answer questions is for this same reason—the harm that it would do them). Jesus also used implication with the Sadducees. The fact that God said, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Ex. 3:6), proved that those patriarchs are still alive (although their bodies had died).
How about the logic used by various writers of the Bible. How often did Paul argue against error when opposing false teachers? After offering irrefutable evidence for the resurrection of Christ, Paul asks, “Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12). Paul then enumerates several consequences of that false teaching, which are all in the form of if-then statements. Did Paul lack grace and mercy? Was he indifferent to the human condition?
What about James’ use of logic in James 2:14-16 in order to prove that believing, apart from obedience, is worthless? He first gave an illustration of failing to clothe or feed someone as a parallel of the unprofitable circumstance of believing but not obeying (James 2:14-17). Then he argued against the false notion that one person can have faith while another has works (James 2:18-20). He also provided as evidence those who believed in being justified by their works. In making these arguments, was James one of those who believed in going by the letter of the law and not taking into account the spirit of the law? Pfui!
In fact, false teachers thrive in the absence of logic. Brother Warren pointed out in his debate with Flew that Max Black, in his book on Critical Thinking, quoted from Josiah Stamp to the effect
that 400 pages of crowded fact and argument may deceive the very elect, but when reduced to a three line syllogism, will lay bare the bones of the argument and expose the fallacious reasoning involved in it (The Warren-Flew Debate 90).
Using logic does not make one a legalist, devoid of the proper spirit. One wonders what kind of spirit one has that makes him denounce it. It is often said: “No man turns against logic until it turns against him.” The proper use of logic will not lead anyone from the truth nor make him an emotionless machine; some who dismiss it could themselves use a little grace and mercy.