BROTHER WATTS' "SHORT" EMAIL ABOUT HIS
MISREPRESENTATION OF MY POSITION. . .
Brother
Wallace,
Jesus' command that a put away woman may not remarry is clear. This is not a
striving about words. If it is, then we're striving about words when we argue
that baptism is FOR the remission of sins. In fact, all the arguments that
baptism is FOR the remission of sins, and not because of the remission of sins
- are more technical and more demanding that what we're discussing here.
I'll send a note to the group. I want you to have an opportunity to be
comfortable with what I'll send. If we can't agree - you'll have a chance to
respond of course. The apology/clarification is in purple below. The text in
black is some continued teaching on my part. I know you'll disagree with the
teaching. My concern is that you are comfortable with the facts as I have
stated them in my apology/clarification.
It is obvious that you would teach a wife that was put away by a cheating
husband, that she can carry out some sort of "divorce" after the
divorce - and thus remarry. Its not striving about words to simply note that
you permit what Jesus condemns.
My error was in explaining the circumstances in which you permit this.
I thought you permitted this "mental divorce" in the circumstance
where the divorce takes place, and one of the spouses commits adultery. I take
you at your word - that you do not preach this. But you do apparently allow for
this kind of "mental divorce" in a different circumstance, when a
spouse was put away by a person who had committed adultery.
I say "apparently" because you dodged the question and you did not
answer it. I'll try again.
A husband cheats. Wife discovers it. He decides to divorce her. He starts the
divorce process. She does not engage herself in the divorce process for the
purpose of putting him away for fornication. She allows herself to be put away.
Does the Scripture allow her to lawfully marry another? If so, what must she
do?
In the interim, here is the statement I propose to send to the list:
Dear
Brethren,
Brother Wallace has contended that I misrepresented him. We took our
conversation offline - so that I may determine whether or not I did so.
I have concluded that I did inadvertenly misrepresent him. I made a mistake in
the scenario in which brother Wallace allows for a put away
person to "divorce" and lawfully marry another. I argued that he
allowed it in a case where a man divorces his wife, she waits for him to marry
again, then she can "divorce" him and marry lawfully. He states that
he does not teach this. He is an honest man. I believe him. I apologize
to him and the list for my error.
Brother Wallace does allow a put away person to
"divorce" and lawfully marry another in a different scenario. That
scenario is this: a man cheats on his wife and then determines to divorce his
wife. If she does nothing and allows herself to be put away, she becomes a put
away wife. Brother Wallace believes she can somehow "divorce" him
after the divorce and lawfully marry again.
As this list knows, I find this
teaching utterly without Scriptural authority. Jesus three times forbids
marriage to a put away woman. Christ says no, brother Wallace says yes.
Based on Jesus' prohibition against marrying a woman, I teach the following in
such a scenario: When a fornicating husband seeks to divorce his wife, she must
engage herself in the divorce process with the full intention of putting him
away for fornication. It matters not what the divorce papers ultimately say as
to the reason. It matters not what the Judge eventually says as to the reason.
She must not sit still and become the put away wife. If she allows herself to
be put away, she is forbidden remarriage.
(I may include other writing in my note to the group. But this will be the text
of the clarification/apology you have asked for.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[One can compare David’s last
email to me versus the bullish one sent to the list without my name. But notice
how he could justify it by his parenthetical note: “(I may include other
writing in my not to the group. . .)”]
Here is my response:
To
all:
I
never wanted to email this list again and I would not unless I thought this was
important. In any controversy, I believe that we should try to act has
honorable as possible and in some ways that requires a good deal of judgment on
our parts. However, there are some things that all should see as plainly
dishonorable.
I
have received an email from a person who received David Watts' latest material.
I would not be addressing this list if it were not for the underhanded and
deceitful working of Mr. Watts. Below I will post what David sent me, and you
can compare that with what he emailed you.
- You will notice that what he sent me
lacks the rambling of brief and broken quotes of me that he sent
you.
- You will notice that what he sent me lacks
these seemingly more reasonable propositions that he sent
you challenging me for debate. (These are more reasonable in
comparison to the foolish one that he projected earlier in this
debate.) That is pretty bold to email PROPOSITIONS FOR
DEBATE to everyone but the one you are challenging! This is
completely unacceptable, even if Watts said to me, "(I may
include other writing in my note to the group. But this will be the text
of the clarification/apology you have asked for.)" If this was not so
cowardly, it would be hilarious!
- Below you will not find
Watts' complaining about how unreasonable it is for him to drive to Sunnyside, WA. Folks, I never suggest of another what I would not or will not do. When I
saw the "doctrinal error" of Answers In Genesis" I traveled
from Sunnyside, WA to Cincinnati, OH to engage in a two night debate not
knowing how much it would cost me. I didn't let distance determine
the outcome.
- You will not find how Watts complains that
my responses are "long." No, he simply wants to dissuade you
from reading them. Yet, they are only "long" to one who has
trouble with the truth and with them. These are "long" but Watts wants a written debate? Sounds disingenuous to me! How are they any longer than his?
The thing that is "long" in this whole ordeal has been my temper
considering the overwhelming email I have received and sought to the best
of my ability to respond, only to have several say "You didn't answer
me." I have probably had conversations going on with 10 people
in this list! Watts has just had me presumably, and he complains
about my being "long." (I would hate to know what he thinks
about my preaching!)
- You will not find below the complaint that
he wants a written debate. . .excuse me, but would someone please tell
David what has been going on for the last several days? I beg
anyone on this list to inform him. Perhaps he means a "formal written
debate." Watts, you have made your point to the list and all, and
that is this:
- That Steven Wallace believes people can
divorce divorce for any reason under the sun and later when one marries
again the other can put them away for fornication (he finally retracted
this but then tried to justify it again with another scenario).
- The guilty fornicator can take away the
Jesus given right to the non fornicator.
- The Scriptures teach that when a faithful
vow-abiding wife is divorced by her faithless vow-breaking fornicating
husband she may not (ever) lawfully repudiate/put away and
marry another.
- The non-fornicator must be
"engaged" in the divorce, or she is a put away person and
cannot remarry (yet Watts never told the specifics of this).
- That what Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians 7:12
is the same thing that Jesus had already address with nothing additional
(so it seems as you denied and would not allow for what I said.)
- I have made my points:
- Watts has not defined what
"engaged" is. You have not given the specific protocol for her
to follow and submit to, yet you base the salvation of her soul upon it
(recall how you made this equal to baptism). When the men in Acts 2
ask "What shall we do?" (v. 37), Peter was specific. When we
ask Watts, what shall the non-fornicator do to "engage" he is
silent. Watts has not given what she MUST do in order to
"engage" in the divorce that her husband connived and sprang
upon her. He also negated, by his doctrine, that she cannot
protest the divorce, that she cannot resist the divorce, but must
fully "engage" in the divorce as if she is putting him away or
she forever loses her God-given right. She cannot hold out hoping that he
will come to his senses and perhaps save the marriage bond, but must
fully engage to put him away so that she can hurry up and make another
bond with another man. What a calloused Pharisee! Here is
an outsider who thinks he knows what should go on in every divorce,
and he has all the answers and formulas for every divorce scenario--one
would think divorces are all in cookie cutter pattern!
- yet, if someone doesn't agree to
your list of things, your protocol, you must mark them as a false
teacher and avoid them (Rom. 16:17ff) .
- if someone adds to your list, your must
mark them as a false teacher and avoid them.
- if someone subtracts from your list, you
must mark them and avoid them.
- and. . .you must inquire over EVERY
DIVORCE THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE by all Christians who have
gone through a divorce and make sure that the innocent in each
case has submitted to your protocol, your method , or you
must rebuke, challenge their present state, challenge their present
remarriage as being in error, be willing to demand it be
divided , and if they don't get out, you need to withdraw
from them and deliver them to Satan (1 Cor.
5). "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you
are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself;
for you who judge practice the same things." Do you
investigate every divorce as to the method of dissolution, or are
you one who simply likes to have an academic debate about divorce?
If this list agrees with David, you all have a lot of work to do!
- Watts has placed the method "of engagement" on par with the
"reason" for the divorce as per Matthew 5:32.
- We cannot be judgmental over certain particulars
and personal scruples regarding divorce.
- Watts is behaving like a Pharisee, "For they bind heavy
burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they
themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matt.
23:4). He binds his heavy agenda upon others.
- Watts strains at gnats and swallows camels in
justifying another or giving no attention to another who displaces
any relevance or application for the entire chapter of Romans 14
save verses 11, 12, 16. Likewise he casts a blind eye on one who
perverts "faithful children" regarding the
highest position of responsibility in the local
church. Yet, Watts is bound and determined to strain that the
guilty fornicator really does have the lawful ability to take away
the Jesus-given right to the non-fornicator and is willing and
pressing that we making it a matter of fellowship!
- That this discussion is bordering on,
or perhaps fully engulfed in violating 2 Timothy 2:23, "But
avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife." That
is all this dispute has generated!
- That what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 7:12ff is
a situation that the Lord had not addressed and is an exception to
the "causing" another to commit adultery RULE (as per Matt.
5:32). My contention was that one doesn't cause a mate to commit adultery
when they put away that mate who doesn't want to live with them as
is seemingly implied from the text. I showed that they must remain
unmarried and seek reconciliation if and when it is feasible. I did
not contend that they sinned in doing such.
- And now I will throw in a new
one. David is not a worthy opponent to debate in ANY format
as by stealth he emailed propositions for debate to a list of over
70 people, but not to the one that he supposedly wants, is
urging, and hoping to debate. That I told conveyed him not
to email me again is no excuse. He should have placed this in the
email he sent me. David, has displayed wisdom that is not from
above. James 3:14, 15, "But if you have bitter envy and
self–seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This
wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual,
demonic."
I
have no ill will towards David, but I hope that he will repent of his
boastful and divisive ways and come to realize how his doctrine is a part
of demonic doctrines (1 Tim. 4:3). Nothing good comes from it. He
needs to do a better job at "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2
Tim. 2:15).
Steven J. Wallace
www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com
www.revelationandcreation.com
___________________________________________________________________
Watts’ last response. . .
From: David Watts Jr. [davidwattsjr@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 8:37 AM
To: Steven J. Wallace
Cc: 'Don Martin'; 'JERRY '; 'Virgil Gooselaw'; 'Pat Donahue'; 'Rob
Adkins'; 'Steve Cox'; 'Steve& Melanie Bashor'; 'rebecca cox'; 'Ray &
Laura Eikerts'; 'Michael Cox'; 'Jennifer Stevenson'; 'Jeff Cox @ work'; 'Jeff
& Cheryl Cox'; 'Janice Martin'; 'Jack andDarlene Mitchell'; 'Georgia
Watson'; 'Eric and Donna Grace'; 'DianneAdkins'; 'Carl Stevenson'; 'Bryan and Deniece
Morris'; 'Sarah Grace'; T19461964@aol.com; 'Joe Price'; 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; 'Micky Galloway'; 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; 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'
Subject: Re: A clarification
Steven,
- You complain that the last thing I
sent you - has different content that what I sent to the list. You
forget that you forbade me to send you anything else. In fact, you
said you would create a rule in your email to delete anything further that
I sent you. I would have gladly sent you all the things you complain of,
but you closed the door. You walked away from the conversation. It is
hardly sensible to complain when the conversation continued without you.
- You complain that I did not send you
the propositions for the debate that I put in my "update"
message. How could I? You promised to delete any more "material"
that I sent you. You walked away AND forbade me from sending you
anything further. It is hardly sensible to complain when the conversation
continued without you.
- My use of the word "long"
was intended to aid in indentification between the two attachments. It was
not a complaint.
- The email text of mine that you speak
of: "Below I will post what David
sent me, and you can compare that with what he emailed you." was
factually included in my "update" email. It was in the
attachment entitled "final email exchange.doc" Are you sure your
friend forwarded you both attachments? It was all there!
If you want to stay in the
conversation, let's talk. If you want to shoot and then declare that you won't
be back, that's not a dialogue.
Finally, please reconsider your approach. In your last email and this email you
resort to a variety of slurs about me. In this most recent email of yours, you
say of me, "dishonorable, underhanded, deceitful, cowardly, hilarious, a
calloused Pharisee, behaving like a Pharisee, boastful and divisive ways,
etc."
When you're ready to leave the personal smears and return to the issue,
let's talk.
Sincerely,
David Jr.
_______________________________________________________________