|
THE TWO LETTER
EMAIL EXCHANGE
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Cox" <stancox@watchmanmag.com> Subject: Your Review of the Debate Brother Belknap, After you had declined to publish the written debate between brothers Osborne and Sheridan I did not in my wildest dreams expect a review of the debate two days later on your site. If I remember correctly, you began your site because of an inability to get your view expressed in other papers. (This despite the fact that to this day you have never asked for such an opportunity in Watchman). Now you have done exactly what you have accused others of doing. The proposal for the publication of the debate was for the material to be put on the two sites without editorial comment. (Which, you note, I have done on the Watchman site). Not only have you not published the debate, you have sought to skew your reader's perception of the exchange. The only reason I would have even considered not publishing the debate would be if there were ad hominem attacks made. As they conducted themselves as gentlemen, it was never a consideration on my part not to let the issue be examined. Your reason for not publishing the debate is shown to be disingenuous, as you have emphasized and focused attention upon the issue in advertising and posting your review. You stated that the review was "important and informative." It is absurd to say that a debate is not "important and informative" enough to devote space on your site, but the review of the debate is worthy. Putting a debate consisting of 4 articles and approximately 10,000 words would hardly constitute a change of focus. Your review of the debate was itself over 3,600 words in length. If, as you state, brother Sheridan did a good job, why not include the debate as a worthy addition to your site, and let it stand upon its own merits? Additionally, you charge brother Osborne of taking an unfair advantage in his final negative article (talk about the pot calling the kettle black). Brother Sheridan himself pronounced his satisfaction with the treatment he received. He did this both in print in his final affirmative, and in his email with me upon reading the finished debate. If I were brother Sheridan I would be outraged at the disrespect you have shown him. Brother Belknap, if you are not able to see the unethical way you have dealt with this situation, you have a serious deficiency with your "ethics" gene. From now on, when you cry "foul", others will (with good reason) laugh at the absurdity of the hypocrisy. I expected better from you, ----- Original Message -----
From:
J Belknap Subject: Re: Your Review of the Debate Dear Stan, I am sorry for your disappointment and assessment of my actions. Your synopsis of why I began the website was factual, however incomplete. The express purpose (which is evidenced by its very name) for my efforts has been to expose the error of mental divorce. Since I had run into several roadblocks when trying to publish those articles in other publications, I began the website. The difference between your web magazine and my web site is the aim and purpose of our publications. Obviously, the sole mission of Watchman Magazine is not to expose the false doctrine of mental divorce as is the purpose of my website. I have never claimed that Watchman shut out my writings. (When I witnessed the way that Harry and Tim worked together, effecting an unfair advantage and to assure the last word on Gospel Anchor, then saw that he was an associate editor on Watchman, I decided not to even try, but to create a venue of my own where the potential and extent of examination of the issue would not be at the mercy of others.) However, when David McKee wrote on this subject some months ago and submitted the article to you, ("What is Biblical Putting Away?"), it was never published. My decision not to post the debate to my website is not hypocritical as you suggest. Please consider that in addition to the apparent mission of my website, Gospel Anchor's policy professed one thing, while it practiced another. The Anchor's policy stated, "Controversial thoughts of real consequence will be presented pro and con; we hope to publish divergent views on various topics." AND "Every writer is free to express himself as he will; and whereas the standard is loyalty to the inspired word of God, we do not presume to be the judge over the thoughts of men. Publication of articles does not constitute editorial endorsement, though every article will contain thoughts that will stimulate and assist in one’s own personal study of truth." This policy displayed a sharp contrast to Tim's practice as the editor, reflected by his statement, "You can use your own site to house your illogical and unscriptural conclusions and misrepresentations. I will not publish any more of them." In addition, Truth Magazine has been used as a vehicle to combat error and examine the "issues" for years. It has boldly exposed names in that pursuit. It has "taken on" all sorts of issues and brethren, showing the error of taking Rom. 14 too far. Yet, Mike's response to David in explanation of his refusal to allow examinationof the issue in Truth Magazine flew in the face of everything the magazine has stood for and claimed. Now, that is why I said in my 2nd paragraph of the front page of the website: "It truly saddens me that those desiring a scriptural examination of this topic have run into such roadblocks in getting the word out. Because scripture teaches that it is the responsibility of all Christians to sound the alarm when danger threatens, this web page has been established, so that others can be accurately informed and forewarned (Prov. 17:15; 18:5; 28:4). I have never portrayed the web site as a pro and con magazine forum (as those who refused publication of my articles did). I have consistently maintained that there is one purpose for the site - to inform and forewarn brethren of the dangers related to the mental divorce doctrine. Can you seriously claim that the debate (both affirmative and negative) fits into that purpose? Obviously not, for it diverted the focus to a secondary issue (which tends to confuse rather than concentrate and clarify it, as I have sought to do not only in previous articles, but also in my review of the Sheridan - Osborne Debate). Nevertheless, my review contains a link to your website in the second paragraph and encourages brethren to read the debate. While you told me, "The only reason I would have even considered not publishing the debate would be if there were ad hominem attacks made. As they conducted themselves as gentlemen, it was never a consideration on my part not to let the issue be examined." However, that was not exactly what I was told by Brother Osborne on 11/18/01. He stated that, "The editor would have the right to review the debate before publishing and require that any inappropriate language, misrepresentations of fact or other such things be changed by the writers." (emp. jhb) Considering the fact that you were the only ones (editors) in control of what was published in the debate and as he (and you) stated, you wanted to post the debate "without editorial comment," I could not agree ahead of time. That is why I answered on 11/18/01, "I, like brother Cox, will reserve 'the right to review the debate before publishing' it on my website. If (after reviewing it in its entirety) I desire to publish it, I will first ask permission from brother Cox to reprint it." I began to become extremely wary of the debate when the only way that Terrence could get Harry to go through with the debate he had already agreed to, was to allow Harry to write Terrence's affirmative. I would never have agreed to such a condition. Terrence started out at a disadvantage (as I would have, had I agreed to publish the debate in advance) and nevertheless did very well under the circumstances he was presented with. The whole debate was orchestrated according to all of your (and / or Harry's) specifications (I have a copy of Harry's 11/18 letter that spells them all out). That was your prerogative, as you were committing the debate to your website. Your decisions for what to publish in your magazine did not bind me to reprint them, any more than my decisions about what to publish on my site bind you to reprint them. You wrote "If I were brother Sheridan I would be outraged at the disrespect you have shown him." Apparently, brother Sheridan's does not share your view that I have shown disrespect toward him in my review, for he wrote me a letter of thanks today for what he called "the favorable review" and clarified what he meant by the term "marriage bond," apologizing for the confusion. Obviously the only thing proven by 1) Terrence's acceptance of Harry's proposition, 2) his belief that he was treated fairly by you and Harry, and 3) his subsequent letter of thanks to me, is that he is a good natured fellow who is not a complainer. You say I have "sought to skew your reader's perception of the exchange." However, please note what Harry wrote at the end of his 2nd Negative: "Let us keep our focus there" (away from the real issue, jhb). "Those who promote unscriptural and adulterous marriages are getting away 'scot-free' and are caricaturing us as fractious fanatics." It is Harry who seeks to skew the focus of the issue away from whether anyone can hope to engage in scriptural remarriage after having been "put away" by an ungodly spouse. My article simply tries to redirect it back to where it needs to be. What surprises me the most, is that while you have the power of the press with a well established magazine, sporting a number of influential writers, you seem to think that, with my little web site, I have taken some kind of advantage of you and your associates. If I am a false teacher, you have a much greater opportunity to expose me (like you did Homer Hailey, Ed Harrell, Shane Scott et al) than I do you. Brother, I have always regarded your work highly and am saddened to see you siding with those who attempt to render Jesus' words (in Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b; and Lk. 16:18b) of "none effect." However, what I have done has been in service to my God and I will stand before him with a clear conscience on this matter. Brotherly, Brother Stan’s Second and Final Letter Had A Different Subject Title (jhb) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Cox" <stancox@watchmanmag.com> Subject: A final attempt to reason with you Jeff, I'm loathe to get into an extended exchange with you regarding your defense of your actions, but I felt it necessary to answer some of the misconceptions you have regarding my last post. So, I will try one last time. > Dear Stan, I never said you claimed that Watchman shut out your writings. However, Terence Sheridan began this mess in the first place by claiming just that in September of 2001. He apologized for his error. Perhaps you should as well, because just after saying you never claimed Watchman refused to put information out on this subject, you make just that claim with regard to McKee's article. For your information, McKee's article came to me on the very same day that Sheridan agreed to the debate. Since the subject of the debate is the same as the subject of the article (what constitutes biblical "Putting Away"), when I finally got around to reading the article much later, I considered it completely unnecessary. The article would have needed a response, hence an exchange. But, we already were having an exchange between Sheridan and Osborne. Finally, Harry Osborne is not an associate editor of Watchman. Never has been, and probably never will be. He is a feature writer, and has been a guest editor. He has no say in editorial policy. It has been made clear in the editorial policy of the magazine that the only two people who have editorial say other than myself are Tom Roberts and Larry Fain. You need to be more careful with your "facts." > My decision not to post
the debate to my website is Please note that attacking the editorial policies of other papers does not excuse your hypocrisy. In fact, they have no bearing on the subject whatsoever. Your hypocrisy is not in violating the "policy" of your site. The policy of your site is to be unfair, and you have certainly dealt unfairly, so you have not been hypocritical in this. Your hypocrisy is in stating that the debate was unworthy of space, as it would divert attention from the real issue, and then spending 3600 words (more words than any of the articles in the debate) dealing with the debate. This is hypocritical AND unfair. > In addition, Truth
Magazine has been used as a vehicle The above paragraphs are entirely irrelevant to your attempted defense at what is indefensible behavior on your part. What Truth Magazine does, or Gospel Truths magazine, or Gospel Anchor does, has no bearing on whether you are unfair or not. (This reminds me of my kids, who when I admonish them say, "But she did this to me first!") Your attempt to defend yourself in this way is every bit as childish. > Obviously not, for it
diverted the focus to a secondary Really, Jeff. Is it acceptable to treat a brother this way just because you fear that your readers may become confused if they read the debate? Do you feel you have to protect your readers from confusion? Is it really necessary for you to clarify the debate through your one sided review? If you feel Sheridan did a good job, which you have repeatedly said, why can't you let the debate stand on its own merits? It seems that either you have little confidence in your readers, or little respect for Sheridan's efforts. Which is it? > Nevertheless, my review
contains a link to your website Here I may not have made myself sufficiently clear. When I indicated that only an ad hominem attack would have kept me from refusing to print the debate, I meant exactly what brother Osborne said. (I understand that the term "ad hominem", attacking the man, is a more narrow term). By this I meant that inappropriate behavior in the articles would preclude my printing the debate. This would of course, include personal attacks, misrepresentation, inappropriate language, etc. My point is this: They agreed to the proposition, (you knew the proposition as well). As long as the material was on the subject was devoid of such misbehavior, it would be printed. > Considering the fact that
you were the only ones (editors) You note that our desire to post the debate without editorial comment was made known prior to the writing of the articles. The reason for this is that it is FAIR! It would be unfair of us to try to characterize the debate in a particular way. It is fair to simply let the debate stand on its own merits in the issue. You have dealt UNFAIRLY with Harry in your review. Yes, you could have agreed beforetime to publish the debate because the debate was FAIR. You could have taken the same position I did, that as long as their was no misbehavior on the part of either man, the material would be published. The proposition was agreed to by both men. You knew what the proposition was. The men were given exactly the same amount of space to write their articles. > That is why I answered on
11/18/01, "I, like brother Cox, The above is a false
accusation, and one of which you should be ashamed. Harry's affirmative was a
suggestion. In fact, in September of 2001, I wrote a post to Sheridan, asking
him to write himself an You and McKee have both made untrue accusations on several occasions, I suppose because you were not kept apprised of the negotiations regarding the debate. You may not have been aware of everything, as Sheridan may not have kept you apprised, but that is not my problem. You should be more reticent in making such accusations concerning things to which you were not privy. > The whole debate was
orchestrated according to all of Again, for you to characterize procedures and guidelines that BOTH MEN AGREED TO as an "orchestration" indicates your unwillingness to deal fairly with brethren. In a convoluted way, Jeff, you are accusing me of seeking advantage rather than seeking truth. You would take umbrage at such a charge, and yet you freely and without justification make that charge of others. >You wrote "If I were
brother Sheridan I would be outraged at Apparently he doesn't. I did not expect that he would. But that does not change the fact that you did show him great disrespect by your treatment of the debate. And, if I were him, I would be outraged. > Obviously the only thing
proven by 1) Terrence's acceptance of Terence may not be a complainer. But if he does, as your number two states above, believe that "he was treated fairly by you and Harry", it proves the only point I was making. That is, that he stated he was treated fairly. If he does not really believe that, then he is a liar, because he wrote that he did consider the treatment fair. Has he told you otherwise? If so, he needs to repent of a lie. If not, my point stands. > You say I have "sought to
skew your reader's perception of the Again, you fail to see the point. The point is not whether you believe the issue was dealt with in the debate. The point is that your treatment of the exchange was UNFAIR! The point is not the validity of the debate, but rather your BEHAVIOR! > What surprises me the
most, is that while you have the Perhaps finally we get to your problem. You feel the need to characterize yourself as some small "David" taking on the big bad "Goliaths." Jeff, my web site is a one man operation just like yours. I ask men to write for me, just like you do. I no more have "associates" than you do. I will not apologize for having well respected and capable men writing each month. Your continual representation of yourself in this way is tiresome, and only serves to osbcure the real issue. Even the most insignificant individual can mistreat the most powerful institution. You mistreated brothers Osborne and Sheridan on your web site. This has nothing to do with whether or not you are a false teacher, it has everything to do with your UNFAIR treatment. > Brother, I have always
regarded your work highly and am Jeff, you need to explain to me how I am "siding" with anybody. The only time this particular aspect of the MDR question has been addressed on the site was in this debate. The debate was not "siding", as both men received equal opportunity to speak their part. My criticism of you has been with your handling of the issue. You state that what you have done has been in service to God. However, the end does not justify the means. It is not acceptable to engage in "unethical" treatment to get the "truth" out. The truth of God's word does not need such help. If you are not able to see your ungodliness in this, or perhaps are unwilling to change your behavior, you have shown yourself to be unworthy of further consideration. Again, I will say that your behavior is indefensible and shameful, and your attempts to twist my words in your follow up post is shameful as well. In Him,
> Brotherly, ----- Original Message -----
From:
J Belknap Subject: Re: A final attempt to reason with you Dear brother Stan, I will comment in blue to differentiate and make this easier to read. I apologize for not responding sooner but I had a more pressing matter to attend to first, due to its more public nature. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Cox" <stancox@watchmanmag.com> Subject: A final attempt to reason with you Jeff, I'm loathe to get into an
extended exchange with you regarding your The fact that your website
is not a "pro and con" site does not excuse the No, the fact is that I have no interest in publishing a position which gives the last word and an unfair advantage to advocacy of a post-civil-divorce-divorce (what many consider to be "mental divorce"). I have never believed that one who is interested in promoting truth should be concerned with giving "equal" space to error (Gal. 2:5). Was it unethical for God to leave out the particular arguments of the Nicolaitan's and other erroneous doctrines? His word just simply condemns error and teaches truth. Similarly, the reason I set up the web site was to make sure the truth on this issue was ensured an avenue of publication. There is nothing unethical in refusing to give space to something that does not fit that focus. I never said you claimed
that Watchman shut out your writings. However, No, but you did say, "If I remember correctly, you began your site because of an inability to get your view expressed in other papers. (This despite the fact that to this day you have never asked for such an opportunity in Watchman)." For your
information, McKee's article came to me on the very same day Your underlined words illustrate my point perfectly. You have made it clear that you will not publish anything from those agreeing with my point of view on this issue unless a response is forthcoming (your view that such was "needed" is telling in and of itself). This belief that a reply is "needed" thereby ensures that those with your point of view are afforded the last word on your publication. You said that David's article "would have needed a response." That is your judgment and your prerogative as editor of Watchman. It is telling that when you have used Watchman magazine to expose something you yourself consider erroneous, you have not made the assessment that a response was necessary, and have not made it a practice to give the opposition the last word. However, you sought to tie my hands in my own publication by setting the debate rules, using Harry's wording for Terrence's affirmative, Harry failing to come to the table with a proposition of his own for Terrence to examine, etc. Then you wanted me to agree to such conditions ahead of the debate, while binding me to the "no editorial comment" policy you made. This would have ensured that those you agree with would have the last word on my publication as well as yours. Well Stan, I could not agree to that ahead of time, and after reviewing the debate, I could neither agree to it. Finally,
Harry Osborne is not an associate editor of Watchman. Never has In a personal letter from Harry dated April 12, 2001, he stated: "If I have any reason to answer you in the future, I believe it only fair and honorable to present you with a copy. When I have had responsibility for editing issues of Watchman and Guardian of Truth, that has been my practice." I remembered the gist of that comment if not the specifics, and between that remembrance and Harry's name on the website, I came to the erroneous conclusion that Harry was one of the present editors of Watchman. I am sorry for that mistaken conclusion. Please note that attacking
the editorial policies of other papers does not No, I never attacked anyone's "editorial policies." What I did expose is the inconsistent practice of their "editorial policies." When the apostles dealt with error, they did not consider what the errorists felt about fairness. One opposed to your point of view could also say that the "policy of your site is to be unfair" because you will not allow those you oppose to have the last word. Would that make their claim right? I try to act in such a way to ensure fairness to truth, whether those who oppose me deem that as fair or not. I believe you do the same, by your policy which ensures the last word to those who you believe hold the truth on a particular subject. Your hypocrisy is in
stating that the debate was unworthy of space, as it Where did I say that the debate was unworthy of space? What I said was, "I have consistently maintained that there is one purpose for the site - to inform and forewarn brethren of the dangers related to the mental divorce doctrine. Can you seriously claim that the debate (both affirmative and negative) fits into that purpose? Obviously not, for it diverted the focus to a secondary issue (which tends to confuse rather than concentrate and clarify it, as I have sought to do not only in previous articles, but also in my review of the Sheridan - Osborne Debate)." Watchman Magazine has a particular focus, too - dealing with Biblical subjects. If someone wrote an article on a subject that was opposed to the focus of your publication (even in part), would you be obligated to publish it? The above paragraphs are
entirely irrelevant to your attempted defense at Talk about childishness. My kids' favorite claim to use when they don't get their own way is one and the same as your repeated claim, "it's not fair!" Nonetheless, you missed the point, Stan. You claim that I am being hypocritical and unethical by not publishing that which does not even fit into my web site's aim and focus. Obviously, it seems strange that those who were involved in shutting out the opposition (while giving the appearance and / or claim of fair examination of both pro and con stances on issues) remain your friends, while I (who have never claimed such a policy) am accused of sin and hypocrisy for maintaining the same web site policy that was published and has been maintained from its beginning. I find it incredulous that after explaining the circumstances behind (and purpose of) the starting of my web site, that you still cannot understand why I would not want to publish an unanswered last word which advocates what I consider to be blatant error on the very site I set up to expose it. Proverbs 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. The above scripture proves that there is an advantage to having the last word. You know it (proven by your own words about David's article needing a response) and I know it, and it has been obvious since Harry's correspondence with me after his article "Do All Applications Equal Doctrine?" in Gospel Truths that he knows it too. In a regular debate, each person is afforded a proposition which they affirm, giving each person the last word in at least one of the arguments. That did not happen here. Was that FAIR? Really, Jeff. Is it
acceptable to treat a brother this way just because you If you have no fear of your own readers being confused by the opposition to your position on this issue, then why not let them have the last word in your publication, too? Obviously, you must have feared that David's reasoning would "stand on its own merits," because you feel that his article "would have needed a response." > Nevertheless, my review
contains a link to your website Stan, you never commented on this. If you believe that Harry's writing can stand on its own merits, then why not provide a link to my debate review on Watchman, as I have provided to your debate? ...You note that our desire
to post the debate without editorial comment was As I described above, I believe that it was alright for you to make your own rules for a debate which you were committing to your publication and if you could get Terrence to agree to them even though he considered them to be less than ideal, more power to you. However, it is not and appropriate for you to expect me to agree to the same conditions you set up, when you were in complete control of the situation and ensured that Harry's views would be aired last, without ever requiring him to defend his own beliefs, as opposed to solely taking the offensive stance against Terrence. If I found a fellow who had never before debated (in agreement with Harry's position) to debate, and set up all the rules, wrote his proposition so that I could examine it but did not give him the chance to examine a proposition of my own and made sure that I had the last word in that debate, would you give me your word that you would publish it in Watchman Magazine "without editorial comment," sight unseen? If you said "no" or replied that you would make the decision after you saw the debate (as I did) but then declined after you saw it, would that have been UNFAIR of you? For you to claim that the debate itself was "fair" and that because it was so, it deserved to be left unexamined anywhere is an illustration of just how prejudiced you are where this issue and the brethren involved are concerned. This is proven by the documentation below, in green. > I began to become
extremely wary of the debate when The above is a false
accusation, and one of which you should be Stan, that is just not true. I read the propositions that Terrence wrote for himself and I don't think anyone with an unprejudiced mind would characterize them the way you did above. I found the two which he wrote to be "lucid" and "precise," but Harry would agree to neither of them, for they would have forced Harry to take more of a defensive stance than an offensive one. If Harry's wording of the proposition was magnanimous as you seem to indicate (simply an attempt to clarify and make a "lucid" and "precise" proposition for Terrence), why did it reflect a completely different thought than the ones propositions which Terrence proposed for himself? Terrence suggested the following proposals: "Whatever steps a person takes that result in his spouse being unscripturally put away have that result, regardless of whether or not he fornicated before taking those steps. Moreover, if an unscripturally put away person is not scripturally allowed to remarry even if his spouse has fornicated after the divorce, then an unscripturally put away person is not scripturally allowed to remarry even if his spouse fornicated before the divorce." and: "No, what I affirm is this: *Whatever* procedure results in a putting away (unscriptural or scriptural), the result of putting away is *not* changed by the fact that the one doing the putting away fornicated beforehand." On 9/27/01, I received some forwarded messages which Terrence wrote to Harry which stated: HO: Again, I think the wording may tend to lose the reader as it does me. Would it not be better to have a simply worded proposition framing the main points of difference? To that end, please let me suggest the following proposition which would adequately frame the fundamental differences as I see them: "The Scriptures specify that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in our society and that the one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry." If you would be willing to affirm that proposition, I would be willing to deny it. TS: No, Harry. I reject that affirmation. I will not be forced into affirming a straw man that one can easily knock down, especially since you have not come to the table with an affirmative stating your own beliefs about who and who cannot remarry. I do *not* believe the biblical putting away is *synonmyous* with the civil procedure for divorce in *our* society. I surely grant that divorce procedures have differed throughout time. I am certian that brother Belknap and others, as well, believe that there are varying procedures from culture to culture. However, we recognize that some sort of compliance to law and custom is necessary. No, what I affirm is this: *Whatever* procedure results in a putting away (unscriptural or scriptural), the result of putting away is *not* changed by the fact that the one doing the putting away fornicated beforehand. I don't see what is so hard understand about this. This is my affirmative. Do you deny it or not? In another letter, Terrence wrote to Harry: "For the
sake of ensuring fairness, I want to submit these requests for the debate: In addition, on 9/29/01, I received a forwarded letter that Terrence wrote to Harry, in which Terrence stated: "TS: Brother Osborne, I believe the difficulty rests with you. I regret having to say that, but it seems you wanted to word my affirmative for me. I do not try to word your affirmative and make you try to affirm a position you don't believe. Why can't you show me the same courtesy?" (emp jhb). It was only after it was clear that Harry would agree to no other proposition (which would mean no debate at all) that Terrence agreed to go ahead and argue the affirmative that brother Osborne wrote for him. I will let the words of Terrence's letter to all of us (about how he could say that the debate was handled adequately) answer your above charge: "Speaking on my behalf, the debate was handling adequately in that both sides honored the agreed upon conditions. I was also satisfied with the way it was published in Watchman Magazine. Having said that, however, does not mean I found conditions of the debate to be ideal. I felt like I had to make concessions to Harry in order for him to even come to the table. These I reluctantly made. However, that in spite of the handicap (i.e., his essentially wording an affirmative for me, and him not coming with an affirmative of his own), I felt I could debate him. So I did" (emp. jhb). You and McKee have both
made untrue accusations on several occasions, Who has made "untrue accusations"? Please see Terrence's quotes above. Again, for you to
characterize procedures and guidelines that BOTH MEN Please see Terrence's words above. .... But that does not change the fact that you did show him great disrespect by your treatment of the debate. And, if I were him, I would be outraged. I meant no disrespect to anyone by anything I wrote in my review. By what Terrence wrote to me after its publication, it is apparent that at least he recognizes that. I am simply trying to promote respect of truth (not men) through examination of error in light of the scriptures. If through my actions in such an endeavor some are outraged, then it will not be the first time nor the last (cf. Acts 4:25; Gal. 4:16). Terence may not be a
complainer. But if he does, as your number two Terrence never told me "otherwise," nor had he ever said to me that he had been treated fairly in the debate - I was only replying to your statement that he had told you he was treated fairly. Subsequently, we both received Terrence's note which reconciles how he could say such under the circumstances, so please refer to his comments above. Again, you fail to see the
point. The point is not whether you believe the Stan, you have only been concerned with fair treatment to Harry and to the debate itself. Again, that is your prerogative. However, I have made it clear that my concern is in how to most effectively promote truth and combat the present error related to this issue. That is my rightful prerogative. ...You mistreated brothers Osborne and Sheridan on your web site. This has nothing to do with whether or not you are a false teacher, it has everything to do with your UNFAIR treatment. I have already responded to your claim that I have mistreated brother Sheridan. However, your claim that I have mistreated brother Osborne is no different from the claim of others against those who stand for truth by those who wish to propagate error. In times past, as now, when men have no scriptural leg to stand on, they have made accusations of unfairness and mistreatment, resorting to character assassination of those who expose their error. Jeff, you need to explain
to me how I am "siding" with anybody. The only Obviously, I have already answered this. You set up the table of debate under conditions that were to your advantage (only one proposition under examination - Terrences, which Harry worded for him, your ensuring of the last word to Harry by that arrangement, thereby negating the need for "editorial comment" on your side, etc. outlined in green quotes above.) Again, that is your prerogative where your own publication is concerned. But it is the height of presumptuousness and audacity to insist that someone else agree to the same, and to accuse them of "ungodliness," and "shameful(ness)" because they will not. ...If you are not able to
see your ungodliness in this, or perhaps are Stan, I hope that you will honor your words that you have offered your "final attempt to reason with" me. I regret to say that this is my "final attempt to reason with you," (Tit. 3:10). One must first be reasonable before anyone can hope to reason with them (II Thess. 3:2). Brotherly, |
|