|
Exposing The Sophistry Of Joel Gwin's Debate Charts: by Bill Reeves and Tim Haile September 19, 2003 The question (#1), on brother Gwin's chart #50, was sent to brother Reeves one day before the debate, and was answered by him one day before the debate. Please consider the question, and brother Reeves' answer:
1. This question, framed by brother Gwin, is a legitimate question and merits a Yes or No answer. But brother Reeves did not check one of the two boxes, since he was not sure just what brother Gwin might mean by the word "biblically." Something could be considered "biblical" if found recorded in the Bible, or because it is approved by the Author of the Bible. So, brother Reeves exercised caution here. 2. Nevertheless, Brother Reeves' answer is crystal clear: he believes that, given the proper understanding of brother Gwin's phrase, "really biblically," "Yes, she is really put away." Could it be made clearer? 3. Remember, brother Gwin had this answer a day before the debate began. He knew ahead of time that brother Reeves believes that "Yes, she is really put away." Nevertheless, he chose to ignore this answer and proceed during the debate to display his prepared charts, several of which either had brother Reeves being duplicitous on the matter, or emphasized the reality of putting away (as if brother Reeves denied that!). See charts # 6, 25, 26, 33-35, 38, 41, 47. He displayed his chart # 25, which says: "In this case he wants 'put away' to mean 'really divorced' 'in the eyes of God' … In this case he wants 'put away' to only mean 'accommodatively' or 'in the eyes of men.' Brother Reeves, which way is it?" We ask: How can an honest brother continue to so portray his brother in Christ, for whom he publicly expressed appreciation? What is really amazing is that he displayed this very chart, #50, which gives brother Reeves' explicit answer! (His use of chart # 50 is treated below). See Part XIV, our review of his chart # 25. He then displayed his chart # 26, in which he says: "Notice what bro. Reeves wants to 'read into' this verse: The woman is not really put away 'in the eyes of God'." How on earth could our brother display during the debate this already prepared chart that so misrepresents brother Reeves, since he had in his possession before the debate began brother Reeves' statement that he believes the put-away person is really put-away? See Part XV, our review of his chart # 26 Let the reader take note of the fact that the Bible's use of the term "put away" does not mean necessarily that God approves of a particular putting-away. It speaks of a "different gospel" (2 Cor. 11:4), but such is not the gospel of Christ. It speaks of "vain worship" (Mt. 15:9), but it is not authorized worship. God, who knows all things, for He is omniscient, certainly knows that a putting-away really takes place when an ungodly spouse puts away his innocent mate not for fornication. In that sense He "recognizes" that a putting-away took place. But he does not approve of that putting-away. In that sense, He does not "recognize" that putting-away. Brother Gwin and associates need to look up the verb "recognize" in an unabridged English dictionary and learn that that verb has more than one meaning! Then they need to treat the facts honestly and quit misrepresenting their brethren. This chart was presented the first night of the debate. It, and also chart # 52, were introduced hurriedly in the last minute or so of brother Gwin's thirty-minute speech on the second night. He wanted to show that brother Reeves admits that the wife of his two questions is really put away (chart # 50), and that she and the husband are now divorced (chart # 52). Question #5 was sent the second day of the debate and was answered before the second day of the debate began. Here is chart containing the question and brother Reeves' answer:
He then reminded the audience that those who are divorced (Mt. 5:32 KJV) and put away (Mt. 19:9) cannot remarry. Then he drew his conclusion: brother Reeves "is strictly rejecting the teachings of Christ … brother Reeves agrees that they are put away…that they are divorced, but then he denies Jesus' teaching for those people who are put away, who are divorced." Brother Reeves did everything but deny the teaching of Christ on Mt. 5:32 and Mt. 19:9. Throughout the debate he said that both the husband and the wife, and the second man who might marry the unlawfully, put-away wife, would commit adultery upon remarrying! And that is "strictly rejecting the teachings of Christ?" It makes one wonder if brother Gwin was even present for the debate! Was he listening to anything that brother Reeves said? Yes put-away persons are put-away, and yes divorced (separated) persons are divorced (separated). But that unlawfully, put-away wife of Mt. 5:32 and 19:9 was put away not for the cause of fornication. That is the reason she could not remarry without committing adultery! This brother Reeves emphatically and explicitly taught during the debate. But the woman of brother Gwin's proposition does have the cause of fornication against her husband, yet brother Gwin says that she may not remarry. This is the teaching that brother Reeves denies and strictly rejects! Brother Gwin in the debate used brother Reeves' answers to his questions in two ways: a. He ignored his answers and continued to depict him as duplicitous, as wanting it both ways -- see Parts XIV and XV, charts # 25 and 26. b. He accepted his answers and thereby tried to make him deny Jesus' teaching in Mt. 5:32 and 19:9! This is a good place to take a close look at the English word, "divorce." The brethren associated with brother Gwin's position in the debate use the word "divorce," but without telling us in what sense they are using it, or, they assume that it in every sense, and inherently, involves civil procedure in the courts of law (in our United States). This is patently erroneous! Going to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged Second Edition, we read this for the noun, "divorce:" "a separation, divorce, from diversus, pp. of divertierre, to turn or go different ways. 1. in law, a legal dissolution of the bonds of matrimony, or the formal separation of husband and wife by a court. 2. separation; disunion of things closely united". So we see from these definitions that the basic meaning of the word is "separation," as when we say, "He divorced himself from his former companions." Now the word, in law, that is in the legal sense, has the meaning of a court's formal separation of a husband and his wife. Now to be fair and honest in one's use of the word, if it is not qualified with the term "legal," or 'in law," then the idea to be conveyed is simply that of separation per se. To indicate a legal dissolution of marriage, one should say "legal divorce." But our erring brethren do not exercise this fairness and honesty. They use the single word, divorce, and by it they mean legal divorce, and then frame their questions for others based on their own limited definition of the word! Dear reader, just ask yourself: In what sense is brother Gwin using the word "divorce" above in his second question (chart # 52) to brother Reeves? Can you tell for sure? Since he did not say, "civil divorce," did he mean simple separation? Did he mean civil divorce? Just what did he mean, and how do you know it? If brother Gwin hears one say that, "he divorced himself from his bad habits," does he understand that the person went to court to accomplish that act? Does anyone think that brother Gwin would not truly understand what the person had said by using the verb, "divorce" in his statement? The false teacher always must use his particular lingo (that is, concocted phrases, terms and special uses or limited senses of words) in order to "make his case." It never fails. That is why the listener must pay special attention as to how statements and questions are framed! Brother Gwin's presentations in the Hopkinsville debate illustrated this point to a T. This completes part twenty-nine of our study. |
