Brother Gwin used this next chart as a summary and review chart. In order for it to be accurate, it would have been necessary for brother Gwin to have accurately represented brother Reeves in his earlier charts. That, having not been done, rendered this chart a complete failure and misrepresentation of brother Reeves' position:

    This chart of brother Gwin’s is designed to divert the minds of the audience from what they actually heard from brother Reeves as he proved his position. The audience, and those who listen to the debate by recordings, will have to forget what brother Reeves said in order to believe brother Gwin’s baseless charges!

   Its four points are vague generalizations that totally misrepresent brother Reeves (as so many of brother Gwin’s charts do), as we can easily show in this review. All four are pure ipse dixits from brother Gwin.

   All that brother Reeves had to do to prove his position was to cite Mt. 19:9a and apply it to the woman of brother Gwin’s proposition. Brother Reeves had wanted to affirm the following proposition: “The Scriptures teach that when fornication occurs, the innocent spouse, one bound by the marriage bond, is given the right to repudiate the fornicating mate to whom he has been bound by God, and to remarry.” Brother Gwin refused to deny this proposition, unless it had his proviso attached to it. Here are his words: “EVEN IF HE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DIVORCED BY HIS UNGODLY MATE.” So, according to brother Gwin, he accepts the necessary inference drawn from Mt. 19:9a only if the innocent spouse, who has the cause of fornication with which to repudiate a fornicator-mate and to remarry, has not been previously divorced! This Jesus did not say nor imply; brother Gwin simply adds his proviso to the words of Jesus!

   The proposition, as worded by brother Reeves, and given above, sounds too much like what Jesus clearly implied in Mt. 19:9a, and so brother Gwin could not well deny it. So, “what Bro. Reeves has to do in an effort to prove his position,” is simply cite Jesus’ words in Mt. 19:9a. When fornication occurs, the innocent spouse is permitted by God to act on that cause of fornication and repudiate, or put away, the guilty mate, and to remarry.

   Now, let’s consider brother Gwin baseless charges against brother Reeves:

   1. “He has had to change the meanings of words based upon circumstances.” Just which words did brother Reeves change as to meaning and upon circumstances? This is a wild charge and has no basis whatsoever. It is true that brother Gwin did not like some of the words and phraseology employed by brother Reeves (such as “repudiate,” “spatial separation”), but no word was used with equivocation. All was clearly defined as used.

See our review, Part XIII.

   2. “He has had to add to the Bible verses on marriage & divorce, and he has had to read between the lines to reach the conclusions he desires.” This reckless charge fits brother Gwin’s case to a T. He adds provisos to the words of Jesus. He toggles between the scenario treated by Jesus and the one of his proposition, taking a phrase from the one and sticking it in the other. Does he “read between the lines to reach the conclusion he desires”? This is a ridiculous charge on the part of brother Gwin, and this chart shows the futility of his position in the debate. Surely he, and his helpers, could come up with a more believable chart than this one!

See our reviews, Parts IV, and XV

   3. “He has had to confuse the difference between ‘married’ and ‘bound’.” Brother Reeves made it crystal clear that one could be bound while not married to a person. He did everything but confuse the two terms. Didn’t brother Gwin even attend the debate that he should come up with such a charge against his brother?

   What is the difference between “married” and “bound?” God binds a man and woman, who are eligible for marriage, to the vows of marriage that they make. Marriage is part of the marriage bond. The man and the woman control the becoming one-flesh. They choose their partners in marriage for life. They take their vows. They become one flesh. God binds them to their vows, and hence to each other. Either one of them, or both by mutual consent, can break their vows, and the one-flesh relationship, and thus become unmarried, but God does not release them if the innocent did not put away the guilty for fornication. They are still bound. They are still husband and wife! Now, is anyone confused by this explanation? Again, brother Gwin’s charge is reckless and baseless!

See our review, Part XVI

   4. “He has had to argue that the Bible does not address every possible marriage/divorce scenario.” This false charge hinges on brother Gwin’s choice of the word “address.” The verb “address” means to communicate directly to something. The Bible does not communicate directly to any scenario except the one that the Pharisees put to Jesus, Mt. 19:3. But brother Reeves stated explicitly in the debate that what the Bible does say about that scenario in principle can be applied to the scenario raised by brother Gwin’s proposition! So, once again, this chart misrepresents brother Reeves by specially choosing the word “address.”

   The entire chart shows the paucity of arguments that brother Gwin had in defense of his proposition in the debate that he would see the need to misrepresent his brother , and to do it by means of so many of his charts.

   This chart is brother Gwin’s effort to make a summary of what the Hopkinsville debate was all about, but it misrepresents brother Reeves, it denies the obvious, and makes “necessary ORDER” that which authorizes an innocent party to remarry. The bottom half of the chart, purporting to represent brother Gwin’s case for “order,” is not a chart of order but of different elements! It has brother Reeves advocating what the right hand side says, whereas he advocates what the left hand side says. What brother Gwin defends is the right hand side, if to point 3. is added the word, “No” (Remarriage).

   Let’s consider the chart line by line:

   1. We start with the title, “It’s about order, not about procedure”

   Brother Gwin turns the debate into a matter of order, but Jesus deals with the issue, stating the cause of fornication as being the necessary authority for repudiating and remarrying! Brother Gwin’s misuse of the “order argument” (which is a legitimate argument if the elements are identical, and just the order is changed!) has been dealt with in previous reviews. See Part IV, charts #9 and 10, to refresh your minds. He affirms that the debate is about order and not about procedure, but he believes that in our country, and others, one doesn’t “put away” who doesn’t go through civil procedure to accomplish it.

   2. “Bro. Reeves wants this debate to be about procedure.”

   This is a misrepresentation of brother Reeves. Throughout the debate brother Reeves denied such and never claimed any particular procedure as necessary. Brother Gwin, thou art the man! You are the one who advocates that in our country courthouse action is inherent in the Bible phrase, “put away.” That’s the way it has to be done. Now, who is arguing “procedure?”

   Brother Gwin and brother Reeves agreed to present to each other five questions before the first night of the debate and each give to the other the answers to the questions. Five more, with answers, were to be given before the second night of the debate. This was done by each one! They also were to be read in the first speech of each contestant each night, but brother Reeves was told by brother Greg Gwin that brother Joel Gwin did not understand it that way, and therefore did not read the questions and answer them in his first speech the first night. Well, he understood how many and when to present them, and he did so, but didn’t understand that he was to read them publicly! Brother Reeves, the old man who was expected by some to take advantage of poor, young, inexperienced, non-full-time preacher, brother Joel Gwin, acquiesced to brother Greg Gwin’s explanation of the matter, and so the questions from each disputant to the other, with the corresponding answers, were never read to the public!

   Brother Gwin’s question # 7 for the second night, was the following: ”7. If a man’s wife commits fornication, and he decides to put her away for this cause, do you believe that, as a citizen of Kentucky, he must follow any specific procedure in order to accomplish the putting away?” Here is the answer that brother Reeves sent to brother Gwin: “Well, do you mean that if he has not been previously put away by his wife (you can’t have two puttings-away, you know!)? No matter which state in which the man lives, if he wants a legal, civil, divorce he will have to follow the specific procedure of that place in order to accomplish the civil divorce. The word divorce has the basic meaning of separation (check this out in any unabridged dictionary!). He will separate from his wife the day he divorces, or puts her away. When he files for civil divorce (a legal dissolution of marriage, per the dictionary), he will accomplish that the day that the courts declare him legally divorced. One can readily see just who is advocating that civil procedure is necessary in order to “put away,” and it is not brother Reeves! No, he did not want this debate to be about procedure; to the contrary, civil procedure is the advocacy of brother Gwin! Brother Gwin denies the obvious.

   3. “His moderator (and others) have even labeled us as the “civil procedure” brethren.”

   Here our brother complains that the ones who label their brethren as the “mental divorcers” are being labeled by them as the “civil procedure” brethren. Well, the difference in the labeling is that we repudiate in the absolute the idea of “putting away” as being something solely and strictly a thought process, while they make civil procedure inherent in the Greek word, Apoluo, translated “put away.”

   We invite you to re-read our review Part I, chart # 2.

   Brother Reeves second question, first night (which never got read and answered by brother Gwin) was this: “2. Is the phrase “put away,” as used in your proposition, synonymous with civil, or legal, divorce?” Bro. Gwin answered thusly (but did not read the question and his answer to the audience): “In my proposition, the phrase "put away," simply refers to whatever (in any given culture or society) results in the dissolution of a marriage.” He evaded the question that merited a Yes or No. Had he said, Yes, he (like others do) would be affirming that one can’t put away without court-house action. Had he said, No, the question would follow: Do you disfellowship those who make “putting away” synonymous with civil divorce (i.e., courthouse action)?

   Now is brother Gwin a “civil procedure” brother, or not?

   4. “We are not here to debate procedure.” Well, brother Reeves was not, but brother Gwin certainly was, advocating that which implies that in our society, or country, “putting-away” is synonymous with civil procedure (legal, courthouse action). This is his belief and advocacy!

   5. “This debate is about the necessary ORDER that authorizes an innocent party to remarry.”

   We have gone over thoroughly the falsely called “order argument” of brother Gwin. See our reviews Part IV, charts #9,10.

   6. The bottom of the chart has two parts, on the left: “What the Bible teaches:” and on the right: “What bro. Reeves is defending;”

   The Bible certainly teaches that when fornication occurs, and the innocent puts away guilty, the God-given permission permits that the innocent may remarry. Amen! That is all on the left side, and that is precisely what brother Reeves believes and practices, but what brother Gwin denies, unless his proviso is added to the statement, which says: “provided that the innocent spouse was not previously put away!” Bro. Gwin doesn’t believe “what the Bible teaches” unless his proviso is added to it.

   On the right side, there are three terms. This is not what brother Reeves defends. “Putting Away” (the number #1 term) is no part of what determines the authority for the innocent spouse to put away a fornicator-mate and to remarry. What authorizes it is term #2, fornication being committed by the guilty mate.

   Brother Gwin’s needs a third column to show what he is defending! It is this: 1. Putting away, 2. Fornication, 3. No remarriage.

   The reader’s attention is once again called to the simply fact that brother Gwin’s chart at the bottom is not a true “order argument.” See how he changes elements from the left side to the right. On the left he has fornication; on the right he has the same element, fornication. Well and good. Next, on the left he has “Innocent puts away guilty,” but on the right he doesn’t have that. He has only “putting away!” Why didn’t he put “Innocent puts away guilty?” Because he means on the right that the guilty puts away the innocent! That is exactly the opposite of what he has on the left. On the left, in the third item, he has, “Innocent may remarry.” Is that what he has on the right, only in a different order? No! he has simply, “Remarriage.” Why didn’t he put the same element on the right that he has on the left? Because he doesn’t want the one remarrying to be an “innocent” one!

   His chart, purporting to be a legitimate argument on order, is nothing more than a concoction to misrepresent both the Bible issue and brother Reeves’ defense. He doesn’t have change of order, but change of elements. He has three points on the left and three on the right, but they are not the same points or elements. His is not a chart on changing the order, but on changing the elements! He has so controlled the terms so as to teach that which is false. Discerning minds can see it!

   This completes part twenty-five of our study. Please check the next article in the series.

Introduction | Part Twenty-Four of the Series | Part Twenty-Six of the Series

Home Page