Complete E-Mail Exchange With Tom O’Neal
 

Dear brother O’Neal,

I hope all is well with you and yours.

Because the church here in Beckley scheduled several meetings with various brethren prior to the emergence of the present controversy regarding post-civil-divorce “putting away” and remarriage, the brethren have requested that I contact those who are scheduled, to ask them about their present convictions on the subject. 

Hence, that is the reason I am writing to you, since you are scheduled to hold a meeting for us next Spring. 

Specifically, we need a straightforward, “I agree” or “I disagree” answer to the following:

Without exception, when an unlawful divorce has been finalized via compliance with one’s respective civil (or socially-recognized) laws, the one who was put away (repudiated) commits adultery upon remarriage to another (Matthew 5:32b; Matthew 19:9b; Luke 16:18b) for as long as their bound mate still lives (Romans 7:3).   

If you disagree with any or all of the above statement, you are free to clarify why.

I realize that you have been receiving my website updates for a long time and that you are aware of the controversy involving Ron Halbrook, Harry Osborne, Tim Haile and others. In spite of your relationship to brother Osborne, we want to give you the opportunity to define your own convictions.

I will look forward to your reply.

Brotherly,
Jeff

Dear brother O’Neal,

I trust this note finds you well.

I sent the following two weeks ago. Lord willing, the men will be meeting soon to discuss our Spring Meeting plans. We are hoping to discuss your reply.

Please let us know your convictions as soon as you get a chance.

Thank you.

Brotherly,
Jeff

Dear brother O’Neal,

I hope all is well with you and yours.

Because the church here in Beckley scheduled several meetings with various brethren prior to the emergence of the present controversy regarding post-civil-divorce “putting away” and remarriage, the brethren have requested that I contact those who are scheduled, to ask them about their present convictions on the subject. 

Hence, that is the reason I am writing to you, since you are scheduled to hold a meeting for us next Spring. 

Specifically, we need a straightforward, “I agree” or “I disagree” answer to the following:

Without exception, when an unlawful divorce has been finalized via compliance with one's respective civil (or socially-recognized) laws, the one who was put away (repudiated) commits adultery upon remarriage to another (Matthew 5:32b; Matthew 19:9b; Luke 16:18b) for as long as their bound mate still lives (Romans 7:3).   

If you disagree with any or all of the above statement, you are free to clarify why.

I realize that you have been receiving my website updates for a long time and that you are aware of the controversy involving Ron Halbrook, Harry Osborne, Tim Haile and others.  In spite of your relationship to brother Osborne, we want to give you the opportunity to define your own convictions.

I will look forward to your reply.

Brotherly,
Jeff

Dear brother Bragg: 

I am forwarding these two letter from brother Jeff Belknap which I received yesterday. He said that he sent the letter two weeks ago, but for whatever reason, I never received it. I don’t know if he failed to send it, whether AOL perceived it as spam and deleted it or something else happened, but the bottom line is I never received it.  If I had I would have responded. 

On November 29, 2000, when I wrote you about the possibility of support, I closed my letter saying, “I know that you probably have questions and I would be happy to answer them.” When you replied on December 8, 2000, you indicated that you would like to know something of my stand on “marriage, divorce and remarriage” as well as the question of “creation.”  I sent you material on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. If I remember correctly, I sent you the article that I wrote in Walking In Truth for October, November and December, 1998. 

At the time that I wrote to you in regard to support upon the suggestion of brother Mike Willis, I was not aware that funds for support would come from the Toothman Fund and not from the church there. Thinking that the brethren in the church would want to meet, hear and talk with one they would be having a part in supporting, I suggested that I would be glad to come speak to them for a few days and talk with them. You wrote back on December 21, 2000, asking, “Would you consider holding a meeting for us at Carriage Drive?” To which I was agreeable. 

On December 18, 2000, I wrote you, “Under separate cover I have sent to you some material which should give you some information regarding my views on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage as well as creation. You probably already have received this or will within a day or two.” 

You said in your December 8, 2000, letter that “I would also need at least two references for my records.” In my letter to you on December 18, 2000, I supplied you with, not two, but five references - Connie W. Adams, Weldon Warnock, Stan Adams, Donnie Rader and Dorris V. Rader. In this letter I closed by saying, “If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them for you.” 

In view of the above, I find it a little strange that brother Belknap would write asking a question concerning my position on marriage, divorce and remarriage. My first question would be: is brother Belknap writing this specific question on his own or did the brethren there instruct him to ask this specific question? I will be glad to answer anything the brethren there want to know in a “straightforward” manner. That is the only way I know how. However, that does raise a question in my mind since brother Belknap asked it the way he did, does he not answer questions in a “straightforward” manner? He gives me two options – “I agree or I disagree.” When asked a question, I have always been willing to answer, but I will not let someone dictate what words I will use in answering. In addition to all of this, I find the question as written by brother Belknap to be very poorly worded, to be unclear as to what he is asking and that it contains a contradiction within it. He may know what he is asking; but I am not sure. 

I resent the implications found within his last paragraph. I do not let either friends or family make up my mind as to what I believe the Bible teaches on any question. 

Brother Belknap mentions in the last paragraph “my website.” Is this his personal website or is this website the church’s? True, I get his updates, but I do not have time to read all the material that he puts out.   

Another question I have is brother Belknap making this issue a test of fellowship? I would be most interested in seeing an answer to this. 

I believe that God’s law of marriage is: one man for one woman for life with one exception, that exception being if fornication is committed, the innocent of fornication has the right to put away the guilty fornicator and remarry; if the guilty fornicator remarries, they commit adultery. 

Brother Bragg, I look forward to being with you brethren next year at a time that we can agree upon. I especially look forward to spending some time with you and having you tell me about brother and sister Toothman and see any pictures, etc., that you might have of them. I would enjoy visiting their home place, if possible. 

I look forward to your reply, 

Brotherly,
Tom O’Neal

Dear Dear brother Oneal:

I am sorry for the delay in responding to your e-mail of Sept. 7,2003.

You are correct in the statements made by each of us in late 2000 with regard to support. You did indeed sent the statement of your stand on marriage, divorce and remarriage, as well as the as the Creation question, and the references also. Had not all of these questions been supplied, and been scriptural I would not have honored your request for support. 

I am not sure bro. Belknap knew that I was helping with your support, since the Toothman estate and later the Toothman Memorial Fund was not connected to the church in any way. Bro. Toothman died in 1988. After his death sis. Toothman made me Executor of her estate, as well as Power of Attorney. I did tell bro. Belknap of these things shortly after he came to work with us, I believe in May, 1999, before Sis. Toothman died in Dec. 1999. Later when I submitted your name to the men in a business meeting as a possible candidate for a gospel meeting, you were approved, but I cannot remember what discussion or exchange took place, or whether questions arose concerning your stand in regard to the afore mentioned questions. There may not have been questions since all the men knew (and knows) my stand on these questions. They know I would not submit the name of anyone who does not believe and teach the truth on these or any scriptural truths. 

To your question as to whether bro. had the instruction of the church to write you, I would say “yes”, as he stated in in his to you of Aug. 23, 2003. As for the specifics or the exact wording of the letter were part of the liberties given Jeff when the writing of the letter was approved by the men. I am sure bro. Belknap would be glad to answer any question you have in this regard. 

With regard to the “implications” I cannot answer. These must be answered by bro. Belknap!

 The Website is strictly his, the church no part in it.

 To my knowledge “the fellowship” question has never been debated, but if you, me, or anyone else upheld, taught, or was part of practicing error, then the question of fellowship would be involved.

Bro. Oneal, since there are some questions in your letter that I cannot answer, I suggest you address them to bro. Belknap. I am sure he would be glad to supply you with the answers in a brotherly manner.

If you feel you cannot work with us in a gospel meeting, or you think there may be undue stress (you told me of your heart condition) upon you to hold the meeting, there would be no problem with us if you chose to forego the meeting... This is not a suggestion to cancel the meeting, only a thought. 

In brotherly love, Leonard

Dear brother O’Neal,

I hope this letter finds you and yours all well.

Brother Leonard Bragg shared your letter with me, since it was addressing your concern regarding me and the letters that I wrote to you. 

(I don’t understand why my first letter didn’t reach you, since I originally mailed it on 8-23-03 in the same manner that I send all of my website updates that you mentioned you have received. Nevertheless, I am glad to see that you have now received it.) 

Now that you have verified that it was indeed the men of the congregation (and not myself, alone) who wanted me to contact you (as one who is scheduled to hold a meeting with the church here), the men still desire an answer to our specific question.

[To say: “I believe that God's law of marriage is: one man for one woman for life with one exception, that exception being if fornication is committed, the innocent of fornication has the right to put away the guilty fornicator and remarry; if the guilty fornicator remarries, they commit adultery,” is too generic and obviously does not specifically address the unscripturally divorced.]

Though you may not have “time to read all the material” that I (and many others) “put out,” I trust that you at least now what the disagreement is about. I am assuming you know of the debate that recently took place (between brothers Joel Gwin and Bill Reeves), which examines both sides of the controversy.

You wrote, “I will be glad to answer anything the brethren there want to know in a ‘straightforward’ manner” and reiterated your previous statement, “If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them for you.”

I am glad to know that. Since you thought my question was poorly worded, perhaps it would be best to use some quotes from another, and request your view of the teaching in them.

Please consider the following quotes by brother Ron Halbrook (two of many that could be cited which teach the same):

“Because the man goes through the farce of a civil action in putting her away in a legal sense (he has done that—the civil courts will record it), but in the sight of God he has just acted out a perversion and a lie, and God doesn’t accept what he has done. Now, it’s interesting that Mark helps you on the point you’re raising in chapter 10, verses 11 and 12.  Notice, ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her.’ Notice that.  Now that describes what you were just describing. Well, if he committed adultery against her, then she has grounds as an innocent party to put her mate away for immorality.” 

An excerpt of an MDR presentation by Ron Halbrook at Belen, NM
  

“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 (E-mail “discussion with friends about fine-tuning some points of application,” February, 1998)   

An e-mail letter, in which Ron Halbrook reveals his “application” (February 8, 1998)

Here is the question we are requesting that you answer:

Regarding the scenario in the above quotes, do you believe that if the woman described were to remarry another [after she “put her mate away” for her husband’s post-unscriptural divorce fornication], that her remarriage would constitute a lawful union or an adulterous one?

In contrast to the teaching above (in blue), brother J. T. Smith just recently denied two things that have been advocated by Ron and other brethren of late: 1) There are not “innocent”/“guilty” parties to “put away” after the fact of a civil divorce, and 2) such a remarriage to another after such a second “putting away” is sin.

Brother Smith wrote: 

“When man’s law dissolves the original marriage in a divorce court, (though they are still ‘bound’ by God) then there are no ‘guilty’ nor ‘innocent’ persons according to the Scriptures. And in those passages, neither the person doing the ‘putting away’ nor the person ‘put away’ may remarry without sin. How long do they sin? Paul said, ‘so long as the husband / wife lives’ (Romans 7:2-3).”  Gospel Truths, Volume XIV Number 9, September 2003 

The “Innocent” Party (by J. T. Smith)

Brother Tom, both positions cannot be right!  One contends that the second marriage by the civilly put away person is “sin;” the other teaches it is not. Which one is “the truth”?  Amos 3:3

Brotherly,
Jeff

Attached is my reply in Word Perfect (copied below, jhb)

Dear brother Belknap:

With this letter I will reply to your’s of September 6 and 23. I am sorry that I did not get your original letter to me but as I explained to brother Bragg I never received it. Why I do not know.

I will take my time in replying but I want you to know up front that I have nothing but good will toward a brother in Christ and don’t want you to think otherwise. I hope you will receive this in the same manner in which I am sending it.

To me, your request is rather strange. Since I started preaching in June of 1954, which included the time that the institutional controversy was raging, I have never received a letter asking that I state my position on any subject. I have not preached in as many meetings as some brethren have, but over those years I have preached in enough to know how to preach and conduct myself in a Gospel Meeting. I have never caused any trouble for a church during a Gospel Meeting. I have known of preachers stirring up problems during a meeting and the local preacher and the elders having to spend several months cleaning up the mess some preacher made during a meeting. I have been on the cleaning up end a few times.

However, the brethren anywhere have the right to know the convictions of any man they bring to their pulpit. In fact, they not only have the right to know, but they should know. I have no problem answering the question that you sent or any other question. In fact, to show you and the brethren there at Beckley, WV, how open and honest I am to answering questions, I am willing to come to Beckley at my expense and sit down with the brethren and let them ask me any question they desire. The question that you asked was:

“Without exception, when an unlawful divorce has been finalized via compliance with one’s respective civil (or socially-recognized) laws, the one who was put away (repudiated) commits adultery upon remarriage to another (Matthew 5:32b; Matthew 19:9b; Luke 16:18b) for as long as their bound mate still lives (Romans 7:3). [E-mail to me, Aug 23, 2003; 8:18 P.M.]

You then gave me two options with which to answer the question: (1) “I agree,” and (2) “I disagree.” Brother Belknap, I will not permit you or anyone else to both ask me a question and then supply the answer I must use. I will not allow you to be judge, jury and prosecuting attorney in this case. As I told brother Bragg, this question is very poorly worded. It is not clear to me exactly what you are asking. I just wanted to be sure that I understood what you were asking before I answered. In your response, you did not try to restate the question, explain the question or clarify the question. You abandoned the question completely. Why? The second thing I had a problem with was that the question contained a contradiction. How could a divorce be “unlawful” when it was in done in “compliance” with “civil law?”

In an open and honest effort to give you and the brethren at Beckley my position, I stated to brother Leonard Bragg exactly what I believe: I believe that God’s law of marriage is: one man for one woman for life with one exception, that exception being if fornication is committed, the innocent of fornication has the right to put away the guilty fornicator and remarry; if the guilty fornicator remarries, they commit adultery (E-mail to brother Leonard Bragg, 9/7/2003, 14:59 PM). Your response to that was it “is too generic and obviously does not specifically address the unscripturally divorced.” That is what you say. But I thought I was being rather specific in my answer. I stated openly my position but you did not like the way I answered. Must I answer the way you want me to before you will be satisfied?

Another thing I thought strange about your question was, you did not ask about a number of other issues. You did not ask about: (1) what I thought about the Deity of Christ on earth, (2) the Sunday evening Lord’s Supper, (3) the covering of 1 Corinthians 11, (4) the AD 70 doctrine, (5) church support of benevolent institutions and colleges, (6) the sponsoring church, (7) the number of cups in the Lord’s Supper, (8) women teachers, (9) women in the business meetings, (10) if a church could have Bible classes, (11) the located preacher question, (12) premillennialism and (13) unity-in-diversity. Are these questions not important? Do you and the brethren there not want to know what a preacher that comes to conduct a Gospel Meeting believes on these questions? Are they not important? Why ask about marriage and not all these other issues that have troubled brethren over the years? Another question I might ask is: have you and do you ask all the preachers that conduct meetings there at Beckley their views on marriage or is it just me? An interesting observation to me is that you have a web site devoted exclusively to the marriage question, that is, what you term “mental divorce” but you do not have a web site devoted to any of the above questions. Some of the above questions have caused a whole lot more concern to brethren over the years than what you term “mental divorce.”

There are brethren who have done with the covering question what you have done with the so-called “mental divorce” question. They take that one issue and that is about all they talk about it seems to me. When their name is mentioned the covering is associated with their name. They get all excited about it but seem not to be concerned very much with other issues that have caused brethren problems over the years. One of these preachers has written four different tracts in regard to the covering. When some preacher’ s name is mentioned, they want to know if he is sound on the “authority question” which is their way of asking about his position on the covering. You seem to be doing the same thing with the “mental divorce” question.

When I preached at the Azelea Park congregation in Orlando, Florida, in the 1960s we were having 140-160 in attendance and growing. A preacher followed me and began pressing his views on the covering. When I was back there for a Gospel Meeting I had sessions with brethren at their request for breakfast, lunch, supper and after church at night trying to settle the brethren down due to this preacher’s stirring the covering question. He was followed by another preacher with all his foolishness, and the result of these two preachers was that a number of brethren got tired of their harping on such matters and most of the congregation left. Brother Wayne Sullivan then spent several years of his life trying to build the congregation back up, with little success. Brother James P. Needham is there now doing the same good job of trying to build up the work. I was there and preached for them recently and they had maybe 30-40 in attendance.

With several brethren I helped get a new work started in Winchester, VA, a number of years ago. I conducted several Gospel Meetings with them, preached on the radio for several years, and the last time I was there they had 50-60 in attendance, all of this without a full time preacher. The men took turns doing the best job they could preaching. They finally got large enough that they could get a full time preacher. He came, and guess what? He began to press the covering question. The brethren finally got tired of his harping on it and such related matters and they left. Today, there is no sound church in Winchester, VA.

Will the same thing happen in Beckley, WV? I don’t know. I have never been to Beckley and don’t know any of the brethren there except brother Leonard Bragg and only him through correspondence. A “one issue preacher,” whether it be the covering, “mental divorce,” Sunday night communion or whatever, usually has a way of spending a large part of his time preaching on whatever his hobby is. In time, brethren get tired of hearing such and usually leave. If he is preaching on creation, baptism or Abraham he usually has a way of getting his hobby in somewhere in his sermon. Paul preached the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26-27). Paul did not preach one thing to the exclusion of other themes. Brother Belknap, just as when certain preacher’s names are mentioned, the covering comes up, what I am hearing is when your name comes up among brethren the “mental divorce” issue comes up. I perceive that for some unknown reason to me, your web site is not just about “mental divorce” but has an under lying effort to destroy Ron Halbrook. I could be wrong in this, but that is the perception that I have gotten from what little I have seen of your web site. Look at the number of articles you have on your web site that target Ron Halbrook by name. Why not some other preachers?

As I have said, instead of rewording your question, clarifying your question, you give me two excerpts from the pen of Ron Halbrook. You see why I think you are after brother Halbrook.

Your quotations are from two larger documents. I would not answer without having the full document from which these are taken. Again, I am not opposed to answering questions and that is the reason why I am willing to come at my expense to Beckley and sit down with you and the brethren and let you ask any question you desire. I would also be glad to study with you and/or the brethren and even let the brethren sit in on our study together. Would you be willing to do that? If not, why, not? Truth has no fear of an honest investigation.

You state in your E-mail to me on 9/23/03 11:09.08 PM that brother J. T. Smith denies what you represent brother Ron Halbrook as saying. You may be right and you may be wrong. It makes little difference to me what any man says about this or any other issue. All I am concerned with it what the word of God has to say. The Bible is right and cannot be wrong! I am only interested in truth. When this issue came to the front of the attention of brethren, everyone was asking questions that I have never thought of. I have not changed my basic thinking on the subject of marriage but on some points I have modified my thinking. That only means that I have learned some truth that I did not know before. I am still willing to do that. I am opened minded on this and any other question. I will not accept what some man says unless he shows me from the Bible what I believe is in error.

I have seen your up-dates to your web site from time to time but do not have the time to read all of them. In fact, I have read little of what is there. I do not have the time. I do not see how you have the time to spend on such and do the work of gospel preaching. However, from one that I did read you quoted Ron Halbrook from a sermon he preached in Wilkesville, OH, on 6/14/90, in which he says:

“And so, in conclusion from this (1 Cor. 7:11, 15 jhb) we learn that unscriptural divorce releases neither party from marriage. When you have an unscriptural divorce, as men count it, it’s not so with God.. That bond is still in tact. And that little piece of paper is nothing in the sight of God. Just as well use it as Kleenex and blow your nose and drop it in the toilet. It doesn’t mean a thing to God. God’s law rules over the laws of men.”

When I read that, I may be dense, but I couldn’t believe anyone would disagree with that. I wondered why you would take exception to it. Questions: (1) Do you believe that when two people unscripturally divorce that God recognizes their sinful action? The flip side of that coin would be - do you believe when two people unscripturally marry that God recognizes their piece of paper? If God recognizes it, how could they be living in adultery? (2) Do you believe that “God’s law rules over the laws of men?” or Do you believe that “man’s law rules over the laws of God?” Which is it? Again, do you see why I perceive that you are after Ron Halbrook?

You say “In spite of your relationship to brother [Harry, TGO] Osborne, we want to give you the opportunity to define your own convictions.” My relationship to Harry is that he is my brother, my brother-in-law (I married his sister, Carolyn) and my brother in Christ. I personally resent the implication. From the time I started preaching in 1954, I have made up my mind on the basis of what I believe the Scriptures teach on any question. If I were going to be influenced by family or friends, I would have made that decision years ago during the institutional question. I had/have three family members who are/were institutional preachers and it would have avoided a lot of conflict within our family if I had sold out to the institutional idols. Today I still have friends among the institutional brethren who are well respected preachers, but they know that I would quickly debate them today if they were willing. You mention Ron Halbrook, Harry Osborne and Tim Haile as well as others. If I learned that they were in error or in sin, I will just as quickly have my say with them as I would with any others.

Brother Belknap, my perception at this point is that you want to ask questions and post things on your web site, but that you do not want to discuss and study these issues. You have refused to discuss these matter with Harry Osborne. You refused to post Harry’s written debate with brother Terence Sheridan on your web site and let the readers make up their mind after having read it. You added your comments which were designed to slant the debate in favor of brother Sheridan. This was a slap in the face to brother Sheridan. When you got complaints, you took the entire debate off your web site, instead of just taking your comments off. You were not willing to have a fair reading of the debate without your input. Seems like you didn’t think brother Sheridan did a very good job defending his position. When brother Mike Willis was with the church in Beckley in a Gospel Meeting, you said nothing to him all week long about these matters, but waited until you were on the way to the airport after the meeting was over, and then you brought these matter up. Why did you not discuss these issues with him during the week when you could have had sufficient time to do so? It appears to me that you might have thought that brother Willis might have shown you that you were the one in error.

I would suggest that you and the brethren there ask brother Weldon Warnock about me. We have known each other for over 40 years. He preached at one time in my home town. I think that he will tell you and the brethren that I am no trouble maker, radical, hobby-rider or unreasonable person.

Brother Belknap, I look forward to meeting you, being with you and the brethren at Beckley in a Gospel Meeting next spring to the end of saving souls and edifying the saved, unless you are making the marriage question and agreeing fully with you a test of fellowship. Is this what you are trying to do? I look forward to hearing from you as to when I can come and sit down with you and the brethren there so they can ask me any question that is on their mind. Again, I will be glad to sit down and study with you, with the brethren, with you and the brethren or with you and let the brethren listen in on our study.

May God bless both you and yours and the brethren at Beckley in any and every righteous endeavor.

Brotherly,
Tom O’Neal

NOTE: Brother Belknap,

You do NOT have my permission to post this letter on your website unless you post it in its entirety, with no comments from you.

Dear brother Tom,

In regards to your below letter, I will decline response to your points which have nothing to do with the issue at hand (whatever one’s conviction on the covering, it does not result in adultery nor fellowship with it, as this issue does.)

There are several unbrotherly surmisings in your letter about me, motivation behind my actions, my preaching, and my local work. None of those charges were founded. 

You made many untrue accusations and insinuations (which you made no attempt to prove with documentation) such as the following:

“I will not allow you to be judge, jury and prosecuting attorney in this case.”

“A ‘one issue preacher,’ whether it be the covering, ‘mental divorce,’ Sunday night communion or whatever, usually has a way of spending a large part of his time preaching on whatever his hobby is.”

“I perceive that for some unknown reason to me, your web site is not just about ‘mental divorce’ but has an under lying effort to destroy Ron Halbrook. I could be wrong in this, but that is the perception that I have gotten from what little I have seen of your web site.”

“I do not see how you have the time to spend on such and do the work of gospel preaching.”

“It appears to me that you might have thought that brother Willis might have shown you that you were the one in error.”

(Additionally, it is apparent from your first letter to brother Bragg, that you doubted my word that it was the men of the congregation who had requested that I ask the question of you in the first place.)

My website contains many documents which prove the falsehood of various charges you made in regard to my dealings with Ron Halbrook, Harry Osborne, and Tim Haile. I trust if you had actually taken the time to research my site before making your accusations (as you said “I have read little of what is there. I do not have the time.”), you would have seen for yourself that they are false. If you doubt my word, please let me know and I will send you specific links to the various documents and correspondences that prove it.

The irony is the extreme sensitivity displayed in your letter, finding insult / insinuation where there was none [i.e. the statement from my original letter, (“I realize that you have been receiving my website updates for a long time and that you are aware of the controversy involving Ron Halbrook, Harry Osborne, Tim Haile and others. In spite of your relationship to brother Osborne, we want to give you the opportunity to define your own convictions.”) was actually offering the benefit of the doubt, despite knowledge of your familial ties]. 

I do not know you Tom, but as the Bible teaches, there is potential for all of us to become “respectors of persons.” (If you doubt this, review James 2, which warns us all against it, as well as the numerous passages that point out that God is not a respector of persons.) It is obvious that family (those whom we are the closest to, on this earth) would head the list of those who are usually respected above others. Even if we have stood - and still “stand” in this area, we are well advised to “take heed lest (we-jhb) fall.”  

In regards to your take on the Wilkesville, OH quote, you can find the answer to your questions on my website.  There, you will find numerous writings which explain my recognition that God does not approve of marriages by scripturally ineligible people, nor divorces of bound people for causes other than fornication.  Nevertheless, it is undeniable that He “recognizes” them. (Scriptural proof that God “recognizes” an unapproved marriage is found in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18 and Romans 7:3: “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married (emp. jhb) to another man...” Similarly, scriptural proof that He also “recognizes” unapproved divorces is found in I Corinthians 7:10-11: “...Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband:...”.) Please see: It Is Nothing

Back to the question at hand: Whether one is a “trouble maker, radical, hobby-rider or unreasonable person,” has nothing to do with our present inquiry. (Obviously, if the men thought that you fit such a description - or if they believed you espoused error on subjects of controversy that had arisen prior to their request for you to hold a meeting here, they would never have invited you in the first place).

As I told you in an earlier letter, you are not the only one who has been asked this question. Our men decided that since the current issue of controversy came up after they had asked several men to hold meetings, we should ascertain their stance on the subject at hand, prior to their meetings with us. You were but one of several who have been asked. (You are the first however, who expressed difficulty in understanding the question as I worded it, and also after receiving the restated question in someone else's words, you still would not answer it).

In your letter to brother Bragg, you stated that the only way you know how to answer anything is in a “straightforward” manner. You even stated that you would come to Beckley at your own expense and answer any questions that the brethren or I ask, yet you will not even answer the men’s first and only question, which they requested as a condition to consider whether or not they still desire for you to hold a meeting here. I trust that if we could all understand one another’s questions and answers in person, we can accomplish the same via e-mail. 

Again, the men have asked one question. Since you thought my first question was “poorly worded” and contradictory, I restated the question by asking whether you agreed with another’s words (whose words I trusted you would deem as clearly written), yet you would not voice your opinion about brother Halbrook’s quotes.  (You mentioned that the quotes by brother Halbrook were “from two larger documents,” and that you “would not answer without having the full document from which these are taken,” yet in my e-mail to you, immediately after I cited each quote, I had included a link to each of the documents that the quotes were taken from.) This whole situation is ironic, considering that you, yourself cite another quote by brother Halbrook, and comment on that one (as incomplete as it is), while conspicuously failing to comment on those which I sent you.  

Nevertheless, I will try once again to reword the question:

When a man puts away his wife for any cause other than fornication and subsequently marries another, then even if his first (innocent) wife employed a post-unscriptural-divorce-“putting-away” for fornication, her remarriage to another would still constitute adultery (as outlined in Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b and Luke 16:18b).  

Do you affirm or deny that? Please answer that simple question.

In my first letter, though I indeed asked for an “I agree” or “I disagree” answer, you failed to mention a pertinent point: that you were also offered the opportunity to state which (if any) portions of the statement you disagreed with, and why (“If you disagree with any or all of the above statement, you are free to clarify why.”) That holds true in regards to the above statement, as well. 

I will await your answer.

Brotherly,
Jeff

Regarding The Sheridan-Osborne Debate I would not post to my website: See Rejoinder To Stan Cox

Regarding the so called “study” with Harry Osborne: Click here

Dear brother Belknap:

This is a reply to your email of 9/29/03 and since there were other matters that had a priority with me, I have delayed answering your letter until now.

I believe that Jesus gave the innocent of fornication the right to put away their fornicating mate and to marry again per Matt. 19:9. Is this not what you believe? Or do you believe something different? I find it hard to understand why you are having such great difficulty understanding what I believe.

Brother Belknap, do you intend to make this issue a test of fellowship? Are only preachers who agree wholly with you going to be allowed to conduct Gospel Meetings at Beckley? Can one who believes Jesus was a man on earth just like every other man going to be able to preach in a Gospel Meeting in Beckley?

You say that you will decline to respond to the points that I made about the covering because such is not at issue. I agree the covering is not the issue; I was only using it as an illustration of becoming obsessed with one issue to the exclusion of other issues. Some covering advocates see that as the all important issue that must be defended, but where has their voice been in opposition to those who teach that Jesus on earth was a man like every other man? In fact, I have not seen anything from you in regard to the false teaching that Jesus gave up his divinity when he came to earth and lived upon this earth like all other men. This is why I say that you are obsessed with and are a one issue preacher  - only marriage seems to matter. All other issues seem unimportant to you.

You charge me with “unbrotherly surmising” in my letter. I tried to be as kind and gentle as I knew how to be, yet, at the same time say plainly what was on my mind. Could it be that you feel that I am guilty of “unbrotherly surmisings” because either (1) I have hit closer to home than you want to admit, or (2) you can not answer what I have said.  I feel that it maybe some of both and a whole lot of each.

When I say as kindly as I can what I think, you charge me with “unbrotherly surmising” but you don’t see anything wrong with what you say that I object to. You seem to be the one who is right all of the time and others are wrong because they don’t agree with your say so.

Brother Belknap, you write, “I do not know you Tom, but as the Bible teaches, there is potential for all of us to become ‘respectors of persons.’ (If you doubt this, review James 2, which warns us all against it, as well as the numerous passages that point out that God is not a respector of persons.) It is obvious that family (those whom we are the closest to, on this earth) would head the list of those who are usually respected above others. Even if we have stood – and still ‘stand’ in this area, we are well advised to ‘take heed lest (we-jhb) fall’.” You should just be man enough to say that I respect my brother (or brother-in-law) Harry Osborne above what is written (1 Cor. 4:6) for that is the clear implication of what you have said. Otherwise, your words have no meaning. I told you in a previous letter that I do not let either family or friends determine what I believe and preach. Your words are not very conciliatory. I would expect better of you but from what you say, maybe I don’t have that right.

I have stated to you: (1) I believe that God’s law on marriage is: one man for one woman for life with one exception, that exception being if fornication is committed, the innocent of fornication has the right to put away the guilty fornicator and remarry; if the guilty fornicator remarries, they commit adultery” and (2) I believe Jesus gave the innocent of fornication the right to put away their fornicating mate and to marry again per Mt. 19:9. Brother Belknap, what is there about those two statements that you do not understand? Do those statements contradict whatever your position is on the question?

You failed to tell me when I could come to Beckley at my expenses and meet with the brethren. Does this mean that you are not going to let me come? Would you be willing to sit down and study with me if I came? Are you going to give me a time I can come up there, or are you going to refuse to meet a study the Scriptures? That would really be something, a gospel preacher refusing to sit down and discuss the Scriptures with another individual.  Personally, I would not want to be in that situation.

I close waiting for you to (1) set the date for the meeting next spring, (2) accept my statements of what I believe on the marriage question, or (3) allow me to come up there and meet with the brethren and face to face answer their questions and study with you. Which will it be?

Brotherly,
Tom O'Neal

Again, brother Belknap, you do NOT have my permission to post this letter on your website unless you post it in its entirely, with no comments from you.

P. S. I would appreciate it if you would share this letter as well as the previous letter with all the men of the congregation at Beckley.

(*Brother Leonard, I hope that it’s not too bothersome for you to be involved in this e-mail exchange.  Nevertheless, since brother O’Neal has cc’d his own letters to you, I thought it important for you to see my responses, as well.)

Dear brother O’Neal,

After having been out of state for a week, I returned home yesterday morning and found your e-mail of 10-14-03 waiting for me. 

Brother Tom, I am having difficulty in understanding how one simple question, asked of you at the direction of the men of the Carriage Drive congregation, has resulted in your writing of several pages-worth of various and sundry other issues / experiences and untrue, wild accusations and surmisings against me, personally. 

Nevertheless, this request is not personal. The same question was asked of numerous other men who were scheduled to hold meetings with us, and the others were able to answer simply, with few words. The question that was posed to you is the business of the Carriage Drive congregation. 

[Your last letter’s statements, “Are only preachers who agree wholly with you going to be allowed to conduct Gospel Meetings at Beckley?” and “Does this mean that you are not going to let me come?,” indicate that not only did you not believe me in my initial letter, but that you also doubted brother Bragg’s word when he verified for you that I had not taken it upon myself to act for the congregation, but that it was at the behest of the men that I had asked the question.]

It is clear that you know what the issue of disagreement among brethren is, for you have asked more than once if I “intend to make this issue a test of fellowship,” yet you have repeatedly avoided answering our question regarding your views and teaching on “this issue” (which was the sole purpose behind what began this exchange). 

In our last business meeting, the men of the congregation met and discussed your recent replies to me regarding their question. (Copies of all of our correspondences were offered to all who attended). They reviewed the question which I had worded for you in my original letter, approved of it as sufficiently clear to express their issue of concern, and reiterated their need for you to answer that specific question. 

Depending on your answer to the following question, the men will discuss whether arrangements for you to speak at a gospel meeting here will be made. Again, this question is asked not of my own accord, but directed by the men of the church here:

When a man puts away his wife for any cause other than fornication and subsequently marries another, then even if his first (innocent) wife employed a post-unscriptural-divorce-“putting-away” for fornication, her remarriage to another would still constitute adultery (as outlined in Mt. 5:32b; 19:9b and Luke 16:18b). Do you affirm or deny that? If you disagree with any portion of the question, you are free to specify which parts you disagree with, and provide reasoning for your disagreement.

As I have said before, your previous “statements” of what you “believe on the marriage question” do not answer the men’s specific question to you. Please comply with the brethren’s request if you would like to move forward.

Thank you.

Yours in His service,
Jeff

Dear brother Tom,

The men met for our monthly business meeting last night. Since you would not answer our specific question, we made the unanimous decision to withdraw our request for you to come and hold a meeting in Beckley.

I’m sorry that it has come to this.   

Brotherly,
Jeff

Home | Search This Site