Adultery has long been a problem of society. It has destroyed homes, broken hearts and orphaned children as well as having disgraced its participants. God has never been vague about His attitude toward this heinous sin, and repeatedly and unequivocally condemns those who practice it. Those who indulge their sinful lusts in this pernicious iniquity forfeit all claims to honor and godliness, and may as well forget about going to heaven unless they repent and abandon their sin. Therefore, that adultery is become a problem within the church is rather strange and ludicrous, but such is nevertheless the case.

            The problem of adultery in the church is in the fact that there are so many adulterers in the church–in full fellowship–and in the fact that some preachers are espousing doctrines permitting adulterers to maintain their adulterous relationships with God’s blessing. Yes, it is being taught in the name of Christ that those who are lawfully married to one another (one or more of the parties being unscripturally divorced) can continue to cohabit and live together.

            One argument is that baptism erases the past. It is reasoned that if the adulterous marriage was contracted by aliens, baptism will sanctify it. But the truth of the matter is that baptism will never make wrong right. It does not abolish human ties and responsibilities. The thief cannot keep his ill-gotten gain simply because he has been baptized, nor can one keep a wife not lawfully his. Baptism only obtains the forgiveness for sins repented of (hence abandoned), not a license to continue a relationship that is sinful.

            A rather ingenious argument that has found favor in some quarters has to do with a definition of marriage and adultery. It is contended that the three essentials constituting a marriage are: (1) agreement, (2) ceremony, and (3) cohabitation. It is then argued that when any of these are violated the marriage itself is broken. Though the fallacy is obvious (adultery, or cohabitating with another, is not a divorce or breaking of the marriage, but only the ground upon which the innocent party has the right to a divorce) the effect is supposed to be that only the first physical act of fornication is adultery. After that there is no marriage! It is then contended that if there is no marriage, both the guilty and the guilty parties may scripturally remarry. So, according to this doctrine that is growing and spreading, when a man commits adultery he has the option of staying with his new playmate; after the first act it is not a sin for him to leave his first wife (since the marriage is broken anyway) and marry the second woman.

            Then there is the emotional argument that sees an adulterous couple who are happy with one another. And especially when there are children! “It would be too hard to patch up the past or break up this happy home–just go on from here.” So the adultery is sanctioned. Would it change matters if there were children in the first marriage, but none in the second? Or none in the first, but some in the second? Or can children born of adulterers “de-adulterize” such marriages?

            Adultery is a sin, and sin must be repented of and quit. This presents problems, but doing right is the solution.