WRITTEN DEBATE INVITATION
FOR RON HALBROOK
Since the topic of our disagreement (regarding post-civil-divorce putting away and remarriage) began, I have declined the invitation to debate. [I am not a debater and those who wanted to debate would only do so on their own terms, and only based on propositions of their choosing, which deflected attention away from the concerns expressed in my original articles (Gospel Truths, Oct. 2000; Mar. 2001) and my website.]
Having gained a little more experience throughout the past two years (though none in actual debate), I am now directly inviting Ron to a written debate of the actual issue. I promise here and now that I will publish the debate - without review or comment - on my website (and in a publication of Ron’s choosing), if Ron will agree to debate the actual issue of concern. After all, the present public disagreement over this issue began as a result of my objection to his following contention:
“Next, a man may have enough regard for social convention that he will not go to bed with the "cute little thing" he wants rather than his wife; therefore, he may divorce his wife, then marry the "cute little thing," thus going to the bed of adultery. Once again, the original marriage bond stays intact under divine law until he commits adultery against his wife; his legal steps do not dissolve the bond put in place when God joined them together (Matt. 19:9). Since his true wife remains faithful to the marriage bond, she & she alone has the right to repudiate the marriage under divine law. She may scripturally do so even when she is not able to do so legally because of legal steps taken by the treacherous husband.” Ron Halbrook
Hence, if such a debate is to take place, I would expect that propositions for the debate should include the following idea:
The scriptures teach that when a person is divorced (against their will and not for fornication) and continues to remain “faithful to the ‘marriage bond,’” such a person may later “repudiate the marriage” under divine law (for post-divorce fornication), which then frees them to remarry another.
______________
Affirm:
Ron Halbrook
Deny:
Jeff Belknap
(I believe that Ron’s own writings confirm the thoughts expressed in the above proposition, but if he disagrees with any part of it, he is free to clarify which parts he disagrees with and we can work on a mutually agreeable proposition.)
The scriptures teach that when a mate divorces his bound spouse (not for fornication), that spouse is consequentially put away and bound by Jesus’ statement to the put away in Mt. 5:32b, 19:9b and Lk. 16:18b, for as long as their original mate lives (Rom. 7:3; I Cor. 7:39).
Affirm:
Jeff Belknap
_______________
Deny:
Ron Halbrook
There are those who have, publicly denounced the post-civil-divorce putting away doctrine as unauthorized, but who are now placing it within the context of Romans 14 (“alternate application”). However, if authority for the practice of post-civil-divorce putting away and remarriage to another cannot be found in God’s word, it necessarily results in adultery! If there is scriptural authority for this doctrine, then let Ron show it to those of us who have been unable to find it.
Since many brethren (myself included) cannot find Bible authority for such a practice, we plainly view Ron’s application as that which approves of adultery (as outlined in Mt. 5:32b, 19:9b; Lk. 16:18b). Hence, both sides of this issue need to be clearly defined and explored among brethren.
“pleading for scriptural authority, scriptural unity.”
Brother Halbrook explains who is responsible for division in the Lord’s church, when error is promoted:
“Now when we preach these things today, we’re accused of causing division. Dear friend, I want you to remember, departure from the authority of God’s word results in division. And the one who introduces error splits the log. Who causes division? The one that promotes a perverted gospel…Those that opposed it were pleading for scriptural authority, scriptural unity. But those that introduce the perverted theories of men divide the church…These theories are not taught in God’s word. And listen friend, when we oppose the theories we’re not causing division. What’s causing division then? The theories of men!” (emp. jhb). Ron Halbrook: [Sermon entitled “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” at The Carriage Drive church of Christ, Beckley, WV (5-30-91)] To listen to this sound clip, click here.
Regarding Controversy:
By Ron Halbrook
“Be willing to hear both sides of the issues involved and be wary of excuses offered for closing the door to open discussion. ‘Try,’ test, or examine the teachers in this controversy – no matter who they are – and do it by comparing what they say with Scripture (I Jn. 4:1, 6). Do not be timid about approaching the men involved to ask for the Bible basis of their conduct and teaching. Pay close attention to whether they actually give you Bible passages or whether they merely talk around the subject. Notice whether they seem tense, resentful, and angry when you question them, or whether they seem to truly welcome and appreciate your questions. Those who stand on the truth find that it gives them a confidence which creates calmness and patience in discussing the questions of honest people. Those who cannot give Scripture for their position suffer from arrogance, impatience, and frustration which create bitter resentment against those who dare to question them. Something is wrong if the man you question does not seem glad for the opportunity to fulfill I Peter 3:15 (‘be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you’).”