|
Email Exchange:
----- Original Message ----- Subject: list of sound preachers David and Jeff, I have received the following list of preachers that agree with you on the “mental adultery” position. I am asking if either or both of you are responsible for creating this list of “sound preachers”? Thanks for letting me know. (List of various brethren and their e-mail addresses not included) Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of sound preachers Dear brother Mike, I wrote a letter to another brother today, which answers your question. I have the portion from it, which answers your question.
Brotherly, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am sorry I could not respond to your letter sooner. Ironically, the day your letter is dated (the 9th) is the day that my family and I left (at 5:30 a.m.) for a two week and one day combined vacation / Gospel meeting. I returned this morning at 3 a.m. and found your letter (and followups) waiting. It seems that you have been misinformed as to a so-called “sound preacher list.” A few months ago, I corresponded with another brother who was dealing with this issue. He was sending out information about this topic that I (and others) call “mental divorce” to many other brethren, and asked if I knew of any more fellows who would be interested in such. I sent him some names and e-mail addresses of other brothers with whom I have either spoken or corresponded on the subject, those who had expressed disagreement with the “mental divorce” doctrine, in one aspect or another, so that he could add them to his mailing list. Mike Willis sent me this “list” on the 11th, and as I look at the names, there are some on it whom I don’t even know. I guess it is possible that some of them had written to me at one time or another about my articles and I just don’t remember their names. Or it is quite possible that they were original contacts of the brother who was initially sending information out to others. If I had actually created a list of preachers whom I believed to be sound on this subject, it most certainly would have been much longer than the one Mike sent to me for verification!! XXXX, who told you that I had made such a list? (As you said to me about your letter, I say the same to that question - it is not rhetorical). For someone to put such a slanderous spin on something so innocent as that should make the hearer a bit more cautious. When I left on my trip, I had heard nothing of a “list.” Then, two weeks later, I come home, I find two letters questioning me about such (yours and Mikes, two days apart), and a www article implicating me in such a list (Harry Osborne’s latest on GA, dated the 11th - the same date as Mike’s letter and two days after yours).
----- Original Message ----- Subject: list of preachers Jeff, I have but a few minutes but wanted to answer your question. You asked, “Who told you that I had made such a list?” No one did. Someone with whom I was talking thought that it might be a list of preachers “sound” on mental divorce and that it might have come from you and/or David McKee. Since I did not want to participate in idle gossip or slander, I told that person, “I will ask them.” That’s all there was to it. I recently talked to Ron Halbrook and he related that you had made contact with several West Virginia preachers encouraging them to have no association with him, discouraging them from attending his meeting, or having any fellowship with him (such as eating with him). Is this true? Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Mike, In your last letter, you wrote: “Someone with whom I was talking thought that it might be a list of preachers “sound” on mental divorce and that it might have come from you and/or David McKee.” (emp. mine) However, in your letter of 7-11, you wrote: “I have received the following list of preachers that agree with you on the “mental adultery” position. I am asking if either or both of you are responsible for creating this list of “sound preachers”? Thanks for letting me know.” (emp. mine) It seems odd that at first, you called it a “list of sound preachers,” but when you were questioned about it, you write that someone else thought it might be a “list of preachers ‘sound’ on mental divorce.” Mike, who was this brother that brought you the “sound preachers” “list” and gave you his think-so’s on it? I find it interesting that Harry O. mentioned this same supposed “list” in his latest GA article (with the clear implication that I was involved in such). That article was posted the same day you sent the question to me. So, the fellow who showed the list to you and gave you his thoughts on the matter must have shared it (along with his “thoughts”) with others, as well. Harry O. in his article, said that a list was “circulating.” I’d like to know who the circulation originated with and who has participated, so that I can inform those involved, of the truth. Would you not appreciate the same consideration if you had been slandered (Mt. 7:12)? In addition, you wrote: “I recently talked to Ron Halbrook and he related that you had made contact with several West Virginia preachers encouraging them to have no association with him, discouraging them from attending his meeting, or having any fellowship with him (such as eating with him). Is this true?” Mike, there is absolutely not one shred of truth to this statement, and I will be contacting Ron immediately, to inquire as to the source of such slander. Did Ron name names to you? If so, I think I have the right to know, so I can get to the bottom of that, as well. I will await your reply about the source of the “list” you received.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Jeff, I don’t think I have any obligation to tell you about some one’s think so’s. The list was there and some one was talking about its origin. When names were mentioned, I contacted you directly for the purpose of preventing rumors and gossip. Wherein did anyone do you wrong? Is it wrong to go to the source to find out what is true and what is not? Is it unnatural to think that you might be associated with such a position, inasmuch as you and David McKee have done more than anyone else in recent months to stir this pot? So when this was mentioned, I followed up. I will let you know that the original did not originated from either Harry O. or Ron H. Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Dear Mike, I appreciate your taking time to reply to my letter, but I cannot agree with your “thinking” that you have no obligation to tell me about the origin of the one who sent you the so-called “list of sound preachers” and gave you his thoughts on the matter. I would like to know (from him) if he shared his thoughts with others as well; or if the one who shared it with him told more than one, etc. so that I can correct the misunderstanding and allay any doubts as to the so-called “list” and its author. Would you not want to know the same, if an unspecified account about the “circulation” of an ungodly rumor was published on the www - and then you found from another source (or two) that this circulating falsehood was being connected with your name - even if it was in a questioning way? If you answered this question truthfully, then surely the golden rule applies. Nevertheless, you also wrote, “I don’t think I have any obligation to tell you about some one’s think so’s....” Regarding Ron Halbrook you said, “I recently talked to Ron Halbrook and he related that you had made contact with several West Virginia preachers encouraging them to have no association with him, discouraging them from attending his meeting, or having any fellowship with him (such as eating with him). Is this true?” Mike, this situation does not meet even your requirement for being absolved of “obligation” as you stated above. This not was not just somebody’s “think sos.” You didn’t answer whether Ron named names of where he heard this report. Did he? As I told you, this charge is absolutely false! I wrote Ron Wednesday for information, but haven’t received a reply. I would like to get to the bottom of this slander as soon as possible. Can you tell me if Ron is away from home, in a meeting or on vacation? If so, please let me know where I can e-mail him, as I know from your meeting here that the two of you keep in close contact. I will await your reply.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Jeff, Ron was away over night. He should be home today. I don’t know about next week. I still disagree with your assessment of my obligation to relate every confidential statement someone made. Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Dear Mike, Thanks for your reply and information about Ron being back in town. I will e-mail him again, if he doesn’t reply relatively soon. One question you did not respond to though, is this: Did Ron name a source(s) for his report about what I was supposedly encouraging WV preachers not to do?
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Jeff, I do not remember Ron mentioning a source. Ask him and he can give a direct answer rather than going through a secondary source. Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Dear Mike, I was simply asking what Ron specifically said to you. I do not see how that is a “secondary source.”
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Jeff, I thought you were asking what the unnamed person said to me about the list of preachers. My remembrance of what Ron said is that some preachers in the area had been influenced by you not to have any association with him. As I recall he was specifically speaking about Tim McPherson, but there may have been others as well. Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Dear Mike, Your current remembrance has certainly been much altered from your first remembrance (of this rumor) in the few days since I have told you that the information you received from Ron was absolutely false. Please compare your current remembrance (7/30): “My remembrance of what Ron said is that some preachers in the area had been influenced by you not to have any association with him. As I recall he was specifically speaking about Tim McPherson, but there may have been others as well.” (emp. jhb) with your first remembrance of such (of 7/25): “I recently talked to Ron Halbrook and he related that you had made contact with several West Virginia preachers encouraging them to have no association with him, discouraging them from attending his meeting, or having any fellowship with him (such as eating with him). Is this true?” (emp. jhb) Twice now, after I have informed you of your misinformation, you have altered your synopsis of what you had heard and were questioning me about. First, in regards to the “list,” (which you modified from “this list of sound preachers” to “might be a list of preachers ‘sound’ on mental divorce”) - and now you have modified your remembrance of what Ron told you. Your dishonesty in the subtle changing of your “remembrances” (with no apology offered) speaks volumes. How am I to know which remembrances are the accurate ones? Certainly, your first remembrances of those conversations were more current to the actual conversations than your second versions. Moreover, the second versions were altered after my denial of the charges and request for proof, of which you had none. Furthermore, your first version of remembrances (of rumors about me) put you and your associates in a very bad light (for passing on or concocting such misinformation without confirmation). The second versions conveniently make these rumors appear a bit more innocent. The Lord will judge.
Brotherly, P.S. As I told you before, I never contacted any WV preachers to encourage them to have no association with Ron - not even brother Tim McPherson. If he decided not to do so, it was of his own volition.
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Jeff, I reread your letter charging me with lying twice. The difference I see is in “made contact with” and “influenced.” I do not see an inconsistency here. In “several” and “Tim McPherson, but there may have been several others as well,” I was trying to be as specific as possible in my remembrance. I gave you the one name I could specifically remember, but I have an impression that others were also mentioned. What is the inconsistency? As to the list of preachers, I specifically contacted you to find out what was intended by the list of preachers. Why would I “lie” about this? Isn’t it a bit out of character for a liar to go to the source to find out if something is true as I did with reference to you? I guess what I need to repent of is rewording my statements each time. Perhaps in the future, I should copy and paste so that I do not use different words to say the same thing. I frankly resent your charging me with lying and take offense at it. I expected better from you. If I did not expect better, why would I have contacted you in the first place? You can do better than this. Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Jeff, You wrote, As I told you before, I never contacted any WV preachers to encourage them to have no association with Ron - not even brother Tim McPherson. If he decided not to do so, it was of his own volition. Did you intentionally neglect to tell me that you recently held a meeting where Tim preaches? Are you giving me “double-talk”? What am I to understand from this? Did you recently hold a meeting where Tim preaches? Am I to understand that you never talked to Tim about Ron’s position? Am I to understand that you did not express your view that Ron should not be fellowshiped? Am I to understand that you encouraged him to continue associating with Ron, to attend his meetings, and to eat with him? Or am I to understand that you were there and did not talk to him about Ron’s position? Let me hear from you. Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Dear Mike, No - of course I do not deny that I held a Gospel meeting in Belleville, nor that I discussed this pertinent issue in Tim’s home. If the Lord wills, I will continue to write on this topic of concern and discuss these issues with brethren whom I meet. However, if you had been led to believe that I was simply discussing this issue with those whom I happen to come in contact with (as you yourself have obviously done, as evidenced by the questions you posed to me), I doubt that you would have questioned me about it. That is because anyone would naturally expect that someone who is concerned enough to start a website (to inform brethren about this issue), would discuss it with the brethren they meet as well. If my words (which basically express the same as what I have written on my website) have “influenced” others, then it is because they saw the proof of Ron’s teaching and its inconsistencies with God’s word. Not because I “contacted” them and “encouraged” or “discouraged” them, as you charged. Obviously, when you and Ron discuss me and this issue (as you have related), you are “influencing” each other to certain views. When Harry included those same accounts (that implicated my involvement in the same rumors that you questioned me about) in his article, he was “influencing” the reader, also. When anyone speaks or writes about any topic of concern, they seek to influence the hearer / reader - that is the main point of communication! The difference here is that what I am speaking and writing is truth, with proof to back up my claims. Those you are closely associated with are obviously those who have not been concerned with making sure they back up their recent claims and questionings with proof - for there is none. Your “questions” have only proven to me that a perfectly innocent and natural event can later be twisted to the point that it appears sinister - all without the benefit of truth and evidence. That is disappointing, Mike. I never would have expected such from you. And that you are bent on defending the indefensible (instead of apologizing) is truly sad, for a man whom I have held in such high esteem.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Jeff, I understand that you are doing what you described in your latest post. This is what I understood I was asking you about when I asked if you had “influenced” Tim McPherson. I am not denying Tim’s free-will, but I also am aware that you “influenced” him through your teaching. This is what you denied doing in the following post: “As I told you before, I never contacted any WV preachers to encourage them to have no association with Ron - not even brother Tim McPherson. If he decided not to do so, it was of his own volition.” I would not even have known that you held a meeting where Tim preached and discussed the matter with him, from your statement. I learned that from another source. Frankly, I think you were less than forthright in your answer. We can do better than this.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: list of preachers Dear Mike, Your observations do not prove what you suppose. As I said before, they only prove that a perfectly innocent and natural event (with no evil intent) can later be twisted to the point that it appears sinister - all without the benefit of truth and evidence. When you originally asked me about Ron’s accusation, I assumed that at least one of the “several WV preachers” he was referring to, was Tim McPherson, as Tim had told me that Ron came by his home while he was holding a nearby meeting in Parkersburg. He (Tim) said that my name came up in their conversation. Knowing this (and that you and Ron are in close contact), it led me to believe you already knew I had held a meeting where Tim McPherson preaches. I was not withholding such information, as you falsely imply. I had a good reason to assume that you already knew such. Yet, you make it appear that I deliberately withheld such information from you to deceive you into thinking I had not even spoken with him. Obviously, that is not the case. However, what you said Ron had accused me of, was “contacting” WV preachers and “encouraging” and “discouraging” them. Of course, as I said, such was absolutely not true, even with Tim! And, as I said in my last letter to you, in Tim’s home, we discussed this matter, just as you and Ron have. But that is not “contacting” and “encouraging” and “discouraging.” Those words are the twist, which I have already expressed to you. I have never told Tim or anyone else not to attend Ron’s meetings or not to eat with him, as you said Ron had so accused. What I did in discussing this matter with Tim is no more than you do with Ron and others. It is hardly newsworthy without the twist. If I was able to “truthfully” say to others that I saw someone in the arms of another man’s wife - but neglected to tell them that it was the man’s mother, I don’t think that the Lord would be pleased. Obviously such a claim (without clarification) would arouse undue suspicions against a brother. This situation is no different. Mike, especially after your meeting here, where your teaching was sound and clear against false doctrine, I was disappointed on our drive to the airport, when you told me that you believed Ron’s teaching on this issue belonged in Romans 14, because you say it is simply an “application” that is allowed in scripture. Now I am even more disappointed by your apparent involvement in attempts to arouse suspicions against me by twisting events that are absolutely innocent and mundane. I am praying for you, brother.
Sincerely,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: re: unnecessary division August 10, 2001 Jeff, I received your 8/02/01 e-mail yesterday inasmuch as I was out of town for a family reunion in Texas. I want to reply to that e-mail. I accept your word that you intended no deception by not mentioning the meeting where Tim preaches. I do not recall knowing that you had held a meeting there, but I did recall that you had “contact” with Tim. Consequently, this confusion occurred. I trust that is behind us and settled. I do take issue with your making what I understand as “application differences” matters of division among brethren. Consistent with your conclusion that your understanding that those who disagree with you about who sues whom in a divorce for fornication and what role the civil decrees play in divorce are matters of “the faith,” you are making these a test of fellowship and advocating that all those who disagree with you on these matters have “fallen from grace.” Consistent with my conclusion, you are dividing the church over a matter of human judgment, just as those in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 did. The newsworthy aspect of what happened at Parkersburg is that you made the application (drawing lines of fellowship) as the logical conclusion of the position you asserted. The effect of your teaching is to produce the alienation that resulted between Tim and Ron, brethren who have worked together for years. It will continue to have this effect and, it is for this reason, I am calling on you to quit treating matters that belong in Romans 14 in the category of 2 John 9-11.
As to your disappointment in my position on this
issue, I would have been happy to discuss the matter with you all week. You were
the one who chose to not discuss the matter until our drive to the airport. (I
am not sure how much I knew about what you believed about the matter prior
thereto. I was not totally ignorant.) If both of us will preach what Matthew 19:9 teaches and avoid teaching his opinions and judgments, we will attain the unity of the faith that God requires of us. I am consistently teaching that the only cause for divorce that gives one the right to remarriage is fornication. I am consistently teaching that anything that happens after the divorce cannot be the cause of the divorce. I am consistently giving brethren room to reach their own conclusions about the civil documents relating to divorce (who must initiate the lawsuit; does a counter suit against a guilty party give the innocent person the right to remarriage; must the decree have “for fornication” on it; etc.). Must we bow to your conscience to be faithful to the Lord’s command? Brotherly, Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: unnecessary division Dear Mike, Thank you for your e-mail. In regards to your comment, “The newsworthy aspect of what happened at Parkersburg is that you made the application (drawing lines of fellowship) as the logical conclusion of the position you asserted.”: The very first GT article which Harry responded to (“Differences in Application”), clearly explained my view that the mental divorce issue involves adultery and is therefore significant to the fellowship issue. So how was that newsworthy? I know that you knew about my article because several weeks prior to your contacting me about the so-called “list,” you suggested to David McKee that he should publish my exchange with Harry in the Athens congregation’s bulletin. If those with whom I discussed the mental divorce issue came to the “logical conclusion” that lines of fellowship needed to be drawn, it was not because I actively “made contact with” and “encouraged” or “discouraged” anyone in regards to their fellowship with Ron, as you said Ron told you I did. It was because they recognized that the mental divorce position involves adultery. And I think we all understand (without any need for “encouraging” or “discouraging”) that we cannot have fellowship with adulterers nor with those who encourage it through their teaching. If, through my articles, I helped anyone to come to the understanding that the mental divorce position leads to adultery, I do not apologize. Therefore if Ron is wrong in his position (and it is very clear to me that he is), then that makes the one who accepts and follows his teaching an adulterer (see Ron’s own words at my Web Page: www.MentalDivorce.com (new address, jhb) Can you deny that point? And if what Ron (and others) teaches actually results in adultery and spiritual death (as I believe it does), then the “logical conclusion” is that we can not have fellowship with those who promote that doctrine (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11, 13)? Mike, I cannot fathom that you could place this issue in the category of Romans 14. Is adultery a matter of indifference to God? Even if you don’t believe that what Ron advocates is adultery, you should know better than to encourage one who does (believe that his teaching promotes adultery) to continue fellowship with him (Rom. 14:23). Obviously, even if I were wrong, it would be a violation of my conscience to continue fellowship with both those whom I consider to be adulterers and those who would advocate what I believed to be adultery. I’d just as well have had fellowship with Homer Hailey in his doctrine that promoted adultery and the fellowship of it, as to fellowship Ron in his doctrine which promotes the same. Hailey didn’t believe that his doctrine promoted adultery (nor did his close associates). Moreover, they didn’t (and many still don’t) believe that we should divide over his doctrine. Did that make it right? Does God expect me to act upon what I believe to be truth, or what another tells me? Though Harrell and Owen (et al) believed that Hailey was doctrinally wrong, they advocated fellowship with him. If, in your estimation, Ron’s position does not promote adultery (in other words, you believe that his teaching can lead to a scriptural union with another spouse, after an unscriptural civil divorce), you are acting upon what you believe to be truth. On the other hand, you seem to be saying to me that I should follow your opinion about fellowship regarding this issue, much the same as Harrell, Owen (et al) wanted the rest of us to do. You know I believe that what Ron advocates is adultery and therefore requires me to have no fellowship with him (II Jn. 1:9-10). Yet, you call on me “to quit treating matters that belong in Romans 14 in the category of 2 John 9-11” and then you ask me, “Must we bow to your conscience to be faithful to the Lord’s command?” Now, that is rich! Again, Mike, I am not “making contact with” anyone and “encouraging” them or “discouraging” them in regards to fellowshipping Ron. But I am spreading the truth of what he has been advocating (with proof) and I am countering that teaching with revealed truth regarding divorce and the scriptural prohibitions God places on those who have been put away. I am not ashamed to say that I cannot fellowship what is plainly adultery - neither is the Bible! I am not telling others what conclusions are logical. But if they agree that what Ron teaches amounts to adultery, then there are no other “logical conclusions” for them to make! Can you think of any other logical conclusions for one to make, when they believe that what is being advocated by an “application” is actually adultery? If what I am doing is in error, I beg you to publicly expose my teaching before all. You wrote, “Jeff, can’t you give to me the benefit of doubt that you wish for yourself? We may not agree on this issue, but we can treat one another with kindness and respect. Is that asking too much?” Mike, I have treated you with far more kindness and respect than you have shown to me. I have not repeatedly hurled false accusations to you in question form as you have done to me. All I have done in my e-mails to you is attempt to defend myself by explaining how perfectly innocent and expected events were twisted into something they were not - convoluted versions of events that would tend to arouse undue suspicions against a brother. Versions that were also posted (without corroboration) on the www by another of Ron’s close associates. You wrote, “You seem disappointed that I am ‘twisting events,’ but seem altogether oblivious to your own such accusations against brethren. When I write to find out about a list, I am supposed to have some sinister motive.” That is not quite what I said. What I wrote was not that you have “some sinister motive,” but that your questions were twisted to the point that perfectly innocent and natural events appeared sinister - all without the benefit of truth and evidence. In addition, I said that you were apparently involved in attempts to arouse suspicions against me by twisting events that are absolutely innocent and mundane. If you had wanted to disengage yourself from being connected to slanderous reports against a brother, if you had been glad to hear that the reports you heard were false, or sorrowful that such slander had been propagated in the first place, your repeated refusal to reveal the source of your misinformation (so that I could face my accuser regarding the so-called “list”) betrayed such. Your defense of the indefensible coupled with your failure to express any sorrow or apology for such false accusations (even in the form of questions), and your continued accusations (in question form), speak for themselves. I am thankful that you believe me when I say I had reason to believe you already knew the information you implied I was withholding from you. However, I had received no e-mails nor any contact from you at all since your meeting here, last year. Then out of the blue, I get a letter asking me about a (slanderous) report against me - again, one that had already been circulated on the www by another of Ron’s close friends. In addition, after I explained the truth about the so-called “list” to you, you altered your synopsis of what you had heard and were questioning me about, then immediately asked me another question that turned out to be another slanderous report which you heard from Ron. When I told you that that report was also untrue, you again subtly altered your account of what you remembered Ron saying into something far more innocuous, and then questioned me about my meeting where Tim preaches, subsequently accusing me yet again - this time of being less than forthright in my answer. Mike, I am sorry to say that the repeated focus of each of your e-mails leaves little doubt for me to give benefit to.
Brotherly, In addition to the letter I sent to brother Ron Halbrook (regarding what brother Mike wrote), please note that Mike also sent a carbon copy of one of his letters to Ron (about Ron’s involvement in that topic of exchange). However, I have yet to hear anything from brother Halbrook himself (6/2005).
----- Original Message ----- Subject: posting of my material Jeff, I just want to let you know that someone has informed me that you posted my sermon outline against my expressed will and in violation of Romans 13. You are guilty of sin against me. Romans 13 obligates you to obey the laws of the land, but apparently you think you are above the laws of the land. Jesus said, “As you would that men should do to you, do you also unto them” (Matt. 7:12). Your conduct is in violation of the Lord’s teaching on treatment of one’s brother. This exemplifies to me how one’s character is destroyed by his becoming obsessed and is why I don’t want my name tied to what you are doing. The next time you go to offer your worship to God, remember that you have a brother who has ought against you. Jesus said, “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing” (Matt. 5:23-26). But, I doubt that you feel the need to obey that Scripture either.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: posting of my material Dear Mike, I am puzzled that you came to know about the article that posts a portion of your outline from another, since I sent you a website update notice the very day the article was posted. In addition, it is obvious from your letter that you did not read the article before you wrote to me, for the article answered your charges before you made them. However, for your benefit, I will answer them again, in more detail. You are right when you make the point that Mt. 5:23-26 commands Christians to do what is necessary to reconcile with one another (I used that same passage in my article to show that one must attempt to be reconciled to the spouse they put away for a cause other than fornication). However, the instructions in that passage are not applicable if reconciliation demands that one must violate other commands in the process (such as Eph. 5:11-13; Jn. 3:19-21; Isa. 56:10, 58:1). The Bible teaches that one has not sinned when he offends people with the truth (cf. Mt. 15:12). Error must be exposed and truth must be proclaimed in season as well as “out of season.” I am sure that Homer Hailey felt he had been wronged when his false teaching was exposed by Ron and Truth Magazine, but nonetheless, you were right in doing so. When Paul named brethren who were in sin and teaching error, I am sure that those individuals thought they had “ought” against him, as well. To argue that one must repent and be reconciled for exposing the falsehood of a false teacher is not logical. Mike, I am sorry that it has come to this, but I have not posted that material out of “obsession” or ill will. I posted it because while holding to error, your influence and that of your friends has become very dangerous, having the potential to subvert many souls. Brethren must be forewarned (I Cor. 14:8). Since the web site is presently the only avenue (press) whereby that can be accomplished, the responsibility falls to men who seek faithfulness (Ezek. 3, 33). I have always been taught that opportunity plus ability equals responsibility. In addition, as I wrote in the article, copyright law (website link is included in the article for verification, prior to the quote from your outline) dictates that to use a portion of a person’s material is not a violation of copyright. Since I only used a portion of your outline, it is clear that I have violated no law. I continue to pray for you and all of the men named on the site.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: posting of my material Jeff, Here is what I received from you prior to my letter: Dear Brethren, Jeff Belknap here. I just wanted to let you know about four NEW postings to the Mental Divorce Web Page: www.MentalDivorce.com (new address, jhb). First is an article by Don Martin entitled: “But and if” in I Corinthians 7:11 (self explanatory)
Second is an article by David McKee entitled:
Arriving At The Necessary Conclusion Concerning MDR Thirdly, an article entitled: Willis on “Biblical Putting Away.” This article is to inform brethren of the various causes for divorce that brother Mike Willis has publicly advocated as scriptural. Lastly, an article by Douglas W. Hill entitled: Troubles Over Fellowship (self explanatory) Look for NEW. For Accurate Information and Scriptural Answers Regarding the Current “Mental Divorce” Controversy, Visit: www.MentalDivorce.com (new address, jhb). Frankly, I don’t accept your feeble attempt at rationalization for posting what you were expressly prohibited from posting on your website. So long as you do not repent of having done so, I shall continue to be alienated from you over this. I am not ashamed of my material. I simply don’t want it tied to your website. You kept alluding to arguments you previously made but I obviously have not seen. I want you to know that I am not offended at the truth, nor am I personally offended by your binding of your human opinions, although I do stand doctrinally opposed to them. I know nothing in the teaching of the Bible that personally offends me. However, I am offended by those who refuse to respect the copyright laws of our nation, who take material that was not prepared for public dissemination and propagate it. I usually send my published material to several readers who give me feedback. When you publish my material that has not gone through that process you rob me of the opportunity to give careful attention to what is published. An outline is by its nature abbreviated. Should you have transcribed a sermon I preached, I would not have objected. What is publicly preached is subject to review. Are your outlines in a form that you want to publish them under name? You can continue to treat brethren as you wish, but you will be known by your conduct. Your conduct is alienating men who agree with you regarding the fact that fornication must occur before the divorce in order for it to be the cause of the divorce. I can list several who have that reaction, if you wish to challenge what I said. You are producing alienation between brethren who stand together against those who believe that something that occurs years after a divorce can be the cause of the divorce. Because of this many are reaching conclusions about your conduct that is driving them further away from you. That is the reason I do not wish my material to be on your website. The wise man said, “Even a child is known by his doings” (Prov. 20:11). What brethren are learning about you from your “doings” is alienating you from them. They are not alienated by your “inanswerable logic” (because it has and can be answered by others such as Harry Osborne) but by your conduct. You can refuse to hear; that is your prerogative. But that will not change the effect this is having on brethren. I speak these things out of genuine concern for your soul and influence. By your persistent efforts to destroy the influence of men who have laid their careers on the line to oppose loose teaching on divorce and remarriage, you have empowered those who take the loosest views of divorce and remarriage. God will hold you accountable for your actions.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: posting of my material Dear Mike, Yes, as I wrote, that is indeed the website update notice that I sent you. If you read it, you will find clear information about the article you are objecting to under point number three. Your first letter implied that I had not notified you that I was publishing your material but that you had to be told by someone else, which is obviously not the case. As I wrote in my last letter, I have not violated copyright law and have proven that I have not. Please verify this for yourself in question #47 at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/faq.html#q47
Regarding your claim that I have robbed you of
the opportunity to give careful attention to what is published, I understand
that you passed out the complete version of your outline to all the brethren in
Danville when you preached the sermon. And in answer to your question of whether
my outlines are in a form that I would like published under name, I would reply
that any handouts I have ever given out publicly (as you did this outline in
Danville) have been (rightly) circulated by those receiving them. If, for any
reason, I would have had a problem with my materials being published or
circulated, I would not have In addition, I have a taped copy of your lesson and it follows the outline very closely. You mentioned that you wouldn’t have had a problem with a transcript. If you feel that the transcript would represent you more accurately and completely, I will try and accommodate you by transcribing the portion of your lesson which corresponds to the portion of your outline that I have quoted on the website, and link it to the article at the point of the outline. Just let me know if you desire for me to make it available and I will begin working on it. Mike, I don’t want to misrepresent what you have taught and advocated. I only think brethren deserve to know what you have actually taught. Did Homer Hailey, Ed Harrell, or any of the others ask to be associated with you and Truth Magazine when you published articles regarding their error? Obviously to you this is a different case altogether, but to me it is the same. I view your error regarding divorce and the error of Ron, Harry, Tim, etc. regarding the post-civil-divorce-divorce as just as erroneous and dangerous as the errors of brothers Hailey and Harrell. Lastly, regarding your comments about alienating those who agree with me regarding God’s requirement that fornication take place prior to the civil divorce in order for one to be eligible to put away for the cause of fornication and to remarry another: I am disappointed, though not surprised that history repeats itself. Ed Harrell and others who disagreed with brother Hailey became alienated by Ron, Truth Magazine and others who exposed him as a false teacher. Obviously, the opinions and estranged alliances of men did not deter any of you from what you knew was necessary. Neither will it deter me. I would guess that even though these men you speak of agree with me regarding the put-away, they would disagree with my stance on fellowship with those who differ on the points that they disagree with. It was the same with Harrell, et al. Mike, recently, I was forwarded a portion of an article that brother Tom Roberts wrote entitled “Privacy: ‘Let’s Keep This Among Us Boys” at Watchmanmag.com. I am including a quote from that article, as I see a parallel to this issue: “‘The boys’ demand the right to teach error and remain in fellowship with brethren everywhere. The “brothers” of “the boys” are willing to extend fellowship to those who teach error in direct contradiction of scriptures: 2 John 9-11; Romans 16:17; Galatians 1:6-9, etc. You see, it is not enough to avoid evil practices (Rom. 1:18-31). The scripture also condemns those who ‘approve of those who practice them’ (v. 32). Yet there are those ‘among the boys’ who teach egregious error about adulterous marriages and their ‘brothers’ are willing to associate with them, use them in gospel meetings, support them, and condemn those who oppose their error.” If those brothers whom you mentioned truly view what Ron, Harry and Tim teach is error, they are wrong to have more concern about how these false teachers are being exposed by others than being obedient to stand against the error themselves. I dare not join their ranks, but pray that they will join the Lord’s.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: so that I understand you Jeff, Are you ready to say that the following are equally as dangerous as Homer Hailey: Those who believe that a person may be divorce his mate for fornication but not have it on the divorce papers? Those who believe that an innocent person may scripturally remarry in a divorce for fornication even though he did not initiate the divorce proceedings? Those who believe that an innocent person may scripturally remarry in a divorce for fornication even though he did not initiate the divorce proceedings but did counter sue? Those who believe that an innocent person may scripturally remarry in a divorce for fornication even though he did not initiate the divorce proceedings but did counter sue, but lost the counter suit and the divorce was granted to the initial filer? Those who believe that a person may divorce her mate if he is physically abusing her and the children? I request that you answer each of these individually so that I understand exactly what you are contending for. If you think there is room for disagreement and an on-going fellowship in spite of that disagreement in any of these cases, please indicate that. I have a remembrance of our discussion of some of these issues on the trip to the airport, but I don’t want to leave any room for my faulty remembrance. I look forward to hearing from you.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: so that I understand you Dear Mike, In fact, your remembrance is not very clear, for we discussed your commentary on the way home from the airport. It was Ron’s “application” that we discussed on the way back to the airport. What I wrote in my last letter to you was: “I view your error regarding divorce and the error of Ron, Harry, Tim, etc. regarding the post-civil-divorce-divorce as just as erroneous and dangerous as the errors of brothers Hailey and Harrell.” The false doctrines / error that I was referring to are obviously those issues that I have specifically dealt with on the web site. During our last series of written correspondences, I asked of you several questions of you which you have never answered. I would also appreciate you answering those questions, which are as follows: 1) “If, through my articles, I helped anyone to come to the understanding that the mental divorce position leads to adultery, I do not apologize. Therefore if Ron is wrong in his position (and it is very clear to me that he is), then that makes the one who accepts and follows his teaching an adulterer (see Ron’s own words at my Web Page: www.MentalDivorce.com (new address; jhb) Can you deny that point?” 2) “And if what Ron (and others) teach actually results in adultery and spiritual death (as I believe it does), then the “logical conclusion” is that we cannot have fellowship with those who promote that doctrine (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11, 13)?” 3) “Mike, I cannot fathom that you could place this issue in the category of Romans 14. Is adultery a matter of indifference to God?” 4) “Hailey didn’t believe that his doctrine promoted adultery (nor did his close associates). Moreover, they didn’t (and many still don’t) believe that we should divide over his doctrine. Did that make it right?” 5) “Does God expect me to act upon what I believe to be truth, or what another tells me?” 6) “I am not telling others what conclusions are logical. But if they agree that what Ron teaches amounts to adultery, then there are no other “logical conclusions” for them to make! Can you think of any other logical conclusions for one to make, when they believe that what is being advocated by an “application” is actually “adultery?” Mike, I respectfully submit that you should not ask of others what you have shown you are unwilling to do yourself. In addition, Mike, I request that you answer another question related to your beliefs regarding the fellowship of error. (I believe the answer to this question is pertinent to your perspective regarding fellowship on the divorce and post-civil-divorce-divorce issues): Do you view the 70 AD doctrine issue as one which may be fellowshipped? Or should that false doctrine be addressed with the same vigor as the Hailey and Harrell errors? If you will answer “each of these individually so that I understand exactly what you are contending for,” I will consider answering your questions.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: so that I understand you Jeff, “I will consider answering your questions if you answer mine” is not much of a commitment. Nevertheless, I will provide you the answers you requested. However, here is the answer to your questions. 1. If you are right that Ron is teaching that a doctrine that leads one to commit adultery, by all means he should be opposed. I do not believe he is guilty of that. I do not believe you have provided proof of his teaching such a doctrine. 2. If he is guilty as you charge, one should not fellowship him. I do not believe that he is. 3. I do not believe that adultery is a matter of indifference that belongs in the category of Romans 14. I do believe that there are some judgment matters involved in obtaining a scriptural divorce that do belong in the category of Romans 14, such as who initiates the lawsuit, whether the lawsuit has to state “for fornication,” whether a countersuit gives the innocent party legitimate grounds to remarry, etc. I believe that you have bound some judgment matters as if they are the law of God (see 1 Tim. 4:1-3) and by so doing are creating unnecessary and sinful division among brethren. 4. No. 5. Yes. However, one can act conscientiously from a clear conscience and still be guilty of sin (Acts 23:1; 26:9; 1 Tim. 1:12-16). I believe you are in this category. 6. No. I just disagree with your conclusion that Ron is guilty as you charge. In the same way, were I to accept the conclusions that the Jews held about Stephen, one could have acted out of good conscience in stoning Stephen to death. That didn’t make it right (1 Tim. 1:12-16). Inasmuch as you have made it your business to become involved in the matters at Danville (were you looking for dirt?), I am attaching a file that relates what happened at Danville from my perspective. 7. I do not believe that the 70 A.D. doctrine is one which should be fellowshipped. It should be opposed with all vigor, just as I have done in my workbook entitled “Then Cometh the End.” Nor was I guilty of receiving into fellowship one who held those views at Danville, the claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
I would also like to request you to include the
following information regarding my sermon at Danville in whatever you post on
your web site. The sermon was preached to oppose a woman who was divorcing her
husband for no justifiable cause. I preached the sermon to teach the church that
her divorce was not scriptural; it was a violation of Matthew 19:6. The
congregation discussed the matter over an extended period of time and came to
agreement that we should withdraw fellowship from her because of her
unscriptural divorce. At the time, no one in Danville opposed the conclusion we
reached or reacted negatively about it. The church came through this issue
without division. As a matter of fact, even after I preached that sermon, the
congregation asked me to serve as one of its elders. I do not have specific What I taught in that sermon was not new. If you will read the series of articles published in Guardian of Truth (March 20, 1986 and following issues) by Hayse Reneau, you will read what brother Reneau expressed so much better than me: “Also, in Act 5:29, we read, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ No situation is exempted from this truism. In my opinion, if marital circumstances produce a condition forbidding obedience to God and if it cannot be changed, one has no choice but to extricate himself from these circumstances. Likewise, a life-threatening situation would seem to be a justifiable reason for departure” (p. 178). Similar material was produced by Maurice Barnett and published in Gospel Anchor. I have attached a file of this material as well (should you want to post this on your web site you should get permission from brother Barnett). I agree with what both men wrote and am not ashamed to say so or to preach what I believe about it. If you choose to believe that a person is bound by God to stay in a marriage where a husband abuses one by one each of his children, even to the point of threatening their lives, you certainly should preach what you believe and be held accountable by the brethren for what you believe. I believe that Matthew 19:29, Acts 5:29 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 provides biblical evidence to sustain the case that there are cases in which a person has a scriptural right to depart from a marriage but not to remarry. I look forward to receiving the answers to my questions.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: so that I understand you Dear Mike, In your last letter to me, you stated: “Inasmuch as you have made it your business to become involved in the matters at Danville (were you looking for dirt?), I am attaching a file that relates what happened at Danville from my perspective.” Mike, I have not “made it my business to become involved in the matters at Danville” and I was not “looking for dirt.” Since I have begun the website, I have received much information (up to this point, all of this information has been unsolicited,) about brethren who are involved in the errors exposed on it. (I hereby reserve the right to investigate further information in the future, if it appears to disagree with your perspective of events and what you say you believe). In addition, as you and your associates have so effectively pointed out when opposing numerous other errors, church autonomy cannot be claimed when one has publicly advocated what is being examined. Nevertheless, for you to accuse me of “looking for dirt” because I asked a question of you (about your view of fellowship regarding the AD 70 doctrine) is inexcusable when you have asked the following of me: 1) “David and Jeff, I have received the following list of preachers that agree with you on the “mental adultery” position. I am asking if either or both of you are responsible for creating this list of “sound preachers”? Thanks for letting me know.” 2) “I recently talked to Ron Halbrook and he related that you had made contact with several West Virginia preachers encouraging them to have no association with him, discouraging them from attending his meeting, or having any fellowship with him (such as eating with him). Is this true?” 3) “I received the following note about the list of “sound preachers” from Tim Haile. It said, Belknap told Wayne Goforth that Harry, Ron and me had assembled and circulated the “sound preacher list” in an effort to make people think that it originated with Belknap. When Wayne challenged him on this, he admitted that he did send out names of men that he considered sound on this subject and that he may have “inadvertently” contributed to the compiling of that list! He judged himself out of his own slanderous mouth. His conduct has been both dishonest and unethical. Has brother Haile related the facts correctly?” Mike, at the time you asked these questions, I was able to prove to you that every one of these charges were false. When I asked who told you that David or I had made a “list,” you responded: “Jeff, I have but a few minutes but wanted to answer your question. You asked, ‘Who told you that I had made such a list?’ No one did. Someone with whom I was talking thought that it might be a list of preachers ‘sound’ on mental divorce and that it might have come from you and/or David McKee. Since I did not want to participate in idle gossip or slander, I told that person, ‘I will ask them.’ That’s all there was to it.” It is apparent from your own words above, there was no basis for your connection (or the connection of whomever you were talking with) of such a list to me or David, nor to your idea that it “might be a list of preachers ‘sound’ on mental divorce.” Hence, it was obviously evil surmising on the part of you and another brother. You subsequently had the audacity to defend those actions and refuse to name the co-source of the surmising, which was also already published as fact - a false accusation against me via Harry O. on Gospel Anchor without any verification whatsoever. So if you and this fellow just happened to be where “the list was” (see below) and were speculating about its origin, somehow that same speculation turned into a published false accusation against me. This is your reply: “Jeff, I don’t think I have any obligation to tell you about some one’s think so’s. The list was there and some one was talking about its origin. When names were mentioned, I contacted you directly for the purpose of preventing rumors and gossip. Wherein did anyone do you wrong? Is it wrong to go to the source to find out what is true and what is not?” Later, in the same series of correspondence, you stated, “I still disagree with your assessment of my obligation to relate every confidential statement someone made.” Some of your answers to my questions are not direct answers. When I wrote those questions, I was not writing about Ron’s teaching in general - I was writing about your views related specifically to his “application” which is copied below in green. I have recopied my questions and your answers (in red), and have made additional comments in blue, as well. “If, through my articles, I helped anyone to come to the understanding that the mental divorce position leads to adultery, I do not apologize. Therefore if Ron is wrong in his position (and it is very clear to me that he is), then that makes the one who accepts and follows his teaching an adulterer (see Ron’s own words at my Web Page: www.MentalDivorce.com (new address, jhb) Can you deny that point?” “If you are right that Ron is teaching that a doctrine that leads one to commit adultery, by all means he should be opposed. I do not believe he is guilty of that. I do not believe you have provided proof of his teaching such a doctrine.” I did not ask whether Ron should be opposed, I asked that if Ron is wrong in his position (as written below in green), then isn’t the one who accepts and follows his teaching an adulterer? Does your answer indicate that you believe one could be innocent of adultery if he followed the following advice (quoted from Ron’s own writings): “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.” and this “If he has unlawful sexual relations with another (whether before or after he wrongfully puts away his true mate), his true mate has scriptural grounds to reject or put him away. That might involve countersuing in the courts if he has a suit for divorce pending. But if he has already been granted a divorce by the courts of man, the laws of man make no provision for her to act. So far as the courts of man are concerned, legal issues such as property rights have already been settled and there is nothing else to be said in the realm of human law. But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts of man), there is something else to be said by divine law-by the moral and spiritual law of the court of God. She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act.” Will the scenarios above (in green) lead to adultery, no adultery, or will such a scenario lead to an difference in “application,” which you believe is a matter of indifference to God, covered by Romans 14? 2) “And if what Ron (and others) teach actually results in adultery and spiritual death (as I believe it does), then the “logical conclusion” is that we cannot have fellowship with those who promote that doctrine (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11, 13)?” “If he is guilty as you charge, one should not fellowship him. I do not believe that he is.” Again, does your answer indicate that you believe that Ron is not advocating adultery by his following statements? “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.” “If he has unlawful sexual relations with another (whether before or after he wrongfully puts away his true mate), his true mate has scriptural grounds to reject or put him away. That might involve countersuing in the courts if he has a suit for divorce pending. But if he has already been granted a divorce by the courts of man, the laws of man make no provision for her to act. So far as the courts of man are concerned, legal issues such as property rights have already been settled and there is nothing else to be said in the realm of human law. But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts of man), there is something else to be said by divine law-by the moral and spiritual law of the court of God. She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act.” 3) “Mike, I cannot fathom that you could place this issue in the category of Romans 14. Is adultery a matter of indifference to God?” “I do not believe that adultery is a matter of indifference that belongs in the category of Romans 14. I do believe that there are some judgment matters involved in obtaining a scriptural divorce that do belong in the category of Romans 14, such as who initiates the lawsuit, whether the lawsuit has to state “for fornication,” whether a countersuit gives the innocent party legitimate grounds to remarry, etc. I believe that you have bound some judgment matters as if they are the law of God (see 1 Tim. 4:1-3) and by so doing are creating unnecessary and sinful division among brethren.” Again, does that indicate that you agree with Ron on the green scenarios above, and would you agree a subsequent marriage to another by the one who “repudiate(s) the marriage under divine law” (even though the cause of fornication was committed after one had been civilly put away) is a matter which is acceptable to God under Rom. 14? 4) “Hailey didn’t believe that his doctrine promoted adultery (nor did his close associates). Moreover, they didn’t (and many still don’t) believe that we should divide over his doctrine. Did that make it right?” “No.” Obviously, the point here is that you expect me to trust your word that you, Ron and your associates are all teaching truth. You have called on me to quit treating matters that belong in Romans 14 as if they belong in II Jn. 9-11. Why? None of the arguments that Ron, Harry, Tim or you have made has given me any scripture even hinting at a modification to Jesus’ words “and he who marries her who is put away commits adultery.” You recognized your obligation to expose brother Hailey and Harrell, even though they did not agree with your assessment that their doctrines were false. You knew that they needed to be exposed and knew that the issues were consequential to fellowship. You derided their claims that Hailey’s doctrine was covered by Romans 14. Why? Because you believed it involved adultery. Because you believe the post-civil-divorce-divorce is only a matter of “application,” you claim that it falls under Romans 14. But because Jesus said “and he who marries her who is put away commits adultery,” one’s beliefs about who is the “put away” that Jesus spoke of, obviously makes this more than just an inconsequential “application.” 5) “Does God expect me to act upon what I believe to be truth, or what another tells me?” “Yes. However, one can act conscientiously from a clear conscience and still be guilty of sin (Acts 23:1; 26:9; 1 Tim. 1:12-16). I believe you are in this category.” Perhaps you misunderstood the gist of my question. It was, does God expect me to act upon my own beliefs, or am I required to instead act upon what someone else tells me is truth? This question was in direct response to your letter dated 8/10, which asserts: “I am calling on you to quit treating matters that belong in Romans 14 in the category of 2 John 9-11.” You made this “calling” after I had already told you (in no uncertain terms) that I believe the post-civil-divorce-divorce to be a doctrine which clearly involves adultery. 6) “I am not telling others what conclusions are logical. But if they agree that what Ron teaches amounts to adultery, then there are no other “logical conclusions” for them to make! Can you think of any other logical conclusions for one to make, when they believe that what is being advocated by an “application” is actually adultery?” “No. I just disagree with your conclusion that Ron is guilty as you charge. In the same way, were I to accept the conclusions that the Jews held about Stephen, one could have acted out of good conscience in stoning Stephen to death. That didn’t make it right (1 Tim. 1:12-16).” Mike, what I have really been asking is, do you agree or disagree with my conclusion that this: “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.” and this “If he has unlawful sexual relations with another (whether before or after he wrongfully puts away his true mate), his true mate has scriptural grounds to reject or put him away. That might involve countersuing in the courts if he has a suit for divorce pending. But if he has already been granted a divorce by the courts of man, the laws of man make no provision for her to act. So far as the courts of man are concerned, legal issues such as property rights have already been settled and there is nothing else to be said in the realm of human law. But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts of man), there is something else to be said by divine law-by the moral and spiritual law of the court of God. She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act.” will result in adultery? That is a either / or question. Will a subsequent remarriage result in adultery or not? I believe your answers are misleading, because I do not believe you would agree with Ron’s assertion above (if I am wrong about that, please set me straight and profess your complete agreement with Ron’s words above in green) - and yet, you say “If he is guilty as you charge, one should not fellowship him. I do not believe that he is.” Does your stated belief that Ron is not advocating what results in adultery take into account his beliefs / teaching quoted above, in green? Do you contend that there is absolutely NO WAY that Ron’s teaching (in green above) can result in adultery (obviously, if it is possible that God would view it as such, this is not an issue of indifference where God is concerned, and thus cannot fall under the realm of Romans 14). Those statements by Ron (above, in green) have been the core issue of what I began the website to expose and oppose (even though it has come to include opposition to more false doctrine as time has gone on). My questions were directly related to your view of those claims by Ron, and your view related to fellowship with one who teaches such. Mike, you have the power of the press and probably a much larger readership than my website has. If you feel that my article regarding your teaching is in error, you are free to answer it in Truth magazine if you so desire. I will not facilitate your continued efforts to divert attention from the real issue - an issue which contains no wiggling room for “judgments,” but which only involves plain, simple and clear biblical teaching.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: answers to my questions Jeff, I got your material but there was no answers to the several questions I sent you. I am still waiting for them to be answered. Am I to understand from your most recent reply that you are not going to tell me who sent you my material that I preached at Danville? Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: answers to my questions Dear Mike, If you re-read my last letter, you will realize that I am still waiting for answers from you. BTW, if you so answer the direct questions which clarify your last replies, please copy the questions and put your answers directly underneath them, so there is no question as to exactly what your answer corresponds to. The answer to your second question is simply that whoever sent me the outline is inconsequential because it was your own outline that you yourself gave out. No sin was involved in further sharing the materials that you have shared with others. Secondly, as I also said in my last letter, when I asked you to reveal a source who was surmising evil against me - which very surmising turned into public slander (GA article by Harry O.) - you would not reveal the source. Yet, you expect me to reveal a source where there is no sin involved. Why? So you can treat them as you have treated me for the past several months, when they have done nothing wrong? You have not been wronged by another. If you have been wronged at all, it is by your own words. I see no good fruit coming from sharing the source of information with you and therefore will not do so.
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: answers to my questions Jeff, I answered the questions, but did not answer them the way you wanted me to. I am not going to engage in an extended exchange with you. You said you would answer my questions when I answered yours. Are you going to hold up your end of the bargain? Also, I thought it interesting that all these moral arguments you made about me revealing who said something to me apparently meant nothing to you, because you don’t even live by the same standard you tried to bind on me. You were the one who argued that I had a moral obligation to tell you who talked to me. Now you won’t even live by your own moral principles. Isn’t that what a hypocrite is? Mike
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: answers to my questions Dear brother Mike, Again, you have misrepresented what I wrote. What I wrote was: “If you will answer ‘each of these individually so that I understand exactly what you are contending for,’ I will consider answering your questions” (emp. mine). Even you yourself previously acknowledged that it was not “much of a commitment,” for you said in the letter you wrote before the last letter the following: “Jeff, ‘I will consider answering your questions if you answer mine’ is not much of a commitment. Nevertheless, I will provide you the answers you requested.” First of all, you did not meet my conditions. The reason I simply said that I would consider answering your questions if you answered mine, is that I realized your answers could be written in such a way as would be misleading about where you stood in relation to Ron’s specific “application,” which I quoted in green to you two letters ago with a request for specific clarifications. The stipulation in what you have subsequently called “the bargain,” (which description you have now mysteriously changed from your original comment that what I had said was “not much of a commitment”) is that your answers would lead me to an understanding of “exactly what you are contending for” - which words were actually derived from your initial request for me to answer your questions. The letter I wrote prior to my last letter shows how your answers do not provide the information of “exactly what you are contending for” in relation to Ron’s own quotes in green in that letter, which is the only information that I was interested in. Your own questions could be answered in the same indirect way, but I am no more interested in engaging in an extended exchange than you are. In regards to your claim that hypocrisy was involved in my refusal to supply you with the source who provided me with your sermon outline, the question you originally asked regarding the sermon outline and tape is as follows: “Can you provide me information about: (a) Who supplied you a copy of the outline and tape? (b) What scriptural objection are they making to what I preached? Certainly no one from Danville has talked to me about the sermon, so when you mentioned having a copy of it, I was completely surprised by it.” And again, my answer (as I wrote in my last letter) is this: “As I stated in my last letter, when I asked you to reveal a source who was surmising evil against me - which very surmising turned into public slander (GA article by Harry O.) - you would not reveal the source. That was clearly a sin against me. Yet, you expect me to reveal a source where there is no sin involved. Why? So you can treat them as you have treated me for the past several months, when they have done nothing wrong? You have not been wronged by another. If you have been wronged at all, it is by your own words. I see no good fruit coming from sharing the source of information with you and therefore will not do so.” Mike, I am confident that anyone with a fair, unprejudiced mind will see a clear difference in these two circumstances: 1) the necessity to reveal the source of a false accusation when slander has been propagated publicly using that very unfounded accusation (such is what I requested of you), and 2) the necessity (?) to reveal the source of who shared a person’s publicly distributed materials – which materials were given out by the very person who also acknowledges that he was the author of those same materials (as is the case with your request).
Brotherly,
----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: Mental Divorce Website Update Jeff, Are you going to post a review of the Sheridan-Osborne debate while refusing to post the debate so people can judge it for themselves? I still haven’t received answers to the questions I asked and have quit expecting answers. Are you going to post on your page the questions you refused to answer? Mike (This was the last piece of correspondence between Mike and I. – Jeff) |
|