Virgil Gooselaw’s Exchange on Mar’s List
(With Ron Halbrook’s Reply)

Virgil Gooselaw with greetings to the List.

On 2/13/01 Mars List Post 2037 Floyd Chappelear wrote:

I do not appreciate it being implied that I was not accurate in my treatment of Ron Halbrook. Ron – in his application – allows an innocent put away party to remain with a second mate

Floyd, and the List:

In the Spring of 1999 Ron Halbrook held a Gospel Meeting for the Holly St. church of Christ in Denver, Co. At the end of each service Ron offered a question and answer period. During one of these periods Ron was asked the very question under consideration. “Does the innocent put away party have the right to remarry?” His answer was “No”. The question was then asked concerning the condition of both parties if a subsequent remarriage occurred and the answer was “Both parties would be in sin”. I am one of the elders serving the church and am witness to Ron’s answers.

In Ron’s booklet “Understanding the Controversy” on page 8 he states concerning Matt. 5:32 “If a man divorces his wife who did not commit fornication, he is the cause of her subsequent  adultery. If he divorces his wife who committed fornication, he is not the cause of her subsequent adultery. In both cases, she goes to the bed of adultery when she marries a new mate”.

Then concerning Matt. 19:9 (same page) Ron states “If a man puts away his wife who did not commit fornication, he goes to the bed of adultery when he marries a new mate. If he puts away his wife who commits fornication, he is not guilty of adultery when he marries a new mate. A woman who is divorced where there is no fornication, goes to the bed of adultery if she marries a new mate. Her new mate commits adultery with her, whether or not he has been married before.

On page 9 he states: “The Scriptures teach that two people joined by God in marriage are bound for life, the only exception being that an innocent partner may put away a mate guilty of fornication and remarry”.

It is possible that Ron held a different view/belief in the past, but from everything I have heard him say and what he writes indicates that you, Floyd are wrong in what you say Ron Halbrook believes.

Cordially,
Virgil Gooselaw

---------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------

Subject: How were FC Lectures???

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:32:43 -0700

Dear Virgil, Thanks for this forward. You represented my view accurately on this matter and I have never believed anything different from that. Those who are fighting us on the fellowship issue have tried to undermine and divide us by referring to differences we may have at times on a hundred details or side issues which are caused by the ungodly rebellion of the court system against what Christ taught on MDR. For instance, must the innocent party put fornication on the divorce papers as the reason for the divorce? If the fornicator gets to the court house first, what legal action must the innocent party take? Some of these judgments about such details will have to be left to the parties involved. I have never tried to dodge this smokescreen which has been used against us and have openly addressed it in 2 articles in Truth Mag. several years ago (which I will forward to you). People like Floyd keep throwing up this smoke screen but they have not answered these two articles. If the smokescreen continues, you might refer folks on the list to read them or offer to forward them. I have no intention of getting embroiled with Floyd and co. over this smokescreen.

We need to keep our eyes on the ball: the denial of Christ's fundamental law on MDR and the affirmation of unity-in-doctrinal-diversity. That is what is undermining respect for Bible authority and causing division.

People like Floyd want to get our attention away from the real issues and get us into a hundred sideline disputes. Godspeed, Ron

Subsequent to the time that brother Gooselaw wrote the above quote, brother Don Martin (who is both  the evangelist at the Holly Street church in Denver, CO and a fellow elder with brother Gooselaw) expressed his disappointment in Ron’s lack of candor regarding his true (documented) teaching and in the misleading statements that Ron has made regarding his convictions, within the following document: MDR Double Talk – Jeff

Compare Ron’s words above to brother Gooselaw, with the following:

1) Ron Halbrook E-mails (February 8, 1998)

2) An excerpt from Ron Halbrook’s rebuttal to Bob Owen (Burnet, TX, February, 2000)

3) Ron Halbrook’s Hand-Out Study Papers at Athens, Georgia (July 27-28, 2000)

4) Audio Excerpts Of: Ron Halbrook (February 21, 2004)

5) An Examination of Ron Halbrook’s Charts (Posted on Truth Magazine’s Website).

Home | Search This Site