DOCUMENTATION OF THE ERROR EXPOSED
IN

The Second Putting Away


Some say that certain civil divorce procedures are simply a “farce” 1

“The passage explains which divorces and remarriages God will accept as valid under the terms of his law and which He will not accept.  If a person sinfully and wrongfully rejects or puts away his mate, his action is a farce so far as changing the obligations he has to that mate under God's law” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook   Notes For Further Study

 

“In that case, what you have, you have to make a distinction between a scriptural putting away and an unscriptural putting away.  Because the man goes through the farce of a civil action in putting her away in a legal sense (he has done that—the civil courts will record it), but in the sight of God he has just acted out a perversion and a lie, and God doesn’t accept what he has done.”  Ron Halbrook  Excerpt From Belen, NM during the Q/A session after MDR sermon

 

“I particularly know of a case of this happening in Houston.  Man went away to Las Vegas.  His wife thought he was leaving on a Monday to go on a business trip to New York; he actually went to Las Vegas with a girl he had been having relations with.  He went out there on Monday, filed for divorce, and in Nevada you have a three day waiting period, you can mail the procedure to the spouse.  When it was mailed, it didn’t get to her before they got back on Friday.  When they get back on Friday, he says, ‘by the way hun, I didn’t go to New York, I went to Las Vegas.  I’ve divorced you, I’ve married her.’  The first his wife knew about it was at that time.  She told him, ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with you if you’re ungodly and going to stay in that relationship. I’m going to put you away.  That farce that you had of an action out there in Las Vegas is not what was putting away’” (emp. jhb).  Harry Osborne (The following proves that such a scenario could not have taken place as brother Osborne described it.)  

[P.S. to the above quote by Harry Osborne:  His particular knowledge of this case in Houston is proven untrue by the following facts, found at DivorceSource.com  Because of copyrights, I could not quote directly from the website, however, I will offer a summation of the information from it, which contradicts the above quotes, and you may verify this information at:

http://www.divorcesource.com/NV/info/legalprocess.shtml

To divorce in Nevada, one must first be a resident of that state for six weeks before they even become eligible to file for divorce.  Moreover, the spouse must be notified of the divorce before it can proceed.  If unable to find the spouse to notify them, the filing spouse must be willing to testify under oath that he has made a “very good effort” to find and notify his or her spouse, then a “service of process” must be published in the newspaper (this process is called “Constructive Service;” information found under Q & A section link from above web site).  Even if the spouse (who was filed against) is agreeable to the divorce, it takes a minimum of one to one and one half months to complete the process (after six weeks residency). If the spouse contests the divorce, it can take up to a year.

We must not forget that in a divorce, there are assets that need to be divided and often child custody decisions must be made.  Even the civil (“ungodly”) courts realize that both parties require representation, and therefore, settling a divorce case takes time.

In addition, below is a web site that outlines EVERY state’s divorce laws (links to state government sites).  Interestingly, there are NO states – Nevada included – that allow one spouse to divorce the other without their prior knowledge.  Only in the case where a spouse had disappeared (necessarily implies that the spouse is no longer living at the last residence the couple shared together) and had not been heard from for an extended amount of time (years), does any state allow a divorce to be obtained in that situation. 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Divorce.htm  ]

[back to poem]


They say that the “innocent” divorced person’s “rights,” God will “protect” 2

 In Harry Osborne’s Lakeland sermon (5-29-01), after having claimed particular knowledge of a case involving a man who civilly divorced his wife without her knowledge (which case is proven above to be impossible), brother Osborne reveals the aim of his “application.:” protection of an innocent put away person’s “rights.”  Please note very carefully what he stated:

 “…If civil procedure is the putting away, that woman was divorced, didn’t know about it, and there is no way she can be protected by the law of God.  I suggest to you the principles of God would show the very opposite. The principles would show she does have a right to say “here’s why I’m going away from you. I’m expressing that as the reason why.  I’m taking action.  You get your stuff out of here.”  That’s Biblical putting away - and it’s Biblical putting away for the cause, and it’s Biblical putting away after the very principles that Jesus made clear” (emp. jhb).  Harry Osborne  (See The Nevada Strawman on this web site, which proves that such a scenario could not have taken place as brother Osborne described it.)    

“In shorter form: does his unscriptural action (claiming a divorce without scriptural ground) nullify her right to take scriptural action (put away the mate to whom she is bound, on the ground of fornication)?” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook  [from the letter Ron wrote to a young preacher (i.e. Pat Donahue) who challenged him to debate the issue.]

 

“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…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” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook  E-mail letter which reveals Ron Halbrook’s application

 

“According to this argument, if the fornicator can get his legal papers before fornicating, he can preclude the innocent mate from exercising the divine prerogative of putting away the guilty party & marrying another. By this argument, the innocent party would thus commit adultery!?!?”   Ron Halbrook (Added commentary to an article by Windell Wiser, sent out by Ron in early Spring, 2001)

 

“You have asked a question which falls into the realm of brethren earnestly seeking to apply a principle which all embrace and defend.  In trying to assess the situation and apply the principle, you would conclude an innocent mate should not marry a new mate by appealing to the same principle and passages I would use to conclude the decision should be left between that innocent mate and God” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook  Response from Ron regarding a MDR scenario question when fornication is committed AFTER an unlawful civil divorce

 

“Your position assigns the innocent party to a life without hope because they remained faithful to the marriage vows. When that mate who put the innocent party away involves themselves sexually with someone else, the one who remained faithful has the right (though it would be their choice) to remarry without being guilty of fornication” (emp. jhb).  Bobby Holmes  [From an e-mail exchange with Jeff Belknap posted on this website]

 

“Now, Matthew 19 uh, that should be verse 9.  Matthew 19 verse 9.  The innocent party put away the guilty party.  Jesus allowed that.  Now, do you know what all these verses have in common?  Here’s what they have in common: in each case, one party had a right to do the loosing.  It’s as simple – I’ll tell you something, brethren, this is as simple, this-this should just jump out at you.  Every time you see the word ‘apoluo’ used in the New Testament, somebody, one party had the power or right to loose or to act for or against, or sometimes on behalf of another party.  Every time!  Better get all that Terry, ‘cause brother Belknap might not be happy.  In each case, one party had the power or right to act for or against the other party.  Friends, it’s that way every time.  You won’t find an exception to it” (emp. jhb). Tim Haile, [Lesson on “Biblical ‘Putting Away,’” during the All Day Bible Study; The Warfield Blvd. church of Christ, Clarksville, Tennessee (2-12-02)].

P.S. to brother Haile’s quote directly above:  How about Lk. 16:18? [“Whosoever putteth away (apoluo) his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away (apoluo) from her husband committeth adultery.”]  In the first half of this verse, the husband who “apoluo”(ed) his wife obviously did not have the God-given right to put her away, or his subsequent remarriage to another would not have been condemned as “adultery.”

[back to poem]


They tell us some civilly divorced people may “put away” and remarry still.3 

“According to this argument, if the fornicator can get his legal papers before fornicating, he can preclude the innocent mate from exercising the divine prerogative of putting away the guilty party & marrying another. By this argument, the innocent party would thus commit adultery!?!?” (emp. jhb).   Ron Halbrook (Added commentary to an article by Windell Wiser, sent out by Ron in early Spring, 2001)

 

“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…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” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook   Notes For Further Study

 

“The addition of the exception clause to the no-divorce general rule changes every component of the rule.  Because by adding the exception clause, Jesus granted a putting away right or putting away power to someone that it formerly did not belong to. If I go put my wife away today, if I go divorce my wife today, there’s no fornication involved on the part of either of us, who has the right to remarry?  Neither.  Neither party has any right.  Neither party has any power.  What if one of us commits fornication?  God said the other one has a power, has a right.  Well, is that until the ah, guilty party makes the quick move, secures the civil divorcement?  Is that until that.  And somebody said, Yeah, that’s up until that point.  No, I didn’t read anything about that in the Bible” (emp. jhb).  Tim Haile [Lesson on “Biblical ‘Putting Away’” (2-12-02) during the All Day Bible Study; The Warfield Blvd. church of Christ, Clarksville, Tennessee].

 

“It’s a difficult one because it gets into motive.  Did that fella leave in order to go meet up with his new girlfriend?  Did he leave in order to go have an affair with his secretary?  Those are a lot of questions.  If he left, and the cause of the break up—the cause of the break up was fornication, then I’m a little more lenient on that.  But I think it is in the realm of study and we need to be careful and study those things.  But I really don’t want to get into any questions, in fact I won’t answer any questions today, about fornication committed after the break up.  I just won’t do that.” Tim Haile [Question/Answer Session (2-12-02) after his lesson on “Biblical ‘Putting Away’” during the All Day Bible Study; The Warfield Blvd. church of Christ, Clarksville, Tennessee].

 

“Especially if I’m going to leave my wife anyway and I don’t care about the civil law.  So, I can go a little faster and I’m going to just spin out of here in a hurry and I never see my wife again, never talk to her again, I have broken my marriage.  I have broken, I have deserted, I have left, I have loosed, I have broken my marriage.  Guess what remains intact?  The marriage bond.  I did absolutely nothing to affect that marriage bond, and guess what?   If I go out and commit fornication, I’ve done something that might be used to affect the marriage bond, but I have still by that action, not affected the marriage bond.”  Tim Haile [Lesson on “Biblical ‘Putting Away’” (2-12-02) during the All Day Bible Study; The Warfield Blvd. church of Christ, Clarksville, Tennessee]. 

“Brother Pickup made me aware a couple of years ago that it is being widely reported that Mike Willis and I differ in doctrine on this.  As I left home to come, I sent my manuscript to two people for proofreading purposes by computer. After their proofreading it, not only they helped get the corrections done, but also I received this statement from MIKE WILLIS: ‘This is to affirm that I have read brother Halbrook's material. I agreed with him that our differences on how to treat one whose mate is guilty of FORNICATION FOLLOWING A DIVORCE which he tried to avoid is a difference of judgment in the realm of application of the one law of divorce and remarriage and not the teaching of another law.’ HARRY OSBORNE made in essence the same statement. Those are the two who proofread it for me” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook  [Towards A Better Understanding (False Teachers, Ron Halbrook’s Rebuttal to Bob Owen (pgs. 34-35)]. 

“But someone asks: ‘What about a woman who is put away (divorced) by a man simply because the man no longer wanted to be married? Fornication is not involved and the woman repeatedly tried to prevent the divorce, but to no avail. After a couple of years the man marries another woman. Is the ‘put way’ woman then free to marry?’ She certainly is, if she puts away her husband for fornication. She would have to do this before God in purpose of heart since the divorce has already taken place, legally speaking. She could not go through the process of having a legal document charging her husband with 'adultery,' but God would know…”  (emp. jhb).   Weldon E. Warnock  (Searching the Scriptures, November issue, 1985) 

 

[back to poem]


And whoso marries the put away “committeth adultery” is, by Jesus, bound4! 

Jesus Christ

Mt. 5:32; 19:12; Lk. 16:18; cf. Rom. 7:2-3

[back to poem]


They claim that Jesus emphasized only “the cause,” 5 

“I believe many brethren make a mistake in attempting to parallel American civil law (or any nation’s civil law) with the discussion of Jesus in Mt. 19, et al.  I understand the tendency to do so, but if we make the mistake of delineating the teaching of Christ only in the context of American civil courts, we will be arguing ourselves into a side issue rather than the true one: “cause.”  Whatever Christ taught, it must be applicable in every nation around the world.” Tom Roberts  (E-mail letter sent to Jeff Belknap, 4-24-01)

 

“Jesus did not legislate a procedure for sundering marriage. He legislated a cause.  Let us leave it there and not add to God's law” (emp. jhb).  Harry Osborne  [The Sheridan - Osborne Debate (Harry’s Second Negative) posted on Watchman Magazine, 1-1-02]

 

“When the rebelling partner produces the CAUSE that Jesus dealt with (Matt. 19:9), the innocent person has the right then to remarry (Matt. 19:9). Though the marriage was over due to the dissatisfied partner, the bond remained” (emp. his). Bobby Holmes  (E-mail exchange with Bobby Holmes on this website this quote from Bobby was written 11-8-01) 

In the Athens, GA discussion between Ron Halbrook and the brethren who meet there, notice the following excerpt between Ron Halbrook and David McKee (the local preacher). 

RON HALBROOK:  “In an unscriptural, ungodly sense, that man has a divorce paper.  But I don’t see it as changing anything in divine law.”

 

DAVID MCKEE:  “No, and I don’t either.  That’s why I think the other passages will say, ‘and he who marries her who is divorced.’ That’s why it’s ‘adultery,’ as well, because she’s still tied to that unfaithful fellow that put her away, and he’s still tied to her in this bond.”

 

RON HALBROOK:  “But you would take away that exception, at that point” (emp. jhb). 

[back to poem]


They claim the unwilling put away should still have “hope”6 

“Your position assigns the innocent party to a life without hope because they remained faithful to the marriage vows. When that mate who put the innocent party away involves themselves sexually with someone else, the one who remained faithful has the right (though it would be their choice) to remarry without being guilty of fornication(emp. jhb).  Bobby Holmes  [From an e-mail exchange (sent 11-12-‘01) posted on this website] 

“Brother Pickup made me aware a couple of years ago that it is being widely reported that Mike Willis and I differ in doctrine on this.  As I left home to come, I sent my manuscript to two people for proofreading purposes by computer. After their proofreading it, not only they helped get the corrections done, but also I received this statement from Mike Willis: ‘This is to affirm that I have read brother Halbrook's material. I agreed with him that our differences on how to treat one whose mate is guilty of FORNICATION FOLLOWING A DIVORCE which he tried to avoid is a difference of judgment in the realm of application of the one law of divorce and remarriage and not the teaching of another law.’ Harry Osborne made in essence the same statement. Those are the two who proofread it for me.” Ron Halbrook [Towards A Better Understanding (False Teachers, Ron Halbrook’s Rebuttal to Bob Owen (pgs. 34-35)]. 

[back to poem]


(The “hope” of lawful remarriage – not the one of which Jesus spoke!7)

 Jesus Christ

Mt. 19:12; cf. Rom. 5:1-4

[back to poem]


But it does not matter that when after the divorce, “the bond remains intact,”8 

“Especially if I’m going to leave my wife anyway and I don’t care about the civil law.  So, I can go a little faster and I’m going to just spin out of here in a hurry and I never see my wife again, never talk to her again, I have broken my marriage.  I have broken, I have deserted, I have left, I have loosed, I have broken my marriage.  Guess what remains intact?  The marriage bond.  I did absolutely nothing to affect that marriage bond, and guess what?   If I go out and commit fornication, I’ve done something that might be used to affect the marriage bond, but I have still by that action, not affected the marriage bond (emp. jhb).   Tim Haile [Lesson on “Biblical ‘Putting Away’” during the All Day Bible Study; The Warfield Blvd. church of Christ, Clarksville, Tennessee].

 

“And so, in conclusion from this, we learn that an unscriptural divorce releases neither party from marriage. When you have an unscriptural divorce, as men count it, it’s not so with GodThat bond is still intactAnd that little piece of paper is nothing in the sight of God.  Just as well use it as Kleenex and blow your nose and drop it in the toilet.  It doesn’t mean a thing to God.”  Ron Halbrook  Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage excerpt from sermon preached in Wilkesville, OH.

 

“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” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook  E-mail letter which reveals Ron Halbrook’s application

 

(Please consider Romans 7:2-3)  

[back to poem]


Because the exception clause is still not authorized after the fact.9 

 “It is my conviction that there are only three classes of people who have a right to marry: (1) those who have never been married: (2) those whose companions are dead; and (3) those who have put away a companion for the cause of fornication. It appears to me that any attempt to find authority for anyone else to marry, must trade on the silence of the scriptures. I realize that brother Warnock's illustration involves fornication but is after the fact of divorce and not before. It is very difficult for me to see how this is not in reality the ‘waiting game’ for one waits until the other sins and then claims scriptural cause.  I am also made to wonder if we may have the ‘mental divorce’ then why not at the other end of the marriage have a ‘mental marriage’ before the fact of social and legal requirements being met.  Indeed, is this not the very thing claimed by those who insist that two people may cohabit as long as they have a ‘meaningful relationship’ and plan to get married anyhow?” (emp. jhb). Connie W. Adams (Searching the Scriptures, February issue, 1986). 

“There is a trend towards softening the gospel message. As society and the religious world moves in a more liberal direction, we too are affected. In that effort to be more tolerant, some have made the gospel message more palatable by ‘smoothing it out’ in various ways” (emp. jhb)…Allowing some put away people to remarry: Some argue that the one who has been put away (for a cause other than fornication) can remarry if their former mate remarries first. Others argue that if one is put away by a mate who has committed fornication, he can remarry. Neither of these are authorized by the Lord.  In contrast, Jesus said, ‘and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery’ (Mt. 19:9b; 5:32b; Luke 16:18)” (emp. jhb).  Donnie Rader  Reprint from Truth Magazine, XLII, No. 12 (June 18, 1998).    

 http://truthmagazine.com/smooththings.html 

[back to poem]


They deny that their doctrine advocates “the waiting game,”10

Please compare what the present advocates of mental divorce are saying, with the widely accepted perspective of men who have long been recognized as sound. 

“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.

 

Some object that this makes her guilty of a “waiting game” in violation of Matt. 5:32. To the contrary, she is not guilty of any such sin but is maintaining fidelity to the marriage bond put in place by God!  If she were to divorce her husband w/o cause, & wait for him to find & marry a “cute little thing,” so that she could then claim to be an “innocent” party with grounds for remarriage, THEN she would be guilty of the waiting game. Jesus indeed precludes the waiting game in Matt. 5:32, but it seems to me that some brethren have missed the point of what the waiting game really means.” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook (E-mail “discussion with friends about fine-tuning some points of application,” February, 1998)

 

“I DO try to please my Savior and work at it hard every day.  Please don’t catalog me with those who advocate the "waiting game" to remarry.  Please just try to understand, first, I do not promote the position I believe in publicly for fear some might try to "reason in themselves" out of what God has taught and thus play the ‘waiting game for real” (emp. his).  Bobby Holmes  [From an e-mail exchange with Jeff Belknap (sent 11-12-‘01) posted on this website] 

Now, compare the above quotes with the following words, written by brother Connie W. Adams several years ago, when this post-civil-divorce putting away issue was addressed and silenced. 

“It is my conviction that there are only three classes of people who have a right to marry: (1) those who have never been married: (2) those whose companions are dead; and (3) those who have put away a companion for the cause of fornication. It appears to me that any attempt to find authority for anyone else to marry, must trade on the silence of the scriptures. I realize that brother Warnock’s illustration involves fornication but is after the fact of divorce and not before. It is very difficult for me to see how this is not in reality the ‘waiting game’ for one waits until the other sins and then claims scriptural cause.  I am also made to wonder if we may have the ‘mental divorce’ then why not at the other end of the marriage have a ‘mental marriage’ before the fact of social and legal requirements being met.  Indeed, is this not the very thing claimed by those who insist that two people may cohabit as long as they have a ‘meaningful relationship’ and plan to get married anyhow?” (emp. jhb).  Connie W. Adams (Searching the Scriptures, February issue, 1986).

 

Brother Donnie Rader also wrote: 

 

“If one is going to take the position that some put away people can remarry, he must be willing to accept the consequences. 

 

Waiting game: If a woman is put away and ‘cannot contain’ and thus remarries before he does, she is guilty of adultery.  However, if she does not marry until after he marries first, she is not guilty of adultery we are told.  This is the waiting game.  She may have to wait him out ten years.  But as soon as he remarries, she has the right to mentally put him away and remarry.

 

I wonder why some of these brethren don’t think the man who puts away his wife (for a cause other than fornication) is free to remarry if she remarried first.  Of course, the mental divorce advocates deny that they promote the waiting game.  Some of them tell us that the put away one who has a right to remarry must have fought the divorce all the way.  This, we are told, would discourage the waiting game.  This assumes then that the woman of Matt. 19:9b wanted the divorce, which wouldn’t fit the circumstances of that time.  The Jewish woman, if divorced, couldn’t get a job and had no way to support herself.  So most Jewish women wouldn’t want the divorce…This rule, that she must have opposed the divorce, is just an arbitrary rule made by the advocates of the position” (emp. jhb). Donnie Rader  Divorce & Remarriage; What Does The Text Say?, Chapter 8 Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry) under “VI. Consequences of this Position”

 

In addition, under section VII. Arguments (pgs. 84-85), brother Rader answers denial of “the waiting game” (regarding the put away party who waits until their estranged mate commits adultery before they may “put away” and remarry another).

 

Under argument # 3, brother Rader writes: 

“‘The put away one who can remarry must be one who was against the divorce and opposed it. This eliminates the waiting game which is mutual agreement’

 

There is nothing in Matt. 5:32b or 19:9b that suggests that either party was opposed to or both mutually agreed to the divorce.  This is an arbitrary rule.  I wonder about a case where the couple mutually agree to a divorce, so he puts her away for a cause other than fornication.  He then remarries, committing adultery.  Can she not put him away mentally and remarry?  What passage says she must have opposed the divorce?” (emp. jhb). 

 [back to poem]


Their oxymoronic “biblical putting away” is said to be the only true “one”11 

“And yet, some would suggest by the idea of making the civil proceeding that which is equated to Biblical putting away – here goes a person out here and takes the civil action – person doesn’t know that – I particularly know of a case of this happening in Houston.  Man went away to Las Vegas.  His wife thought he was leaving on a Monday to go on a business trip to New York; he actually went to Las Vegas with a girl he had been having relations with.  He went out there on Monday, filed for divorce, and in Nevada you have a three day waiting period, you can mail the procedure to the spouse.  When it was mailed, it didn’t get to her before they got back on Friday.  When they get back on Friday, he says, ‘by the way hun, I didn’t go to New York, I went to Las Vegas.  I’ve divorced you, I’ve married her.’  The first his wife knew about it was at that time.  She told him, ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with you if you’re ungodly and going to stay in that relationship. I’m going to put you away.  That farce that you had of an action out there in Las Vegas is not what was putting away.’  If civil procedure is the putting away, that woman was divorced, didn’t know about it, and there is no way she can be protected by the law of God.  I suggest to you the principles of God would show the very opposite.  The principles would show she does have a right to say ‘here’s why I’m going away from you.  I’m expressing that as the reason why.  I’m taking action.  You get your stuff out of here.’  That’s Biblical putting away - and it’s Biblical putting away for the cause, and it’s Biblical putting away after the very principles that Jesus made clear (emp. jhb).  Harry Osborne, “What is Biblical Putting Away?,” lesson in Lakeland, FL on May 29, 2001

P.S. Please reconcile Harry’s above quote with his quote immediately below.  The comparison clearly shows his belief that a civil divorce (in some cases) does not even count as a putting away.  This explains how, within his own mind, he can contend that he does not believe in a second putting away, even though he argues for a post-civil-divorce putting away. 

Let me try to make this clear for our brother - there is only one time that a putting away or sundering of a marriage can take place. After that point, there can be no second, third or any other putting away of that which has already been sundered” (emp. jhb).  Harry Osborne  Rejoinder to Brother Belknap, Gospel Anchor (posted 05-25-01).

 

“Matthew’s account shows that when the biblical putting away occurs because of sexual immorality, the innocent party alone is permitted to marry a new mate” (emp. jhb).  Ron Halbrook (Gospel Truths; April, 2001).

[back to poem]


And all of their teaching, is said to be a mere “application”12

“I have never met you and have absolutely no prejudice against you or your zeal for truth, but I do believe you are making a mistake in application. I would never defend Ron or Harry if they taught error, but I think you should weigh carefully what Harry is saying.  He is not defending a friend, but carefully exegeting what Jesus is saying” (emp. jhb).  Tom Roberts  (an email exchange, this was written 4-24-01) 

“I see no difference in our positions except in application. We both believe the Lord gives only one reason one can put away their mate and remarry. Leave civil law out of the question and be (sic) see alike” (emp. jhb).  Bobby Holmes  [From an e-mail exchange with Jeff Belknap (sent 11-8-‘01) posted on this website]

 

“…Now, here is a question.  May we differ in our application of this rule, or must we divide over it?  One man says the reunion is adulterous and another man says it is not.  Wouldn’t it be acceptable to allow each person to act consistent with his own conscience and leave the judgment to God?” (emp. jhb).  Tim Haile  (Mar’s List, 8-31-01).

 

“Brother Pickup made me aware a couple of years ago that it is being widely reported that Mike Willis and I differ in doctrine on this.  As I left home to come, I sent my manuscript to two people for proofreading purposes by computer. After their proofreading it, not only they helped get the corrections done, but also I received this statement from MIKE WILLIS: ‘This is to affirm that I have read brother Halbrook's material. I agreed with him that our differences on how to treat one whose mate is guilty of FORNICATION FOLLOWING A DIVORCE which he tried to avoid is a difference of judgment in the realm of application of the one law of divorce and remarriage and not the teaching of another law.’ HARRY OSBORNE made in essence the same statement. Those are the two who proofread it for me” (emp. jhb).  [Towards A Better Understanding (False Teachers, Ron Halbrook’s Rebuttal to Bob Owen (pgs. 34-35)].

 

“Those who view the Lord's words solely from a human law perspective are bound to make mistakes in their application of the Lord’s divorce and remarriage laws” (emp. jhb).   Tim Haile “What Constitutes ‘Putting Away?’” (posted on Gospel Anchor 05-07-01) 

[back to poem]


So that it might not result in brethren’s “alienation.”13 

“You wrote about this issue saying, ‘Satan is not going to let this fire die out until he has done as much damage with it as he can.’ I agree with you that ‘Satan’ is the one stirring this fire. It was first stirred by those who are trying to alienate brethren who have been in agreement with each other on divorce and remarriage for the purpose of having a broadened fellowship with those who are teaching the Hailey, Puterbaugh, or Bassett positions on divorce and remarriage. However, Satan’s cause is being abetted by those of you who are pressing other brethren who hold their private judgments in application to themselves in obedience to Romans 14, chiding them to start preaching their opinions, breaking fellowship with these brethren because
they disagree with your judgment, and otherwise making one’s personal judgments a test of fellowship. I don’t want to be used by Satan in this fashion” (emp. jhb).  Mike Willis  (E-mail exchange between David McKee and Mike Willis on this website this quote from Mike was written 6-13-01)

 

“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” (emp. jhb).  Mike Willis  (E-mail exchange between Jeff Belknap and Mike Willis in August, this quote was written 8-10-01)

[back to poem]


They assure us this so-called “application” is covered within Romans 14.14 

“You wrote about this issue saying, ‘Satan is not going to let this fire die out until he has done as much damage with it as he can.’ I agree with you that ‘Satan’ is the one stirring this fire. It was first stirred by those who are trying to alienate brethren who have been in agreement with each other on divorce and remarriage for the purpose of having a broadened fellowship with those who are teaching the Hailey, Puterbaugh, or Bassett positions on divorce and remarriage. However, Satan’s cause is being abetted by those of you who are pressing other brethren who hold their private judgments in application to themselves in obedience to Romans 14, chiding them to start preaching their opinions, breaking fellowship with these brethren because
they disagree with your judgment, and otherwise making one’s personal judgments a test of fellowship. I don’t want to be used by Satan in this fashion” (emp. jhb).  Mike Willis  (E-mail exchange between David McKee and Mike Willis on this website this quote from Mike was written 6-13-01)

 

“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” (emp. jhb).  Mike Willis  (E-mail exchange with Mike Willis in August, this quote from Mike was written 8-10-01)

[back to poem]


But upon the put away’s remarriage, adultery is committed,15

Jesus Christ

Mt. 5:32; 19:12; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3

 Brethren, please remember the words of Apostle Peter regarding false teachers: 

“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”  II Pet. 2:19

[back to poem]


Home | Search This Site


Last Updated:  Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:41 PM

www.mentaldivorce.com