Would Having to Meet Conditions Earn Our Salvation?

In my recent debate with him, Traever Guingrich used a couple of “not saved by works” passages (Rom 4:2 and Eph 2:8-9) to try to prove obedience (specifically to baptism) was not necessary to salvation. My response was that such passages don’t prove a sinner doesn’t have to do anything to be saved, but that what a sinner has to do is not what saves him. See the distinction?

In the debate I illustrated my reply with four examples – the walls of Jericho in Josh 6, the healing of the Israelites’ snake bites in Num 21, the cleansing of Naaman in II Kings 5, and the healing of the blind man in John 9. In all four cases, something had to be done (a condition had to be met) to receive the promised benefit, but what was done did not in any sense earn/merit the benefit received.

Let’s quickly notice the walls of Jericho illustration in particular. The Israelites had to walk around those walls 13 times in 7 days for the walls to fall but the walking is not what knocked the walls down. See the parallel to salvation? It doesn’t matter that this is an Old Testament story and that the blessing received was physical. What the story illustrates for us is that just because a benefit is received “by grace” (Josh 6:2) “through faith” (Heb 11:30) “not of works (Josh 24:13) (paralleling Eph 2:8-9), that doesn’t mean nothing has to be done to receive said benefit.

But Traever responds if God promises something based upon a condition, that means if we meet the condition God would owe that something to us (else God would have lied) and we would earn/merit it. From here on out in this article, I will call that “Traever’s rule” (since there is no Bible verse teaching such).

First, Traever should know his rule is false, because how would that work with God’s many unconditional promises? Like the one in Gen 12:3 that mankind would be blessed through Abraham’s descendant Jesus Christ (Acts 3:24-26, Gal 3:8). Since God promised Jesus would die for mankind (I Pet 1:18-20), does that mean God owes mankind salvation (else God would have lied), and therefore we earn/merit it? Hardly, and Traever knows it. He knows that (for example) just because an engagement ring is a gift conditioned upon the acceptance of a marriage proposal, that doesn’t mean the ring was not a gift – that it was earned/merited. His argument is unsound.

And Traever’s own writings indicate his argument is unsound. He correctly argued in his written debate on baptism with my friend Tommy Thrasher that to earn/merit salvation, one would have to keep God’s law perfectly his whole life. Here is how he put that concept in his comments on Galatians 3:10 and Romans 4:

· Paul upholds the standard of complete obedience in Galatians 3:10. If man’s own law-keeping is involved in his salvation then it undoubtedly must be complete and perfect. But if that were possible then Christ’s life and death were not actually needed. – p.61

· Paul next explains … if righteousness is to be pursued by the law then it must be done in totality. Everything written in the law must be abided in order to escape its curse. – p.60

And so according to Traever’s previous writings, meeting God’s conditions of salvation do not earn/merit salvation; it would take living perfectly your whole life to do that. He’s the one wrote it must be complete, perfect, and in totality; I am just agreeing with him. According to Traever and the Bible, anything less than perfect obedience disqualifies one from earning/meriting salvation. According to Traever then, meeting conditions would not earn/merit salvation.

For my next point let’s begin by noticing grace and gift are basically synonyms, and that both words are used to describe something unmerited:

· grace – unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration” – Merriam-Webster

· Eph 2:8 by grace are ye saved thru faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

Next remember Josh 24:13 (“And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour”) and Josh 6:2 (“And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho”). Does “give” (grace) in those two verses mean the Israelites didn’t have to meet the condition of walking around the walls 13 times for God to knock the walls down? Did they earn/merit such by walking, or was it “given” to them? Meaning did their walking knock those walls down? Traever’s rule would say they earned/merited such by walking, but God says just the opposite, that it was a gift (unmerited by definition).

Similarly, did the Jews earn/merit their healing from the snake bites in Num 21:4-9 just by looking up at the bronze serpent (meeting the condition)? Meaning did they heal themselves? Did Naaman earn/merit his cleansing from leprosy in II Kings 5:1-14 by dipping in the Jordan river seven times (meeting the condition)? Meaning did he cleanse himself? Did the blind man earn/merit his healing in John 9:6-7 by washing the mud out of his eyes in the pool of Siloam (meeting the condition)? Meaning did he heal himself? We all know the correct answer to those questions, and so we all know Traever’s rule is false.

Consider also Prov 28:13 – “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” According to “Traevor’s rule,” once a person met the conditions of confessing and forsaking his sin, he would earn/merit God’s forgiveness. But God flatly contradicts that by saying even after one meets these conditions of forgiveness, God is still showing “mercy” by forgiving him. Meeting conditions of forgiveness do not earn/merit forgiveness, at least according to God. Traevor’s rule is demonstrated to be false again.

Let’s next think about the implications of Heb 5:9 – “And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (ESV). That verse clearly conditions eternal salvation upon our obedience, but that doesn’t make us the source of that salvation. Jesus is still said to be the source of our salvation even though that salvation is conditioned upon our obedience. Simply put: our obedience is necessary, but does not earn/merit our salvation; this again falsifies Traever’s rule.

So once we’ve taken away his objection (Traever’s rule), we are left with this: The “not saved by works” passages are teaching what Traever taught in his debate with Tommy – our works do not earn/merit our salvation; one would have to live perfectly his whole life to earn heaven. But the “not saved by works” passages are not teaching obedience is not a condition of salvation. The Biblical evidence is overwhelming that obedience is required (Matt 7:21, I Pet 1:22a, James 2:24, II Thess 1:8, II Cor 5:10, Rev 22:14, etc.). As I repeated many times in the debate, texts like Eph 2:8-9 are not teaching one doesn’t have do anything to be saved, but that what we have to do is not the thing that saves us. Instead Jesus’ death/blood does that.

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 57 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com

Did Deuteronomy 24:1ff Really Allow Divorce? (which translation gets it right?)

The KJV of Deuteronomy 24:1-2 says “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement (Matthew 5:31 obviously quotes this last part, ptd), and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” The way that reads, it sounds like the Old Testament gave a man permission to divorce his wife for “some uncleanness,” and permission for that put away woman to remarry. But the NASB translation of such doesn’t necessarily imply the same. Here’s how that version reads “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife.” That doesn’t sound so much like permission is being granted as it does – what if such and such happens? – without actually giving permission.

Which translation gets it right? Is there a way to tell? Thankfully there is, because Jesus refers to this passage and makes it clear permission for the divorce was being granted therein. The Pharisees asked Jesus in Matthew 19:7 “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” Jesus responded in the next verse “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (allowed, ESV) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” So Jesus, when commenting upon Deuteronomy 24:1, said (the law of) Moses was allowing divorce – which fits the KJV way of translating the verse (not the NASB way). And Jesus calls this same allowance a written “precept” of Moses in Mark 10:4-5.

Repeating in a more concise way: Some gospel preachers say Deuteronomy 24:1ff did not allow a man to divorce his wife for uncleanness, but Jesus says it did. Notice how Jesus asserted such in Matthew 19:8 – “Moses … permitted you to divorce your wives” (NKJV). And Jesus declared the same thing in Mark 10:5 when he said Moses “wrote you this precept,” the precept that “Moses suffered (permitted, NKJV) to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away” according to verse 4.

What is the point Jesus is making in Matthew 19:8-9 (and in Matthew 5:31-32)? That the law of Moses allowed divorce for uncleanness (something short of fornication, as adulterers were stoned – Leviticus 20:10), but from the beginning it was not so. And Jesus is putting it back to the way it was in the beginning in His New Testament law – no divorce “except it be for fornication.“

Should We Shy Away From Correcting Our Brethren?

It is the very opposite of truth that gospel preachers should concentrate on correcting denominational doctrine and shy away from correcting brethren. And I think this false idea represents one of the biggest problems with churches of Christ today – showing respect of persons (partiality – Acts10:34, James 2:9) in our teaching. If I were to show such partiality to my physical family, never rebuking them for their sins, but only rebuking non-family for those same sins, wouldn’t you think I was being hypocritical? Then why not the same with my spiritual family?

This practice would be doing exactly the opposite of what Paul did in Acts 20:20,26-27,31 – “And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house … Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. … Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” Who was Paul talking to in that text – Christians or non-Christians? And this practice will cause such teacher to lose his own soul (Ezek 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand)? Just because the majority of our brethren think this approach is the correct one doesn’t make it right.

Suppose a very popular gospel preacher (John Doe) gets to preach twenty-five gospel meetings a year, and he believes the covering and long hair requirements are still binding today (I Cor 11:2-16). And let’s just say 95% of the ladies he gets to preach to in these meetings don’t wear the covering and/or have long hair, but he never, ever mentions the topic in all of those thousands of sermons. Can’t we see he is going to be held accountable for that (Rom 16:18)?, and that he is not showing any depth of love for the souls of these brethren (Prov 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful)? We shouldn’t sacrifice our soul for the praise of men (John 12:42-43). Yes, I know the brethren hold John Doe in high esteem (and maybe because of that, so do you), but God certainly does not hold him in high esteem (Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets).

When we preach to our brethren on topics we disagree on, it is true we “alienate many who would be our friends” – even some of those who agree with us on those topics! Why would that be? Because they have been taught this same mistaken concept – don’t correct myself or other brethren; instead, correct others (Prov 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die).

Many of our brethren wonder why one would try to correct their false positions. It is for the same reason we correct the institutional brethren and Baptists and everybody else – because we love their souls (Eph 4:15a but speaking the truth in love …). The institutional brethren wonder why we correct them – “why not concentrate on those who are not Christians?” Christian Church members wonder why we debate them. Many of them are thinking – why are you debating us, and not the Baptists?” When we debate the Baptists, they wonder the same thing – “why aren’t you debating the gay church?” When we debate the gay church – “why aren’t you debating the atheists?”

When we get a chance to preach to denominational people, almost all brethren would expect us to preach to them (our audience), that is, against denominational error, right? So if we get a chance to preach to an audience of Christians, likewise why wouldn’t brethren expect us to preach to them (our audience), that is, against errors of brethren? Why waste so much time preaching to people who are not present in our audience?

Did Jeremiah and Jesus spend time correcting their brethren or only correcting Gentiles? We all should try to emulate Jeremiah, Jesus, and Paul in this regard. Shouldn’t we (I Cor 11:1)? We talk about how much courage Jeremiah must have had to censure the children of God of his day, but we ostracize those who lovingly do the same today. The real question is – who is willing to stand with those who do like Jeremiah, Jesus and Paul and point our error (in a kind way) without showing favoritism?

Any true friend wouldn’t mind another friend pointing out his error, or any error for that matter, and will in fact stand with him (II Tim 4:16-17) in his adversity when he’s right – Prov 17:17. Are we really wanting to keep learning and growing from God’s word, or are we only interested in constant confirmation that what we already believe is the truth? Prov 1:7b says “fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

Please consider this article written in Oct 2012 – https://bibledebates.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/pandering-to-our-audience/

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 57 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com

Some Opposition To God’s Truth

Consider an April 15, 2024 comment about my Bible Crossfire radio program “Donahue should be taken off air. … he requires works PLUS Jesus in order to be saved. Like his water baptism rants. And his threats to people with Salvation loss are nothing less than sick and twisted. Like his rants about divorce. … I will let Family Talk know that there’s others much more valuable to listen to than Bible Crossfire.”

The Bible does teach one must obey God to be saved by the death of Christ:

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

I Pet 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

II Thess 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

II Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

The Bible does teach a sinner must be baptized to be saved:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved …

Acts 2:38 Repent, and be baptized … for the remission of sins …

Acts 22:16 arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins

Gal 3:26-27 ye are all … children of God by faith in Christ …. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ

I Pet 3:21 baptism doth also now save us

The Bible does teach it is possible for a Christian to fall away and lose their salvation:

Gal 5:4 ye are fallen from grace

Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren (holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, v.1), lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God (John 3:36)

James 5:19-20 save a soul (brother) from death

II Pet 2:20-22 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, latter end is worse with them than the beginning

Rev 3:5 blot out his name out of the book of life

Ezek 18:24 the righteous who turn away from righteousness to iniquity, shall die spiritually

II Chron 15:2 if ye forsake him, he will forsake you

The Bible does teach adulterous marriage must be terminated (just like most believers think gay marriages must be terminated):

Matt 19:9 … whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark 6:17-18 For Herod himself had … laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.

Rom 7:2-3 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Ezra 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

Debate On “Must A Sinner Be Baptized To Be Saved?” Tonight And Tomorrow Night

You should be able to watch my public debate on “Must A Sinner Be Baptized To Be Saved?” tonight and tomorrow night at 7:00 pm CDT via live streaming at www.youtube.com/@Grace_Chapel_Reformed_Baptist/streams (Thursday) and www.youtube.com/@TrussvilleChurchOfChrist2825 (Friday). Here are some translations of Acts 2:38 – a passage I definitely plan to use to help prove my case …

KJV – Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

American Standard – repent ye, and be baptized … unto the remission of your sins

Modern English – change your minds and be baptized for a release of your sins

Goodspeed’s – You must repent, and every one of you be baptized in order to have your sins forgiven

Spanish Translation – Repent and be ye all baptized for the purpose of the remission of your sins

Macknight’s Translation – Reform and be each of you immersed … in order to the remission of sins

Phillips – … repent and everyone of you must be baptized – so that you may have your sins forgiven

Short Baptist College – … be baptized … for (in order that you may receive) the forgiveness of your sins

Baptism is “for the remission of sins.” That’s precisely what I will be making my case for!

debate – Is Baptism Essential To Salvation? – April 18-19 – Birmingham

please announce in your assemblies, post on the bulletin board, and support with your attendance …

Bible Debate

Is Baptism Essential To Salvation?

Justification by Faith Alone?

Birmingham
April 18-19
7:00 pm CDT

Thursday

Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church

500 Commerce Street

Argo, Alabama

http://www.GraceChapelRBC.com

live stream:  www.youtube.com/@Grace_Chapel_Reformed_Baptist/streams

Friday

Trussville church of Christ

7750 Gadsden Highway

Trussville, Alabama

http://www.TrussvilleChurchOfChrist.com

live stream:  www.youtube.com/@TrussvilleChurchOfChrist2825

Patrick Donahue (of the North Huntsville church of Christ) will affirm on Thursday:

The Bible teaches a sinner has to be baptized in water to be saved, that is, become a Christian.

Traever Guingrich (of the Grace Chapel Reformed Baptist Church) will deny.

Traever Guingrich (309-229-6334, GraceChplRBC) will affirm on Friday:

The Bible teaches that faith is the only condition required for an alien sinner to obtain the forgiveness of sins.

Patrick Donahue (256-682-9753, PatDonahue, http://www.BibleCrossfire.com) will deny.

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 57 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com

God Calleth Those Things Which Be Not As Though They Were

Recently in a church Bible study, someone seemed to use “Rom 4:17 (“God … calleth those things which be not as though they were”) to say a verse on a particular topic doesn’t mean what it says. I’m thinking we should never use the verse like that. If we are free to say Rom 4:17 means a verse doesn’t mean what it says when what it says contradicts our position, then we can use it on any verse and topic that way. And it would be valid for false teachers to do the same thing. In effect, there would be no way to really understand the Bible, because how could we know when God actually meant what He said? To the contrary, passages like Eph 3:3-4 teach the scriptures can be readily understood.

So what does Rom 4:17 mean? If I am not mistaken, the context (17-21) is talking about God telling Abraham that he was going to be a (physical) father of many nations, even though Abraham / Sarah were too old to have a child. The point is that when God has a plan for the future; he is going to make sure that plan gets done, so it is “as good as done” at the point in time God plans/promises it.

Perhaps Rom 13:8 is another good example of this. It seems to say Jesus was “slain from the foundation of the world.” But I thought He died in thirty something AD? The fact is God planned Jesus’ death from the foundation of the world (I Pet 1:18-20), and since God was going to make sure that plan was implemented, then Jesus’ death was “as good as done” from the foundation of the world. God called something (the Messiah’s death) which was not as though it were – as it was as good as done once God planned it.

Jump Start Of The Great Commission In Acts 2

Some think Matt 28:19-20 records a gospel preaching commission only for the apostles, but verse 20 (“teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”) proves all those converted were also instructed to carry out this “great commission.” It is like a multi-level marketing model in the business world.

And think of the kick start this directive to all Christians was sparked in Acts 2. There were Jews present “out of every nation under heaven” (verse 5). God then supernaturally enabled the apostles to speak in the respective tongues/languages (4,6) of their audience, so those gathered could hear and understand the gospel immediately / on the spot. Waiting until the apostles could spend months studying the various languages represented would be too late. This preaching resulted in “three thousand souls” being converted to Christ (41). And so when those visiting Jews went back to where they came from, the converted were able to carry out the great commission in their home nation. Meaning within probably a few weeks of when the gospel was preached for the first time, three thousand were preaching the gospel all over the world. In this way the gospel was “preached to every creature which is under heaven” by the time Col 1:23 was written.

Thinking about this Acts 2 jump start of spreading the gospel, I imagine well over 99% of the great commission was carried out in the first century by Christians other than the apostles. Isn’t that what we see in Acts 8:1,4? And if we consider since the first century, that percentage approaches 100%.

Of course, this gospel kick start would have never happened if the first century Christians thought it was “the preacher” of the congregation’s job to evangelize. Application for today?: All Christians need to get off our duff and start trying to persuade the lost of God’s truth (II Cor 5:10-11)!

Two Wrongs (Divorces) Don’t Make A Right

One of the more common arguments for the position that couples may continue living in marriages Jesus calls “adultery” in Matt 19:9 is “Two Wrongs (Divorces) Don’t Make A Right.” The reasoning is – sure the first divorce was wrong, but if then in a second marriage, divorcing that second spouse would be a second wrong. My response would be …

I agree two wrongs never make a right, but in this case, ending an unscriptural marriage is not a wrong; it is a right/required (Luke 13:3).

Would it have been a second wrong for Herod and Herodias to get a divorce? – Mark 6:18 – For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.

Suppose I stole (Eph 4:28) a car to give to my son for his 16th birthday. Would it be a second wrong to “steal” it back from my son the next day and return it to its rightful owner?

What if I did wrong by marrying a second wife (polygamous – I Cor 7:2)? Would it be a second wrong to repent and divorce the second wife, and go back to being monogamous with the first?

What if two homosexuals did wrong by getting married (Rom 1:26-27)? Would it be a second wrong for them to get a divorce from each other?

Just like it is required (not a second wrong) to terminate a polygamous or homosexual marriage, it is also required to terminate an adulterous marriage. Adultery (Gal 5:19) is just as wrong as polygamy and homosexuality, isn’t it?

Texts like Matt 19:6 (“Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” – NKJV) only forbid separating marriages God has joined, not marriage unions God didn’t join (authorize).

Examples Of Marriages All Believers Would Agree Need To Be Terminated

There are some marriages all believers would agree need to be terminated …

For example, it is easy to understand from Mark 6:17-18 (“For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife”) that John the Baptist was demanding termination of the Old Testament era marriage between Herod and Herodias.

And we can read from Ezra 10:10-11 (“And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives”) that God was requiring the Israelites who had married foreign wives against His direction to separate from them, even such wives they had children with (“All these had taken strange wives: and some of them had wives by whom they had children” – verse 44).

And believers with any convictions at all can understand from passages like I Cor 6:9-10 (“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” NKJV) that all gay marriages must be terminated.

And as we know, texts like I Cor 7:2 (“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband”) condemn polygamous marriages and therefore require separation of such.

Then why can’t all believers (who are not just playing games) see the same thing in principle (to all of the above), that adulterous marriages (per Matt 19:9 “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” and its parallels) must be terminated? What is the difference that makes a difference? For example, what is the essential difference between an adulterous marriage and a polygamous marriage, that makes the former right but the latter wrong? They both involve being bound/obligated to one while married to another – Rom 7:2-3. The truth is – all adulterous marriages must be terminated, not just polygamous ones.