First Affirmative
Terence Sheridan

Sheridan's First Affirmative as published on www.Watchmanmag.com

My Comments

I appreciate the fact that both brother Sheridan and brother Osborne were able to deal with this topic without attacking each other personally.  I also appreciate Stan Cox’s allowance to have this issue discussed in Watchman.  Truth has nothing to fear.

My Comments

I have learned much from reading this debate and am pleased that this proposition was discussed, but I don’t think it cuts to the heart of the disagreement associated with this issue.  I believe the following propositions would better root out the problems associated with this issue: 

“The Scriptures teach that the innocent party must put away (regardless of the procedure) the guilty fornicator in order to have the right to remarry.” 

“The Scriptures teach that all put away people who remarry commit adultery while their ex-spouse lives.”

My Comments

In my mind, the “Putting Away” would be the sundering of the marriage.  God, who controls the status of the marriage bond, may or may not free one party from the bond.  God does free the innocent party from the marriage bond (but not the guilty) when the innocent puts away the guilty for the cause of fornication.

My Comments

None

My Comments

I couldn’t agree more.  Luke 16:18 reads: 18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery. (NAS).  Notice, the divorced woman commits adultery when she remarries, regardless of the circumstances. 

My Comments

Mental Divorce is practiced when the put away party later puts away their spouse for fornication, regardless of whether the fornication occurred before or after the divorce.  Brother Osborne should realize that those who oppose the mental divorce position as espoused by brothers Halbrook, Warnock, Patton, Reeves, etc. do so because they sincerely believe that those who follow the teaching will commit adultery and those who teach the doctrine are false teachers who need to repent.  It’s not personal, but a matter of deep conviction. 

My Comments

None

My Comments

Does brother Osborne ever address this question?  If the customary divorce procedure is not necessary, and a verbal (and presumably mental) repudiation is sufficient to put away, I presume that brother Osborne would have to admit that the man in brother Sheridan’s example really did put her away at the point he said, “I’m divorcing you!”  If not, why not?

My Comments

I can’t find anywhere in this debate where brother Osborne addresses this very important question.  This scenario will ultimately arise if people listen to what he is teaching (even if bro. Osborne doesn’t accept the consequences).  Now, in the scenario posed by bro. Sheridan, can you imagine what little Britney’s parents might say?  They would say, “No Britney, you are not married to Jason, you only think you are.”  But Britney would cleverly reply, “No Mama, Preacher Osborne told us in church that since God did not specify the procedure for how to get married or how to divorce, I concluded that we can make up our own procedure just so long as I don’t bind it on others.”  At this point, Britney’s parents are going to have a heated discussion with brother Osborne. 

My Comments

If one does not go by the societal rules associated with marriage and divorce, a major consequence will be that people will not be able to determine who has the RIGHT to marry.  If everyone has a different marriage procedure, who is really married and who is pretending?  If everyone has a different divorce procedure, no one really knows the marital status of others without asking them about the “procedures” that they followed.  THE CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH AN ARGUMENT: Let God sort it out at the judgment.  This is exactly what brother Foy E. Wallace advocated: “There are some things that are not subject to the law of restitution, things done in certain circumstances which cannot in later circumstances be undone, which remain as matters between God and the individual, and therefore reserved for the judgment.“  Does brother Osborne agree with brother Wallace?  I believe that he doesn’t.  But the next generation that applies his current “applications” doctrine will.

First Negative
Harry Osborne

Osborne's First Negative as published on www.Watchmanmag.com

My Comments

The real issue is this: Regardless of HOW one defines the “putting away” procedure, can one who is put away later “put-away?”  If the civil divorce ruling is the putting-away procedure, then can the divorced spouse later put away her former mate (even if the circumstances for such are very narrowly defined)?  If throwing-out-of-the-house is the putting-away procedure, can the one who is put-away later put-away herself by throwing her spouse out of the house that she has already been evicted from?   

Brother Harry’s argument here is flawed.  He tries to use the despised “race to the court-house” argument to show his perceived fallacy in Brother Sheridan’s thinking.  Brother Sheridan argues that the customary divorce procedure must be followed in order to put-away or divorce.  Let brother Osborne tell us his recommended divorce procedure (I’m not sure he ever overtly does in this discussion).  After he does, he knows that the one to put-away the other will be the FIRST to execute his recommended divorce procedure.  “Simply put,” even Harry’s position ends with a “race” to execute the divorce procedure, whether such a procedure involves the civil government or not. 

My Comments

The issue of fellowship revolves around the issue of put-away people being taught that under certain conditions, they can put-away their former mate and remarry.  This results in adultery if we believe Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18.  Brother Harry himself strongly believes that unrepentant adulterers and those who promote adulterous practices should not be fellowshipped.  Therefore, though he may not agree with his opponents on this issue (mental divorce and all of its peripheral arguments), he should understand why they believe it is a fellowship issue.

My Comments

Does this mean that Harry believes those that teach these doctrines are false teachers?  I would assume that Harry will be just as zealous to debate brothers Warnock, Halbrook, and Holmes as he is brother Sheridan.  Maybe all of this rebuking is going on behind the scenes…I don’t know.  I do know that Harry seems to have issues with those that would dare rebuke these brethren.  If he believes these brethren are falsely teaching, his opposition to the rebuke of Halbrook et al. seems inconsistent with what he says he believes. 

My Comments

If putting-away is defined as following the accepted societal customs for divorce, then Harry admits that Terence’s proposition is correct.  So, the real issue is:  How will brother Osborne define putting-away?

My Comments

Brother Harry is saying that following through with the current societal divorce custom is necessary AFTER the divorce has occurred, assuming that Harry defines the putting-away procedure as repudiation.  Of course, the marriage scenario could work the same way.  Billy and Sarah could define their own marriage procedure in a fit of passion (e.g., verbally committing to each other as husband and wife), enjoy the pleasures of the marriage bed, and decide when they get a chance they will go to the court-house and “formalize” the marriage.  Here’s what can happen: Billy decides the next day after they “verbally marry” that he was mistaken and really just wanted to fornicate.  Sarah is crushed, and truly believes they are married.  Billy believes in his mind that they are not married, but merely fornicators.  Brother Osborne, are they married?  If Sarah later falls in love with another and marries him according to civil law, is she an adulteress?  These are the consequences associated with everyone doing that which is right in their own eyes.

My Comments

This statement will turn out to be rather ironic as the reader continues to read the debate.  Harry will advocate THAT THERE IS NO PATTERN when it comes to the divorce procedure (and consequently, the marriage procedure).  He will have to argue with the parents of the kids that take him at his word! 

My Comments

Brother Sheridan did argue that Romans 13 would incorporate such things as marriage and divorce procedures.  Harry may not agree with his conclusions, but he did produce the passage.

My Comments

Most societal customs and civil laws would include the these actions.  In fact, the same actions would be similar in order to marry. (1) One must declare intent (at least to the prospective spouse), (2) one must initiate the civil action to marry (apply for a marriage license, etc.) and (3) one must be judged by the state to be married.  If one believes that we should follow Romans 13:1-7 for accepted procedures of marriage AND divorce, then brother Sheridan’s argumentation is just good common sense. 

My Comments

Perhaps brother Osborne can enlighten us as to the PRACTICAL execution of “putting-away” since he disagrees with Terence’s thinking.  If “putting-away” is not executed by the prevailing civil procedures for divorce, then how is it executed?  If Harry refuses to commit to a procedure, then he must admit that we really cannot objectively know who is really married and who is really divorced in a society!  He may not accept these consequences, but his rejection of the consequences doesn’t make them go away.

My Comments

Brother Osborne brings up an interesting point here.  He is correct that the focus is not on the procedure.  I believe the reason is that the PROCEDURE was not an issue of contention (as it is in this debate).  Whatever the procedure would be, the listeners most likely understood it alike.  The procedure was not the problem – the reasons WHY people were carrying out the divorce procedure WAS the problem.  However, if brethren subscribe to Harry’s no pattern theology regarding marriage and divorce proceedings, the PROCEDURE WILL BECOME A MAJOR PROBLEM in the 21^st century church (and in all societies – since aliens are under the law of Christ). 

My Comments

Again, we have no contextual reason to believe that there was any misunderstanding about the procedure.  We also know that in the book of Matthew, Jesus was addressing all men in every culture, not just the Jews.  The procedure was not an issue with his listeners.  Terence has attempted to show from Romans 13 how there can be no confusion over the procedure both in the first century and today.  If Harry will tell us his recommended divorce procedure today, perhaps we can judge its merits or faults by inserting it into 1^st century thinking. 

My Comments

I emphatically agree with brother Osborne’s underlined text.  I hope that brothers Halbrook, Warnock, Holmes, Reeves, and others are reading and heeding brother Harry’s words.

My Comments

Is Jesus speaking ONLY to the Jews here?  Have we not told those that hold to the Hailey view that Jesus words in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12 were spoken for ALL men to heed, not just Christians?  Now, how are all men going to uniformly obey the teaching of Jesus?  Following the societal procedures is a way.  Yes, the Old Law as doctrine was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14).  But the Jews were still amenable to Romans 13:1-7 (as are all men).  Let brother Osborne tell us how all men can understand the words of Christ alike, and maybe I’ll subscribe to his view.  As it is, just denying that there is no specified procedure (which we all agree about) results in chaos and confusion.  Until I hear Harry’s affirmed solution, I agree with brother Terence that the marriage and divorce procedures would be included in Romans 13. 

My Comments

The argument being made here is: If you follow the divorce (and presumably marriage) procedures of society, what happens when those procedures are unfair to one of the genders?  It is a good question and one that is difficult to answer.  If a woman knowingly married in a society that prohibited her from the right to divorce, I suppose she would accept this fact at the time of marriage.  I’m not saying it is fair, but many have to suffer injustices because of evil men in all phases of life.  The liberty to divorce may be denied, but the loss of this liberty will not cause the faithful one to lose their soul (1 Cor 10:13).

My Comments

Again, Jesus was speaking to all men in his discourse on marriage and divorce, not only the Jews (Jesus said, “Whoever”). 

For argument’s sake, let’s assume Harry is right and that the societal laws governing divorce were not under consideration by Jesus.  If Harry’s woman could put her husband away even though civil government would not allow it, how would she do so?  By what procedure?  Could her husband put her away by the same method?  If so, Harry still has his problem that the guilty fornicator can still put away his innocent spouse, and by being the “put away” of Luke 16:18, the innocent would not have the right to put away her former spouse.  Brother Harry still has the same dilemma. 

My Comments

Again, HOW would she put him away if civil law did not allow her the liberty of divorcing her husband?  However this question is answered, could the fornicating husband use the same procedure (repudiation, releasing, whatever) to put away his innocent spouse?  If so, then the dilemma for brother Osborne remains.  If not, then we are saying that the innocent party CANNOT be put-away if she doesn’t want to be put-away.  That would clearly contradict Luke 16:18, which says that ANYONE who marries the put-away woman (regardless of her innocence of guilt), commits adultery. 

Also, it IS important to note that the gospel of Mark WAS WRITTEN TO GENTILES.  They would be applying the teaching of this gospel to themselves, not looking at how it impacted the Jews. 

My Comments

Is brother Osborne suggesting a divorce procedure here?  The innocent must demonstrate to someone (who?) that the reason the marriage failed was because of the guilty party’s fornication.  Is he (the guilty party) put away after this action is accomplished?  What type of action must she take?  Tell someone?  Tell the church?  File legal papers?  Mentally think it (remember, mental thought can be an ACTION – consider repentance)?  If so, whatever the action is that she must take, can the guilty exercise the same action to sunder the marriage?  Can he do so prior to her doing so?  If so, we are again talking about a RACE.

My Comments

Using the definition of apolou in conjunction with (not in opposition to) Romans 13:1-7, let’s ask the following questions:

In our society, when is one RELEASED from the legal obligations of marriage?

In our society, when is one legally able to permanently SEND THEIR SPOUSE AWAY?

Answer – when they get the civil divorce, and not before. 

My Comments

OK.  If we ignore Romans 13 in this argument, and assume that the putting-away procedure is defined by the root definition of the Greek word apoluo, a true PUTTING AWAY is fully executed when one party RELEASES or SENDS AWAY the other party.  Could the guilty fornicator RELEASE the innocent spouse prior to her RELEASING him?  If so, then we have the “race to the RELEASING” scenario.  Could the guilty fornicator SEND AWAY the innocent spouse prior to her SENDING HIM AWAY?  If so, then we have the “race to SEND AWAY” scenario.  All of the injustices associated with a small number of civil laws will not help brother Osborne get around the fact that the one who is put-away cannot later put-away (Luke 16:18).  Define the procedure however you will, the guilty fornicator can still do it FIRST, rendering the innocent party “put-away.”  This is the real issue!

My Comments

Depending on how one defines the “putting-away” procedure, the words of Jesus may imply and require that divorces should be according to established societal laws and custom.  The fact that Jesus did not have to explain the procedure might imply that the procedure would be understood by every people of every nation (and I think it was until all this mental divorce stuff came up).

My Comments

Brother Osborne is explicitly saying that no man can define the meaning of the divorce procedure for another.  Everyone can define it just so long as one repudiates, releases, or sends away.  Consequence – even husband and wife could believe different things about putting away, with neither having to adhere to each other’s definition!  Example: Mary catches Randy cheating on her and desires to put him away by divorcing him.  Some time after the fornication, she retains a lawyer and files the divorce papers (believing herself that a civil divorce for the cause of fornication is the true way to put-away Randy).  Randy calls her and tells her not to waste her time.  You see, he read in Watchman Magazine where Harry Osborne taught that Biblical putting-away does not have to be according to societal customs, and therefore he was hereby sending Mary from the house, releasing her from the physical marriage.  He was putting her away according to his own definition that he learned from brother Osborne.  Can Mary still put him away for fornication?  Even if the court grants her the divorce FOR FORNICATION, can she re-marry since according to Harry’s definition, she has already been put-away?  If everyone can define divorce in any fashion that they fancy, this will be the result.  I’m thankful that most worldly societies have enough common sense to define the divorce procedure according to established civil customs (Romans 13:1-7).  Man does not have to define it because God already did! 

My Comments

Question – using the definition of “choridzo”, could the guilty fornicator put asunder, disunite, separate, or divide from the marriage, leaving the innocent party put away?  If so, then this is the “race to choridzo” argument.  If not, then brother Osborne must admit that the innocent party cannot be put-away if she does not want to be put-away.  Jesus says ALL put away people who re-marry commit adultery (Luke 16:18) while their ex-spouse lives (Rom 7:2-3).

My Comments

Question – using the definition of “aphiemi”, could the guilty fornicator LEAVE his innocent spouse and then she is considered party put away?  If so, then this is the “race to aphiemi” argument.  If not, then brother Osborne must admit that the innocent party cannot be put away if she does not want to be put away.  Jesus says ALL put away people who re-marry commit adultery (Luke 16:18) while their ex-spouse lives (Rom 7:2-3). 

My Comments

Based on this statement, it seems like Harry would want to let us know what he considers to be an acceptable procedure.  If he responds that he cannot say, then truly he must concede that everyone can do what seems right in their own eyes. 

To the reader: If you’re waiting in line at the Post Office and overhear two ladies in front of you chatting about their recently divorced friend, what would you think they meant by “divorced?”  Almost all (with the possible exception of brother Osborne) would presume that she was divorced according to the societal procedure (a civil divorce in this country).  Why?  Because there has never been any confusion about the divorce procedure until the mental divorce position was challenged.

My Comments

Brother Osborne, regardless of how putting away is defined, MUST the innocent party put-away the guilty party FIRST?  Can the put-away later put-away their former mate under any divorce procedure?  A “no” answer to the first question and a “yes” answer to the second question opposes the text of God’s word (Matt 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18).  A “yes” answer to the first question and a “no” answer to the second question admits some agreement with brother Sheridan.  This is the real issue that needs to be addressed.

My Comments

Let brother Harry suggest some putting-away procedures for us (since he does not like Terence’s), and then let him judge if everything hangs on which spouse executes his procedure FIRST.  If he says “no,” then he admits that a put-away person CAN put away their spouse at a later date.  This is the classic mental divorce position. 

My Comments

Brother Harry, please tell us how Betty SHOULD have put-away Bob in this scenario.  Then ask yourself if Bob could have put away Betty by the same procedure.  If not, then you seem to be advocating the position that the guilty fornicator CANNOT (has no ability to) divorce without God’s approval - a blatant contradiction of Luke 16:18, Matt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10-11, etc. 

My Comments

Alright.  Under ANY OTHER DIVORCE PROCEDURE (Harry’s choice), would Betty have the option to counter-file at all?  If so, how?  If Bob, the guilty fornicator, RELEASES (apoluo) Betty from the marriage, how does she counter-file or contest at all?  If Bob, the guilty fornicator, SEPARATES (choridzo) from Betty, thereby sundering the marriage, how does she counter-file or contest at all?  If Bob, the guilty fornicator, LEAVES (aphiemi) Betty, thereby sundering the marriage, how does she counter-file or contest at all?  If Terence’s position is absurd because it does not allow a person to counter-file (after the divorce has been granted), what about Harry’s? 

My Comments

Here’s a scenario:  Betty knows that Bob is going to put her away in civil court even though he cheated on her, so she is ready to publicly renounce Bob before the elders and the church at the conclusion of Sunday morning services (her decided upon divorce procedure).  However, right before she speaks, Bob stands up from the pew and publicly renounces Betty as a terrible spouse and bad mother.  Did Bob just “put-away” Betty?  Careful how you answer.  If you say “no,” the church rejected Bob’s divorce (his verbal repudiation), but accepted Betty’s, this puts the church in the business of accepting and rejecting divorces (i.e., the Catholic church!)!!  Yes, the church at times must determine if there are members that merit discipline (Matt 18:15-17), but granting and/or rejecting divorces is NOT a work of the church (any more than marrying two individuals is a work of the church)! 

Also, if repudiating the guilty fornicator before the elders and the church is Harry’s preferred divorce procedure, what will he tell a pagan to do?  Where should they go?  To the local “church of Christ?” 

One more thing.  We must remember that God recognizes unscriptural divorces (even though He does not approve of them).  Now, consider this scenario:  Judy after Sunday evening services notifies the elders that she is divorcing Kobe, her husband, after 5 years of marriage.  She had decided the right divorce procedure for her is to repudiate him in front of the elders and the church.  The congregation is shocked and asks Judy why she had to put him away.  She said he plays way too much basketball and isn’t paying enough attention to her.  QUESTION: Did Judy just divorce Kobe?  Would the congregation tell her to take her unscriptural divorce elsewhere (like, to a civil court?)?  If the innocent spouse of a guilty fornicator can divorce using this procedure, why not allow unscriptural divorces to be executed this way as well?  Remember God recognizes both scriptural and unscriptural divorces. 

My Comments

Could one define the specific action needed to divorce as a MENTAL putting-away (since Jesus left us without a specific procedure)?  If you say “no,” then you bind where the Lord did not (according to Harry’s definition).  If you say, “I suppose I could so long as I did not bind it on others,” then you believe in the classic mental divorce position.  I am willing to leave the divorce procedure under the necessary inference of Romans 13:1-7, lest chaos and disorder abound.  I’m glad that the world does not PRACTICE what Harry is preaching (ignore the societal divorce procedure and make up your own). 

My Comments

If Betty caught Bob cheating and decided to put him away, Betty could obtain a divorce according to the prevailing societal customs for the CAUSE of Bob’s fornication.  It’s really not that hard to understand.   

My Comments

Earlier in brother Osborne’s affirmative, he claims to oppose the classic “mental divorce” position that is currently being taught by certain brethren.  So why does he ridicule others who oppose the same error?  I would expect this type of language from a mental divorce advocate. 

WHY would Betty get the divorce?  For the cause of Bob’s fornication.  HOW should she put him away?  According to the prevailing civil government that governs marriages and divorces (Romans 13:1-7).  I don’t see WHY the cause MUST be listed on the official divorce papers, if she put him away for the correct CAUSE.  She has the right CAUSE, and the right PROCEDURE. 

My Comments

I agree with brother Osborne’s invitation to unite solely on the teaching of the Scriptures.  However, various MDR “applications” that contradict Scripture must be opposed.  Examples: 

FALSE APPLICATION #1: A man who is unlawfully married to another may keep his current spouse (with God’s blessing) after he is baptized, because the sin of the unlawful marriage was washed away (position of Hailey).  Will Harry unite with me and others to oppose this “application” that will lead to the loss of souls?

FALSE APPLICATION #2: The spouse that has been put away for a cause other than fornication may herself “put-away” (and remarry) at the time her ex-spouse commits fornication (position of Warnock, Halbrook, and others).  Will Harry unite with me and others to oppose this “application” that will lead to the loss of souls?

FALSE APPLICATION #3: One may lawfully divorce their spouse for fornication, but also if their spouse does not pay his debts, for the sake of physical and emotional heath, and in order to better serve God (position of Mike Willis and Maurice Barnett).  Will Harry unite with me and others to oppose these “applications” that will lead to the loss of souls? 

Can we pick and choose which false MDR doctrines we will oppose?  NOT if we’re “united on principles plainly affirmed by Scripture.”

My Comments

We all agree that those demonstrating the divisive and sinful attributes of Gal 5:20 are not pleasing to God.  However, just because others sincerely challenge our thinking does not mean that they are causing needless fractures in the body of Christ.  This is just crying wolf.  Case in point: 

When Mike Willis tried to justify fellowship in the local body with one who held to the teachings of the AD 70 doctrine, he made the following word-for-word argument: 

Even the most fundamental wrong belief that one can hold, that Jesus is not the Son of God, is not sin.  Rather, that fundamentally wrong belief keeps one from receiving the forgiveness of God, the medicine that will cure sin, but it is not itself designated as a sin. 

According to Mike’s position, wrong belief in the Deity of Christ is not sin.  The consequences of such a position: A Christian could suddenly lose his faith in Christ (thereby opposing the plain teaching of Scripture, resulting in calling God a “liar”), become agnostic, but STILL go to heaven if he did not “sin” prior to dying!  Atheists in heaven!  Who can believe it!?!  The church at Danville where Mike worked didn’t.  How did Mike respond to those that opposed him?  He claimed they were being FACTIOUS.  Opposing error is NOT being factious (Matt 10:34; Luke 12:51). 

Second Affirmative
Terence Sheridan

Sheridan's Second Affirmative as published on www.Watchmanmag.com

My Comments

None

My Comments

I agree if brother Terence means that one must renounce the physical marriage.  Only God can separate the marriage bond (Matt 5:32; 19:9; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:39). 

Please note: According to brother Osborne’s position, Terence’s step 1 is ALL that would we needed to sunder the marriage.  Steps 2 and 3 would be legal formalities performed after the putting-away had already occurred.

My Comments

None

My Comments

Brother Sheridan has put his finger on the REAL issue behind this debate.  As has been asked time and time again, can a guilty fornicator put-away his innocent spouse?  Is this possible?  The Scriptures don’t specify the sins associated with the one who unlawfully puts-away (Luke 16:18).  They do teach that one CAN unlawfully put-away  and that God will recognize that the divorce has occurred. 

My Comments

Again, I believe that the underlined text shows where brother Sheridan has touched the real issue in this discussion (and the whole “mental divorce” controversy as a whole).

My Comments

Great question!  I can’t find where brother Osborne ever addressed this query in the text of his second negative.

My Comments

I agree with Terence here.  How do infidels define BOTH marriage AND divorce?  They recognize the prevailing customs of society.  All (both aliens and Christians) can clearly understand this.  When one marries, he does so according to the Government that God Himself ordained.  When one puts-away (apoluo), he does so according to the Government that God Himself ordained (Rom 13:1-7). 

My Comments

None

My Comments

Sometimes Christians must live under certain conditions that are unjust.  If we have an unreasonable employer, submit to him anyway, suffering the wrong for God (1 Peter 2:18).  We may lose the liberty of working in a wonderful environment, but suffering for the Lord’s sake is good, and by doing so we may win some to the Lord.  Wives were to be submissive to their disobedient (to God) husbands, that they might win them to the Lord (1 Peter 3:1-2).  So too, we should be submissive to civil government so long as we are not commanded to sin (Romans 13:1-7; Acts 5:29).  Giving up some of our liberties (e.g., marriage, property ownership, etc.) will not cause us to sin.  We KNOW this because God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to endure (1 Cor 10:13).  God allowed some to suffer death for the cause, but remaining faithful during the brief time of injustice and suffering was worth an eternity of heaven (Rev 2:10). 

My Comments

None

My Comments

This is a very good point, and one that I believe brother Osborne never answers in this debate.  Read again Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18.  We cannot judge if the one that unlawfully puts-away in these verses is a fornicator or not.  The text is generic!  We do know that anyone who puts away his spouse causes her to commit adultery if she marries another.  Let’s just stick with the plain teaching of Scripture.

My Comments

Brother Sheridan points out the real issues associated with this topic:

1) Can a put-away person later put away?

2) Can a put-away person remarry without committing adultery so long as their ex-spouse lives? 

I presume that most brethren and society as a whole agree with brother Sheridan on the proposition of this debate.  Brethren agree because of Romans 13:1-7 (In fact, I don’t think brethren would have even considered this an issue at all until brother Osborne and others made these arguments in defense of brother Halbrook’s mental divorce “application”).  Society agrees because its good, plain old common sense (and even civil governments can see the chaos that would result from a no-pattern view of marriage and divorce procedures). 

My Comments

Considering that brother Osborne is a seasoned preacher who is no stranger to dealing with controversial topics, I judge that brother Sheridan argued his proposition well (especially since the proposition was written by his opponent!).

Second Negative
Harry Osborne

Osborne's Second Negative as posted on www.Watchmanmag.com

My Comments

Brother Osborne likes the proposition that Terence is affirming (I am told he wrote it).  Would he be comfortable denying the following: “The scriptures teach that put-away persons commit adultery when they remarry, regardless of the divorce procedure.”  Again, this proposition gets to the heart of the whole controversy that is currently brewing.

My Comments

I don’t believe this statement is correct.  Brother Terence argued that in order to properly follow civil law, the divorce procedures of one’s society must be followed.  Brother Harry has argued against this very point if he judges that the civil government prohibits the exercise of a God given liberty. 

My Comments

I don’t think Harry is representing brother Terence’s position accurately here.  Terence does use “put away” just as the Bible does.  Harry defined apolou as “release,” “send away.”  Terence uses these definitions!  In accordance with Romans 13:1-7, the divorce (an act regulated by civil government just as marriage is regulated) consists of one spouse RELEASING or SENDING AWAY the other in accordance with the procedures that are in place in one’s respective society.  Terence harmonizes Jesus’ teachings on divorce with Paul’s teaching on submitting to civil government.  He does not reinterpret or redefine Scripture.

My Comments

In Acts 5:28, the apostles were told to stop doing that which God commanded them to do (Acts 5:20; Matt 28:19-20; Mark 16:15).  To stop teaching would be to disobey God, and sin (1 John 3:4).  They had an obligation to teach (as do we all today).  Certainly we MUST obey God rather than men. 

 Scripture (GOD) teaches that when the put-away remarries, she commits adultery, regardless of her guilt or innocence (Luke 16:18).  MEN say that the innocent party CAN remarry, even if she was already put away by a guilty fornicator.  Who will we obey?  God or men? 

My Comments

Brother Osborne, in the situation where the innocent party goes before the elders and the church and renounces her spouse (a procedure seemingly recommended by you), when and where do you claim that the official recognition of divorce occurs?  When she is done speaking the last syllable?  Whatever your recommended procedure is, the shameless guilty fornicator can STILL beat the innocent party (win the race) to obtaining the divorce! 

My Comments

Brother Harry still needs to tell us his divorce procedure that he would recommend to another.  Under that procedure, can one who is put away later put-away by the same procedure.  If not, then we can see that no matter HOW THE PROCEDURE is defined, there can still be a RACE to execute the procedure.  All of Harry’s claims about the civil procedure promoting a “race” does him no good, for the race scenario can occur with any procedure (even Harry’s).

My Comments

Harry merely perceives this.  I judged that Terence was trying to clarify his position and correct a misrepresentation (that one had to FILE for divorce first), not seek cover because he was “exposed.”  This seems like Harry’s own review of the debate prior to the debate being finished.  The readers can decide for themselves who avoided questions and sought cover.

My Comments

Brother Osborne, whether he accepts it or not, is an advocate of the mental divorce position if he believes that the innocent spouse can put-away after she has already been put away.  Jesus clearly states that the innocent party must PUT-AWAY (sunder the marriage) the guilty fornicator to be free of the marriage bond and therefore remarry without committing adultery (Matt 19:9).  How can she sunder a marriage if the marriage no longer exists?  She can’t!  The elders and the church can’t briefly deem them to be married again so that she can divorce him. 

Also, is the church in the divorcing business (anymore than it is in the marrying business).  Is the church charged with granting and rejecting divorces?  If Bob protests prior to Betty that he committed fornication because Betty was a lousy companion, can the church deny his divorce request because it is unscriptural?  If so, could the church deny ALL unscriptural divorce requests, thereby rendering them impossible to execute?  Be careful.  God says marriages CAN be sundered for unscriptural reasons (Luke 16:18, 1 Cor 7:10-11). 

When you think about all the mines associated with just this one suggestion of brother Osborne’s, I think we can see the wisdom of submitting to the prevailing societal custom for marriage and divorce (Rom 13:1-7). 

My Comments

However Harry defines the divorce procedure, it can still degrade to a “race” to execute the procedure, hence leaving Harry with the same problems that he claims Terence has.  It sounds like a broken record, but it’s still true.  Will brother Osborne accept this fact?  If he does, then he should abandon the “race to the courthouse” argument.  If he doesn’t then he must believe that certain put-away persons can later put-away themselves and have the right to remarry.  Which is it?

My Comments

Again, I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation.  Terence agrees with Harry’s definitions and uses them to support his proposition.  In accordance with Romans 13:1-7, the divorce (an act regulated by civil government just as marriage is regulated) consists of one spouse RELEASING or SENDING AWAY or LEAVING (apoluo, choridzo, and aphiemi) the other in accordance with the procedures that are in place in one’s respective society.  Terence harmonizes Jesus’ teachings on divorce with Paul’s teaching on submitting to civil government.  In the proposition, brother Sheridan agrees with Harry’s definitions (as harmonized with Romans 13). 

My Comments

By my count, brother Osborne ignored some of Terence’s questions as well.  Some include:

1) If civil procedure doesn't count, then does one put away his spouse the moment he says in fit of rage over the breakfast table, "Oooooo! I can't stand you! You're such a total shrew!!! I'm divorcing you." Does he suddenly become an ex-husband at that point? (First Affirmative)

2) If civil procedure and the norms of society don't count in the matter of divorce, what about marriage? Suppose Britney, a pre-teen falls in love with Jason, an older teenager. What if they just declare themselves married in order to satisfy their urges? (First Affirmative)

3) If brother Osborne believes that the "put-away" can't put away, then he needs to show how some innocent spouses are immune to being "put away" even other innocent ones are not. Where are the Scriptures for the fine distinctions that brother Osborne is forced to make? (Second Affirmative)

4) Concerning the definitions of apoluo, choridzo, and aphiemi: As far the above terms are concerned, there is something else they do not inhere in their meaning: the guilt or innocence of the one doing the putting away. I said as much in my first affirmative. What is brother Osborne's response to this? (Second Affirmative)

My Comments

Brother Osborne understands that the gospel spoken in Matt 19 and Mark 10 was for all men everywhere (Mark was written to the Romans), not just the Jews.  As Terence pointed out, what if we lived in a no-divorce society?  There may be some situations where our liberties may be taken away, yet we can remain faithful regardless (1 Cor 10:13).  Some may have to become Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (Matt 19:12), but it will all be worth it in the end (Rom 8:18).  He who is able to accept it, let him accept it (Matt 19:12). 

My Comments

Brother Terence defines the PROCEDURE in accordance with Romans 13:1-7 (since societies govern and legislate procedures for marriage and divorce and we are to submit to civil government).  This being said, If the innocent party desires to remarry, then she must sunder the marriage (obtain the divorce).  She cannot sunder that which has been sundered already (Luke 16:18).  This isn’t hard to understand (and was A LOT easier for many to understand before some brethren were exposed for teaching the mental divorce doctrine).

My Comments

Now we’re starting to get to the meat of the issue.  FACT: God recognizes that sinful men will unlawfully put-away their spouses, causing their spouses to commit adultery if they remarry (Matt 5:32; 19:9, Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:3).  FACT: If a uniform divorce procedure is understood, then the first to execute (either lawfully or unlawfully) the procedure puts-away the other (Luke 16:18).  THE ESCAPE: Don’t allow the definition of a uniform divorce procedure (no pattern), thereby allowing the innocent party to escape from ever being put-away.  If they don’t like the judge’s ruling, then go seek a second opinion before a stacked jury (the church and the neighbors).  Yet the Scripture still says that God recognizes that unlawful divorces do occur. 

The CAUSE of Matt 19:9 is important because it is the ONLY cause by which one may execute a divorce without sinning.  The Scripture never says that one who has this one lawful cause is EXEMPT from being put away by another for a sinful CAUSE. 

My Comments

Brother Osborne’s scenario is valid.  When one breaks his word in a business contract, he sins, regardless of how the situation is judged by others.  But does God forbid men from acting unscrupulously in business?  No.  In the current discussion, the debate is not over whether the guilty fornicator sins when he puts away the innocent spouse.  We all know he does (and without repentance, he will pay eternally).  The issue is, CAN he put-away his spouse, even though it is sinful.  God says that he can (Luke 16:18).

My Comments

In brother Harry’s illustration, when the civil court system does fail, what is the Christian to do?  Can the one who is wronged go take the property or capital that is rightfully his anyway?  Or must he abide by the unjust decision, knowing that being defrauded is a small price to pay in the eternal scheme of things (1 Cor 6:1-8).  Notice the example of Paul and Silas in Acts 16.  Clearly the civil authorities got it all wrong by subjecting them to a vicious beating and throwing them into prison.  Knowing this, what did they do?  They prayed and sang hymns to God, influencing those around them.  Why endure the wrong?  Because in the total picture (eternity), suffering for doing what is right finds favor in the sight of God (2 Tim 1:8).  I hope brother Osborne is not advocating that Christians revolt against the incorrect rulings of civil law to correct all of the injustices in this short, temporal life.  We know at times we’ll be wronged, but we have the faith to endure the trials and temptations that this injustice may bring (James 1:2-4).

Now, consider the marriage contract – just because some sinfully break the contract with civil government’s approval does not mean that we can revolt against the unjust decision and make it right.  The innocent are left as eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, but the hope of heaven is still theirs!  All the guilty fornicator has is the terrifying expectation of judgment (Heb 10:27)!

My Comments

I’m not sure if brother Harry realizes this, but in his forthcoming example, he will employ a “bait-and-switch” tactic.  He claims he is giving examples of liberties that are denied, but quickly switches to scenarios that require the Christian to sin for his government – the very thing brother Terence denies (Acts 5:29).

My Comments

THE BAIT: The government requires that all limit the number of children in the family to one.  Harry shows that the government is asking the families to curb a liberty granted to them by God.  Should the Christian obey such a request?  Yes, according to Romans 13:1-7.

THE SWITCH: Harry switches to a situation where there is an accident (or the parents disobey the government) and the wife becomes pregnant.  Must the Christian submit to an abortion?  NO!  Why?  Because committing murder is a transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).  Harry starts out with the denial of a liberty, but quickly switches to a scenario requiring the Christian to sin.

My Comments

In each of brother Harry’s examples, we see examples of where civil government has made laws that are unjust to certain individuals (because of sinful motives in the first place).  What is the easy answer?  There isn’t one.  I do know with absolute certainty that the Christian that forgoes the liberty of marriage in either of these scenarios can still be saved and still go to heaven.  God will not allow them to be tempted beyond what they are able to bear (1 Cor 10:13).  Our goal in this life is not to always get what is rightfully ours, but to serve the God of heaven with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, regardless of our living conditions (Mark 12:30).  The reader is encouraged to read the book of Daniel to observe the life of one who gave up many, many liberties to serve His God, yet would never follow civil laws that would require him to sin.  If we should take anything away from Harry’s examples, it is that we all should be very grateful for how good we have it in 21^st century America!

My Comments

I have in my files some articles written by brother Robert Waters, who tries to justify remarriage for both the innocent AND guilty parties in a divorce.  When brethren try to show him his error from the Scriptures, he often runs to 1 Timothy 4:1-3, proclaiming that all who oppose him are teaching a doctrine of demons.  It seems that everyone uses this passage to attack the opposition in a disagreement of this nature.

Romans 13:1-7 says that we are to submit to the governing authorities.  Acts 5:29 tells us that our submission cannot include disobeying God.  HARMONIZE these two passages.  If civil government does take away a God-given liberty, we are to still to submit, for complying with the law will not involve sin.  I don’t think that the harmonization of these two passages treads on a path that we dare not follow.  It’s just sound exegesis (but it doesn’t appeal to emotional arguments).

Most, if not all, of the world lives in societies that grant the right of individuals to marry (the procedures may differ).  If one who has a right to marry is unlawfully forbidden in this case, this is an example of the doctrine of demons in action.  The Catholic church sins when they, a false religion, enforce rules forbidding the clergy to marry. 

One more point: I wonder if brothers Halbrook, Warnock, and Holmes would charge brother Osborne with teaching a doctrine of demons when Harry says that the innocent party that was put away for a cause other than fornication cannot remarry, even if her spouse later commits fornication.  How would Harry respond to such an accusation?

My Comments

Consider Romans 13:1-7.  I am sure that when Harry teaches the book of Romans, he tells his class to interpret this passage according to 21^st century American national, state, and local laws.  Do we pay the same taxes as they did in 1^st century Palestine?  Of course not!  We interpret our need to pay taxes using current tax law.  These laws may change, but we are still amenable to them.  Likewise, governments (or societies) also regulate marriages and divorces.  The procedures change, but the need to submit to the current prevailing procedure does not.  I don’t see the “far-reaching consequences” that Harry imagines.

I do see grave consequences with Harry’s view that each can decide their own divorce procedure, just so long as they don’t bind it on others.  This view will bring chaos! 

My Comments

I’m not sure if brother Harry realizes that he is totally misrepresenting the arguments of his opponent here.

Harry claims that Terence is allowing civil government to “define” putting away.  He is not.  Terence is arguing that one must put-away (release, leave, send away) according to the procedures in place in one’s respective society, thus obeying Romans 13:1-7 as well as Matt 19:9.

Based on this misrepresentation, Harry then claims that Terence would have to allow government to redefine other Bible words such as “murder” to exclude abortion, realizing that such a definition would make the Christian disobey God and commit sin. 

Brother Sheridan does NOT allow the government to redefine apoluo.  Harry imagines this.  He does affirm that the procedure must be in submission to governing authorities by the necessary inference of Romans 13. 

My Comments

All divorces (whether lawful or unlawful) are ALLOWED (i.e., God recognizes that they do occur even though he may not approve of them – see 1 Cor 7:10-11).  Jesus gave the one CAUSE whereby one could divorce WITHOUT SINNING.  He is NOT teaching that spouses of guilty fornicators MUST be able to put-away the guilty.  If the marriage exists, she can release him without sinning.  If the marriage no longer exists, how can she RELEASE him from a relationship that no longer exists.  It’s not that hard to understand.

My Comments

I’ve previously addressed this argument several times in this review, and I respectfully disagree with brother Osborne’s assertion that it devastates brother Sheridan’s position.

Let brother Osborne suggest for us a suitable divorce procedure (whatever it may be).  Using Harry’s procedure, if the guilty fornicator puts-away the innocent spouse FIRST, can she later put him away by the same procedure?  However Harry defines the divorce procedure, it can still be abused by the sinful to do injustice to the innocent spouse.  Brother Halbrook realizes this, and that’s why he teaches that only God can approve the divorce (sever the civil marriage).  He realizes the Scriptures teach otherwise so he says that God uses “unmarried” in an accommodative fashion, thereby redefining biblical words.

Harry may never subscribe to Ron’s position, but I believe that many who read Harry’s arguments to the left will, especially when they understand that ALL divorce procedures (even Harry’s) can be abused and perverted by sinful men.

My Comments

Again, the putting-away of Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18 describes the ACTION (release, leave, send away) that is performed in a divorce.  Since governments regulate marriage and divorces, and God requires all men to submit to the governing authorities, the PROCEDURE (not the action) is defined according to the procedures in place in one’s respective society (Romans 13:1-7).  This HARMONIZES these texts, rather than pitting them against each other. 

The underlined text to the left makes me wonder if Harry is leaning toward the Halbrook view.  In other words, if the CAUSE is wrong, God won’t recognize the divorce.  Clearly this is not the case.  Again, Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 show the only CAUSE for putting away that can be executed WITHOUT SINNING.  They do not even hint that because there is a lawful reason for divorce that sinning, evil men are now prohibited from (have no ability) putting away for unlawful causes (Luke 16:18).

My Comments

Let me state what Harry is saying with a little bit more detail:  The Bible teaches that where the scriptural cause of fornication does exist for sundering a marriage, the innocent spouse with THE ONE scriptural cause for departing from the marriage has the right to SUNDER THE MARRIAGE WITHOUT SINNING, and after doing so can remarry without sinning if she chooses to do so.  However, she cannot sunder that which no longer exists.  Those who are put-away commit adultery if they remarry while their ex-spouse still lives (Luke 16:18).  Otherwise, brother Osborne must admit that marriages not sundered for the CAUSE of fornication are really not sundered at all (the Halbrook position).

My Comments

Brother Harry is correct.  Jesus did not legislate a procedure (and brother Terence agrees).  However, Paul, by necessary inference, did in Romans 13.  Since governments regulate marriage and divorces, and God requires all men to submit to the governing authorities, the PROCEDURE (not the action) is defined according to the procedures in place in one’s respective society (Romans 13:1-7). 

My Comments

Just because there is a disagreement over a Bible topic, this does not mean that fellowship must be immediately severed.  Studies like the Osborne-Sheridan debate are quite conducive to a thoughtful examination of this issue.  I hope there are more discussions like this, especially dealing with propositions that better define the differences among brethren. 

My Comments

Brother Harrell thinks that those who opposed brother Hailey were bent on division.  Brother Owen said that if we oppose brother Hailey we’ll end up worshipping in phone booths.  Just saying so doesn’t make it true. 

Is brother Osborne “bent on division” when he will not fellowship those that teach or practice the Hailey MDR doctrine?  No.  Is brother Osborne “bent on division” when he opposes those that teach forms of theistic evolution?  No.  It is right and good to contend for the faith against those that teach contrary to the truth of God’s word.  Just because Harry is opposed by others, does not mean that his opponents are “bent on division” (a rather prejudicial term).  They are only contending for what they strongly believe to be the truth.  Harry, and those that agree with him, need to show that their opponents are wrong, AND live with the consequences of the arguments used to do so. 

My Comments

Romans 13:1-7 implies brother Sheridan’s view, even if brother Osborne refuses to see it.

My Comments

Will brother Harry oppose the Halbrook mental divorce position with the same vigor as he has opposed brother Terence?  Considering all of the discussion on this issue, I haven’t read much on it in Truth or Watchman, yet if it is a heresy, I would think Harry and others would want to attack it like any other heresy.  When brother McKee tried to submit material on this issue, he was refused and “roughed up” a bit by brother Willis (read the material on www.mentaldivorce.com and decide for yourself).  I have long come to the conclusion that the real reason that Halbrook’s position is off-limits is because Ron is so close to the men associated with these papers (or because more hold to his views than is currently known).  Some may claim I’m evil surmising – so be it.  When those who dare oppose Ron are being attacked, I know I’m not surmising.  Until brethren deal with all error equally and without partiality, whatever respect and influence they have will be limited to those on their buddy-lists.  This is true for myself, brothers Sheridan and Osborne, and all Christians. 

My Comments

What is the “real battle” for all Christians?  Guarding ALL of the truth and standing against ALL error, not just specific ones.  I agree that the Halbrook doctrine being exposed at the time when loose fellowship is being opposed is quite embarrassing, yet the way to re-gain focus is to deal with his error as you do the MDR errors of brothers Waters, Hailey, Puterbough, and others.  Those that truly love him, will. 

My Comments

Can we all agree on this Biblical principle (Luke16:18): 

“The Scriptures teach that all put away people who remarry commit adultery while their ex-spouse lives.” 

If we can, then we are going a long way toward further unity based upon the Biblical text.

My Comments

Getting away from who scot-free?  They can’t get away from God.  Winning the hearts and minds of others will REQUIRE consistency on all MDR and fellowship situations, not just those that originated in Christianity Magazine. 

Who cares what others say?  Bob Ross, a Baptist, says that we are a divisive bunch because we have undergone the institutional division.  So what?  I’m sure the re-baptism issue of the late 1800s was considered trivial by some, yet their battles have led to uniform understanding today.  Those that are wrong on other issues (creation, loose fellowship, etc.) never escape the pressure applied to them by God through His word. 

My Comments

FACT:  As a whole brethren do NOT agree on MDR as a whole.  What do we do about it?  Some choices include:

1) We can throw-up our hands and say that God’s word is ambiguous on this topic.

2) We can pick and choose which false teachings we will address, leaving others to the realm of alternate “applications.”

3) We can be consistent and address all error equally.  I choose this option (which means that in addition to opposing Hicks, Waters, Bassett, Hailey and others, I also must oppose brother Halbrook (mental divorce) and brother Willis (perversion of 1 Cor 7:10-11)). 

The goal is that one day we all can be agreed, having the same mind and judgment, with no divisions among us (1 Cor 1:10).  Maybe two or three generations down the road will understand MDR the way we understand the re-baptism issue today.

My Comments

AMEN!  Open discussion on these issues will help many to arrive at the truth.  Truth has nothing to hide.

My Comments

Division is a good thing if done for the right reason (1 Cor 5; 2 John 9-11; etc.).  That being said, I think the goal of all involved in the discussion over the mental divorce topic and its peripheral issues (this debate was based on one of those peripheral issues) is to come to an understanding of the truth.  So long as people are honestly studying and dealing with each other without favoritism or hypocrisy, only good can benefit from further study.