|
Encouraging Reader Responses Brethren, I am sharing these responses – not to promote myself, but to encourage those who believe they are isolated in their stance for truth. These letters also serve to prove the fallacy of some brethren’s claim that opposition to the post-civil-divorce "putting away" is a “peculiar” position. There are still 7000 whose knees have not bowed to Baal (I K. 19:18)! * The author's names and identifying information have been removed to protect the “innocent.” Recent responses are first. 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 Sad at the ignorance on this and so many subjects, even in the case of preachers in the church. I am ever shocked at the quality or lack thereof among our preachers today…. 12-29-01
Jeff, …here. I don’t know how many of you get this, but I think it is an eye opener. I think Jeff has done a good job of documenting what he has published. I am familiar with some of these men and quite frankly I can’t understand how they can arrive at some of the conclusions they have. The Bible gives only one cause for divorce (fornication/adultery) and that must be prior to divorce, Matt 19: 9 & 5: 32. This nonsense about a “race to the courthouse” and etc. is nothing more that a smokescreen for allowing the innocent, and sometimes guilty, put away party to remarry at a later date. A study of the text in the afore mentioned passages will bring out the teaching that the put away party does not have the right to remarriage. This is what Jesus said about it and we should be willing to accept it. The following is a quote from Connie Adams. “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?” - Connie W. Adams (Searching the Scriptures, February issue, 1986). 12-27-01
Hey Jeff, Here is an excerpt from “Let’s keep this among us boys” – “Just among us boys” describes those who whisper and gossip among themselves about those who oppose them but who will refuse like cowards to discuss and debate like concerned brethren. “The boys” have been known to whisper around and get gospel meetings canceled, seek to stop a church from hiring a certain preacher with whom they disagree, and tear down a reputation of a fellow Christian without once discussing an issue or meeting face to face with the brother in question. “The boys” will demand their right to teach error publicly and then hide behind Matthew 18 if one does not come to them personally before exposing their sin. Of course, they expect the privilege to expose individuals with whom they disagree without going to them (those in the institutional churches, Christian churches, denominational bodies, etc.). “The boys” will expect the right to go across the country and around the world teaching error but will criticize those who oppose them as self-seeking opportunists who are trying to make a name for themselves, who are jealous, who do not respect congregational autonomy and who lack brotherly love. “The boys” demand the right to teach error and remain in fellowship with brethren everywhere. The “brothers” of “the boys” are willing to extend fellowship to those who teach error in direct contradiction of scriptures: 2 John 9-11; Romans 16:17; Galatians 1:6-9, etc. You see, it is not enough to avoid evil practices (Rom. 1:18-31). The scripture also condemns those who “approve of those who practice them” (v. 32). Yet there are those “among the boys” who teach egregious error about adulterous marriages and their “brothers” are willing to associate with them, use them in gospel meetings, support them, and condemn those who oppose their error. Keep hanging, 12-24-01
Hey Jeff,
Hello Friend,
Bro. Jeff
Jeff,
Hello brother Belknap, Jeff, if you get Gospel Truths, Dec 2001, Gene Frost wrote an excellent article and on p. 12 he deals with the put away one divorcing after the divorce. 12-21-01
Hi jeff,
Excellent work. … The character-assasination
didn’t work…
Hello brother Jeff,
Jeff, Please forward me any updates you have on the subject of Mental Divorce. Thank you. 12-10-01 We would like to receive updates to your web page. It was forwarded to us by… We are…of … (where…was formerly preaching) 12-10-01
Brother Jeff, correct me if I’m mistaken but doesn’t 1 Cor 1:10ff commands us to “...joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”? Hence same application? It seems that we as brethren jump too quickly to Rom 14. I believe Rom 14 to address subjects to which God is silent on or has not revealed his will in any way, hence areas of personal judgment or personal convictions. I do not believe Rom 14 can be applied to “mental divorce” or any other stated “application” of divorce because God has stated his will on the subject. Therefore those who claim we can/should have fellowship with those who have differing “applications” on divorce are bidding godspeed those teaching error, right? It may be that when we start accepting those who have differing “applications” of God’s commandments we get backwards Mat 22:37-40 and start loving man more than God! Though we would not state such our actions speak for us! I will not take anymore of your time, brother. This idea of “application” has just sort of struck me as odd that we as brethren would claim and just wanted to write to you my ‘two cents worth’. Thanks Brotherly 12-7-01
Howdy,
Brother Jeff, please put me
on your list for website updates. The Lord’s church has issues divide her it
seems in each generation. This maybe one at this time. It is important which
side we take (Luke 17:1, 1Cor 11:19), while also considering our conduct towards
others as well (Gal 6:10). May the truth always be taught “...in season and out
of season...” and may we hold fast to the Lord’s word.
Dear Jeff,
Brother Jeff, …I am very concerned with the attitude that teaching false statements and incidents as “fact” is OK if it is only a “minor” point. I have heard that several times from different preachers in the last two years and it really causes me concerns about their credibility. I do not feel they are intentionally lying, just that they are way too careless with the truth. I believe that if we are going to use an example, it should be true. I have always felt that anyone who will “stretch” a minor point to win his case will certainly stretch a major one if necessary. If I can’t trust them to take the time to get the laws and actions of man right, will they be equally careless in their handling of the scriptures? I think it may have something to do with Luke 16:10. I am sure they have forgotten our Lord’s words when they say such things are “minor.” I must also say I am disheartened by the rumors and innuendo that have been spread about you. Once again, I fear the teachings of Christ are forgotten when such is done. If someone is going to state as fact that bro. Belknap said or did this or that, his explanation should not be, “well A said that b heard that d told f...” Such is of the world and you have a right to expect better of your brethren. I will pray for them that it might cease and for you that it not trouble you. It is their weakness, not yours. Continue to work for His cause, and to save the lost where you are. 12-3-01 Jeff, notice they never give a scripture for their conclusions! 11-30-01 I think that they have a problem with divorcing after the divorce. I noticed “quickie divorces” keeps coming up, but their doctrine has to also apply if two get a “no-fault divorce” and both are present, and then it would not matter how much time later, their doctrine would allow the “put away one” to then “put away their mate.” I do not know how you “put away one” who is already divorced! 11-30-01
Brother Belknap, I could not help but be stunned by the page on “The Nevada Strawman.” It appears to me that both bro. Haile, and bro Osborn respectively have stated as fact and personal knowledge events (specifically, a man from Houston who went to Nevada and divorced his wife, remarried another, without her knowledge and all within a week.) and laws (These divorces will be granted regardless of the reason, regardless of whether or not the divorced party has any knowledge of the divorce) that cannot be true. I was wondering if either of them have offered any explanation now that you have made known the laws of Nevada concerning divorce. Thanks, 11-29-01
Hello Jeff, Of course, the constant effort being exerted is to back us in the conner or cause us to take an extreme, untenable position. Hang in there and we are looking forward to the meeting next year. 11-27-01
Jeff,
Hello Jeff,
Jeff,
Jeff, Jeff & …, I have been reading Harry’s speech he made at Lakeland Hills, Lakeland. On page 4, 1st paragraph he says “He specified cause, but not a procedure.” Now, if that is the truth, why is it that legal divorce in a court of law is not exceptable? To be married he says there are many ways it is done in the world, so again we have a legal way to marry, is it exceptable? We all have done it, so is it exceptable? But, when one goes to the legal way for a divorce, it is not, and so the innocent one has to then take action after the legal way is done. How can the innocent one put away one who is already divorced the innocent one? And my other question, then if they are right, then when would any one put away one being innocent be committing adultery? All the one being put away has to say is I put you away after the divorce, and go and remarry. Have a happy thanksgivng. 11-22-01
Jeff,
Jeff, 1) Yours are strictly and completely scripturally based and proven. Certainly a speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent. 2) Brother Holmes arguments are simply applying various Biblical principles to a situation (incorrectly so). I believe Uzzah applied various ‘Biblical principles’ when he was trying to protect the ark of God! He and David should have respected the words of God and likewise respected his silence. Thanks again for your work, 11-15-01
Jeff, I am sure you know what it means to have your name spread around like a bad virus! Thanks for your work and encouragement knowing that there is someone else out there standing firm…. Brotherly, 11-15-01 Jeff, it amazes me, how this doctrine has gotten to some. Bobby does not promote it but he condones it! As I said before, the law is alright to use to marry, but not to divorce with! They still do not have a single scripture to prove one can “mentally divorce” another! They would not take that from a Baptist, but this has gotten a hold and I am afraid it is going to spread. 11-13-01
Jeff, also, it seems they will not let this be
discussed in the papers.
Jeff, it is unbelieveable to me that the men do
not get it. 1. With fornication, then remarriage 2. One without fornication, and if remarriage this is adultery. Now I think they get this, but they want to make the “mental divorce” argument for the one who is put away. 3. If they can understand that the one who divorces without fornication is in adultery if they remarry, then why cannot they not understand that the one who is "put away" in either case cannot remarry! 4. Who started this mess? When did you first find it being preached? 11-10-01
Dear brother Belknap, I do not know exactly what to write. I am writing out the lesson that I had at…that focused our attention on the subject and pointed out why we must understand. I do not know if that would suitable or not. If you have some suggestions let me know. Brotherly, 11-5-01 Jeff, I was there one time, my wife divorced me and there was nothing I could do about it. I still remember when the deputy came with the papers and I had not known it was going to happen. So, I got put away, and I never dreamed I could remarry. Fortunately, 2 years later we remarried. But, these men are really setting them up for a big discussion which is going to cause more division. Also, some will believe them and remarry when they do not have the right. I know of men in the past who lived the rest of their days single after the divorce. I know of a lady in … who is still single who will not remarry. My, My, someone needs to tell all of these people they just need to say “I divorce you” and go and get married. Jesus was not setting up a legal procedure, he was saying how to divorce with fornication and without and what was right… 11-3-01
Jeff, the big trouble with all of this is they
do not have one single scripture to prove this was ever done in the N.T.
Jeff, what scripture are they using to prove
mental divorce? Jeff - Again I appreciate how you responded to my questions. I have gone out to your website and done some reading. I am writing now to say that I hope you didn’t think I was trying to intimate that you had done anything wrong in going public with so much of the material that you have posted. I think you have done the right thing. The men you are exposing make a big public fanfare of their self-proclaimed soundness on the MDR issue and their statements are up for public examination…. 11-1-01
Jeff, Since the Mental Divorce crowd re-defines divorce to exclude any requirements of civil law, then consistency demands that they re-define marriage. And if they re-define marriage to exclude civil law, then they will have to re-define fornication. I have heard from a good source that Haile is thinking along those lines, though to my knowledge he hasn’t come out publicly with it yet. As I said, Gene wrote my article for me, and I haven’t heard any response to it. I don’t know how they will deal with it… brotherly, 10-30-01
Hi brother Jeff,
Brother Jeff,
Jeff...
Jeff,
Dear Brother J Belknap, Jeff, I understand that Harry Osborne challenged you to a debate. Did he give you what he would affirm? I still do not understand how anyone can say that the innocent could remarry, even if the guilty got the divorce first! But, what about a couple who just live together, they do not get a license, but claim they are married, does that make it right? So, we have to use the law to marry, but when using the law to divorce, it is not good enough and we have to have a “mental divorce.” I am afraid this is more widespread accepted than I thought. What do you think? 10-21-01
Jeff, Regarding the lesson, I used a combination of previous charts and 3 new ones. I covered the expository of Matt. 19:3-12 and then four trouble spots among brethren - universality of Mt. 19, repentance and adulterous marriages (focus on 1 Cor. 7:17-24 abuses), old-style mental divorce, and redefining divorce). When I discussed the redefining point, and alluded to several quotes (I had my notebook with me in case anyone questioned me), the shock on faces said it all. Then I showed the real nature of divorce in Scripture, and that whatever we argue for divorce we must also argue for marriage. Can’t have one without the other. I spoke with 4 members in further discussions on that point. One was aware that Haile was teaching that, but was shocked that Osborne openly taught it and that Halbrook, in certain applications, practiced it. All the members were in strong disagreement with their definition of divorce. The material was well received and good was accomplished in preaching the lesson. One last thought - I need to know how much your FedEx costs and copying/printing costs were so I can adequately reimburse you. You bent over backwards to help me with this and I really appreciate your work and stand for the truth. Thanks for all your help. In Him, 10-18-01
Jeff, Matthew Henry, in commenting on Jeremiah 5:21, said, “None so blind as those that will not see.” Very apropos. Look for more in the future and, if it seems appropriate then, I will let you use them, too. Brotherly, 10-17-01
Hello Jeff,
Jeff,
Jeff, …Don’t feel depressed, distressed nor
fruitless in this. Stay the course by changing the course. Use whatever outlet
you can find and be content that you are doing all you possibly can. That’s all
the Lord expects of any of us. …Now, several of those who said in the past that they did not agree with Halbrook are trying to defend him and his position. I am certain in the deepest part of me that this change is for no other reason than to blunt the criticism from Bob Owen, et.al., that “we” condemn “them” for fellowshipping Hailey and yet will fellowship Halbrook. I don’t think they realize yet that they have taken the first steps, with the arguments they are using, toward a liberal view in all marital circumstances. This redefining of terms has distasteful consequences... All I can say is continue with your website and spread the word around that it is there and what’s on it. I have told several about it and some have told me they have logged on. Word will get around… 10-8-01
Thanks for the post Jeff and I am happy to learn
of one being baptized into Christ. That’s what it is all about. I’m going to
review the material that Ron Halbrook has and examine it closely in God’s
“light.” Stay in touch brother.
Hi, I also want to let you know how I have been using your updates and website - I have not been reading your writings (please don’t be crushed!); I am only concerned with what those brethren who have stood by our side in the battle against error on marriage are saying. Reading what they have written is enough work in and of itself. I have no quarrel with you, and no fear that you are teaching error. By the way you have been vilified by men writing in response to you I also can determine that you are on the right track as far as rightly dividing the scriptures. I tell you this only because I have already been told that I am in effect in “Jeff Belknap’s camp” and, no offense intended, but I am not. I belong only to Christ, and it is for Him that I am taking the stand… Don’t let all of this drag you down; at some point you need to shake the dust off of your feet and move on, having done the job properly by alerting so many of us. 9-11-01
Dear Jeff,
Jeff, I know I’m “preaching to the choir,” but why is it that those who were so vocal in their efforts to expose the errors of certain preachers (and its consequences) are now willing to compromise and “fellowship” those who preach error when it is convenient and personal? I’m still shaking my head.... 9-4-01
Thanks for the good work
Jeff,
Jeff, Amen Brother Jeff 9-1-01
Jeff,
I am using some of your material in… It is an
excellent opportunity to deal with controversial topics such as mental divorce….
Your site has helped me sort out some of the subtleties, games with words and
mental
It is a sad day when such staunch soldiers of
the gospel want to place this issue under Romans 14 or wash it away as a
“difference in application”. I think these once “staunch soldiers of the
Gospel” just Thanks again for your work, 9-1-01 I am a Christian up here in…and looked over a few of the articles on your page. How horrible it is that men grasp at straws in the word of God, looking to justify their human beliefs rather than accepting the bible on the matter. I could understand just plain ignorance, but these are not ignorant men. Such hard feelings - small wonder GOD HATES DIVORCE. It seems to me the real crux of the matter here is this: Is a marriage ended when two people get divorced? Clearly it is when adultery is involved. I would submit that it is also clearly over when people divorce in an unscriptural manner (else what is divorce?) It really looks to me that if people could get to an agreement on this one fact then all these other problems and bizarre twists of scripture would go away. <sigh> It also appears to me your personal conviction on the matter is true and correct, and I just wanted you to know you are surely not alone. 8-31-01
Bro. Belknap Please watch these men. They will stop at nothing to try and destroy a brother… I would like to be added to your update list. Thanks again and always remember God is mindful of our efforts for Him. 8-27-01
Jeff I admire your courage. Continue to be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 8-22-01
Jeff, I do not know anything about the list, but if it is a list of those who oppose mental divorce I not be ashamed to find my name on that list, nor would I feel that my name being on the list was divisive. If division occurs it is not the fault of those who stand for and uphold the truth. Thanks for the web site, 8-22-01
Dear Brother Belknap, My husband and I try to take the position that we should be like the “noble Bereans” and search the scriptures to find answers to questions in our lives, and when we have done our best to figure out God’s answers, live according to what we have read. Though Brother … is a very able teacher, we know we must search the scriptures ourselves and come to a position on our own. I did not have time to read every part of your web site in this sitting, but I did just want to send you this message to thank you for taking time to develop this website and to put forth the effort to save souls from Hell who would not heed the teaching of Jesus on MDR. As far as I could read in this sitting, your logic is not faulty, and your position seems sound. I don’t write many gospel preachers, perhaps because it is all too easy to be misrepresented these days in print and in “gossip.” However, I also read in Revelation that the cowardly will have their part in the lake of fire! If I understand your position correctly, I believe that you are teaching the truth on this matter and I commend you for your courage, especially in the face of “worthy opponents” who weld a lot of “power” in the “brotherhood.” I am frankly disappointed by some – many of whom you quoted on your webpage – who I have listened to for many years with a great deal of respect for their Bible knowledge take such spineless positions now. I feel that a person needs to figure out where he/she stands and then take a stand! I am also disappointed in many of the brethren who not so long ago started the practice of “cancelling meetings,” etc. in an attempt to follow the teaching in II John vs 9-11, who are now quietly allowing men obviously teaching false doctrine on this subject to come and teach, and lumping this issue into Romans 14! They are so obviously doing what they, not so long ago, accused brethren like Bro. Harrell of doing…. A sister in Christ, 8-22-01
Jeff, Question: Do you know where does Mike Willis stand on this position? Do you know if he is willing to print articles in GOT?... Thanks, 8-21-01
Hello brother Belknap, …here. Jeff ... Thanks much for the work you are doing on the web page. It has been very helpful to me, and I know to a number of others as well. My question is this: I believe I read somewhere on your web page (I can’t seem to find it now) that you had submitted an article or articles to Truth Magazine, but that Mike had refused to print them. Is that correct? The reason I am asking is that the Truth people made such a fuss when the Christianity Magazine editors refused to print their submitted articles responding to Ed Harrell’s series on Romans 14. I’d be interested to know, for my own purposes, if the Truth people did the same thing to you or to someone else of whom you are aware. Keep up the good work, and don’t get too discouraged. My personal experience tells me that there are many of us out there who are in complete agreement with the stand you are taking. Call us the “silent majority” if you will! I’ve forwarded the link to your web page to dozens of people all over the country, and all the feedback I’ve received so far has been positive. My father-in-law,…, is especially happy with the work you are doing and the stand you are taking. Thanks 8-20-01
Hello Jeff,
Jeff,
Hi Jeff:
Jeff,
Jeff,
Jeff, One of the guest speakers during the course was Ron Halbrook. He presented two scripturally accurate lectures - one on MDR, the other on Romans 14. During a Q & A session, which followed, I took the opportunity to question his position in light of recently revealed facts. Though he’d been so direct in his lectures, and I know his style to be so, he was obviously evasive concerning my question. Others, who didn’t even quite grasp my line of questioning, could see that he wasn’t being as forthright as he could have been. Eventually, he did answer my question. Sadly, it was as unsatisfactory as I had expected. In response to the scenario I had painted, he simply said, “I would let her make up her own mind.” It is troubling, indeed, to observe one reputed to be a pillar drift from his stalwart ways. Thus, we desperately need teaching on this matter… Grace Be With You, 8-14-01
Hi Jeff,
Dear Brother Belknap: Nearly fifteen years ago I had my first discussion with Ron on the subject of MDR. I then expressed to him that his position would admit adulterers to the fellowship of the local church. He tried to equate our difference to the war question. These brethren who have stirred up so much trouble over Romans 14 do not begin to understand the proper application of the text. I grew up hearing this doctrine taught from…. Ron was influenced by him in this matter. I taught myself out of the position and, like yourself, have been severely criticized by the powers that be…. Sincerely, 8-7-01 Jeff, I hope you are not holding your breath waiting on the men to give their view up? 8-7-01 Jeff, I am pleased that though you were firm in your last response to Tim, you did not respond in the same vein. I was surprised at the way Tim attacked you. I’m not sure what to read into his response but it certainly doesn’t contribute to a sensible discussion. Stay the course. 8-6-01
Jeff, also, there is no “scripture, no example,
or any hint” to allow the “innocent one” to “mentally divorce” their mate after
there has been a divorce! Jeff, I am amazed that this doctrine has come about. In Matt. 19:9, Jesus is discussing two ways to divorce. One is scriptural, and the other is unscriptural. Jesus knew men would do it both ways, and I am wondering why he did not reveal to us what Halbrook, Willis, Haile, Osborne & others are saying! Once a divorce is final, what else is there to do? This is so sad to me, and now there are going to be some who will really use this against the above. Make sure to put me on your mailing list. 8-4-01
Thanks for update. I will read this article.
Jeff, Anyway, keep up the good work. Your brother, 8-2-01
Brother Belknap,
Dear Jeff:
Dear Jeff,
Jeff
Jeff.
Jeff, I do not say this lightly. I would warn you that the good you want to do can be compromised if you allow yourself to become obsessed. Thus far you have shown no indications of imbalance. To the contrary you have exhibited only the best spirit. I would that you do whatever you need to continue in this same way. And if it means a few days of R&R... be wise enough to take it. If not for you, maybe for your families sake… Keep up the good work. Keep up the good attitude. It is impressive when compared with the road that others have taken. In Him, 7-31-01
Hi Jeff,
Jeff
Dear brother Jeff, I will send you a copy of the result of my study via regular mail. If you have time to read it, I welcome your comments/corrections/ suggestions. Thanks again for your courage to tackle this issue head-on, 7-27-01 Thanks for the clarifications. After I wrote you I went back to your website and looked at it more carefully. Then I went to the gospelanchor website (…had forwarded that to me after I had forwarded your website to him). When I looked at it the first time it didn’t even “click” with me that it was “Gospel Anchor”. I just went there and started reading articles. Then, when a Gospel Truths was loaned to me and I saw some of the stuff from your website and some of the stuff from gospelanchor, I guess I just got confused. I think I have it all straight, now… Keep your chin up; as long as you are on God’s side, you can’t lose!!! 7-25-01
Jeff, I take it I need to keep checking the website from time to time. I have been negligent in this as, as soon as you made us aware of it and we checked it the first time and sent out alerts, we have had all kinds of stuff coming to us on email and have been dealing with that rather than going back to the site. I need to check it. Thanks, 7-25-01
Dear Jeff,
Jeff,
Jeff,
Jeff, You don’t know me probably, but I met you when you held a meeting in…. Anyway, keep up the good work. brotherly, 7-19-01
Brother Belknap, I preach in a…congregation here in the…area and am very familiar with many of the men you speak of. I will continue to study the issue that you presented as I have not studied it up till now. Thank you very much for your zeal for truth and fear of no man but only God. In His Name, 7-17-01 Jeff, I would like to be updated when you make changes to your site. The articles look interesting, although I’m having trouble accessing them. I have had problems with my server so don’t worry about it. Thanks a lot and I will certainly read your articles (and those they are based on) with an open mind. Take care, 7-16-01
Hello Jeff, Jeff, these fellows, I’m afraid are straining the gnat to protect RH. I could be wrong, but this is where it all started. Brotherly, From Gene Frost GA 6/6/01: There may be both marriages and divorces which fail to comply with God’s will, but they are marriages and divorces nonetheless. Jesus refers to such in Matt. 19:9, when He speaks of one who puts away (divorces) his wife without a cause of fornication being involved. Considering the condition of women in that time, there is no doubt that she would not have been a willing victim of divorcement. Nevertheless, not only could the man not remarry without committing adultery, but the wife he divorced (put away) as well could not remarry without committing adultery. Jesus speaks of the condition of the man – “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be or fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" - AND the condition of the woman: “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” 7-14-01
Jeff, I’m writing at this time to ask whether you have time available between now and next Spring to conduct a meeting on this issue...What I’m interested in, then, is a meeting devoted to the truth on MDR, including a lesson devoted to exposing the current problem with mental divorce. Are you interested? Would you be able to do it? Grace Be With You, 7-12-01
Hello Jeff,
Dear Jeff:
Jeff, You are welcome. Remember, “...STAND FAST IN THE FAITH, BE BRAVE, BE STRONG...” 7-7-01
Jeff,
Dear Jeff, Bro. … left here and now works with a congregation in…. I will continue to visit your website and pray that much good will come from your efforts. May God bless you and your family. Brotherly, 7-6-01 Thanks for the info, Jeff. I have sent the link to your website around to several others that I was sure didn’t know about it. Word will get around. 7-5-01
Jeff, Anyhow, this has stimulated discussion and even among those who are persuaded by Ron Halbrook’s views. The discussion is cordial and we will see where it leads. Take care, 7-5-01
Jeff... Again, I know nothing against…except that in your correspondence, he certainly must be reading upside down, because the writer you quoted said what he believes in a very clear and succinct way. Regardless, it is error. 7-5-01
Jeff, It is wonderful to see your website. The subject of mental divorce seems to be one of the hot topics. I concur with your statements in your personal convictions section. We are bound by civil laws and are told to abide by them. While the bond of marriage still exists after a man and a woman (divorced for any other reason than adultery) have a document of divorce, from a civil court, there is still a divorce. I do not understand how some can just take the gospel and say “well I know what it says but I think this is what it means.” IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. Why add to or try to take away from it. Just my two-cents on the subject for what it is worth. The preacher here, …, did an excellent series on MDR. In his series he stated a lot of what you are trying to get across. I could probably get a copy of the tapes for you if you are in any way interested. Mike is also one who takes the scriptures at what they say and does not say. Please let me and … know of any updates to your website. In Him, 7-4-01
Jeff, I appreciate you setting up your website and getting Ron’s views before the brethren. As we approach the subject of MDR, and particularly the subject of fellowship, ALL cards need to be on the table and, in my opinion, that has been sorely lacking… First, I don’t believe that for a minute. Unless Ron has changed his views, and I am not aware that he has, he doesn’t teach the same law that I do. He has to redefine and reorder the words of Matt. 19 in order to get his mental divorce position. I’ve heard Donnie debate a Baptist on Mark 16:16 and emphasize how that to get the Baptist position on salvation from the passage you have to reorder the words. They want allow a Baptist to do that, rightfully so, but they allow Ron the privilege. Secondly, most institutional people that I know are of the more conservative variety. The teach the same LAW with regard to how to establish Bible authority (Command, Example, Conclusion) as I do – but do they make the same application? We both know the answer to that one. This business that he “teaches the same law but only makes a different application” won’t stand the test of even casual logic. I have a couple of other things that I am going to look over again (things from Ron). If they are valuable to the cause of truth and need to be published I will provide them for you. Have a great day. 7-4-01
Jeff… I never read all the material on your web site, but I will. Hope you all have a good Fourth of July. Talk to you later. Brotherly, 7-3-01
Jeff... There’s not a plug nickel’s difference in the “classic” mental divorce position and the position Ron takes. To borrow their phrase in a context they would certainly disavow: It’s just a different application of the same principles. Ron’s position, and the implication of some who continue to support him, completely decimates the truth of Matthew 5:31-32 et al…. Stay in touch. 7-3-01
Jeff,
Jeff...
Jeff, I thought this apostasy died out 20 years ago, and have been very surprised and saddened to see it come back and to see who is defending it. In my opinion, Gene Frost’s book on the subject should have put an end to this long ago. My fear is that there are now more brethren who are “tolerant” enough to buy into this. Ed Harrell and Florida College have paved the way and prepared the brotherhood for just this kind of thing. In reading through the links on your website, I inferred that Tom Roberts is defending Halbrook (and by implication Halbrook’s teaching)! Can that be? I hope I misunderstood that, but I fear I didn’t. Thanks again for your stand. 7-2-01
Hi Jeff... I’m not telling you anything that isn’t public knowledge around here. I just wanted to thank you for your stand and encourage you to continue in it and raise your sons to do the same. The church is facing times where men who will stand up to false doctrine (and that is what things CONTRARY to God’s way are) aren’t plentiful. To think that people can be swayed so much by emotion and situational problems, is so disheartening. Thanks again.... 7-2-01
Hi Jeff.
Brother Jeff, Furthermore, there are other brethren who may or may not hold that erroneous view - yet will support and endorse the ones teaching it. How is this any different than the Homer Hailey doctrine and those who endorsed him in spite of his error? It seems to me there are some double standards going on here (i.e., HYPOCRISY). If what I say is incorrect, would someone please explain to me how it could be any other way than what I just described?! As to the editors of certain brotherhood papers that you mentioned: that part is a new one to me. I don’t know who you had in mind, but it sure does make me wonder what people are thinking. This topic belongs in Romans 14??? Tell me how. Again, this topic is clearly a matter of doctrine (this is irrefutable). Enough for now. At any rate, I appreciate the info. If you have any additional info from time to time, perhaps you could share that with me as well. It is very useful to me. Thanks again. 7-2-01
Jeff,
Jeff, As it happens, I have recently been asked to review a divorce situation for a sister to help her determine what is scriptural, and so I have just gone through the mental exercises necessary to give her a Biblical answer. Had I not have just done this, I may have been a bit more easily swayed by some of the arguments by Ron Halbrook, et. al, because I would have been “rusty”, and would have thought that I had missed or forgotten something. However, as I just completed a study, sans any help from any men, I can safely conclude that these men, as you have so aptly pointed out, are WRONG! And as I do know Ron, I am sorry to have to come to this conclusion. In the past he, Harry Osborne and Tom Roberts have all “come to the aid” of the faithful work being done in…to combat just such MDR error. I am astonished at these turn of events!!! Please keep us posted, at this account and/or the Juno account, of any developments. I can only assume the paper who would not entertain you is The Truth Magazine. If this is also the case, they are doing the same things they accused Christianity Magazine of doing when some of these very same men wanted to have an open forum on Romans 14!!! (We stopped taking any brotherhood paper regularly because of the partisanship such papers seem to develop.) I am going to forward your post to folks in…who need to be aware of this. You may get some backlash from some of them who might put these men before Christ, but I guess that is already happening anyway (1 Co 11:19). Keep up the good work; we will miss not seeing you at…this year. 7-2-01
Jeff, I just read a few quotes from your web page and think that this will do much good in focusing the issue. Keep up your good work. 7-2-01
Jeff,
Jeff,
Hello Jeff, Good to hear from you, as always. I gave your article a cursory reading and it looks good. We are dealing with an area of softness among a number of men. Many of these have attempted to hide their weakness relative to the put away, but because of the matter with Ron, they are now coming out of the closet by the numbers. I have always said that such subjects as divorce and remarriage carefully studied and consistently applied separate the men from the boys… 5-15-01
I have not heard a sound regarding the debate propositions I sent out, as far as any takers. The response I have received has been positive. I know, however, the propositions are being discussed.
Jeff:
Jeff, I have had a difficult time keeping up with what has happened, seeing it has become so convoluted… I’m not sure that Tim fully understands what he, himself, concludes from the premises he lays down. Tim has generated so much heat that it clouds the issue so don’t you respond in kind and just keep pounding the issue. 5-15-01
Hello Jeff, Some of the below reminds me of numerous conversations I have had. “The marriage was dissolved based on adultery,” I have been told. Upon further inquiry, however, I am told: “The guilty party put away the innocent, but adultery was the cause of the divorce; hence, the innocent may put away and remarry on grounds of adultery.” I do not know how we have come up with all this twisted thinking. However, many preachers hold this view. In fact, you might be surprise at some who do. This is a big issue in the church and it appears ready to explode. Many are now coming out of the closet.
Jeff, as of 10:10 p.m. my time, I have had no takers for the propositions. I am tired from the meeting we just closed and I am headed for bed.
Take care and watch your step. Do not count on anybody for help. 5-5-01
I sent Tim’s article to Donnie Rader, and asked
him if he would consider that, “pressing it.” I told him Mike Willis had not
responded to my request, along with a few other encouraging words.
Dear Jeff, Harry’s statements are amazing: “We must make application of the generic principle, but we cannot require our applications in these limited areas to be a test of fellowship without adding to the doctrine of Christ.” Who got to decide what is doctrine and what is application? Hailey would say the doctrine is “Marriage is sacred” (Heb. 13:4) and thus marriages should not be broken up, but others might differ with him on this “point of application.” Why can’t Hailey say that? Harry has opened the door and can never shut it BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOESN’T USE HIS APPLICATION-DOCTRINE DISTINCTION. This is something he has dreamed up and thus cannot use scripture to set the limits and determine his boundaries. Ridiculous. “Its advocates admit that they differ in doctrinal matters even to the extent of tolerating ‘contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions’” (Ed Harrell, Christianity Magazine, May 1990, p. 6). As if he does not! After all his application-doctrine bluster settles down the truth is that Harry Osborne and Ron Halbrook hold a “contradictory teaching and practice on an important moral and doctrinal question.”… I dare say that few are so blind as Harry might wish them to be! Many see the hypocrisy of this position. I am informed that a brother in the south is writing heavily on this, terming Mike, Donnie V and Harry as the “Ed Harrells” of our day with Ron being “Hailey” – they disagree with him but want to fellowship him…. May the Lord bless our efforts for truth. 5-2-01 Sounds like Harry O and Tim Haile have been talking. They are ready to argue the same thing. They both want to deny “procedure” but offer nothing by way of explanation themself. As we have said before, if “procedure” is not involved, what does the innocent party “do” in exercising her right to put away the guilty mate (while she can)? Whatever she feels like? Whatever is decided by the local congregation where she attends? By just saying it out loud to some one? Yet, who would think such constituted the divorce our Lord spoke of? Harry O sounds about as sour as Tim Haile; but brethren will be able to see that. Let’s make sure we show them how to argue as Christians. 5-1-01
Brother Jeff,
Hello Jeff, |
|