Below is an email that was forwarded to me from a brother who sent it to me. It is not important for me to give his name so I deleted it. Other than that, everything remains the same. You will see that this “bold” email was sent to everyone on this list challenging me to a debate, but my email address was left out.
sjw
_______________________________________________________________________
From: XXXXXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:53 AM
To: Steven J. Wallace
Subject: FW: Update on Wallace-Watts conversation
Bro Wallace
I am not trying to aggravate you, but this email says he didn’t send it to you. I understand why you would end the conversation, but felt you should have a copy of what was sent regarding you.
I would file it somewhere, I would say this will come up again, and accuracy is often difficult later.
I am sorry if this offends you.
XXXXX XXXXXX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to MailSanctity, My Inbox is clean. What about yours?
If you are looking for a spam free email Inbox, I recommend the free trial
version of MailSanctity Spam Filter
-----Original
Message-----
From: David Watts Jr. [mailto:davidwattsjr@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:21 PM
To: Don Martin
Cc: '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@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;
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: Update on Wallace-Watts conversation
Dear
Brethren,
The purpose of this note is to update those on this email list, on the
conversation that brother Wallace and I were having regarding divorce and
remarriage.
If you wish not to
read this, please delete this message now. I apologize in advance if you do not
welcome this email.
Introduction:
Brother Wallace replied to my email of 6/20/05. I have moved it into a word
file attached to this message for simplicity of viewing. It is titled
"wallace point by point reply."
As can be noted in that file, brother Wallace began by insisting that I had
misrepresented his views. I stated that brother Wallace believes that if
a man puts away his wife, she can wait until he remarries, and then she can
"mentally divorce" him and lawfully marry another.
Brother Wallace stridently insists that he does not believe such a woman can
lawfully marry another. I believe he is an honest man and of course accept his
statement. But, it is clear that brother Wallace applies the mental divorce
theory to another scenario: one where a fornicating husband (as opposed to a
faithful husband) decides to divorce his wife. In his theory, brother Wallace
contends that if she allows herself to be put away, then she can apparently
later (after being put away) carry out some sort of "divorce" against
her ex-husband and lawfully marry another.
I apologize to brother Wallace for getting the scenario wrong.
Sadly, brother Wallace's application of the "mental divorce" theory
to the "fornicating husband" scenario is still false. Such an
application is utterly without Scriptural authority and basis. It encourages
adulterous marriages which if not repented of will result in condemnation of
souls.
Additionally, brother Wallace's arguments in favor of non-fornication lawful
causes for divorce are not compelling. I have found no Biblical basis for them,
only unnecessary conclusions. If one can make a more compelling case, I will
listen. Until then, I see no Biblical evidence for any non-fornication divorces
being lawful.
Emails:
Brother Wallace's long response ("wallace point by point reply.doc")
to me was a private response. He gave me permission to post it publicly to the
list if I do so in its entirety. I have also posted a document that contains
all of the private emails between us including his final email terminating our
conversation ("final email exchange.doc"). You'll have to read this
one in "reverse order" as the oldest email is at the bottom. The top
email contains his final email to me. In his final email he forbids me to send
him any further dialogue on this subject. In keeping with his request, this
email message does not include him as a recipient. Perhaps it will find its way
to him through other means.
He indicated that he may post "this entire discussion" on his
website. Since he has no qualms about these emails being made public, I will
gladly accomodate him by including them here.
I have decided not to reply point by point to his long response. First of all,
I believe all of the core arguments have been sufficiently addressed. Second,
I've found nothing new or innovative in his arguments. They remain as they have
been all along. Third, much of what was covered in his final formal reply
("wallace point by point.doc") has been addressed in the final
informal emails ("final email exchange.doc").
I have however made a few observations about his final email below.
Brother Wallace's Last Email:
I argued the following from Scripture:
Brother
Wallace believes that in such a case, the wife can some how, some way,
"divorce" him long after the divorce was over. But he's never shown
us the Biblical authority for this kind of "divorce."
In response to my final efforts, note brother Wallace's language toward me
(emphasis mine - dwjr):
This is what it boils down to brethren:
Sadly, this kind of emotional smear tactic continues to be brother
Wallace's modus operandi. When one finds he cannot overcome clear Bible
teaching, smear the opponent. Brethren have been accused of being Pharisaical
for insisting on the fact that baptism is immersion, that baptism is for the
remission of sins, that instrumental music is unlawful, that missionary
societies are unlawful, that the sponsoring church arrangement is unlawful,
that orphan's homes are unlawful and now we are labeled such for
insisting that Jesus prohibits a put away person from marrying another. Sad,
because that's the very thing Jesus said.
Read the emails if you wish. They are all here in their entirety.
Debate Update:
As you may recall, I asked brother Wallace to participate in a formal written
debate. He refused. Instead, he invited me to travel from Texas to Washington (at my cost) for an "equal-time" committment from him. That is, I
could speak to the church there, and he would get equal time. When asked if he
would permit a four night discussion, he repeated his committment of
"equal time."
At this point, I see no point in me travelling to Washington from Texas when we could accomplish the same good with a formal written discussion. However, if
he will email me with a proposal for a oral debate in a more central location,
with a reasonable debate format, I will gladly seek to participate.
If brother Wallace wishes to return to this informal discussion method, I will
be happy to respond to each of the points he made in "wallace point by
point reply.doc" If brother Wallace wishes to engage in a formal written
discussion, as opposed to this informal format, I am willing to participate. If
he will be forthcoming with reasonable debate formats and a reasonable location
conducive to both of us, I will be quite eager to participate.
In the interim, I suggest the following propositions would be useful for any
such future discussions between us:
The
Scriptures teach that when a wife is divorced by her husband (a man who was
unfaithful to the marriage) she may lawfully marry another.
Affirm: Steven J. Wallace
Deny:
David Watts Jr.
The Scriptures teach
that when a wife is divorced by her husband (a man who was unfaithful to the
marriage) she may not lawfully marry another.
Affirm: David Watts Jr.
Deny:
Steven J. Wallace
Sincerely,
David Watts Jr.