|
Exposing The Sophistry Of Joel Gwin's Debate Charts: by Bill Reeves and Tim Haile August 02, 2003 Throughout the "putting-away" controversy, some have charged us with taking our position on the basis of the seeming unfairness of a position that would disallow the right or remarriage for the innocent spouse of a fornicating mate. Brother Gwin joined the ranks of these men by introducing the following chart:
(This false charge that we base our position on the "unfairness" of the situation is also found in charts: 24, 39, and 45). This is a generic chart, not necessarily applicable to this particular debate. Brother Reeves’ position is not based in any way on emotions, opinions, human reasoning, nor on anything other than what the Bible says on the subject of the right of the innocent spouse to put away a fornicator-mate. Matthew 19:9a implies that if the innocent spouse repudiates a mate guilty of fornication he does not commit adultery upon remarrying. “This is what the Bible says on this subject.” Brother Reeves and I have clearly demonstrated that our position is based upon a divine permission that is expressed in the Bible in the form of a direct statement. Jesus taught that an innocent person has the right to repudiate his fornicator-mate and marry another (Matt. 19:9a). This is what we teach. Jesus made no other stipulations. We make no other stipulations. Brother Gwin's position does. What if we were to charge brother Gwin and others with taking their position because they don't think it seems fair to allow the innocent party to repudiate his fornicator-mate if that fornicator had already repudiated him? And for those who stubbornly cling to the notion that biblical putting-away is synonymous with civil divorce procedure, what if we were to charge them with taking their position because they think it is unfair that that we don't allow the judge to be the determinant in establishing the right of remarriage for the innocent party? Would it be right for us to make such a charge angainst these brethren and so impugn their motives? Of course not! Is it okay for them to impugn our motives? No, but they persist in doing it anyway. In the next chart Joel describes what the present issue is not. Please consider the chart and we shall have some things to say in response:
This chart claims that the issue is not a number of things. No passages are cited, just assertions made! Let’s consider each one. a. Note that the author of the chart inserts the word “conditional.” God grants the right to the innocent spouse to repudiate the fornicator-mate and to remarry. But brother Gwin asserts that this right is conditional; he will argue that it is conditioned upon whether or not some specific ungodly action preceded the exercise of that divine right. If the ungodly spouse puts away his mate for an unscriptural cause, an action that is sinful and not approved by God and that leaves both spouses still bound by the marriage bond, then “magically” the divine right disappears! Sinful action has superceded divine permission! God now can’t allow what he wills to permit because some sinner took some sinful action! That’s the consequence of brother Gwin’s doctrine. b. Some brethren will deny the exercise of the divine right if the fornicating spouse gets to the courthouse to file for divorce before the innocent spouse can do so. Brother Gwin would not tell us (see Reeves’ PowerPoint slides #369, 370) if he affirms that “putting away” is synonymous with civil procedure. If he believes that they are synonymous, one can’t put away without employing civil procedure. If he believes that they are not synonymous, to be consistent he must disfellowship his brethren who agree with his proposition but are “wrong” on this matter. Even if brother Gwin doesn't take the “race to the courthouse” position, he certainly takes the “race to repudiation” position. If the fornicator-mate says, “I put you away,” before the innocent spouse can say the words, he thereby stymies the exercise of the divine permission. c. Brother Gwin claims that this issue isn't about countersuits. However, in some divorce cases, this may be very much about "countersuits!" In his 2nd question to brother Gwin, brother Reeves asked, "Is the phrase 'put away,' as used in your proposition, synonymous with civil, or legal, divorce?" Brother Gwin answered brother Reeves' question by saying , "In my proposition, the phrase 'put away,' simply refers to whatever (in any given culture or society) results in the dissolution of a marriage." In his second question to brother Reeves, brother Gwin asked, "If a man 'puts away' his wife FOR fornication, at what point does she actually become a 'put away' person? He then offered brother Reeves the following two answer choices (neither was a viable option):
NONE OF US accept the first choice, and this includes brother Gwin. Since brother Gwin offered only one other choice as an answer, logic dictates that this is his own choice. By combining brother Gwin's actual answer to brother Reeves' second question with brother Gwin's suggested answer in his own second question, we learn a little more about brother Gwin's position. He sees biblical putting-away as "whatever" "recognizable and verifiable" "action" "(in one's culture or society) results in the dissolution of a marriage." This affirms no particular procedure, but words do mean things. Brother Gwin refused to plainly state this in the debate, but his combined remarks in the debate questions imply that biblical putting-away is synonymous with civil divorce procedure, at least, "in" [our] "culture and society." After all, our culture recognizes civil divorce as the action that results in the dissolution of a marriage! Joel said, "the issue is not about counter suits." We disagree! Brother Gwin's debate teaching does speak to the issue of counter suits. If putting-away is civil divorce, then a counter suit is a counter putting-away! d. Brother Gwin most certainly binds a proviso to the divine permission to put away a fornicator-mate and to remarry. He binds that an innocent person cannot put away his fornicator-mate in cases where that fornicator-mate has already taken some ungodly divorce action against him. Jesus nowhere stated this as an additional qualifier for the innocent spouse. e. Will brother Gwin disfellowship his brethren who insist that “fornication” must be specified on the court document as the cause for the divorce? Or, more precisely, do those brethren have the right to disfellowship brother Gwin for his not requiring that the cause of fornication be stated on the court document? Perhaps those brethren will label brother Gwin and his company as taking the "mental cause position" on MDR? Can we expect a new website to be constructed and maintained for the sole purpose of exposing the heresy of this "Mental Cause Position?" f. Brother Gwin and his associates have made a law that in essence most certainly supercedes God’s law on the matter. Jesus used three words in his law concerning the matter: “except for fornication.” Brother Gwin adds his proviso to that: and provided there has not been a previous putting-away. If there has been one, he affirms, then God’s law is superceded by man’s law, because now the innocent spouse may not do what God said he could do! g. Here brother Gwin is trying to cover his tracks! Throughout the debate, he affirmed a position that doesn’t allow a “put-away woman” to remarry. He made repeated appeals to Matthew 5:32b, 19:9b, and Luke 16:18b in an effort to prove his position. This argument is all over his charts! But he knows that, when “reconciliation of a divorced couple” takes place, the “put-away person” (having been left unmarried) is now remarrying. So he here contradicts himself. We are forced to accept that a "put-away woman" is allowed to remarry only in cases where Joel Gwin believes it is okay for her to do so! h. The same thing applies here to “after the death of a spouse.” He is forced to make exceptions to his absolute rule of no remarriage for any put-away person. Again, it is all over his charts! And, again, he is inconsistent. i. This is strange, given the fact that one of his charts gives the definition of the Greek word, “apoluo”! In the next chart brother Gwin claims to identify what the issue is:
a. He claims that the issue is “Is a divorce really a divorce?” Whom is brother Gwin debating? Where is the quote from brother Reeves’ writings or words that he denies that a divorce is really a divorce? Let him present the proof, or withdraw this line from his chart! A number of his charts are generic charts and have no bearing at all on the “Gwin-Reeves Debate”! This is one of them. They weren’t prepared for the “Gwin-Reeves Debate,” but for greater exposure for the false doctrine of those who prepared them. Some of these charts have brother Gwin debating a phantom opponent, and at the same time misrepresenting brother Reeves. b. His second and third questions are like the first one: they have no bearing at all in a debate with brother Reeves. Did Joel Gwin prepare this chart? If so, why didn’t he first ask brother Reeves about his beliefs on the first three points of this chart, if he didn’t know and really wanted to know? If someone else prepared it, what did he care about the "Gwin-Reeves Debate?" It appears that he simply wanted to get as much of his material before the public as possible, no matter what! “Recognize” and “in the eyes of God” are expressions often used to convey the thought of approval. Obviously the Omniscient God knows everything that happens (Prov. 15:3; Heb. 4:13), but that does not mean that he approves of it. Yes, God is cognizant of any putting-away that is done unscripturally. Yes, it is possible for an innocent mate to be put away BEFORE the eyes of God, but not IN the eyes of God (i.e., with God’s approval)! c. Jesus didn’t specify anything about when the fornication has to occur; but such is the Gwin doctrine. Jesus specified the cause for which an innocent spouse may repudiate a guilty mate and remarry. That which justifies a putting-away and remarriage is having the cause that Jesus specified. Jesus said not a syllable about a previous nor subsequent anything; he said “except for fornication”! The “after” and “subsequent” language is the concoction of men. The phrase, “mental divorce,” is a misrepresentation and a display of prejudicial language. If a man and a woman make vows, is that a “mental marriage?” Yes? or No? If they both later disavow, is that a “mental divorce?” One is no more “mental,” nor less, than the other. Both made vows; both may repudiate them. d. No, the issue is not over a so-called “second putting away”! The issue is over the right of the innocent spouse to do one, and only one, putting-away and remarry. It is the first and only one exercised when the cause of fornication becomes evident in the picture. What others do, and how many times they might have done it, is totally irrelevant. Mk. 10:11,12 speaks of the husband putting away, and of the wife putting away. Is that “two puttings-away?” No, each one does one putting away, the first and only for either one of them. So, the phrase, “a second putting-away” is concocted to prejudice minds. e. The Bible teaches a necessary cause to be had in order to allow scriptural remarriage. The only sense in which “order” can be argued is that once fornication has occurred, the innocent spouse may then exercise his God-given right to repudiate and to remarry. The sequence argument is not the exclusive property of our opponents. By merely adding the word "bond" to "marriage," the sequence argument becomes ours. One starts with a marriage bond. Fornication is committed against an innocent bound mate. That innocent bound mate repudiates the fornicator for the cause of fornication. This is Matthew 19:9a and it our position! f. Neither is this last point of the chart the true issue. “Put away” means the same thing, basically, anytime. It is a verb (plus adverb) of action, translating the Greek word, “apoluo.” It has different “shades of meaning” as to specific applications, but basically it means to repudiate, dismiss, or bid depart. Only “in law” does it mean legal divorce. It does NOT mean to simply put physical space between two spouses. It is a total rejection of a spouse. It is a disavowing of the vows that were made. This completes part two of our study. Please check the next article in the series. Introduction | Part One of the Series | Part Three of the Series |
