Wallace/Watts Public Email Exchange

Wallace’s Initial post to Pat Donahue but Interrupted by David Watts Jr.

Pat and list: I am a friend of public debates. I advocate them, participated in them and had the pleasure of punishing error with them. I have even seen you in one near Cincy in 1996 with a Primitive Baptist (where you were very forceful and were the subject of ridicule by the opposition when you used strong language and gestures against your opponent. Yet one of your supporters has railed me for using pointed words and phrases calling them "low blows" and speaking of them as things that are not like Christ. He evidently has never read Matthew 23).

Yet there are some things in your proposition that seem troubling, and why I want to address it is because there are "MATTERS OF JUDGMENT" that can be involved in a divorce. Please prayerfully understand this analogy.

The Bible teaches that it is sinful for women too speak in churches.

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. . ." (1 Cor. 14:34).

Pat, I know of a host of brethren that will defend in debate that it is sinful for a woman to speak in the church, that it is NOT permitted for them to do so. Yet I would hope that brethren would have enough commonsense to NOT propose a debate that a woman cannot "ever" for "any reason" speak in the church. If I debate a brother over who believes in an exception, I could paint him as a false teacher, label him as weak, speak of his teaching as "false doctrine" etc. unless I see the point that he could lawfully make. Shall one come forward and seek to debate a preacher who believes a "woman can speak in the church by way of confession of faith prior to baptism?" Will we sponsor such and get the brethren in an uproar because one believes a woman can speak in the church to confess sin or faith and another believes she should not speak but only write a note? THINK ABOUT IT, brethren! Will we take another extreme position that she is not even allowed to "SING" because "women are not permitted to speak?" Obviously, we all are to "sing" (Eph. 5:19). Yet regarding divorce, this is where I suggest you, Don Martin and others are standing.

Your position very much parallels the above example. You are taking a doctrine that all agree on "it is sinful to divorce or any other cause than fornication" within a context. Yet, you are stretching it to other areas that all do not agree on. As all should agree that women are to keep silent in the church within a context, all do not agree that she can NEVER say anything. Please consider these examples pertaining to divorce, submission, etc.

· A wife is to submit to her husband (Eph. 5:22), yeah, in "everything" (v. 24). Now, what if the husband demands that his wife doesn't go to services? Is she sinning against Eph. 5:22, 24 when she goes anyway? What if her husband loves to punch his kids and kick them around the house? Is his wife sinning in resisting him? What if her husband desires to tie her and her children up, pour gasoline upon them, and then wills to burn her and her children alive? Is the wife sinning by not submitting and seeking to escape, calling the authorities, fleeing for her life and the life of her children, etc.? What say you? [You all complain about me not answering questions, which I have if you would only read and understand, but you who are so vocal on this list have answered NONE of my questions. WHY???? Is it because you cannot think about more than one topic at a time???] You see, we all preach that a wife is to subject herself to her husband, but that there are some details of judgment that would require her to do otherwise. Now, I know of a bunch of brethren that will defend in public debate that a wife is to submit to her husband in everything (Eph. 5:24). But will they defend and is it really edifying to defend that she must submit in everything at all cost?

· Likewise, Jesus spoke of it being unlawful to divorce for any other cause than adultery and remarry (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). I know a lot of brethren who will defend that in public debate within context. (I also know a lot of brethren who have set this command/principle aside to keep their adulterous marriages. I ALSO know that our focus has been shifted from punishing these men's error because we are consumed with shooting unfriendly fire at each other. Now, the real false teachers are left to prowl and send people to hell unchallenged).

Now, will you say that a wife must stay with a husband at all cost save fornication? Will those on this list (whoever's list it is) respond with a "YES" even in public debate? Will you say that a woman must remain and submit to her husband even if he locks her in a room for 24 hours on Sundays so that she cannot go to services? I will respond to that woman, "Woman 'you were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men'" (1 Cor. 7:23) and again, "a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" (1 Cor. 7:15). I will rather stand with Paul and be labeled a false teacher by my 'friends' than stand with you all and and have the condemnation of the Lord on judgment day.

Will you affirm that she must stay with him when and if he desires to have his children grow up without any faith and makes it a practice to "burn bibles" before his children weekly (say, on the first day of the week?) I will respond, "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." Will you affirm that a woman MUST remain in a union with her husband without leaving, without fleeing, without divorcing but maintaining a submissive sexual relationship with her husband, a submissive subservient relationship, even when he desires to beat her, do ungodly rapacious and course sexual acts to her, molest the children, etc.? Your proposition, perhaps unknowingly, says "YES."

But we must understand, like with the law of "women keeping silent in the church" that there are exceptions to the general rule. Like women submitting to their husbands, there are are exceptions to the general rule. And even in divorce, there are exceptions to the general rule (remarriage is not an option, reconciliations is a must to try). Like a woman turning over the authority of her body to her husband and vice versa (1 Cor. 7:1-4); there are exceptions to the general rule where God's law intercedes.

Pat and all, the scriptures teach self-defense (Ex. 22:2; Num. 35:16-28; Lk. 22:35-38). The scriptures teach that one may defend another (Acts 7:24). The scriptures teach women must love their husbands and children (Titus 2:4). The scriptures teach that husbands should love their wives as their own body (Eph. 5:28). Sometimes these commands may infringe upon another as the command to "speaking to one another in psalms. . ." infringes upon the command to "let your woman keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak" (Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:34). It wouldn't surprise me if some brethren would forbid women from congregational singing, but as absurd as that would be, the things in this discussion are even more! Brethren, can we not rightly divide the word of God (2 Tim. 2:15)?

1 Corinthians 7:12, 13 (NKJV):

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.
13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.

· When Paul says, "I, not the Lord say," he is simply addressing something that Jesus had not spoken of during his physical ministry. He is NOT speaking by an opinion, but by the Spirit of God. This solidifies my point that Matthew 5:32, 19:9 establish the general rule but not the comprehensive teaching on the subject. Jesus had not addressed to the degree of the strain that "FAITH" can place on a marriage and whether a Christian is always under bondage to that covenant. Now, I am sure that some will have a "heyday" and begin to speak half-truths about what Steven J. Wallace believes and the "false doctrine" that he teaches, etc. But, like I have said, you will give an account for every idle word (Matt. 12:36).

· "IF" (v. 13). NOTE: If the unbeliever is willing to live with the believer, let not the believer divorce the unbeliever. But what can that imply "IF" the unbeliever is not willing to live with the believer? Please answer? But note that "her" in verse 13 is in the reference to the "believer." Also note, that "divorce" is in the active voice which has the subject doing the action. So, whatever can be implied is in reference to the female Christian initiating. Here she is forbidden from initiating a divorce when the believer is willing to live with her under the "present distress" (v. 26). What then could be implied if the unbeliever is unwilling to live with her? Yet, I am sure that Mike Willis, Ron Halbrook, Joe Price and others would say, she must remain unmarried and if that unbelief was ever willing to live with this woman, that she should return to the marriage rather than stay celibate (1 Cor. 7:16). Some would mistakenly judge that she could never reconcile because then the she would be marrying a "put away person." Perhaps there are some on this list that are contentious about that too and would call others a "false teacher" because they believe that they can and should "remarry" or whatever term you want to use.

If Mike Willis taught (and he is far better at defending himself than I am) that a woman can take whatever steps to get out of harm's way, to find safety from abuse and hatred towards her and/or Christianity, then what is so "sinful" and "false" with that considering these truths that I have laid down before you? Further, I am also told, in fact that Mike believes that when and if the threat of harm is removed, that she is obligated to return/attempt reconciliation with her husband. Now, where exactly is the false doctrine here, brethren? He does not teach that she is free from the marriage bond. Again, where is the false doctrine here? Come on, brethren, be reasonable.

I still maintain my point. Why are many of you in a feeding frenzy regarding Mike Willis, Ron Halbrook and Joe Price over LAWFUL applications and judgments but then cast a blind eye on a man who sets aside most of Romans 14 and the commandment for elders to have "faithful children" in Titus 1:6? NONE of you answered this. I am STUNNED by this double standard and you are emphasizing, at least in my mind, that your motives are not with what is written, but with what Ron, Joe and Mike have in common -- TRUTH MAGAZINE! I have to conclude that it is your abhorrence of Truth Magazine that has enabled you to act so unbecoming.

So, let us throw the church into a lurch and bite and devour one anther because of hatred for a magazine? Let us ignore the true false teachers among us who daily deceive people explaining away the scriptures over God's law on remarriage and teaching others to stay in adultery and spend our time arguing over matters of judgment in various scenarios which MOST of us have not seen or been in. It is shameful and I hence lay down my repudiation of this movement. "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" (Matt. 23:24).

For Christ and the Church,

Steven J. Wallace

www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com

www.revelationandcreation.com

_____________________________________________________________

Watt’s 1^st Response

From: David Watts Jr.

To: Steven J. Wallace

Cc: 'Pat Donahue' ; 'Rob Adkins' ; 'Virgil and Martha Gooselaw' ; 'Steve Cox' ; 'Steve & Melanie Bashor' ; 'rebecca cox' ; 'Ray & Laura Eikerts' ; 'Michael Cox' ; 'Martha Gooselaw' ; 'Jennifer Stevenson' ; 'Jeff Cox @ work' ; 'Jeff & Cheryl Cox' ; 'Janice Martin' ; 'Jack and Darlene Mitchell' ; 'Georgia Watson' ; 'Eric and Donna Grace' ; 'Don and Janice Martin' ; 'Dianne Adkins' ; 'Carl Stevenson' ; 'Bryan and Deniece Morris' ; 'Sarah Grace' ; T19461964@aol.com ; joe@bibleanswer.com ; Jimmy_Wood@csx.com ; HodgenvilleCOC@peoplepc.com ; ErthelWillis@peoplepc.com ; mb1304@charter.net ; waynepartain@sbcglobal.net ; waltonweaver@sbcglobal.net ; ayandare@skannet.com ; Richard@Thetfordcountry.com ; mgalloway1@juno.com ; ksharp@twcny.rr.com ; jcrobertson1@juno.com ; Leejimlee@juno.com ; snapulated@cox-internet.com ; gorutgers@yahoo.com ; doublee_16@yahoo.com ; Dwright811@aol.com ; DavHold@aol.com ; AndersonBrianpeg@aol.com ; Billreeves25@aol.com ; brianadams2@cox.net ; SAMS1008@aol.com ; stevemonts@hotmail.com ; fs77@bellsouth.net ; jss@owensboro.net ; Jjmsayre@indy.rr.com ; eerobertson@glasgow-ky.com ; dst@glasgow-ky.com ; POWELLPARKER@hotmail.com ; nkibler@geetel.net ; Vvmlove44@aol.com ; dickensll@yahoo.com ; kbritt73@hotmail.com ; alanandjill@msn.com ; jghahn@highstream.net ; Tooshiemine@aol.com ; dnjhuber@bpsinet.com ; shigg@glasgow-ky.com ; RPEJHARRIS@aol.com ; rwfritz@bellsouth.net ; garyfiscus@bluemarble.net ; davidceldridge@hotmail.com ; RLB612@aol.com ; Jd1761@aol.com ; ddavidson770@earthlink.net ; godis@myfam.com ; artbrad@highstream.net ; Jerry@Eldorable.kscoxmail.com ; jwbailey@glasgow-ky.com ; tadams64@adelphia.net ; thornhill@tycom.net ; swiley@ccrtc.com ; jmsayre@indy.rr.com ; jimlee@juno.com ; John Watts (gmail) ; J Belknap

Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 10:00 AM

Subject: Re: My observation/answer regarding "multiple causes" and this movement against Joe Price, Ron Halbrook, Mike Willis, etc.

Brother Wallace,

I'm writing in response to your recent post to brother Donahue. My response is not an effort to short-circuit your conversation with Pat. Rather, I've been reading this exchange since it began and can no longer remain silent. My purpose is not to defend any man. They can do that themselves. I seek only to defend Scripture.

While I appreciate your willingness to speak up and defend your beliefs, I'm dismayed by your teaching. I find it contradictory to Scripture.

False Analogies

The technique of your argument is rather creative, but ultimately fails. You attempt to argue by means of analogies: women remaining silent in the assembly, and women remaining in subjection to their husbands.

With respect to a woman remaining silent in the assembly, you describe an absurd viewpoint (that a woman could not even participate in congregational singing or confess Jesus before the assembly) and then say: "Yet regarding divorce, this is where I suggest you, Don Martin and others are standing. Your position very much parallels the above example." Later you said, "It wouldn't surprise me if some brethren would forbid women from congregational singing, but as absurd as that would be, the things in this discussion are even more!" {emphasis mine - dwjr} By "things in this discussion" - I assume you must refer to the content of this discussion since it began. Namely: that many of us are convicted a put away person cannot marry another, and that there is only one cause for lawful divorce. Apparently, when brethren preach and teach such - and reject those (like brother Price) who put such matters into Romans 14 as a matter of indifference - this is the "even more absurd" of your above comments.

Do you really believe that brother Wallace? Or was it perhaps a little bit of hyperbole? Are you prepared to defend such publicly? If so, let's arrange for a formal written discussion. You can affirm a proposition that preaching as doctrine that there is only one lawful cause for divorce and that a put away spouse cannot marry another is "absurd." I'll argue that it is "scriptural." I'm sure Gospel Truths or Preceptor would agree to print such an exchange.

You've stated that it would be absurd to forbid women from participating in congregational singing. You and I agree upon that. Then, you declare that the matters of this discussion are "even more" absurd! Listen carefully brethren. Brother Wallace believes that when I and many others teach that God's word fobids the put away wife from remarrying, that when I and many others preach that God's word only authorizes divorce for one reason, and that all of this does not "fit" within Romans 14 - that this is "more absurd" than forbidding a woman to participate in congregational singing.

The fact of the matter is this:

· Women are commanded to remain silent in the assembly.

· Women are the subjects of God's commands to participate in congregational singing.

· Women are the subjects of God's commands to confess Jesus Christ.

Forbidding women to do either would be absurd because they are specifically commanded to do both. God's commands harmonize perfectly. God specifically details areas where a woman is not to remain silent.

In the case of divorce:

· Jesus specifically forbids the put away person from remarrying.

· Paul grants only two choices to a person involved in a divorce: remain unmarried or be reconciled.

· Jesus commands that man not put assunder what God has joined together.

Tell us brother Wallace, where is the equivalent authority (as demonstrated with congregational singing and public confession for women) in Scripture for:

· Remarriage on the part of the put away spouse?

· Lawful divorce for other non-fornication reasons?

Where is the authority on which you stand and declare that these divorce issues are "even more absurd" than forbidding a woman to participate in congregational singing?

A Wife's Submission

You then move on to a wife's submission. Your effort to prove your point here is even weaker. You do not prove your point that others reasons for divorce are lawful by appealing to Scripture. You attempt to prove your point by human emotions.

Does a wife sin because she goes to services against her husbands directives? No. The reason she does not sin has nothing to do with emotion or your sense of right and wrong. Rather, it is because of what is revealed in Scripture in Acts 5:29. We obey God first. When men require us to sin, we reject their command and obey God.

Next you move into an argument based upon: kicking, punching, tieing up, pouring gasoline, etc. Why not jazz it up with more emotions? Perhaps we could strap dynamite to her and the kids? Let's throw the dog in there for good measure too. But the fact is, emotional arguments prove nothing. There is clearly a principle demonstrated by the apostles, by Jesus Christ himself, by Paul and others - that one may put some distance between himself and imminent harm. No body denies that.

And yet, the ability to avoid imminent harm is not unlimited. It does not allow us to violate others of God's laws. Is a man allowed to avoid torture and death by denying Christ? God forbid! Is the answer to an abusive mate unlawful divorce? God forbid! Such is not authorized. Nor it is unlawful divorce authorized when your mate runs up too many credit card debts.

The problem brother Wallace is that you and I are constrained to preach exactly what is revealed. It is not our job as preachers to think up emotional loop holes and preach those. We preach what is revealed by God. God reveals only one cause for lawful divorce. When a man teaches additional reasons, he is teaching error.

While you say, "But we must understand, like with the law of 'women keeping silent in the church' that there are exceptions to the general rule. Like women submitting to their husbands, there are exceptions to the general rule. And even in divorce, there are exceptions to the general rule."

I see direct commands for a woman to publicly confess Jesus. I see direct commands for a woman to pariticpate in the congregational singing. I see a command that applies to women obeying God and disobeying man - when man requires sin. But where are the clear Bible principles that permit exceptions to the "general" rule on divorce - such that a put away could marry another, or such that we can now build a list of new reasons for lawful divorce?

Where is the exception that permits divorce for other reasons? State it clearly with book, chapter and verse. Where is the exception to Jesus's prohibition on the put away spouse remarrying? State it clearly with book, chapter and verse.

When Christ forbids divorceto those who are bound together by God in Mt. 19:6, what exceptions do you grant brother Wallace? I grant the one that Christ clearly granted - fornication. Others can't be found.

An Unspoken "IF" Implication

You attempt to suggest that an exception is granted in 1 Cor. 7:10. You don't seem to make the argument with the amount of zeal you have made other arguments. Perhaps you are not entirely comfortable with the argument. In any regard, you wanted an answer to your question regarding 1 Cor. 7:12-13: "But what can that imply "IF" the unbeliever is not willing to live with the believer? Please answer?"

I suppose that you believe that Paul is suggesting that "if she won't live with you, you can lawfully divorce her."

But we don't have to make arguments based upon what is not said - let's make arguments upon what is said:

· Let no man put asunder... (Mt. 19:6)

· Let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Cor. 7:10)

· If the unbeliever is willing to live with you, don't divorce her (1 Cor. 7:13).

· (if the unbeliever is not willing to live with you and... ) If she does depart, you're not under bondage. (1 Cor. 7:15)

Where is the authority to divorce for some reason other than fornication? Where is it clearly stated? Are we at a point where we'll take an unspoken possible implication and use it to set aside a spoken prohibition (Mt. 19:6)? Frankly, authority is based upon what God has revealed. Things unrevealed are not authority. I'll take a clearly spoken prohibition over an unspoken "if" implication all day long.

"In a lurch"?

Brother Wallace, the church is not "in a lurch" because many of us are standing firm against innovation in the realm of marriage, divorce and remarriage. The church, if it is "in a lurch" is "in a lurch" because some are teaching what is patently false. We're simply demanding clear Bible authority for the put away to remarry and clear Bible authority that reveals it is okay to divorce one's mate for reasons other than fornication. If demanding Bible authority for such practices puts the church "in a lurch" - so be it. If rejecting teaching that does not provide Bible authority for these practices puts the church "in a lurch" - so be it.

Every other man can speak for himself. But as for me, I oppose as a damnable heresy this false teaching that a put away wife can remarry. I oppose as a damnable heresy the false teaching that there are additional, non-fornication, lawful reasons for divorce. I'm on no personal vendetta against any organization or person. I will however, seek to reject this apostasy where ever it be taught.

Questions for You:

This approach of yours whereby you recognize a "general rule" of divorce and then argue there are exceptions to it... exceptions beyond which Jesus clearly stated, and which thus far you have not provided clear Bible authority for - to what other areas do you apply this method of Bible interpretation?

· Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is "for the remission of sins"?

· Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is immersion in water?

· Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that benevolence from the church treasury is only for saints?

Awaiting your response,

David Watts Jr.

______________________________________________

Wallace’s 1^st Rebuttal of Watts

Note to the reader: Because there was a request from a brother Adams to stop sending him material whose email inbox was being flooded with these emails from various men, I respected his decision and courage to tell the list and therefore only kept the most of my responses private from this point forward. I wrote:

[I appreciate Brian's request. I was somewhat uncomfortable in hitting "reply all" but since everyone else was doing it, I thought I should too. Sorry Brian. But that some people are on this list and may not even want to hear this stuff is interesting to me. It may not be so cordial by the one who started it. Whoever started this, I presume Don Martin, should therefore take responsibility for it especially since he has nurtured it in keeping it going. I was warned by others that he was merely wanting an audience and Brian's email gives credence to this.

Therefore, I have resolved to only email the ones who email me in private. I have said about all I can say. We could, keep arguing over "words" until judgment day, I suppose. The rest of you are left alone by me. I will respond to Watts, but he is the one who is going to have to send it out to a list, as I will not. You can tell if he practices honesty in doings so. If the vocal ones on this list want to shout their two-cents to the list with anything that I write or about anything that I write, please practice the golden rule (Matt. 7:12) and include ALL that I have written and not "pieces" of my recorded thoughts. I say this only because I will not be submitting my thoughts to Don's created public list anymore.

Brian, I will be the first to gladly apologize for this, even though I thought it was a list of all who by choice wanted to be involved. I also think this further evidences that arguing over matters of judgment is not edifying.

1Ti 6:4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions,

2Ti 2:23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

In my judgment, a good portion of this discussion is "obsessed with disputes and arguments over words" and is doing nothing good for the kingdom. I have tried to be reasonable but it has not had much of an effect. So, please excuse me from this list.

Cordially,

Steven J. Wallace]

-------------------------------------

My Response to Watts Follows

From: Steven J. Wallace [swallace8722@charter.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 7:52 PM
To: 'David Watts Jr.'
Cc: 'joe@bibleanswer.com'
Subject: What about Watts Jr.?

Brother Watts Jr.,

Your quotes are in <<>>.

If you want to continue to send your material to a large list, that is fine, yet, if you want to quote from me at all, you must insert all of what I have written in this email or none at all. It is just that simple, no exceptions (or I would have told you <<grin>>)

I am just going to answer the primary points of your long article. I appreciate your willingness to digest things and test them but I have to question how reasonable you are being.

<<I assume you must refer to the content of this discussion since it began. Namely: that many of us are convicted a put away person cannot marry another, and that there is only one cause for lawful divorce. Apparently, when brethren preach and teach such - and reject those (like brother Price) who put such matters into Romans 14 as a matter of indifference - this is the "even more absurd" of your above comments.>>

I and Joe Price believe a put away person cannot remarry and neither of us say that the RULE of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are matters of Romans 14. Your message is full of fluff! We are speaking of certain "doubtful" details that are involved in a divorce. Do you believe that "adultery" must be written on paper? Yes or no is fine, please. Some do, will you fellowship or disfellowship them? Do you believe that a guilty fornicator can take away the right of the innocent mate to 'put away and remarry'? Yes or no please?

<<Do you really believe that brother Wallace? Or was it perhaps a little bit of hyperbole? Are you prepared to defend such publicly? If so, let's arrange for a formal written discussion. You can affirm a proposition that preaching as doctrine that there is only one lawful cause for divorce and that a put away spouse cannot marry another is "absurd." I'll argue that it is "scriptural." I'm sure Gospel Truths or Preceptor would agree to print such an exchange.>>

I think you need to calm down. If you want to debate a mere judgment of yours with me via a written debate, I am not interested. However you can come over here and speak face to face without your audience and see if you are still zealous. I am not interested in some written exchange published in some magazine over this issue at this point. Beside, I would think many on your list are anti brotherhood magazines in publishing it anyway. The brethren in Sunnyside, in the past, have always agreed to let one come and present their views knowing that it will be challenged by the church with equal time and with the possibility of the same format being given by the church of the one who wants to speak. We offered this to Gene Hickman who only lived 60 minutes away. If you find something so blatant that you believe I am going to hell over, and of things that I am leading the church into apostasy over, then by all means come on over and discuss it face to face. Just name the time and date that you want to come and I will get the complete approval of the men if you want to address the church here at large. Is this something that appeals to you? I have made the 2500 mile journey in 1999 to travel to Cincinnati to debate Kurt Streutker of Answers in Genesis over the subject of the necessity of baptism and faith alone. Why, because his doctrine leads folks to hell. I invited Ferrell Jenkins to come to Sunnyside and present his defense of Shane Scot on creation as long as I could have equal time in his church building but he chose to not email back. If you deem this to be of doctrinal import as these others, then I am sure you will likewise come and seek to rescue me from the pit of hell. I went not knowing if I would be paid anything for expenses to Cincy, what say you? Joe Price was also my assistant when I traveled to Portland Oregon to debate Dave Giles of the Seventh Day persuasion and I am sure that he would be glad to come down and also test your doctrine "face to face" (Gal. 2:10ff) if you truly are teaching something other than what we teach.

As per writing my proposition, you know, the most "absurd" thing in this whole ordeal is what you propose to debate which already screams at me that you are unworthy to discuss this issue. Where have I ever stated "preaching as doctrine that there is only one lawful cause for divorce and that a put away spouse cannot marry is absurd." Please give the citation or repent in attributing a belief to me that I don't have (a very important law in debating). That would be like me now asking you to affirm that "Preaching that women are to submit to their husbands in everything is absurd." Rather, why not come here to Sunnyside and affirm

"The Jesus-given right for the innocent to put away a guilty fornicator can be lost if the fornicator is first to initiate the divorce."

Or perhaps you want to travel here to affirm that "the word 'adultery' must be labeled as a 'cause' on paper or the divorce to be scriptural." I will be glad to deny and debunk that proposition and call it "absurd!" loudly and publicly!

<<The fact of the matter is this:

Women are commanded to remain silent in the assembly.
Women are the subjects of God's commands to participate in congregational singing.
Women are the subjects of God's commands to confess Jesus Christ. >>

The fact is:

the rule is that women are to remain silent in the assembly, that it is not permitted for women to speak.
women can however speak in song or in confession in the very assembly that it is not permitted for them to speak in without violating this rule

LIKEWISE:

the rule is that anyone who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery
a man may however divorce his wife for fornication and be free.

Paul, understanding this law (1 Cor. 7:10) adds a scenario that Jesus didn't specifically address while here and that is if an unbeliever wants to depart, let him depart, the believer is not held responsible for his actions and can live "separated," "divorced," etc. but must remain unmarried or be eventually be reconciled. (1 Cor. 7)

<<In the case of divorce:

Jesus specifically forbids the put away person from remarrying.
Paul grants only two choices to a person involved in a divorce: remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Jesus commands that man not put assunder what God has joined together. >>

I agree! That is what I preach (but even of the rule: "remain unmarried or be reconciled" there are exceptions outside the context of 1 Cor. 7. Meaning: where one who had never been married marries a person who they did not have a right to marry. Then, that one needs to divorce, but can marry again as he/she never had been in a proper marriage. Doesn't God give "all" that opportunity to be married once lawfully? see Heb. 13:4). The Spirit says "all" what will Watts say?

<<Tell us brother Wallace, where is the equivalent authority (as demonstrated with congregational singing and public confession for women) in Scripture for:

Remarriage on the part of the put away spouse?
Lawful divorce for other non-fornication reasons? >>

Why don't you tell your list, brother Watts if you believe that the God given right to the innocent can be taken away by the actions of the guilty fornicator? And why don't you tell us where that authority is? I would appreciate a yes or no answer. I do not teach that if people are put away for 'bread burning' that they can wait till one or the other commits fornication and then put that person away. I have never taught anything close to that and will never do so. I am not sure that I know of anyone who teaches it, but I know that is not what I teach.

<<You then move on to a wife's submission. Your effort to prove your point here is even weaker. You do not prove your point that others reasons for divorce are lawful by appealing to Scripture. You attempt to prove your point by human emotions.>>

For dismissing it as such a weak case, you sure spilled a lot of electronic ink over it! BTW, human emotions did not write 1 Cor. 7:10-15.

<<Does a wife sin because she goes to services against her husbands directives? No. The reason she does not sin has nothing to do with emotion or your sense of right and wrong. Rather, it is because of what is revealed in Scripture in Acts 5:29. We obey God first. When men require us to sin, we reject their command and obey God.>>

Now, will you open your eyes and resist the movement that the law of the land can redefine Jesus' use of "put away" and that one can break the law of the land to set aside a God-given liberty? Will you also see that Paul releases a believer from being under bondage in such cases as when their unbelieving mate leaves (1 Cor. 7:15)? Again, this doesn't mean they can remarry in the latter case because the marriage bond is still there.

<<Next you move into an argument based upon: kicking, punching, tieing up, pouring gasoline, etc. Why not jazz it up with more emotions? Perhaps we could strap dynamite to her and the kids? Let's throw the dog in there for good measure too. But the fact is, emotional arguments prove nothing. There is clearly a principle demonstrated by the apostles, by Jesus Christ himself, by Paul and others - that one may put some distance between himself and imminent harm. No body denies that.>>

Funny how you don't deny it? But you, the wise Solomon among us can determine "how much space and time" correct? How much space can she determine? What is the maximum distance she can go? a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles, 1000 miles 10,000 miles? How much time? Will you please tell us? a day, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime?She can put space, but not legal space requiring a civil divorce? Please tell us how much time and distance "No body denies"? You had better answer this when you respond.

<<And yet, the ability to avoid imminent harm is not unlimited. It does not allow us to violate others of God's laws. Is a man allowed to avoid torture and death by denying Christ? God forbid! Is the answer to an abusive mate unlawful divorce? God forbid! Such is not authorized. Nor it is unlawful divorce authorized when your mate runs up too many credit card debts.>>

The minute you allow any liberty to disobey her husband, it could be equally contended that you deny Eph. 5:24 and should know "that the issue at hand is that a wife needs to be submissive to her husband." (sarcasm, hitting desk or pulpit).

You understand that other passages permit her to disobey in given circumstances, why not understand that 1 Cor. 7:11ff permits a believer to not be enslaved to a marriage in a given circumstance.

<<I suppose that you believe that Paul is suggesting that "if she won't live with you, you can lawfully divorce her."

But we don't have to make arguments based upon what is not said - let's make arguments upon what is said:

Let no man put asunder... (Mt. 19:6)
Let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Cor. 7:10)
If the unbeliever is willing to live with you, don't divorce her (1 Cor. 7:13).
(if the unbeliever is not willing to live with you and... ) If she does depart, you're not under bondage. (1 Cor. 7:15)>>

I am suggesting that you can lawfully send them on their way and no longer be under bondage to their rule and decisions if they want to leave you because of your faith. Is that not what Paul is suggesting? I admit that I used to believe that each and every divorce was sinful, period, end of discussion. But I have slightly changed my view on that given time and study to certain exceptions. By the way, even when you allow space to escape a harmful situation, are you now not throwing a stumbling block before the faith-hating wife abuser because when she leaves, separates, or whatever you want to call it, is she not "causing him to commit adultery?" by her absence? Answer it. I don't believe it, but I wonder if you should believe it given your position in all of this. Or perhaps, it only causes her husband to commit adultery if she gives him a legal piece of paper? What say you? You better answer it if you respond.

Yes, 1 Cor. 7:10 reaffirms Matt. 19:6. What you are failing to see is 9 critical words "But to the rest I, not the Lord say" (1 Cor. 7:12). Will you suggest that what follows is not of the Lord? Or, will you correctly see it for what it is, that Paul is expounding on something the Lord did not teach during his earthly ministry?

<<Brother Wallace, the church is not "in a lurch" because many of us are standing firm against innovation in the realm of marriage, divorce and remarriage. The church, if it is "in a lurch" is "in a lurch" because some are teaching what is patently false. We're simply demanding clear Bible authority for the put away to remarry and clear Bible authority that reveals it is okay to divorce one's mate for reasons other than fornication. If demanding Bible authority for such practices puts the church "in a lurch" - so be it. If rejecting teaching that does not provide Bible authority for these practices puts the church "in a lurch" - so be it.>>

The church is in a lurch because men like you are pressing your personal scruples and judgments as law and the false teachers are being loosed to practice their error without challenge. You are not demanding Bible authority but demanding a debate and further contentions. I don't find these deeds worthy of a formal debate. Don already admitted that he hates Truth Magazine and that he is out to get Ron and Mike (see his latest email on wrap up). What further confession do we need? It simply verified what I have thought all along. You are simply a soldier boy for Don to do his debating for him. He is pressing you to. I don't know why you cannot see it. David, it cuts both ways, if Don can say I am Ron's soldier, then I reckon you are Don's. So, what many are wanting is a "Ron and Don's" soldier boys to battle it out. <<grin>>. Well, I am no one's but Christ and I teach what I teach because that is how I read the scriptures, that is what they say, that is what is taught. Don smoothly and politely excused himself in having a chance at debating me by saying that he is only after the leaders? I suppose you believe that? I suppose you are Don's tank to go after Halbrook's little soldiers?

<<Questions for You:

This approach of yours whereby you recognize a "general rule" of divorce and then argue there are exceptions to it... exceptions beyond which Jesus clearly stated, and which thus far you have not provided clear Bible authority for - to what other areas do you apply this method of Bible interpretation?

Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is "for the remission of sins"?
Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is immersion in water?
Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that benevolence from the church treasury is only for saints? >>

I have provided biblical authority for people to infer what 1 Corinthians 7:10ff implies. You don't like what it implies and therefore want to take everyone to the woodshed, so to speak, who disagrees with your conclusions.

I have defined the rule clearly in Matthew 5:32. "Whoever divorces his wife for any reason causes her to commit adultery." Just like the rule that states "wives be submissive to your husbands in everything" (Eph. 5:22, 24). I have also defined the rule "it is shameful for women to speak in church." (1 Cor. 14:35). I have then shown where women could speak "in church" without violating this seemingly apparent absolute command (i.e., singing and confessing). I have also shown where women could resist, not submit, even rebel against their husband's will/rule without violating Eph. 5:24 "in everything." I have also shown that a person could send their spouse away without violating Matthew 5:32 if they were in a circumstance similar to that of 1 Cor. 7:10ff. You don't choose to believe it. That is fine with me. I don't really care at this point. You have been told. Paul states Jesus' rule (v. 10) and then addresses a known problem in the church where one can choose to be unmarried or reconciled without sin. I used to affix "sin" to it (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1), but that simply makes no sense.

Paul - "But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. . . ." (1 Cor. 7:11).

Watts - "But even if she does depart, she has sinned, is going to hell, violates Matthew 5:32, must be withdrawn from, anyone who accepts her must be debated, marked, repudiated and noted as a false teacher."

Wallace stands with Paul; Watts stands with Don.

Jesus - "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
Watts - "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife for sexual immorality, and is not the first of the two to initiate the divorce, commits adultery. . . ." Is this what you say Junior.? Please answer.

If so, I will stand with Christ and not you.

Question 1: <<Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is "for the remission of sins"? >>

Have I ever taught that there were? Let me counter a question to you? Are there exceptions to the rule: "Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved"?

Please answer this? Is this an absolute rule without any exceptions whatsoever Watts? Are all people who have ever believed and were baptized saved? Are there other things involved in salvation than "believing and being baptized?" What about a person who believes and is baptized but never repents of his sinful practices? When Mormons teach baptism for the remission of sins are they correct? Though the Christian Church teaches "believe and baptized?" are they correct and saved? So, are there exceptions to the rule that belief plus baptism equals salvation in the above sense?

Question 2: <<Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is immersion in water? >> This is weak stuff Watts. Perhaps you need a little more wattage in your cottage. . .No! Do you think I teach that some could be baptized in air or milk? What is your point?

I will make a better application. Are their any exceptions to details allowed in immersion other than "rivers" (Acts 16:13, 15; Mk. 1:5). Where is your scriptural authority for an ocean, pool, baptistery (if I were to use your line of reasoning). I will also insert, are there any exceptions in meeting in an "upper room" (Mk. 14:15; Acts 1:13; Acts 20:8)? Can we ever meet in a "lower room?"

Question 3: <<Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that benevolence from the church treasury is only for saints?>> UH, let me think. . .NO! It is embarrassing that I have to actually devise a decent argument for you. . .what would be far more parallel is,

can the church give any support to someone than a REAL WIDOW as per the RULE of 1 Tim. 5:16?

Are there any exceptions to 1 Tim. 5:16, "If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows." The RULE is the church is to relieve those who are REALLY WIDOWS? Are there any exceptions to this rule, DAVID? Can the church ever give relief to anyone other than a "Widow Indeed?" What about a woman who is not a widow indeed? Of course, you should see that this will only further strengthen what I have already taught and just adds another parallel as an analogy.

For those of you salivating on my response to David, let me tell you that this is about as rich and as bloody as the meat is going to get. And I speak that somewhat shamefully.

Please consider these in the spirit in which they were written and don't jump on the false accusation bandwagon, David, that I didn't answer your questions.

Brotherly,

Steven J. Wallace

_________________________________

Watts’ 2^nd Response

Subject:	Re: As per Brian Adams Request
Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:49:27 -0500
From:	David Watts Jr. <davidwattsjr@sbcglobal.net>
CC:	'Brian Adams' <brianadams2@cox.net>, 'Don Martin' <dmartinbtbq@comcast.net>, 'Pat Donahue' <PatDonahue@bellsouth.net>, 'Rob Adkins' <rdddr2004@comcast.net>, 'Virgil and Martha Gooselaw' <vgoose@comcast.net>, 'Steve Cox' <dragon_master100@hotmail.com>, 'Steve& Melanie Bashor' <mbashor@comcast.net>, 'rebecca cox' <teddybeargirl100@yahoo.com>, 'Ray & Laura Eikerts' <REikerts@aol.com>, 'Michael Cox' <hgquicksilver@hotmail.com>, 'Martha Gooselaw' <marthagoose@comcast.net>, 'Jennifer Stevenson' <jeraste@comcast.net>, "'Jeff Cox @ work'" <jeff.g.cox1@lmco.com>, 'Jeff & Cheryl Cox' <coxjg@yahoo.com>, 'Janice Martin' <maryjmartin@comcast.net>, 'Jack andDarlene Mitchell' <jgmitch@comcast.net>, 'Georgia Watson' <gswatson31@msn.com>, 'Eric and Donna Grace' <eleegrace@aol.com>, 'DianneAdkins' <diannemail@comcast.net>, 'Carl Stevenson' <devout66@comcast.net>, 'Bryan and Deniece Morris' <bkmorris01@comcast.net>, 'Sarah Grace' <GreenEyedGirl086@aol.com>, T19461964@aol.com, joe@bibleanswer.com, Jimmy_Wood@csx.com, HodgenvilleCOC@peoplepc.com, ErthelWillis@peoplepc.com, mb1304@charter.net, waynepartain@sbcglobal.net, waltonweaver@sbcglobal.net, ayandare@skannet.com, Richard@Thetfordcountry.com, mgalloway1@juno.com, ksharp@twcny.rr.com, jcrobertson1@juno.com, Leejimlee@juno.com, snapulated@cox-internet.com, gorutgers@yahoo.com, doublee_16@yahoo.com, Dwright811@aol.com, DavHold@aol.com, AndersonBrianpeg@aol.com, Billreeves25@aol.com, SAMS1008@aol.com, stevemonts@hotmail.com, fs77@bellsouth.net, jss@owensboro.net, Jjmsayre@indy.rr.com, eerobertson@glasgow-ky.com, dst@glasgow-ky.com, POWELLPARKER@hotmail.com, nkibler@geetel.net, Vvmlove44@aol.com, dickensll@yahoo.com, kbritt73@hotmail.com, alanandjill@msn.com, jghahn@highstream.net, Tooshiemine@aol.com, dnjhuber@bpsinet.com, shigg@glasgow-ky.com, RPEJHARRIS@aol.com, rwfritz@bellsouth.net, garyfiscus@bluemarble.net, davidceldridge@hotmail.com, RLB612@aol.com, Jd1761@aol.com, ddavidson770@earthlink.net, godis@myfam.com, artbrad@highstream.net, Jerry@Eldorable.kscoxmail.com, jwbailey@glasgow-ky.com, tadams64@adelphia.net, thornhill@tycom.net, swiley@ccrtc.com, jmsayre@indy.rr.com, jimlee@juno.com, "'John Watts (gmail)'" <johngwatts@gmail.com>, 'J Belknap' <jeffbelknap@charter.net>
References:	<4404j6$119aeav@mxip20a.cluster1.charter.net>

Dear Brethren,

This is a reply to brother Wallace's reply to me of Saturday June 18, 2005. I have not attempted to respond to his email of today, June 20, 2005. Per brother Wallace's request of his June 20 email, I have removed him from this mailing. However, I have forwarded this email to him privately.

Summary Reply:

Because this is so long, an "executive summary" is appropriate. Brother Wallace has argued in favor of the idea that a put away wife can later "divorce" her husband when he commits adultery. I do not find his arguments to be accurate Biblically. I reject his teaching in favor of this as I have rejected that of Bill Cavender, Weldon Warnock and Ron Chaffin. Brother Wallace has also argued in favor of the idea that one can lawfully put away their mate for non-fornication reasons. Likewise, I find his arguments on this to be insufficient to establish clear Bible authority. I am newer to this particular dispute ("lawful" non-fornication reasons for divorce), having spent more time on the mental divorce question. Other brethren want to convince me that I am wrong - that there are lawful non-fornication reasons for divorce. I will study carefully with them. If clear Bible authority can be established, I will always follow the truth wherever it leads. But of the arguments I have seen thus far from brother Wallace, I find this idea utterly without Scriptural basis.

Moreover, these are not "doubtful matters." These are matters of doctrine and do not belong in Romans 14.

Finally, while I am appreciative of brother Wallace's softened tone in his recent emails, we need to take a hard look at why there has been much animosity from those who support the mental divorce viewpoint. When I engaged brother Cavender in this matter, he publicly sought to defeine me as a "young, aggressive preacher." But repeated references to my "youth" (if 38 is young) do not change Scripture. Brothers Willis and Warnock repeatedly referred in the June 5, 2005 issue of Truth Magazine to people (like me) who believe this is a matter of doctrine as "divisive," "factionalists," and those who are "spliting the church." Brother Chaffin has replied recently to a recent article rejecting his teaching, and described me as a "liar," a "dishonorable man," and guilty of dishonesty in the same manner as "Bill Clinton."

Now, brother Wallace has placed my honesty in potential question (see below), determined that I am Don Martin's "solidier-boy," mocked my arguments by saying that it was "embarassing" for him to have to create better arguments for me, and spoke condescendingly toward me by calling me "Junior."

But I take absolutely none of this personally. I believe I understand why all of these men, consistently, have sought to include in their defenses personal attacks upon their opponent. I have great sympathy in my heart for these men. They have taken a stand against clear Scripture and it may be that the only thing they have left is personal attacks, innuendo and contempt for those who challenge their teaching, find it to be false, and identify it as false teaching.

I've never met brother Wallace. I've never spoken to him on the phone. As far as I know, our very first dealings with each other were via email. I assume the best about him. I assume he is honest. I assume he is kind. I assume he is sincere. But I also recognize that all of these attributes may be true, and yet a person be sadly mistaken doctrinally. Romans 10:2 speaks to this very situation.

Brother Wallace in his most recent email today, June 20, 2005 - references Christ's declaration of the Pharisees as a brood of vipers. If brother Wallace feels he possesses sufficient insight into the heart and soul of men whom he has never met, then I suppose he needs to speak as he sees fit. As for me, I am quite content to disagree strongly with brother Wallace and to charge him with teaching error when I see that his teaching so clearly violates scripture. But I have no interest whatsoever in thinking anything but the absolute best about who he is as a person, his honesty, and his character.

Brother Wallace, you are my brother. With affection in my heart, I urge you to cease teaching error on these matters and cease defending those who also teach error.

David Jr.

Detailed Reply

Brother Wallace said of me in his June 18 reply:

"I will respond to Watts, but he is the one who is going to have to send it out to a list, as I will not. You can tell if he practices honesty in doing so."

I am surprised to find that brother Wallace places my honesty in potential question. Nevertheless, below this introduction is the full text of his response to me. My replies are surrounded with *** and are in purple. Apart from inserting my reply, I have not edited or changed his text in any form or fashion. His writing and quotations of my previous email are generally in blue.

If you do not wish to read this lengthy dialogue, please hit the delete key now.

David Watts Jr.

====================================

Brother Watts Jr.,

Your quotes are in <<>>.

*** as you wish. ***

I am just going to answer the primary points of your long article. I appreciate your willingness to digest things and test them but I have to question how reasonable you are being.

*** The "rule" of Mt. 5:32 and Mt. 19:9 includes the fact, that when a person is put away, they may not remarry. That is not a "doubtful" detail. Yet, brother Price factually says in his article, "3. Can an adulterous mate execute a civil divorce against a faithful mate, and the faithful mate be prohibited from remarrying because he/she is the 'put-away' mate?" This is listed with 6 other items that brother Price says is a "doubtful thing" over which Romans 14 must be applied. Since when are the words of Jesus considered "doubtful things"?

Must adultery be written on paper? Nowhere does God demand a particular wording on a paper. Rather, God demands a particular reason. God says the reason for the divorce must be "for fornication." This does not require the words "adultery" to be written on paper.

Can a guilty fornicator take away the right of the innocent mate to 'put away and remarry?' Jesus says that when one party divorces another, and it is not for fornication, neither party can remarry. The context of Mt. 19 shows that the context of a scriptural "apoluo" is that which ends the marriage, as opposed to that which takes place years after the marriage is over. Additionally, apoluo in this context is clearly shown by Jesus to be associated with the physical separation that comes when the marriage is ended by divorce, not some mental process that takes place years after the marriage is over and the separation is already done. ***

*** I'm calm brother Wallace. I simply repeated your words and asked if you really believe what you said and whether you would defend your own words.

Brother Wallace, at first you say such a debate would just be over a "mere judgement" of mine, and that you have no interest. Yet then you say you are willing to have me travel to your location for such an exchange. So which is it, is this a matter worthy of debate or not? Seems that in your judgment, a debate in a way that is simple and easy (written from our mutual locations without the expense and time of travel) is not worthwhile. But a debate that is harder (your location with expense and travel) is apparently worthy of consideration.

At the present, I am convinced that in this circumstance, truth can be effectively taught via written words and that this format (written) is the best possible use of my time and resources - as opposed to a long trip to Washington. I see little additional value in travelling to your location for what can be reasonably accomplished in writing.

Nevertheless, I will consider your kind invitation. Are you inviting me to participate in a one evening exchange with you, or are you inviting me to participate in a multi-night (e.g. 4 night debate) with you? Kindly let me know which arrangements you will support and I will consider my options, finances, and schedule. My schedule the rest of this year may get crowded as I am hopeful of returning to India again for a three weeks worth of preaching and teaching. ***

"The Jesus-given right for the innocent to put away a guilty fornicator can be lost if the fornicator is first to initiate the divorce."

*** Brother Wallace, you did factually state that this discussion was "more absurd" than one telling a woman she could not participate in congregational singing. "This matter" must refer to the fact that some men teach a put away wife cannot remarry and that it is doctrine, while some (like you) teach that a put away wife can remarry - but that all this is a matter of Romans 14. You want the citation? Approximately 10 paragraphs down in your message titled "My observations/answer regarding "multiple causes" and this movement against Joe Price, Ron Halbrook, Mike Willis, etc." dated (on my computer) as 6/17/05 4:42pm:

"It wouldn't surprise me if some brethren would forbid women from congregational singing, but as absurd as that would be, the things in this discussion are even more!"

Brother Wallace, you clearly said the "things in this discussion" are more absurd than one preventing women from singing congregationally. The "things in this discussion" have focused on two topics: (1) Can a put away person remarry and are there multiple lawful reasons for divorce and (2) are such matters doctrine or matters of Romans 14.

So, again I ask: do you really think that "the things in this discussion" are "even more" absurd than a man who prohibits a woman from remarrying?

Its quite okay to acknowledge that you were speaking in hyperbole. We've all done that before. Just say so and we'll move on.

As for the propositions. Here's my suggestion. I'll word my affirmative proposition, and you can word your affirmative proposition. How's that for fair? Mine will be worded using Biblical terms. For example: "The Scriptures teach that when a spouse has been divorced, they may not marry another until the bond is broken by death." ***

<<The fact of the matter is this:

Women are commanded to remain silent in the assembly.
Women are the subjects of God's commands to participate in congregational singing.
Women are the subjects of God's commands to confess Jesus Christ. >>

The fact is:

the rule is that women are to remain silent in the assembly, that it is not permitted for women to speak.
women can however speak in song or in confession in the very assembly that it is not permitted for them to speak in without violating this rule

*** Essentially, we agree. But I think it is far more accurate to say: "The completeness of Bible teaching shows that women may not speak in the assembly but they are commanded to confess Jesus Christ before men and to sing with the congregation." ***

LIKEWISE:

the rule is that anyone who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery
a man may however divorce his wife for fornication and be free.

Paul, understanding this law (1 Cor. 7:10) adds a scenario that Jesus didn't specifically address while here and that is if an unbeliever wants to depart, let him depart, the believer is not held responsible for his actions and can live "separated," "divorced," etc. but must remain unmarried or be eventually be reconciled. (1 Cor. 7)

*** Sure. Jesus prohibits divorce unless it is for fornication. If you are put away by your spouse, remain unmarried.

Notice by the way - and this is where we disagree - that Paul does not provide the third option you provide. Paul does not say, "remain unmarried," "be reconciled," or "wait until they remarry - then you can carry out some sort of "mental divorce" upon them and be free to remarry. ***

<<In the case of divorce:

Jesus specifically forbids the put away person from remarrying.
Paul grants only two choices to a person involved in a divorce: remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Jesus commands that man not put assunder what God has joined together. >>

*** Watts says exactly what the Spirit says. Jesus shows in Mt. 19:6 that the context of His marriage and divorce laws address people who are "joined by God." This involves people who marry and are not bound to some other person. That is, they have a right to be married. Other marriages, where one or both of the parties is already bound to another, are adulterous. God does not join them. If a woman, never before married, marries a man and learns the marriage is adulterous, the marriage must end. Since she has never been bound to one by God, she is free to lawfully marry a person who is also free to lawfully marry.

Now, why do we provide this "exception"? Because God clearly reveals it as an "exception." I put "exception" in quotation marks, as I'm not sure that's the most accurate word for it - but we'll use the terminology. The bottom-line, is that you and I agree on this particular point because we can see clear Bible authority. ***

<<Tell us brother Wallace, where is the equivalent authority (as demonstrated with congregational singing and public confession for women) in Scripture for:

Remarriage on the part of the put away spouse?
Lawful divorce for other non-fornication reasons? >>

*** I'm not sure you answered my question brother Wallace. Where is the clear Bible authority for remarriage of the put away spouse? You say you don't know anybody who teaches that a put away spouse can wait until their ex-mate commits adultery - and then somehow lawfully remarry. Yet brother Warnock has clearly defended such views. Brother Cavender has clearly defended such views. If you teach what Jesus taught - that a put away person is prohibited remarriage, then fantastic! Otherwise, I have a problem with your teaching.

But in truth, your question to me continues to suggest that you do hold the idea that the put away can later put away their ex-mate and lawfully remarry. You asked, "...if you believe that the God given right to the innocent can be taken away by the actions of the guilty fornicator?" You apparently believe that if a man who cheats on his wife, divorces his wife, that she can wait until such time that he remarries and then somehow put him away. If not, please clarify.

Let's also make sure something is very clear. This matter is not about a "race to the courthouse." Suppose a man cheats on his wife while they are married. She finds out. He decides to divorce her. He hires a lawyer. It matters not that he hires an attorney first. She is always free to participate in the divorce process and let it be known to all that she is putting him away for adultery.

But, if she does nothing and does not participate in the divorce process for the purpose of putting him away - and allows herself to be put away, then she is bound by Jesus' law not to remarry.

Where is my authority for saying that the put away spouse cannot remarry? Simple: Mt. 5:32, Mt. 19:9 and Luke 16:18. ***

For dismissing it as such a weak case, you sure spilled a lot of electronic ink over it! BTW, human emotions did not write 1 Cor. 7:10-15.

*** You wrote about gasoline, burning the wife, abusing the kids, etc. That's emotionalism brother Wallace. Paul did no such thing in 1 Cor. 7:10-15. Again, Paul doesn't endorse non-fornication divorce. He simply says that if the unbeliever will depart - let them depart. In fact, four times in 1 Cor. 7:10-15 Paul teaches that there is to be no divorce. I'm puzzled as to how we can look at a context with four prohibitions on divorce and decide that non-fornication divorce is ok.

Thus, you understand why I see no Bible authority to date for the idea that Paul grants additional, non-fornication reasons to divorce one's mate. ***

*** Jesus indicated it really is possible for a man to put away his wife unlawfully. It is still a real event with real consequences. Neither party can lawfully remarry. The ability to "put away" for fornication is divorce that ends a marriage (not psuedo-divorce that comes 5 years later) for the reason of fornication. That is to say, it ends a marriage for the reason of marital infidelity. Christ is not describing the subsequent adultery when a man remarries unlawfully 5 or 10 years later.

Of course I see that Paul says when a spouse does divorce a mate, that the one divorced is not "under bondage." They are not a slave that has to follow their mate around. When an innocent person is divorced by their mate, there is no sin for the innocent person.

The point of issue - is that some teach the put away person can wait until the divorcer remarries. They claim the reality of adultery permits the one put away to "mentally" carry out a "divorce" against the guilty mate. Brother Price says this fits into Romans 14. He apparently thinks we can all differ on this, and no problem. That's not biblical. You've been defending brother Joe's teaching that this can all fit in Romans 14. I think you described it as excellent writing. I disagree. ***

*** Your sarcasm in calling me "the wise Solomon among us" is funny but ineffective. As a result of his abusive actions, she can put space between him and her for the preservation of life. There's Bible principle for that. But there's no Bible principle that allows for her to carry out a divorce. Jesus said don't do it (Mt. 19:6). Paul repeatedly said - "don't do it." Who are you and I to say "she can do it"?

You said, "Please tell us how much time and distance "no body denies"? You had better answer this when you respond."

I'm happy to oblige. The Bible doesn't say how much time and distance. But the Bible shows plenty of examples of people taking steps to separate themselves from violence and injury. I see Bible authority to move away from violence and injury. I see no Bible authority for divorce. And really, the truth is that you don't either. You appear to assume it must be possible because it fits our view of what is good and reasonable. But whether it fits our liking or not, in view of the repeated prohibitions on divorce, where's the clear authority?***

You understand that other passages permit her to disobey in given circumstances, why not understand that 1 Cor. 7:11ff permits a believer to not be enslaved to a marriage in a given circumstance.

*** I don't allow the wife liberty to disobey her husband. Rather, the Scripture demonstrates that Christians were able to take action to avoid injury and death. The Scripture does not demonstrate that she may divorce her husband.

Funny thing about your use of 1 Cor. 7:11ff. Paul repeatedly argues against divorce. Yet you come away with the idea that he permits it in some non-fornication circumstances. But based upon what you have written, I don't see it. ***

Let no man put asunder... (Mt. 19:6)
Let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Cor. 7:10)
If the unbeliever is willing to live with you, don't divorce her (1 Cor. 7:13).
(if the unbeliever is not willing to live with you and... ) If she does depart, you're not under bondage. (1 Cor. 7:15)>>

*** Brother Wallace, Paul is not suggesting that one may "lawfully send them on their way." Paul's very illustration is as follows:

Wife is not to depart. If she depart, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled. Such disregard for Paul's 4 time command is clearly sinful. However, repentance (reconciliation) is not always possible. There's a husband/wife that would also have to agree. Thus: remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Likewise, husband is not to divorce. By implication, if he does - remain unmarried or be reconciled.
If a unbelieving wife is willing to live with her husband, he must not divorce her.
If she is not willing to live with her husband, he is not under bondage.

Where do you get the idea - that the divorce for non-fornication reasons is lawful? Everything said in this place forbids divorce. All the "sending away" in 1 Cor. 7:10ff is expressly condemned.

You asked - "when you allow space to escape a harmful situation, are you now not throwing a stumbling block before the faith-hating wife abuser because when she leaves, separates, or whatever you want to call it, is she not "causing him to commit adultery?" by her absence? Answer it.... You better answer it if you respond."

Brother Wallace, you have several times "commanded" me to answer certain questions. I don't mind giving answer, but you could certainly change your tone to something a bit more brotherly. I will however, do so, out of an abudance of desire that we might all learn more about God's truth.

When she puts distance between her and injury at his hands, is she causing him to sin? Is she witholding her conjugal obligations? Not at all. The deprivation of sexual duty is his choice, insofar as he (to borrow from your hypothetical) beat her up, doused her with gasoline, etc. He made the choice to "douse her with gasoline." She simply followed a Biblical pattern of avoiding certain injury and death.

But again, where's the positive Biblical authority for her to divorce him? In your writing, I've not seen it proved yet. In fact, all I've seen is constant prohibition on divorce by Jesus and Paul, except when the divorce is for fornication. ***

*** Of course 1 Cor. 7:10ff is from the Lord. Paul was inspired. As you state, Paul was addressing matters the Lord did not specifically touch on. (However, vs. 10 is - according to Paul - not from him but from the Lord. Vs. 12 and on is a different situation the Lord did not address.) But Paul's teaching will harmonize completely and perfectly with what Jesus taught. Why? Because they are of the same source. Jesus forbids divorce except for fornication. Paul forbids divorce except for fornication. ***

*** I do not teach my pesonal scruples. I teach what Christ teaches. No divorce except for fornication. If one divorces their mate, both parties may not lawfully remarry. Those come from book, chapter and verse. While you say, "You are not demanding Bible authority but demanding a debate and further contentions..." that's simply not true. I'm asking you to prove to me that (1) a put away person can lawfully carry out some sort of "divorce" against their mate when they remarry and then themselves lawfully remarry and (2) that non-fornication divorce is lawful. Prove it. You've not. A debate helps people learn.

I'm amused by your determination that I'm "a solidier boy for Don Martin." I don't answer to brother Martin any more than Don Martin answers to me. Never have and never will. I did not ask you to debate this issue because Don told me that I should try to get you to debate. I fear that your imagination is running wild. To help with your apparent imagination difficulties, let me tell you something of myself:

I left behind my own lucrative technology consulting firm in order to preach full-time.
I travelled this country and worked with the largest corporations at the highest levels.
I did not compromise to anybody or anything in business, and I most certainly am not going to do it while preaching the Gospel.
I have dedicated my life to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and work for no man and certainly no preacher.
I answer to the elders at the congregation where I preach, but no one else apart from God and His revealed word.

If my teaching of God's word happens to correlate to what another man teaches - fine. If not, so be it.

As for Don Martin, we've shared emails. I read his material the way I hope he reads mine: with an open Bible - seeking to determine if what is said is really true. I don't believe I've even talked on the phone with him. If I did, it slipped my mind. I've never even met him face to face. Well, that may not be true. We lived in Colorado when I was between 6 and 8 years old. I think I may have met him when I was just a boy. If that makes me his "solidier boy" - then guilty as charged.

Brother Wallace, you know your charge that I'm Don's "solider boy" is unfair. I simply preach and teach the Gospel. The extreme majority of my time as a Gospel Preacher is not spent teaching on MDR. But when it is necessary, I will reject public false teaching such as yours.

Call me what you will, but I think in your heart you know such charges are unfair and flippant.***

Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is "for the remission of sins"?
Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is immersion in water?
Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that benevolence from the church treasury is only for saints? >>

*** Brother Wallace, you've simply not provided biblical authority. You've not provided necessary conclusions or inferences. You've provided a possible conclusion based upon an unspoken implication. You've got to do more than that. You've got to show me that there are additional non-fornication lawful causes for divorce and prove it by necessary conclusions, not possible conclusions based upon unspoken possible implications. ***

*** I'm mostly with you - until you come you come to: "I have also shown that a person could send their spouse away without violating Mt. 5:32 if they were in a circumstance similar to that of 1 Cor. 7:10ff." I'm sorry brother Wallace, you've not shown me any authority for that. Paul's instructions repeatedly are "don't divorce." What 1 Cor. 7:10ff shows is that if your mate does divorce you - you're not a slave to follow them. That's far different from proving that you can do the divorcing and it be lawful. Again, you state that 1 Cor. 7:10ff "addresses a known problem in the church where one can choose to be unmarried or reconciled..." But brother Wallace, where in 1 Cor. 7:10ff does Paul describe a person "choosing" to be unmarried as a lawful choice? Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:10 - don't do it. If she does depart - that's sin. Now what do we do? We remain unmarried or be reconciled. Nothing in 1 Cor. 7:10ff that you've shown - authorizes divorce for non-fornication reasons. If there's a convincing argument that will clearly show Bible authority, I've not seen it yet.***

Paul - "But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. . . ." (1 Cor. 7:11).

*** On the contrary:

Paul - Let not the wife depart from her husband. If she departs, let her remain unmarried. (1 Cor. 7:10-11). (Paul clearly says that Christ says - don't do it).
Watts - Don't divorce. If you do, remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Wallace - Its ok to divorce. If you do, remain unmarried or be reconciled.

I take it then, by the way you word your statement - that you believe when one "does depart" - doing what Paul expressly says not to do - they have not sinned. That's rather amazing. Paul says that Christ says "don't." Yet your convinced you "can" and do so without sin.

Wouldn't you be wise to find a clear statement from Paul - that such and such is not a good idea, but if you do it anyway - its not sin. Perhaps something like 1 Cor. 7:25, 36?

Wallace stands with Paul; Watts stands with Don.

*** Nice try. Cute even. But Paul says that Christ says - don't divorce. My intention is to stand with what Jesus and Paul said.***

If so, I will stand with Christ and not you.

*** Again, nice try.

Jesus - whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.
Watts - whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.
Wallace - whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery, unless she carried out some sort of "mental" divorce against her ex-husband when he committed adultery after the divorce. ***

Question 1: <<Are there exceptions to the Biblical rule that baptism is "for the remission of sins"? >>

Have I ever taught that there were? Let me counter a question to you? Are there exceptions to the rule: "Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved"?

*** I am quite convinced that you have not taught that there are exceptions to baptism is "for the remission of sins." But you seem quite willing to find all sorts of exceptions for God's MDR laws. Exceptions that thus far don't stand up to the standard of Bible authority. You've not shown me Bible authority. If it exists, I look forward to seeing it. Therefore, I want to now what prevents you from finding "exceptions" to baptism "for the remission of sins" that similarly do not rest upon firm Bible authority?

The ability to cast away Jesus' prohibition on a put away person from remarrying, will permit you to also cast away just about any other clear statement of Jesus if you so choose.

Your question to me about "belief plus baptism = salvation" is most amusing. The completeness of Bible teaching shows that one must believe, repent, confess and be baptized in order to be saved. How do we know this? Because God clearly states it. These are not "exceptions" to the rule that belief plus baptism equals salvation. Rather, this is simply the completely Bible picture based upon what God revealed.

What's the comlete Bible picture of MDR? I see no authority for a put away spouse to carry out some sort of "mental divorce" and then remarry. I see no authority for non-fornication divorce. You've not proven it by direct commands, approved examples, or necessary conclusions. You have offered conclusions, but far from necessary conclusions. Maybe someone else can convince me otherwise.***

*** My point is that the same system of belief that allows you to find "exceptions" that permit a put away person to remarry lawfully would permit you (if you are so inclined) to find exceptions to most anything, including whether baptism is immersion. Can we be baptized in something other than rivers? Sure. We can be baptized in the "much water" of Acts 8. Can we meet in something other than an "upper room"? Sure. We can meet in the "temple" of Acts 2:46, the "solomon's porch" of Acts 5:12, the "house" of Romans 16:5 and the like. The Scriptures reveal this plainly. Where's the plain revelation that supports your teaching?

Once again, I am basing things upon what is said, and I can defend it with book, chapter and verse.

You have based the ability of a put away getting married again - not on clear Bible authority, and you've shown me no convincing authority that there are extra non-fornication reasons for divorce.***

can the church give any support to someone than a REAL WIDOW as per the RULE of 1 Tim. 5:16?

*** If you mean by "support" - temporary benevolence to saints, then of course the church can give support to someone other than a widow per 1 Tim. 5:16. Why? Because God says so clearly in 1 Cor. 16:2, etc. If by "support" you mean the permanent kind of benevolent support described by Paul in 1 Tim. 5:9 as "taken into the number" - then no. Unless there is clear Biblical authority that defines other lawful recipients of this "taken into the number" support - then this example is the end of it.

Again, I'm making my decisions based upon what is clearly revealed. You've not met a reasonable standard of Bible proof on either of our two discussion points.***

For those of you salivating on my response to David, let me tell you that this is about as rich and as bloody as the meat is going to get. And I speak that somewhat shamefully.

Please consider these in the spirit in which they were written and don't jump on the false accusation bandwagon, David, that I didn't answer your questions.

*** As for your "rich and bloody" statement... you lost me there brother. Is that some Washington slang?

Let's sum this up:

You won't participate in a formal written discussion.
You will invite me to come all the way to Washington for an oral discussion. I'll await further details from you on your kind invitation. I'll then consider whether it will be an effective use of my time and resources.
You have not demonstrated convincing Bible authority for the ability of one put away, to somehow "divorce" their ex-mate when they commit adultery.
You have not demonstrated convincing Bible authority for a non-fornication divorce.
You claim authority for non-fornication divorce in 1 Cor. 7:10ff but seem to ignore the fact that four times - Paul forbids divorce.
You claim authority for non-fornication divorce in 1 Cor. 7:10ff based upon an unpsoken possible conclusion, not a necessary conclusion.

Again I say - this is a matter worthy of discussion. It is not, to use your terms, "more absurd" than prohibiting women from participating in congregational singing.

And back to the original topic, these are not suitable matters for Romans 14. I reject brother Price's claim of such.

Sincerely,

David Watts Jr.***

_________________________________________________________

Wallace's 2^nd Rebuttal of Watts

From: Steven J. Wallace [swallace8722@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:02 AM
To: 'David Watts Jr.'
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: As per Brian Adams Request]

Brother Watts:

Greetings. My wife is still sick but doing better. My daughter will hopefully have a good evening tonight and not wake up at 4:00 vomiting. I also hope and pray that neither my sons nor I will be next in this most horrendous flu bug.

You began with misrepresenting my teaching perhaps unknowingly: <<Brother Wallace has argued in favor of the idea that a put away wife can later "divorce" her husband when he commits adultery. >>

Such is just not true. I haven't argued any of the sort. You presented this to the list and yet it is not true. You make it look like I argued that two can get a divorce and "later she can divorce him when he commits adultery." NOT TRUE! I will leave it up to you to correct this blunder and accept my word for what I teach. Where in any of my emails or articles on line have you ever got that idea? Please give me the citation or simply recant this assessment. Your level of integrity demands it. I have argued that when one "FORNICATES" PRIOR to the divorce that he cannot refuse the "NON-FORNICATOR's" Jesus-given right to put away the fornicator by his quickness to initiate the divorce!" I have stood against the idea that people can get a divorce for any cause and later when one remarries the other can put them away! I have NEVER believed that. Yet you told the list otherwise.

I am glad that you can see that with "paper" that it is inconsequential. I hope those on this list will also see that the race to the courthouse is too. You talked about "apoluo" but didn't research it nor show where it demands papers, a courtroom, a judge, lawyers, etc.? Apoluo is associated with the physical separation, AGREED!. . .because that is the essential meaning of it (not the courtroom or who starts the legal process first, not lawyers, papers, judges). Can you not see that? I am not speaking of something that takes place years later (but I will not define how many days, weeks, months a non-fornicator needs to have in making up her mind about putting the guilty away.

<<Brother Wallace, at first you say such a debate would just be over a "mere judgement" of mine, and that you have no interest. Yet then you say you are willing to have me travel to your location for such an exchange. So which is it, is this a matter worthy of debate or not? >>

That is left in your judgment. If you think it is doctrinal enough, then make the trip. I wouldn't if I believed your position because I would consider it judgmental. You make it doctrinal.

<<At the present, I am convinced that in this circumstance, truth can be effectively taught via written words and that this format (written) is the best possible use of my time and resources - as opposed to a long trip to Washington. I see little additional value in travelling to your location for what can be reasonably accomplished in writing.>>

What do you think this is already? It seems like an informal written debate. What else could we say in one that we haven't stated here

<<Nevertheless, I will consider your kind invitation. Are you inviting me to participate in a one evening exchange with you, or are you inviting me to participate in a multi-night (e.g. 4 night debate) with you? Kindly let me know which arrangements you will support and I will consider my options, finances, and schedule. My schedule the rest of this year may get crowded as I am hopeful of returning to India again for a three weeks worth of preaching and teaching. ***>>

You are always welcome here. Just give me a heads up when you want to be here 509 830 8722 (CELL). If anyone thinks it is so important to make the trip to tell the church here that "The guilty fornicator can take away the non-fornicator's right to put him away" then come. We cannot provide anything for expenses. Whatever amount of time you spend in teaching this, we will spend the same amount of time debunking it here. Where exactly are you located? I will be making a trip to Indiana this October? If I am in the area, I will speak to any church who is willing and defeat "The guilty fornicator can take away the non-fornicator's right to put him away" and a second error, "If you don't accept this then you are a false teacher."

As for your point:

<<*** Brother Wallace, you did factually state that this discussion was "more absurd" than one telling a woman she could not participate in congregational singing. "This matter" must refer to the fact that some men teach a put away wife cannot remarry and that it is doctrine, while some (like you) teach that a put away wife can remarry - but that all this is a matter of Romans 14. You want the citation? Approximately 10 paragraphs down in your message titled "My observations/answer regarding "multiple causes" and this movement against Joe Price, Ron Halbrook, Mike Willis, etc." dated (on my computer) as 6/17/05 4:42pm:

"It wouldn't surprise me if some brethren would forbid women from congregational singing, but as absurd as that would be, the things in this discussion are even more!"

So, again I ask: do you really think that "the things in this discussion" are "even more" absurd than a man who prohibits a woman from remarrying?>>

This again shows my point that this is a contentious discussion and a striving about "words."

2Ti 2:14 "Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers."

1 Tim. 6:4, "he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions"

Teaching that a fornicator can take away the "innocent" right to put him away is in fact, absurd.

<<*** Sure. Jesus prohibits divorce unless it is for fornication. If you are put away by your spouse, remain unmarried.

David, Paul already added "remain unmarried" or "be reconciled" in verse 11. Again, I have never said, as you are once again saying I said, that she can "wait until they remarry - then you can carry out some sort of 'mental divorce' and be free to remarry. I cannot understand where you get that I am teaching that? I have never taught that. Please, read my responses more carefully. I have never read Mike Willis teach that. Ron did a meeting in Sunnyside and never taught that. Perhaps another fellow has taught that, but I have never suggested a "waiting game" where someone can then put away a spouse after they remarry? You know I am wondering if we are really not as far away from each other as has first been assumed. I DO NOT teach that people can be abandoned, then wait till he remarries, then put him away for fornication. I guess I may see how some could come to that conclusion, I would not be quick to disfellowship them, but I haven't reached that conclusion and would NEVER advise one to do such. Please believe me on this one. My main concern is another issue and that is where a fornicator is the first to initiate the "legal divorce" and that somehow bars the innocent one from putting him away.

<<That is, they have a right to be married. Other marriages, where one or both of the parties is already bound to another, are adulterous. God does not join them. If a woman, never before married, marries a man and learns the marriage is adulterous, the marriage must end. Since she has never been bound to one by God, she is free to lawfully marry a person who is also free to lawfully marry.>>

I agree! But such shows that a person could marry a person who is "divorced" technically, and yet not be marrying an adulterer. That is all I am saying, there are some exceptions to the RULE as it is stated and most naturally received. Your Point above is an example of such.

Brother Watts, I think we are arguing two different things. Brother Warnock and brother Cavender can speak for themselves. I have met brother Warnock once and was impressed by his ability to quote scripture when he is nearly blind. I have read particulars in his material on Revelation that I didn't necessarily agree with, but I didn't consider him a false teacher. I don't know what all people are teaching. This as I said before, is a doctrine that I can see how one may come to that conclusion. I cannot come to that conclusion, however. If someone taught that here at Sunnyside, then I would also seek to balance it out with the fact that while the divorce may seem wrong (in the situation where one is deserted), but that doesn't make it not real and they have no right to remarry, even if the deserter remarried. With or without the legal/civil laws that this country makes regarding divorce, the "cause" of that divorce/separation was not fornication, but desertion. I sense that you assumed what I believe and therefore we started banging heads hard when we do not see really differently on this aspect. My main concern is this setting aside the commandment of God (the exception of Matthew 19:9; 5:32) simply because the guilty fornicator is the first to the courthouse. That is the bulk of my contention.

<<You apparently believe that if a man who cheats on his wife, divorces his wife, that she can wait until such time that he remarries and then somehow put him away. If not, please clarify.>>

No. I believe that she needs to be given time to assess the situation before she chooses to divorce him. She needs time to think what she will do (how much time, we cannot regulate or state, only a Pharisee could state dogmatically), time to absorb the shock, to see if any fruit of sorrow and repentance is present, to see if she can ever trust him again, to see if she can even chose to live with him now that he violated their bed/his body with another (which is her body, 1 Cor. 7:1ff). If in that time of thinking, he is the first to initiate the divorce with lawyers, etc., we cannot limit her right by Jesus to put him away? Do you believe we can? Or do you believe this rests as a personal judgment? If yes, then the bulk of our debate has ceased, because I agree with your point that in a divorce where fornication was not present, and one later remarries that the other cannot then scream "adultery," "I am putting you away for adultery." I cannot go that far. That is where I have always stood.

<<Let's also make sure something is very clear. This matter is not about a "race to the courthouse." Suppose a man cheats on his wife while they are married. She finds out. He decides to divorce her. He hires a lawyer. It matters not that he hires an attorney first. She is always free to participate in the divorce process and let it be known to all that she is putting him away for adultery.>>

Well, the above has been the bulk of my contention. I have received emails to the contrary FROM THIS LIST. One on this list, and he is was very cordial, even went so far to imply that if the government would not allow divorce or marriage that we would have to obey the government. I cannot go that far. I consider such as setting aside the word of God (Heb. 13:4) and a doctrine which is essentially of demons (1 Tim. 4:3). It would be demonic for a government to create such a law (as Emperor Claudius II did) and would be demonic to enforce! I am delighted to see that we agree on this! Joe Price believes the same when we last talked about these things. I can see how some people can reach that conclusion which you referred to, I cannot, but I am not prepared to label them a false teacher at this point.

<<But, if she does nothing and does not participate in the divorce process for the purpose of putting him away - and allows herself to be put away, then she is bound by Jesus' law not to remarry.>>

I don't know about that. She could look at the divorce as being of her, even though he did all the grunt work. I personally do not know why she would want to wait, but some women are more forgiving, hoping that he will come to his senses and come back.

Thus, you understand why I see no Bible authority to date for the idea that Paul grants additional, non-fornication reasons to divorce one's mate. ***>>

It is okay for the believer in this circumstance. It doesn't mean that she can remarry.

<<When she puts distance between her and injury at his hands, is she causing him to sin? Is she witholding her conjugal obligations? Not at all. The deprivation of sexual duty is his choice, insofar as he (to borrow from your hypothetical) beat her up, doused her with gasoline, etc. He made the choice to "douse her with gasoline." She simply followed a Biblical pattern of avoiding certain injury and death.>>

Agreed again. Yet I am willing to say that she can take whatever legal terms that she needs to have protection.

<<I'm happy to oblige. The Bible doesn't say how much time and distance. But the Bible shows plenty of examples of people taking steps to separate themselves from violence and injury. I see Bible authority to move away from violence and injury. I see no Bible authority for divorce. And really, the truth is that you don't either. You appear to assume it must be possible because it fits our view of what is good and reasonable. But whether it fits our liking or not, in view of the repeated prohibitions on divorce, where's the clear authority?***>>

Yet, putting 1000 miles between the two certainly seems like it is "apoluo" to me in the essence of its meaning (Mk. 6:36; Lk. 13:12; Acts 3:13; 13:3; 15:30; 19:41; 28:25; etc).

<<Funny thing about your use of 1 Cor. 7:11ff. Paul repeatedly argues against divorce. Yet you come away with the idea that he permits it in some non-fornication circumstances. But based upon what you have written, I don't see it. >>

Based upon "even if she does depart. . ." (1 Cor. 7:12). Yes he does argue against divorce because that is the Lord's teaching. Once again, he is addressing a situation that the Lord did not address and therefore required extra revelation than what was written in Matt. 5:32, 19:9. She can depart, as Paul permits, without violating Matt. 5:32 because she doesn't "cause" him to commit adultery.

<<I'm amused by your determination that I'm "a solidier boy for Don Martin." I don't answer to brother Martin any more than Don Martin answers to me. Never have and never will. I did not ask you to debate this issue because Don told me that I should try to get you to debate. I fear that your imagination is running wild. To help with your apparent imagination difficulties, let me tell you something of myself:

I left behind my own lucrative technology consulting firm in order to preach full-time.
I travelled this country and worked with the largest corporations at the highest levels.
I did not compromise to anybody or anything in business, and I most certainly am not going to do it while preaching the Gospel.
I have dedicated my life to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and work for no man and certainly no preacher.
I answer to the elders at the congregation where I preach, but no one else apart from God and His revealed word.

If my teaching of God's word happens to correlate to what another man teaches - fine. If not, so be it.

Call me what you will, but I think in your heart you know such charges are unfair and flippant.***>>

True! I reckon I was a little floored that Don had referred to me has Ron's soldier in a certain email and that he mentioned the hope of you debating me in the same and so I took it to you. I apologize. I was out of line. I am glad that you gave up "rubbish" to preach the gospel (Phil. 3:8).

<<*** I'm mostly with you - until you come you come to: "I have also shown that a person could send their spouse away without violating Mt. 5:32 if they were in a circumstance similar to that of 1 Cor. 7:10ff." I'm sorry brother Wallace, you've not shown me any authority for that. Paul's instructions repeatedly are "don't divorce." What 1 Cor. 7:10ff shows is that if your mate does divorce you - you're not a slave to follow them. That's far different from proving that you can do the divorcing and it be lawful. Again, you state that 1 Cor. 7:10ff "addresses a known problem in the church where one can choose to be unmarried or reconciled..." But brother Wallace, where in 1 Cor. 7:10ff does Paul describe a person "choosing" to be unmarried as a lawful choice? Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:10 - don't do it. If she does depart - that's sin. Now what do we do? We remain unmarried or be reconciled. Nothing in 1 Cor. 7:10ff that you've shown - authorizes divorce for non-fornication reasons. If there's a convincing argument that will clearly show Bible authority, I've not seen it yet.***>>

I used to look at "if she departs" as sin, but it doesn't make sense that Paul would be suggesting an option that is sinful. If such, He should have said with what is consistent with the rest of the Bible for sin, "If she departs, she needs to repent and reconcile." The whole flavor of this text appears to me to be emphasizing that she is not under bondage to him. Let it be understood, that when I preach, I preach Matthew 5:32 exactly as is just as I preach Ephesians 5:24 as is.

*** On the contrary:

Paul - Let not the wife depart from her husband. If she departs, let her remain unmarried. (1 Cor. 7:10-11). (Paul clearly says that Christ says - don't do it).
Watts - Don't divorce. If you do, remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Wallace - Its ok to divorce. If you do, remain unmarried or be reconciled.

Wouldn't you be wise to find a clear statement from Paul - that such and such is not a good idea, but if you do it anyway - its not sin. Perhaps something like 1 Cor. 7:25, 36?>>

If Paul was simply restating what Jesus said, then he would not have said, "But to the rest I, not the Lord, say." Rather, he restates the law, then he addresses a situation about the hostility that came upon faith and marriage. In those situations, where the husband was not willing to live with his wife it seems to imply that she is not guilty for divorcing him when/if he leaves. "And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him" (v. 13). I know that you will say "Paul says not to divorce him." I agree. But that is "IF" he is willing to live with her.

<<Your question to me about "belief plus baptism = salvation" is most amusing. The completeness of Bible teaching shows that one must believe, repent, confess and be baptized in order to be saved. How do we know this? Because God clearly states it. These are not "exceptions" to the rule that belief plus baptism equals salvation. Rather, this is simply the completely Bible picture based upon what God revealed.>>

Yea, and I am suggesting to you that the completeness of God's law on divorce must take into consideration 1 Cor. 7:11-13 and the "if" that is there, something the Lord did not address specifically. They therefore compliment and do not contradict. If he leaves, she can divorce without being the "cause" of his subsequent adultery when he remarries (Matt. 5:32). She is not guilty because he didn't want to stay in a house where the faith was lived and taught. Do you see what I am saying? I am not asking if you believe it. Just do you somewhat see my point?

So:

The scriptures teach that those who have never been married can marry; those whose spouse died can remarry and those who put their spouse away for fornication can remarry.
I do not, nor have I ever contended that one can be deserted or put their spouse away for some other reason than fornication and wait for them to remarry and then put them away for fornication.
I fully affirm that the guilty fornicator does not have the right to take the God-given right of the non-fornicator away by being the first to the courthouse and the instigator of the divorce.
apoluo has a far deeper meaning than just "divorce" as we are accustom to using the term. "Divorce" is seemingly too limited of a term for such. We should guard against impregnating "apoluo" with American laws on "divorce"
I have shown that Paul had addressed something that was not addressed by the Lord. It was therefore given due attention by the apostle where he releases a mate from being in bondage to a marriage where the unbelieving husband chooses not to live with her. Faith and the family could be distressed where an unbeliever wants to leave. It is seemingly implied that when the believer divorces this departing unbeliever, that she is not sinning; she is not causing him to commit adultery but she must remain unmarried and if this rift is ever removed, she should try reconciliation (1 Cor. 7:10-15, 23, 26).
People can reach different judgments about "particulars" associated in a divorce where we should guard against condemning another as a false teacher even though we have strong opinions about it (who started the divorce, "adultery" on paper, or "must be stated in court").
The scriptures teach that one man is to be bound to one wife for life with one exception for divorce and remarriage--fornication (Matt. 19:9).
The scriptures teach that divorce for any other reason than fornication causes the other to commit adultery (i.e. when they remarry or engage in any sexual bed; cf. Matt. 5:32). The scriptures however address a situation where one may have an unbelieving spouse who doesn't want to live in that marriage and that believer is therefore not the cause of his subsequent adultery when he leaves if she divorces him (1 Cor. 7:12-13).

The above is my position(s). This is what I preach. I seek to patiently teach it to others. Sometimes I foul up with passion. I will seek to do better. If such makes me a false teacher in the eyes of men or you, then so be it. I will rather stand with Christ and be spoken ill of than have the praise of men and be lost (Acts 5:29; Matt. 5:11). I preach it the way I read it. I do not preach it the way another does. I do not preach to serve another leader. I am not another's puppet. Such has been the accusation against me and I hate it as much as brother Watts does when the accusation was made of him.

After reading brother Watt's last email, I deem him as more reasonable than when I read his first. I hope that he also does of me now. It is unfortunate, that our first email meeting had to be in the format of this. I wish him well in his work as an evangelist and will give him the right hand of fellowship, should he ever venture through eastern Washington. I see no point in debating this any further with brother Watts. It is seemingly a dead horse in my mind. I give brother David Watts Jr. permission to pass this note on in its entirety.

Cordially,

Steven J. Wallace