Open Door Policy

“Because we recognize our own fallibility, we provide those who disagree with us an opportunity to reply…When and where we are not standing for the truth, we pray that God fearing brethren will stand against us and call upon us to repent. We promise to listen to what our brethren have to say in such circumstances and to search the Scriptures to see if the things taught are so.” Mike Willis, [Truth Magazine (Volume XXXV, Number 3), January 7, 1993]

****

“We publish a journal in which dissent is not excluded, in which both sides of an issue may be heard. Therefore, we are happy to provide brother Adams free space and an audience to disagree with us. Not all papers have such an open format.” Mike Willis, [To Wilson Adams (Reply to Wilson Adams)] See: Another Movement Gathers Steam

“Frankly, I resent the implication that you made in such words as the following: ‘The church is being threatened by a new evil. Brethren will divide over whether or not to accept adulterous marriages. You have a voice in Truth magazine. Will that voice be heard, or remain silent due to risks and dangers?’ The implication is that, if I don’t open Truth Magazine for a discussion of the issue that you are promoting to the point of making it a test of fellowship, then I am thereby accepting adulterous marriages! I do not share your conviction and take personal offense at your charge that I am hereby supporting adulterous marriages!” Mike Willis, (E-mail Exchange With Truth Magazine Editor Mike Willis & David McKee, on this website) See: Email Exchange with Truth Magazine Editor Mike Willis & David McKee

See also: Reply To Weldon

“As the desire for a softer, more sophisticated, more positive message grows, we will hear that there has been too much preaching about baptism and the church and too much controversy about doctrine. Cecil Willis once observed,

Some brethren say they get tired of controversy. So do I!!! But the only alternative is capitulation, and the consequence of that is damnation...The wisdom from above will be invoked that all the good within our power may be done, and that no harm at all to any righteous cause will result (Truth Magazine, 1 Nov. 1973, pp. 3-5).

In ‘Truth Magazine and Controversy,’ Connie W. Adams summarized the spirit of the paper from its inception when he said,

‘Yes, this is a militant paper. We mean to keep it so. The devil has not called off the battle yet. There are still surging issues which need to be discussed. Brotherly reserve and restraint ought to be employed. But no quarter should be asked or given in the conflict between truth and error. If we are found in error, then let brethren get out their typewriters and point it out. We can take it.’” Ron Halbrook, Gospel Preaching, Gospel Preachers, Gospel Papers: The Heritage of the Guardian of Truth, Guardian of Truth Magazine, July 20, 1995, pp. 433-436

http://www.truthmagazine.com/truth.html

“Third, we have reached the conclusion that most of the doctrinal issues facing brethren will be fought through the internet rather than through the papers. We are adjusting our approach to reflect this conclusion.  Generally only a small percentage of our readers are interested in the doctrinal conflicts occurring among us.  Most brethren think these doctrinal exchanges are distractive. Some turn off the magazine because they view them as preachers’ fights. I believe that brethren who have this conclusion are wrong and that the issues discussed in the papers are usually very relevant, though they might not be confronting one’s local congregation at the moment.”  Mike Willis, [Truth Magazine, Volume L, Number 13 (July 2006)]

****

“Some cynics think that editors sometimes stir a controversy simply to sell papers. What they do not know is that often, controversy turns off some readers and actually reduces circulation rather than enlarging it. Neither is an editor obligated to print everything sent to him.” Connie W. Adams, Truth Magazine (Volume L, Number 14) August, 2006

“Will each of us continue to ‘fight the good fight of faith’ or will we falter? Will the Guardian of Truth magazine continue its heritage as a medium through which men may ‘fight the good fight of faith,’ or will it falter?” Ron Halbrook, Gospel Preaching, Gospel Preachers, Gospel Papers: The Heritage of the Guardian of Truth, Guardian of Truth Magazine, July 20, 1995, pp. 433-436

http://www.truthmagazine.com/truth.html

“If you think this issue needs to be pressed, you are free to exercise your judgment to press it to the full extent of your ability. You can start your own paper for the purpose of promoting this position. You can challenge brethren to debate you at your home congregation and in that of others who are sympathetic with your desire to push this position to the point of dividing brethren. I learned some time ago that I don’t have to scratch every time someone has an itch to debate.” Mike Willis, (E-mail Exchange With Mike Willis & David McKee, in which brother McKee simply requested that Truth Magazine host a two-sided discussion of the second “putting away” issue) See: Email Exchange with Truth Magazine Editor Mike Willis & David McKee

“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” by Donnie V. Rader

This is a reprint of a 13 lesson study book on divorce and remarriage:

“An excellent work for class study. We believe brother Rader has rendered a valuable service in the production of this work and commend it to all into whose hands it might fall.” – Connie W. Adams

“I believe it is well written and gets right at the heart of the issues on all the questions you discussed. I would highly recommend it for class study and for personal study. It is objective, clear and thorough. Most of all it is scriptural.” – H. E. Phillips

“Your promises to continue featuring Donnie’s articles and printing his publications will be hurtful to the paper and to all connected with the board and staff. Donnie’s book on MDR now in print teaches several errors, yet it is promoted and pushed as useful in Bible classes. You would not publish Jeff Belknap’s materials. In fact, I doubt Jeff would ever ask that of you or want himself in any way attached to Truth Magazine. Yet, there is not ‘a dime’s worth of difference’ between Belknap’s ideas and opinions and Donnie’s. If so, what are they?” Bill Cavender To Mike Willis Regarding Donnie Rader’s Resignation (Monday, October 03, 2005 3:55 PM)

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
DonniesResignation.htm

Cause(s) For Divorce

“Go back 50 to 100 years and we find a general consensus on divorce and remarriage. The preachers spoke by and large with one voice. Divorce was taught to be wrong, except for the cause of adultery. Preachers consistently contended that only fornication constituted grounds for divorce.” Weldon E. Warnock, Does Teaching What God Says Lead To Endless Divisions?, Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 11-12 (January 2, 1992)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume36/
GOT036007.htm

“Given the fact that one may have to leave his wife and children in order to serve the Lord, the Bible does not teach, ‘The only cause for divorce is fornication.’ That simply is not a true statement.” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 27)

“One exception: Fornication. Jesus gave one exception (and only one) to the rule he just stated. While there are many reasons one might divorce (personal dislike, incompatibility, or irreconcilable differences), Jesus allowed only one. He said, ‘except it be for fornication’ (vs. 9). God’s law approves of one divorcing his/her mate for the cause of fornication.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“1 Corinthians 7:10-11 shows that the position which argues that ‘fornication is the only cause for divorce’ is wrong.” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce (p. 30), A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis

“In connection with the above point, I understand that Christ has given an exception in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But, did you notice that he has given us one and only one exception?” Jarrod Jacobs, [Truth Magazine, “Divorce and Remarriage” (June 20, 2002)]

“The Scriptures allow for situations where one might have to divorce his mate in order to live for Christ.” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 21)

“When two people cannot get along and they decide to break up their home in the absence of adultery, it is a sinful tragedy…” Ron Halbrook, Divorce and Remarriage: No Waiting Game, Guardian of Truth, Mar. 18, 1993, pp. 168-69

“If one must separate from his mate in order to serve his God, that is exactly what he should do!” Mike Willis, Sermon Outline: When Is Divorce A Sin? (preached at large)

“The differences between Moses and Christ can be summarized as follows:

                                    Moses

…Man permitted to put away wife for conduct short of fornication…

Christ

…Man not permitted to put away wife for conduct short of fornication…” Ron Halbrook, [Matthew 19 and Deuteronomy 24: Moses and Christ, Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 3-6 (Jan. 4, 1990)]

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/
GOT034003.htm

“I made the statement in one of my meetings with some of you here that I believed that if someone divorced their wife except for fornication they sinned. I stand right here before you apologizing for making that statement. I don’t believe that anymore…” Bobby Holmes, Marriage and Divorce, Northside church of Christ, Mansfield, TX (6/26/05)

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
BobbyHolmesOnMulticausesForBiblical
PuttingAway.htm

“Mental Divorce”

“This position states that some put away people can remarry (e.g. one put away for some cause other than fornication whose mate remarries first). In application it says that when Jack puts away Jill (for being a poor cook) that, though that is a civil divorce, they are not really divorced. It is called a divorce only ‘accommodatively.’ If Jack then remarries another woman, he, being guilty of adultery can be put away mentally by Jill. This is the ‘real’ divorce. Now she is free to remarry. Some would suggest that, in this case, Jill would have to have fought the divorce all the way.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 74]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“He denounces the concept that Jesus used the terms marriage and divorce in an accommodative sense to refer to a marriage or divorce which is approved in the sight of man but not in the sight of God. He said that there is nothing in the Bible about an accommodative use of the term marriage. He did not examine the scriptural evidence I cited to show the Bible uses language that way: Mark 6:17-18 (Herodias was still called Herod Phillip’s wife after their divorce); 10:11-12 (adultery is committed against one’s wife even after the divorce); Luke 16:18 (the adultery committed is presumed to have violated the marriage of the first husband); and I Corinthians 7:10-11 (the woman who departs is ‘unmarried’ but can be reconciled to her ‘husband’).” Mike Willis, Final Rejoinder, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (pp. 65-66)

“The question I would like to ask the mental divorce advocates is what did Jesus mean when he used the expressions ‘put away’ and ‘marry another’? Did he mean really put away or only accommodatively? Did he mean really marry another or only accommodatively? Remember that in the above statement that he only uses those expressions one time. Thus, if he means really divorced and remarried it has that meaning in points 1 and 2 above. If he meant they were divorced and remarried only accommodatively then it has that meaning in points 1 and 2 above. Our brethren are going to have to make up their minds. If we try to make it go both directions we make Jesus guilty of equivocating.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 75]

“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 God. That bond is still intact. And that little piece of paper is nothing in the sight of God. Just as well use it as Kleenex and blow your nose and drop it in the toilet. It doesn’t mean a thing to God. God’s law rules over the laws of men.” Ron Halbrook, [Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage, Wilkesville, OH (6-14-90)]

An excerpt of an MDR sermon by Ron Halbrook given in Wilkesville, OH

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
RonHalbrookExcerptsfromCarriageDriveSermon
.htm

“Why not just take Jesus at his word when he says that she is put away and marries another (whether it is scriptural or not)? Something is wrong when we have to read ‘actual’ or ‘accommodative’ into the passage. Such confusion violates basic rules of interpretation.

There is no reason to say that ‘put away’ or ‘marry’ is used in an accommodative sense. A general rule of interpretation is that all words and sentences are to be taken literally unless for sound reasons they cannot be (cf. Robert Milligan, Reason and Revelation, p. 332).” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 77]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“Think of your question in the light of Mk. 6:17-18: Herod & Herodias broke the law but did not dissolve the obligations & demands of the marriage law—notice carefully John’s wording. She left Philip (violating Matt. 19:6 principle), & Herod had her (was ‘married’ to her= accommodative language, because not joined by God in marriage), but it was not lawful to have her. Man can break the human side of the relationship (i.e. walk away from his mate) but cannot dissolve the divine bond or obligation. Also, consider Rom. 7:1-3 on this point. It speaks of being married to another person, but God doesn’t join them, doesn’t set in place the divine bond.” Ron Halbrook, [Email letters to various brethren (2-13-98)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
RonHalbrookEmails-Spring2001.htm

“If an unscriptural divorce is not a real divorce in the eyes of God, then why did Jesus say ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, except…’? The exception shows that it is possible to be divorced though it is not approved of God.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 76

“That assumes the first putting away is done by the procedure prescribed by civil law. I deny that it is. Where do you find a legal proceeding, court action, a court or the judicial procedure in God’s word as it pertains to divorce and remarriage? They are not there. There are, however, principles which show us what is involved in biblical putting away, sundering of the marriage or the other synonyms used in Scripture. As I have already stated, that is the only time ‘putting away’ takes place.” Harry Osborne, [e-mail letter (4-15-01)]

“When a divorce has occurred and then later on one party commits adultery, then it cannot be said that this initial putting away was for fornication. What happens after that fact cannot be the cause of it.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“What’s the only way we can look at it scripturally? God’s word talks about cause. That’s where we focus, and we leave it there. When one builds a timeframe and says when that judges brings the gavel down, that’s when everything is judged by, and you’ve got to act before that process finishes (by that judge gaveling it), where is that in the word…” Harry Osborne,

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Harry
OsbornePadenCityAudioQuotes.htm

“He brought up a case in which divorce occurred which was not for fornication, then stated that should the one putting the other away remarry, the other party could then put the husband away ‘in purpose of heart’ and be free to remarry. This involves the notion of mental putting away after the fact of actual divorce and termination of anything that might even resemble a marriage.” Connie W. Adams, [Editorial, Searching the Scriptures, March 1986]

“A few more words need to be said about ‘mental divorce.’ Connie seems to think that the legal divorce at the courthouse precludes any further action in doing what God allows. He thinks that any subsequent activity could only be mental, hence, he concludes that it is ‘mental divorce.’” Weldon E. Warnock, [My Rejoinder on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“As to ‘mental divorce,’ what else can you call it when two people are already divorced and one remarries and then the other ‘in purpose of heart’ puts away that spouse who has remarried?” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“DW believes that no faithful husband or wife may remarry IF the adultery, fornication, of the guilty mate does not occur before there is a departure and spatial separation.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr. – Part 2, Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 12) December 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/A
ResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“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).” Donnie V. Rader, Truth Magazine, “The Plain Truth About Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage” (Volume XLII, Number 12) June 18, 1998]

http://www.truthmagazine.com/smooththings.html

“But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts of man), there is something else to be said by divine law-by the moral and spiritual law of the court of God. She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act. Some suggest that this would be a mere mental or emotional farce-a whim, or a meaningless abstraction. Certainly her intellect and emotions are involved, but the action involves her whole being.” Ron Halbrook, [Notes and Thoughts for Further Study, 1986] http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Notes
ForFurtherStudy.htm

“This assumes that ‘against her’ refers to the first wife. There is nothing that demands that interpretation. It is very possible that it refers to the second wife. ‘Another’ (which refers to the second wife) is the nearest antecedent. Nigel Turner suggests that the word epi which is translated ‘against’ has the meaning here of ‘with’ (The Bible Translator, Oct. 1956, pp. 151‑152). Thus, when he remarries, he commits adultery with her (the second wife). (cf. Nestle’s Text and The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. one, p. 409.) Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 85]

“But divorce in civil court + fornication = socially acceptable ADULTERY! It is still adultery against the innocent mate just as described in Mk 10:12. 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, (hand written comments on an article written by Windell Wiser, sent out with other materials to a preacher.)

Ron’s commentary to an article by Windell Wiser (sent out by Ron in early Spring, 2001)

“There is not a word in Mark 10:11 about remarriage on the part of a put away one. If we grant that ‘against her’ refers to the first wife, so what? Neither this nor any other passage says one thing about her being able to remarry.” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 85]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“The adultery in Mark 10:11 is against (epi) his former wife. Translations having ‘against’ are: KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, Williams, Goodspeed, and others. Then there is Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon that has ‘against’ (235). Therefore, whenever a man commits fornication after divorcing his wife, he commits adultery against his former wife. She may then put him away (dismiss, repudiate) for fornication and marry another (Matt. 19:9). The same would be true with the husband in Mark 10:12.” Weldon E. Warnock, [Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“There is a good deal of tension now over what is being called ‘mental divorce’ in which a party who was put away for some other cause than fornication may later put away a mate who either marries again or else commits adultery after the fact of the divorce. Jesus said, ‘And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery’ (Matt. 5:32). The same thing is stated in Matthew 19:9. When we have exhausted all the emotional arguments about fairness, and the intricacies of what constitutes ‘putting away,’ these passages will still say what they have always said.’” Connie W. Adams, [Editorial Left-overs; Truth Magazine (August 19, 2004), Volume XLVIII, Number 16]

“Don’t deny a right to the ‘innocent party’ that Jesus, our Master, gave such a one. According to this foolish ‘mental divorce’ opinion(s), if I am reading it right, a woman under the law of Moses fared much better and was treated much better than a woman under Christ. The dismissed woman could go and marry another, according to Deut. 24. Some are saying she can’t do that under the will of God as reaffirmed by Jesus.” Bill Cavender, [From an e-mail letter to Vernon Love (sent 10-05-‘02) posted on this website]

“I would like for those who are so minded as to equate the two to give us a definition of ‘divorce’ and ‘marriage’ that would apply to both those that have and those that don’t have God’s approval.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) pp. 77-78]

“‘Unscriptural marriage’ is a term which means they are married in the sight of civil government but not in the sight of God, which is precisely what others mean when they say the text uses ‘marriage’ and ‘divorce’ accommodatively!” Mike Willis, Final Rejoinder, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 66)

“Jesus said that the one who is put away commits adultery when he remarries. Where do we learn that? From the second clause of Matthew 19:9. In this clause there is no exception phrase. The exception phrase (of the first clause) will not fit into the second clause in any way: textually, grammatically or logically.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“The innocent woman in the latter part of the verse (Mt. 19:9; jhb) may do what the innocent man may do in the first part of the verse when fornication is involved.” Weldon E. Warnock, [My Rejoinder on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Thus the text says that the put away one commits adultery no matter who marries first. She may have fought the divorce and protested it till the end. However, the text says if she remarries she commits adultery.

Consider Luke 16:18, where the man puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. Why didn’t Jesus say that she may now put him away mentally and remarry? Rather, he said, ‘and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) pp. 79-80]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“Next, a man may have enough regard for social convention that he will not go to bed with the ‘cute little thing’ he wants rather than his wife; therefore, he may divorce his wife, then marry the ‘cute little thing,’ thus going to the bed of adultery. Once again, the original marriage bond stays intact under divine law until he commits adultery against his wife; his legal steps do not dissolve the bond put in place when God joined them together (Matt. 19:9). Since his true wife remains faithful to the marriage bond, she & she alone has the right to repudiate the marriage under divine law. She may scripturally do so even when she is not able to do so legally because of legal steps taken by the treacherous husband.” Ron Halbrook, [Email letters to various brethren (2-8-98)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
RonHalbrookEmails-Spring2001.htm

“In lesson 8 we dealt with a number of arguments that are made to justify the mental divorce position. Here we answer several more…

8. ‘Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of the devil (1 Tim. 4:1-ff).’

That contention could be used to prove that all have a right to remarry. That would allow the guilty party and the one put away where no fornication is involved and the one who puts away for a cause other than fornication to remarry. The fact is that there is not one of the advocates of this argument that doesn’t teach that there is someone who can’t remarry.” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” More Arguments On The Mental Divorce Position; p. 148]

“What’d the Spirit say? The Spirit said, in the latter times, there are some that are going to turn away from the faith…What they’re going to do is, they’re going to forbid to marry and they’re going to command to abstain from meats.

Now, it didn’t say that there are going to be ones who are not going to marry, it said they’re going to forbid to marry…When I say, ‘you can’t marry, I’m forbidding it. You cannot do that without being sinner,’ now I’ve got a problem. Now I’ve done that which is what’s talked about here.” Harry Osborne, [Sermon preached in Paden City, WV on 4-10-03, Fight of Faith or Needless Controversy]

http://mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Transcript-FightofFaithorNeedlessControvery-HOsborne.htm

“Mental Divorce” & “The Waiting Game”

“I realize that brother Warnock’s illustration involves fornication, but it 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.” Connie W. Adams, [Searching The Scriptures, The Warnock - Deason Exchange (March, 1986)]

“My understanding is that a person who is faithful to the marriage vow and bond when sinfully abandoned and divorced is not involved in a ‘waiting game.’” Ron Halbrook, [Letter written to a brother (6-25-2000), Sent out the Spring of 2001 to a young preacher in his first work along with a huge package of other materials that promote his “classic” mental divorce “application.”]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Ron
HalbrookExchange-Spring2001.htm

“‘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?” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) pp. 84-85]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“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 (pp. 34-35)]. Feb. 3-4, 2000

“When divorce takes place, it is usually a matter of time (waiting) until one or both will remarry. That is the force of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:31-32 ‘causeth her to commit adultery.’ As time passes, the presumption is that she will marry, or give into a sinful relationship outside of marriage. If not, then what is the sense in what Jesus said?” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“I cannot find in my Bible where Jesus or the apostle bound the length of time an innocent person has to wait after a divorce for fornication before he/she can remarry, no more than how long a person has to wait to remarry after the death of a spouse.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr. – Part 2, Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 12) December 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/A
ResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“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.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 82]

“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!” Ron Halbrook, [Email letters to various brethren (2-8-98)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Ron
HalbrookEmails-Spring2001.htm

“Mental Divorce” & “The Race To The Courthouse”

“Is it just a race to the lawyer’s office? If the put away one can’t remarry, then it all boils down to who gets to the lawyer’s office first. Right? Wrong! If the guilty party files for divorce the innocent can counter sue. Having tried that, he or she has done all he can do until the Judge has his say. Suppose the Judge accepts the guilty party’s papers instead of the innocent. The innocent could let it be known to the court and to the brethren that he or she is agreeing to the divorce because his or her mate has committed fornication. Our problem concerning the race to the lawyer’s office is due to the fact that we are mistaking the ‘filing’ for divorce (the intent) with the final ‘putting away.’” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?,” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry)]

“This makes the whole thing hinge on the civil action – who gets to the court 1^st, or who can afford the best (or most crooked) lawyer.

Civil law will grant a divorce which God will not grant or accept. THEN civil law will refuse to recognize the divorce which God grants to a person. You have man’s law OVER God’s!” Ron Halbrook, [Personal Comments besides Windell Wiser’s article: “Who May Scripturally Marry Again?;” Sent out the Spring of 2001 to a young preacher in his first work along with a huge package of other materials that promote his “classic” mental divorce “application.”]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Halbrooks
NotesOnWhoMayScripturallyMarryAgain.htm

“We can quibble about ‘who gets to the courthouse first’ and the like, but the Lord still said, ‘Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.’ It is not binding where Jesus did not bind to say that one who has been divorced is not free to marry for that is precisely what Jesus said.” Connie W. Adams, Truth Magazine, Editorial Left-overs (Volume XLVIII, Number 16) August 19, 2004

“In my opinion the whole crux of this controversy is over getting to the courthouse, at least in the United States. The innocent party must file or counter-sue for a divorce or he/she would be the put away and then not permitted to marry, as some reason.” Weldon E. Warnock, [Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Weldon thinks that the crux of the matter is who gets to the courthouse first. I do not believe God is bound by what ungodly men may rule, but I do believe that we are bound by what God said about one who is put away having the right to remarry. Customs and laws which regulate marriage and divorce may vary from place to place, but in every culture there is a recognized point at which two people are married and at which one puts away the other.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Now what form does that need to take (i.e. matrimony, jhb)? What procedure has to be mandated there? I don’t know. Someone could come along and say, When exactly does that take place? Here the specific point in our society at which this takes place. I have a hard time figuring that out with regard to marriage in all the time but I don’t have a hard time figuring out who is married, do you? I could not make the legal procedure the point that binds a marriage.” Harry Osborne, [Sermon, “What is Biblical Putting Away?,” Lakeland, FL (5-29-01)]

“Mental Divorce” & The Silence of The Scriptures

“Brethren defending these false theories almost invariably appeal to the premise that divine silence permits people to remain in marriages contrary to what Jesus stated. The absence of a specific prohibition is cited as authority, contrary to 1 Peter 4:11 (‘If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.’). This reflects and reinforces a departure from the fundamental precepts of Bible authority. Rather than appealing to positive divine authority for their position, false teachers make such arguments as, ‘Where does the Bible say certain people cannot remain in their marriages?’ As we have learned from past apostasies, when one practice is justified by appealing to a perversion of divine silence, other practices are soon justified on the same basis. This makes division inevitable.” Ron Halbrook, Guardian of Truth, Are We Doomed to Divide over Every Difference on Divorce and Remarriage? (Volume XL, Number 16) August 15 and (Volume XL, Number 17) September 5, 1996

http://www.truthmagazine.com/doomedtodivide.html

“But, some object that Jesus does not detail a case like the one we are considering, therefore this innocent party has no grounds to remarry. The fact is that Jesus does not attempt to list, catalogue, & analyze all the situations which may occur, along with all the legal complications which may arise in different cultures & legal systems. The Bible would be set of encyclopedias if he had done so! He gave the principles of divine law, which we must then apply to situations & cases as they arise. Sound brethren are agreed on what the principles are, but we at times wrestle with how the principles apply to certain cases. Matt. 19:9(b) does not make a blanket statement covering all people who may have been put away in some sense.” Ron Halbrook, [Email letters to various brethren (2-8-98)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Ron
HalbrookEmails-Spring2001.htm

“The silence of the scriptures must be respected. We must do all things by the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). We must always act within the doctrine of Christ (2 Jno. 9). To go onward and beyond what is authorized is to have not God. God’s silence is not permission to act…

The Bible is as silent about a second putting away as it is about the remarriage of a put away one.” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?,” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry)]

“DW believes that no faithful husband or wife may remarry IF the adultery, fornication, of the guilty mate does not occur before there is a departure and spatial separation. Jesus never spoke about such a condition and never bound such a stipulation.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr. – Part 2, Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 12) December 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/A
ResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“Mental Divorce” & Adultery

“Jesus said that the one who is put away commits adultery when he remarries. Where do we learn that? From the second clause of Matthew 19:9. In this clause there is no exception phrase. The exception phrase (of the first clause) will not fit into the second clause in any way: textually, grammatically or logically. The one who is put away (whether for fornication or some other cause) does not have a right to remarry.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“All my life I have urged and cautioned divorced, put away, people NOT to remarry, although Jesus gave innocent, divorced people a right of remarriage, when his/her spouse has been guilty of adultery.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr. – Part 2, Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 12) December 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/A
ResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“Am I insensitive to the problems one may face because he has been mistreated? Of course not! But the truth is that often innocent people are made to suffer for the wrongs of others. ‘Well, it isn’t fair!’ Listen, it is fair to do right. Two wrongs still do not make one right. Who are those of whom the Lord spoke who are ‘eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake’? Take your brush and paint me as black as you can, but when your art work is done the Lord still said, ‘Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.’” Connie W. Adams, [Emotional Arguments, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 3), February 3, 2005]

“And then, here’s the latest one that’s come along, just in the last few years. And that is this idea that no put away person, no one who’s been divorced may remarry. Now, that is one of the most irrational, absurd positions that’s come along in a long time.” Weldon Warnock

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
BrotherWarnocks19YearProgressionOfError.htm

****

“Ida was an innocent, put away, divorced woman. Jesus gave her the right to remarry.” Bill Cavender, Truth Magazine, “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (2)” (April 1, 2004)

“Kittel, in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 4, page 733 said, ‘The remarriage of a man after divorcing his wife or the remarrying of the divorced woman is tantamount to adultery, Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9.’ In other words, Jesus regards these cases as adultery. He makes them equivalent to adultery, equal to adultery. They are adultery, and so tantamount—equal in significance, and the effect of such conduct, Galatians 5:19-21, it’s the work of the flesh and we cannot inherit the Kingdom.” Ron Halbrook, [Sermon—Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Carriage Drive church of Christ, Beckley, WV (5-30-91)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/RonHalbrook
ExcerptsfromCarriageDriveSermon.htm

“That good woman, who made such a blunder, is still single. She was unjustly ‘put away’ in a civil court of men by an ungodly mate but in the court of heaven she is innocent and could remarry if she desired to do so.” Bill Cavender

Truth Magazine, “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (4)” (May 20, 2004)

“‘The boys’ want to be treated with dignity, love and gentleness. They decry the spirit by which one brother reviews another’s error. But their desire to be treated with dignity, love and gentleness (which is usually afforded them) is returned by caustic criticism toward ‘journalistic jingoism,’ ‘watchdogs,’ ‘buzzards,’ ‘brotherhood super-visors,’ etc. One thing is clear: let a brother teach that an adulterous marriage is okay and he will be treated with dignity, love and gentleness by his ‘brothers.’ But let someone expose the error of adulterous marriages and those who are willing to fellowship that error and he will be boiled in oil!” Tom M. Roberts, Attitudes Toward Gospel Preaching; Privacy: “Lets Keep This Among Us Boys!”  MOVE TO FELLOWSHIP

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0103/010301.htm

“It does not become any of us to develop tunnel vision and focus on one issue to the neglect of other needed things. Neither is it helpful to array brethren against one another and seek to drive wedges. None of us reacts very well to attempts to treat us as puppets on a string who jump when the string is pulled by some nervous brother who seems to know exactly what you need to say, to whom, when to say it, and how to go about it.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Adultery” Compared With The War Question

“If the divorce and remarriage issue is parallel to the head covering issue or carnal warfare, then we are obligated to receive into our fellowship those who teach and practice error on adulterous marriages. If one is not willing to make this application, why make the argument?” Tom M. Roberts, [Fellowship, The Burnet Meeting (February, 2000)]

http://www.cedarparkchurchofchrist.org/tabu/
fellow_roberts.htm