Charts 9 and 10 make what we have termed the "order" or "sequence" argument. Brother Gwin accuses us of violating the Bible order by allowing the right of an innocent put-away party to put away a fornicator-mate and marry another. However, it is not the Bible order that we violate: It is brother Gwin's "order!" Brother Reeves and I agree that the Bible "order IS important." We just don't think brother Gwin's order is important. The Bible order is easily established, and this is what we need to be concerned about. In marriages involving fornication against an innocent party, here is the Bible order:

   This simple order is obtained by limiting ourselves to what the Scriptures actually teach, without adding our provisos. Brother Gwin and others insist upon adding their provisos and binding them upon others. Consider the charts:

   Chart #9 represents a true “order” argument, because identical terms are on both sides of the chart, but in a different order. Chart #10 is not a true “order” argument, but a false one because the terms are not identical with only a change in order! They are different on the right side of the chart. Where did the “order” of identical terms go? The terms have been “doctored”! Why? Brother Gwin’s order (of same terms) is gone! He doesn’t have “order,” but rather manipulated terms! This is not an order-argument, but rather a supplanting-of-terms-argument. This is a different-scenario-argument! His subtle change of terms is exposed.

   Brother Reeves is misrepresented on the right side of this chart. He believes the “The Bible” side of the chart! Fornication is the cause for putting away and remarrying. The “innocent” spouse has the cause; so he “puts away.” Then, this innocent spouse “may remarry.” This is what brother Reeves believes and preaches!

   Brother Gwin’s chart on the right side is greatly flawed:

   1. Who does the “Putting away?” On the left side he says, “Innocent Puts Away Guilty.” On the right side he doesn’t tell us who is putting away. Why not? Because it would expose the fallacy of his supposed “order” argument. He has no parallel, and he knows it! Actually, he has the ungodly spouse “putting away.” (This is where he gets his “1st putting-away.”)

   2. Then the ungodly spouse commits fornication, thus becoming the “guilty” one.

   3. Now where is the innocent’s putting-away? Why is this factor in the “order” missing? On the left he has the “Innocent Puts Away Guilty.” Why not somewhere on the right side? This is what the debate is all about: the innocent’s right to repudiate the guilty mate and to remarry! Brother Gwin, in his contrived “order,” astutely omits this fact altogether. His parallel isn’t parallel at all! His #10 chart is not parallel at all with his #9 chart, and anyone who can see through a ladder in the broad day light can see it!

   4. Then, brother Gwin has “remarriage.” Who is remarrying? He doesn’t tell us on the chart. He means the “innocent” spouse, per the left side of the chart. But he conveniently omits this point on the right side. But, the innocent spouse, having the cause, now does his OWN putting away, and then may remarry, just like the left side of the chart shows (the Bible order)!

   5. Brother Gwin’s chart purposely arranges a concocted order, with carefully chosen words (even omitting key words), and then falsely attributes it to brother Reeves. This is dishonest maneuvering!

   6. The wife that Brother Reeves defends, in her putting away her fornicator-mate and remarrying, is on the left side, in the Bible order! This is what Matthew 19:9a teaches.

   7. Brother Gwin doesn’t believe the “Bible Order Regarding Divorce & Remarriage” unless his proviso is added to it: Provided that the innocent, who puts away the guilty-of-fornication-mate and remarries, was not previously divorced by the ungodly spouse before he committed fornication! The “scriptural wife” of his proposition has had fornication committed against her (Mk. 10:11). According to the left side of the chart, being innocent she may put away the guilty mate, and she, the innocent, may remarry. So, Brother Gwin agrees that she is represented by the left side of the chart, “The Bible” side, and thus surrenders his proposition. Brother Reeves’ name goes on the left side of the chart, but not brother Gwin’s (unless his proviso is there).

   8. To make this even more evident, the proposition that brother Reeves wanted to affirm (“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”) says exactly what the left side of brother Gwin’s chart says, and brother Gwin calls this “The Bible” side! But he would not allow brother Reeves to affirm that proposition, which in essence says what he has on the left side of his chart, and calls biblical, unless brother Reeves put brother Gwin's proviso in it. He wrote brother Reeves: “If you will add the ‘CAPS’ portion added below, I will deny your proposition.” “The Scriptures teach that when fornication occurs, the innocent spouse (EVEN IF HE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DIVORCED BY HIS UNGODLY MATE), one bound by the marriage bond, is given the right to put away the fornicating mate to whom he has been bound by God, and to remarry.” So, brother Gwin believes the left ("Bible") side of his chart only if the innocent spouse was not previously put a way before the fornication was committed.

   Brother Gwin's next chart deals with what is "specifically forbidden." In it, he charges brother Reeves with adding to the Scriptures.

   1. Brother Reeves adds absolutely nothing to those 3 passages. Brother Gwin is guilty of the very thing of which he charges brother Reeves. Brother Gwin adds his stipulation that an innocent person cannot put away a fornicator-mate if that fornicator-mate has already put him away. Where did Jesus ever condition the innocent's right of repudiation upon whether or not he acted before some ungodly action was taken against him? This leads us to a very important question: Why may not the put-away woman of those passages remarry without committing adultery? The reason is that she was put away with no cause of fornication in evidence! So, as the wife may not, neither may the husband of Jesus’ scenario, who put her away, remarry without committing adultery. Neither one may remarry, and for the same reason. Correct, brother Gwin?

   2. “3 times” (Mt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18) Jesus says that the putting-away husband may not remarry without committing adultery. Agreed, brother Gwin? Brother Gwin gives us only half-a-truth, that concerning the put-away woman, because he wants to get her into his box (see chart #48) from which she can’t escape. Brother Gwin, do you put also the putting-away husband in that box, because of the “a” part of those 3 passages? Remember, neither may remarry without committing adultery! Why leave out the “putting-away one?” Brother Gwin has “put away wife” written all over his charts, but why not also the “putting-away husband?” Dear reader, this fact is telling! Brother Gwin and his associates have been terribly concerned about the status of the "put-away woman," but they give little notice of the status of the "putting-away man." Perhaps someone needs to start a website that focuses exclusively on the status of one who "puts away" his wife. After all, "3 times," (Mt. 19:9; Mk, 10:11; Lk. 16:18), Jesus taught that the "putting-away" man commits adultery when he marries another! The site could house dozens of articles showing that since the putting-away scenarios in these passages disallow the right of remarriage for the one who does the putting away, then no putting-away person has the right to marry another. Dear reader, do you see what happens when you make an absolute where Jesus made none? Well, that is precisely what brother Gwin and others are doing!

   3. The bottom of the chart falsely accuses brother Reeves of “adding” something “to the Scriptures by saying:” He gives a quote (uses quotation marks). He has never read such a quote from brother Reeves’ writings, nor heard him say such. Brother Reeves has not said nor written any such thing! This, like some other statements, brother Gwin has simply pulled out of the blue and tacked brother Reeves’ name to it. He and brother Reeves had a personal study of 2 and one-half hours, and then six months passed before the debate. He had ample time and occasion to know what brother Reeves teaches and says, but he didn’t bother to verify his quotes. (Or did someone else make the charts for brother Gwin, without verifying the quotes? Either way, brother Gwin read and argued the charts in public!) Incidentally, brother Reeves was in the negative throughout the debate. It was, therefore, not necessary for him to know all of brother Gwin's position before the debate. His job was to respond to whatever points and passages were introduced by brother Gwin.

   In the three passages, quoted in part by brother Gwin, Jesus is talking about a wife that was put away “where she was innocent of fornication when she was put away.” (If she had been put away for fornication, she already would have been in adultery!) No one has to add that thought to the passages. It is already there by the context! See Matthew 19:3.

   The false quote, attributed to brother Reeves at the bottom of this chart, makes it difficult for brethren to respect brother Gwin’s sincerity and honesty. Let him withdraw this quote and apologize, or admit the dishonesty of the one who prepared the chart.

   This completes part four of our study. Please check the next article in the series.

Introduction | Part Three of the Series | Part Five of the Series

Home Page