The following chart contains two quotations: One from brother Warnock, and another from brother Halbrook. It should be noted that these quotes were also used in brother Gwin's answer to brother Reeves' third debate question. Brother Reeves had asked, "When you use the phrase, 'mental divorce,' as in the advertisement that you prepared for the public, do you mean a mere thought process, or some overt action taking place?" Brother Gwin prefaced the quotes on the chart (below) with these remarks: "When I use the phrase 'mental divorce' I do so only as a means of identifying the position that various brethren have espoused, such as Weldon Warnock in this quote:..."

   1. What do these two quotes have to do with brother Gwin’s proving of his proposition? Absolutely nothing. Would it be proper and agreeable to brother Gwin to attribute to him just any quote of others who in general agree with his position in the debate? We have not done this to him! Surely brother Gwin has heard of the “Golden Rule!”

   2. Whom was brother Gwin debating, these two persons quoted, or brother Reeves? Once more, it appears that this material was put together for general application and was not designed to deal specifically with brother Reeves' position!

   3. Why didn’t brother Gwin quote from brother Reeves? He had a lengthy personal study with brother Reeves early in January of 2003, and then six months passed before the debate. Wasn’t that sufficient time to ask him anything about his beliefs? Did brother Gwin view this debate as a forum for discussing differences with brother Reeves, or for the purpose of discussing the writings of others?

   4. Whether brother Reeves agrees with the statements of others or not, his job was to negate what brother Gwin affirmed!

   5. This chart is a generic one, not to prove brother Gwin’s proposition, but simply to generalize about the controversy at hand. It obviously was not prepared for the "Gwin-Reeves" debate. It was prepared for some other purpose.

   The left side of the following chart is pure misrepresentation from beginning to end; it is shameful! A more flagrant distortion of truth is impossible to imagine, and it was put before the public! We call upon brother Gwin to apologize for these lies and to remove this chart from circulation, or suffer the just consequence of total loss of respect.

   1. Brother Gwin says, “Bro. Reeves maintains that there are NO conditions.” Brother Gwin: There are no conditions for WHAT? What is the public, who sees that line, to understand? Nothing is said to identify what brother Reeves might maintain! This is wholly prejudicial, and as stated partakes of a lie! On the right side of the chart brother Gwin finds space enough to identify what’s required by God’s Law, but on the left side he won’t identify what brother Reeves maintains. For shame!

   2. Look closely at the center statement of the chart (given as proof of the first statement, highlighted by a pointing finger): "'(My position) admits of no exceptions … It admits of no conditions or exceptions.’ (email message 3/3/03)” This is amazing! In brother Reeves’ first speech of the debate he put on the screen the very quote that here is manipulated to say something else. How can one who calls himself a brother in Christ purposely take a quote, lift the subject out of the sentence, put a different subject in its place, all within quotation marks, and say that his brother made such a statement? (The very fact that the supplanted subject was put in parentheses is an overt admission that the sentence has been doctored! What dishonesty!)

   Brother Reeves had put before the public, on the screen, a statement that he had made to brother Gwin in his correspondence, showing that his PROPOSITION, that brother Gwin would not accept in the debate, admitted of no conditions or exceptions, because the proposition affirms the phrase, “when fornication occurs.” That phrase does not admit of any exceptions, does it? It does not say, “when fornication occurs, provided that something else didn’t occur before or after.” That phrase in the proposition shows that there can be no exceptions to the fact that “when fornication occurs” such and such follows. This is what the quote from the correspondence was showing.

   Brother Gwin’s chart alters on purpose what the quote said, substituting a different subject for the one in the quote. He did not quote brother Reeves’ words; he knowingly and deceptively doctored, or changed, the quote! He wanted to present brother Reeves as maintaining something (he doesn’t say what!) that admits of no conditions, so he took a statement concerning a proposition and changed on purpose the word proposition, to position, and used that doctored quote to prove that brother Reeves “maintains that there are NO conditions.” How desperate is the man that uses such carnal tactics!

   We call upon brother Gwin to admit this deceptive tampering of a quote, to repent of this sin, and to ask God and brother Reeves to forgive him (which thing they are ready to do). Until he does it, he cannot expect God-fearing people to respect him! If someone else prepared this chart, he betrayed brother Joel Gwin. However, brother Gwin read the chart with pathos and fervor, making it his own and is responsible for the chart. Brother Gwin: what will you do about it? Brethren are waiting to see.

   4. The last statement on the left (highlighted by a pointing finger) says, “The innocent mate may remarry without restriction.” Since that is attributed to “brother Reeves” (line one of the chart on the left), it is a bald-face lie! It is beyond our imagination that one, calling himself a Christian, could so openly misrepresent another brother in Christ. We call upon brother Gwin to produce the proof of that assertion or admit his devious ways in so treating a brother in Christ. (Do those who have expressed great sympathy for this young, inexperienced, not full-time preacher, approve of his publicly misrepresenting his opponent in debate just because his opponent is old and experienced? Will they spare a little sympathy for the old man who has been maligned? -- because they are impartial brethren! We’ll see).

   Brother Gwin pulled this statement of his out of the blue, and he knows it--or he had no business calling on me to debate him at Suwanee. Brother Reeves, nor any who agree with him, believe that “the innocent may remarry without restriction.” One spouse may put away his mate for just any reason, and the innocent mate may not remarry, because they both remain joined by God to each other, since there was no fornication involved in the putting-away. Two spouses, both innocent as to fornication, may consensually divorce each other, and neither may remarry, because both are playing the waiting game (which thing is condemned in Mt. 5:32). It is a lie to attribute to brother Reeves that he believes that “the innocent mate may remarry without restriction.” Now, will brother Gwin withdraw this shameful chart and take it out of circulation? Will he leave it for public consumption and thereby destroy respect for himself? Will he apply the “Golden Rule” which surely he must know?

   5. On the right side of the chart, we are told about three conditions that God’s Law requires before a person can scripturally remarry. Let’s consider them as stated:

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

Introduction | Part Five of the Series | Part Seven of the Series

Home Page