Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Ron Halbrook met Jack Freeman in two debates January 15, 16, 18, 19, in North Las Vegas, NV and February 26, 27, March 1, 2, in West Columbia, TX. The propositions for both debates were:

The Scriptures teach that two people joined by God in marriage are bound for life, the only exception being that an innocent partner may put away a mate guilty of fornication and remarry (Affirm: Ron Halbrook; Deny; Jack Freeman).

The Scriptures teach that a person who is divorced by his mate for committing fornication is free to marry another (Affirm: Jack Freeman; Deny: Ron Halbrook).

The first debate was held at the North Las Vegas church of Christ and was well attended with perhaps 120 to 140 present each evening. The second debate was even better with a high of around 500 and a low around 350 present. All audiences were well behaved. Of course, most were Christians, though some “outsiders” did attend, especially in West Columbia. A non-Christian named “Judas,” mentioned as a friend by brother Freeman, was especially interested in the debate in Las Vegas and it surely helped him to see the truth. We did not, however, have a chance to meet him. Those “strangers from the covenants of promise” who attended in West Columbia were impressed by truth and by the appeal to the Bible.

People in the world who are starved for Bible teaching can be fed in such debates. Ron Halbrook’s strong, fervent cries for purity and godliness based on the Bible were encouraging to Christians and attractive to the lost. We err when we think that debates among brethren on so-called “brotherhood issues” will do no good in the community. ‘Internal squabbles” and “brotherhood fusses” are discussed in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Hebrews, but no Christians would hide those books from his neighbors, would he?

Personal Reflections

Ron Halbrook has been “closer than a brother” to me for many years. He has encouraged, corrected and helped me beyond my ability to express. I know of no preacher who works harder or longer hours than does Ron. He has a keen mind, but above all, Ron loves the Lord, loves the truth and wants to go to heaven when he dies. His earnest desire to live what he preaches is evident to all who know him. Though he speaks directly with candor and “great plainness of speech,” his kindness and goodness of heart is always present. Ron has the force and power of a blacksmith but the heart of a loving grandmother. This combined with truth, makes his efforts in the kingdom invaluable. One of the elders of the West Columbia church, brother Charles Alexander, said of Ron, “He, like the apostle Paul, knows nothing but ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified.”‘ What a tribute. Obviously, I believe Ron did an outstanding job in the debates with Jack Freeman. If you doubt it, order the tapes.

The Charts

Ron’s charts, and he has hundreds of them, are worth the cost of the debate tapes. Also, the second debate is being transcribed for publication by the Guardian of Truth Foundation. When it is being published, you must secure a copy for the charts if for nothing else. Brother Halbrook did his homework as his charts vividly demonstrate. Unfortunately, Ron does not have the time or the money to make copies for everyone, but the video tapes and the book will enable you to have copies. Some samples charts appear below:

Do We Forbid “To Marry?”

1. NO! Everyone has a right to marry and a responsibility to obey God’s marriage law (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:2)

2. God’s law forbids divorce without cause of fornication and marriage to another again and again and again (Matt. 19:9)

3. God’s law forbids a man to commit adultery, be divorced, marry another and do it all over again and again and again (Matt. 19:9)

Deserted Believer Not To Marry Another – 1 Cor. 7:15

1. Text does not say believer “may marry again” (Robertson, Word Pictures, IV, p. 128)

2. Not deal with “re-marrying after such a separation” (Alford, Greek Testament, 11:525)

3. “Freedom of remarriage” not suggested (Expositor’s Greek Testament, p. 827)

4. “Remarriage is not an issue” in text (G. Fee, 1st Epistle To Corinth, pp. 302, 303)

5. “In such cases remarriage is not approved” (D. Lipscomb & J.W. Shepherd, 1 Cor., p. 102)

6. Allows separation but “not . . . the privilege to marry another” (H. Leo Boles, Luke, p. 317)

God -vs- Satan

1. If you eat, “surely die” (Gen. 2:17) 1. If you eat, “NOT surely die” (Gen. 3:4)

2. Believe & “Baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16) 2. Believe and NOT baptized shall be saved

3. “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit 3. Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth

adultery” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) NOT commit adultery

Does 1 Cor. 7 Authorize

The Put-Away Fornicator To Marry Another?

Text Says This:	Not This:
Vs. 2 “Every man have his own wife”	Every man who wrecks his marriage & throws away his own wife by fornication or unscriptural divorce, get another wife!
Vs. 9 “Unmarried widows . . . better to marry than to burn”	Unscripturally divorced & put-away fornicator . . .better to commit adultery than fornication!
Vv. 27-28 A man “loosed from a wife” (free, never married) and “a virgin” (free, never married) may marry.	A man unscripturally divorced or a divorced fornicator may marry a woman in the same condition!

FORGIVENESS NOT REMOVE TEMPORAL CONSEQUENCES

1. Converted Murderer Not Escape Death Penalty (Acts 25:11)

2. Convicted Thief Not Escape “Due Reward” (Lk. 23:40-43)

3. Converted Prodigal Not Regain Money Wasted Gambling (Lk 15:13)

4. Converted Adulterer Not Free To Marry Another Or Continue Adulterous Marriage (Matt 19:9)

Cases Of Adultery

1. Simplest Case: A married man with another man’s wife (John 8-4)

2. Sin Upon Sin: A man divorces his wife and marries another (Matt. 19:9)

3. Sin Upon Sin: The put-away fornicator remarries (Matt. 5:32 read with exception)

“The remarriage of a man after divorcing his wife, or the remarrying of the divorced woman, is tantamount to adultery (Matt. 5:32; 19:9)” [Kittel, TDNT, IV:733]

Tantamount = “Equivalent in value, significance, or effect” (Webster’s 7th New Colleg. Dict.)

Effect = Gal. 5:19-21 (such things); Heb. 13:4

Adultery Defined By Use:

Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Involving Someone Under Constraint Of God’s Marriage Law

1. Married man with another man’s wife (Jn. 8:4)

2. Man puts away wife w/o cause and marries another (Matt. 19.-9; Mk. 1011-12; Lk. 16:18)

3. Woman put away w/o cause marries another (Matt. 5:32; 19:9)

4. Put-away fornicator marries another (Matt. 5:32 & 19:9 read with exception)

Argumentation

I will not attempt to debate the debates in this review. However, brother Freeman’ s main thrust was based on 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Timothy 4:3. He made no appeal with Scripture to show that a put away fornicator may “marry another,” though he erroneously asserted that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies the words, “marry another.”

Brother Freeman’s position would have Herod’s marriage to Herodias be or become acceptable. Brother Freeman denied it, but he could never be consistent with his proposition in so doing. Ron showed this inconsistency and brother Freeman felt the effects of it as did the audience. Contrary to some post-debate reports, brother Freeman did not argue in the debate that the marriage of Herod and Herodias was sinful because of incest. Had he so argued, the demands of repentance wuld have troubled him again as happened thoughout the debate. Brother Freeman acknowledged that a man could continue to “marry another” and “another” and “another,” even if he were put away for fornication a hundred times! He did not advocate this, but he admitted it could be done and be acceptable in God’s sight. Brethren, are you ready for that conclusion?

Ron was asked against whom a put away fornicator commits adultery when he marries another? His charts answered: that Jesus indicts the put away fornicator as guilty of adultery even though he is no longer married to the first mate.

Do Debates Do Any Good?

Letter From Vegas Drive Church

Brother Keith Greer studied under Jack Freeman for several years but over a period of time became doubtful of the things he was being taught regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. Following the first debate, the following letter was issued by the Vegas Drive church where brother Greer preaches:

To our brethren in Christ:

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. . . Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:14-16).

For much too long we have been silent concerning where we stand on the issue of Divorce and Remarriage, and we do not wish to remain so any longer.

On January 15th, 16th, 18th, and 19th, a debate was held between Ron Halbrook and Jack Freeman at the Northside church of Christ. Many of the members of the Vegas Drive church of Christ attended the debate, and following the discussions, the men held a business meeting on Sunday afternoon, January 21, 1990. It was agreed upon by all of the men that we would send a letter to be read at the debate between Ron Halbrook and Jack Freeman in West Columbia, Texas. We want all of the brethren to know where we stand on these matters.

The scriptures teach that two people joined by God in marriage are bound for life, the only exception being that an innocent partner may put away a mate that is guilty of fornication and remarry. We at Vegas Drive affirm that the Bible teaches this to be true.

The scriptures teach that a person who is divorced by his mate for committing fornication is free to marry another. We at Vegas Drive deny that the Bible teaches this to be true.

We also want all to understand that we stand against the “two-law” doctrine of marriage that is being taught by many of our brethren.

1 Corinthians 7:15 does not teach that a Christian has other grounds for divorce or remarriage, and we cannot agree with those who practice and teach the doctrine of desertion.”

We do not agree with the position that Jack Freeman and the Northside church of Christ in Las Vegas hold concerning divorce and remarriage, and we do not want to be associated with what they are teaching. They do not speak for us, and we do not speak for them. We want all to know that we stand firmly on God’s word, nothing more and nothing less.

We hold no animosity towards the brethren at Northside. We love them, and would be only too happy to open up the Bible and study with them. We do not “count them as an enemy” but “admonish” them as a “brother” (2 Thess. 3:15).

The purpose of this letter is to let others know that there is a church in Las Vegas that is trying to stand upon the word of God. We want those brethren who come to our city to know that we are earnestly striving to teach and practice the truth.

May God bless you and keep you until the coming of his dear Son.

Yours in Him,

The men of the Vegas Drive Church of Christ

Yes, debates can be profitable. They can be an effective teaching tool. As with any medium, they can be mis-used, but the Halbrook-Freeman debates, thanks to Ron’s work, were a blessing to the cause of truth and righteousness.

Conclusion

Homer Walker and Glen Lovelady were able assistants to brother Freeman. Brother Walker who preaches for the Eastside Church in Las Vegas, was a great example of courtesy and kindness as a moderator and brother Lovelady was very efficient in handling charts and helping brother Freeman. We appreciate the kind and congenial spirit of both of these men.

Brother Harry Osborne was an invaluable aide to Ron. Harry has a brilliant mind and understands the arguments on the marriage issue as well as anyone. He worked and sacrificed many long hours to help Ron. Our thanks to the Alvin (TX) church for the support of Harry in allowing him the freedom to work in this effort. Also, Mike and Cecil Willis used their talents to assist Ron. Scores of others, especially the ladies of the West Columbia church, were a great help. The Lord will especially reward Donna Halbrook for her “open house” of hospitality. She was both a “Mary” and a “Martha.” Our love and gratitude goes to all the elders and brethren who worked so hard to help Ron in the great work that he did.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, pp. 331-333
June 7, 1990

By James W. Adams

B.C. Goodpasture, now deceased but for many years editor of the Gospel Advocate, was the most knowledgeable man about religious books that I ever knew. In 1944 while in a meeting at McEwen, Tennessee, I had occasion to have a short visit with him at his home in Nashville while purchasing some secondhand books. Among those bought was a new copy of John T. Brown’s Churches of Christ. Brother Goodpasture had found a hundred copies somewhere and bought them. I remember his telling me that, in his judgment, J.B. Briney’s article on “The Restoration Movement,” 114 pages of the large volume at the beginning of the book, was the best thing that had ever been written on the subject, and worth the price of the book. I bought the book and have found Briney’s article to be everything brother Goodpasture said it was. Among other things, Briney discussed at length the “Cooperation Controversy” of his time, involving the Missionary Society, that split the churches and produced two distinct groups among those historically identified with the movement to restore “the ancient order of things” in America: churches of Christ and the Christian Church (known also as the Disciples of Christ).

Churches of Christ have verified the fact that “history repeats itself” by floundering on the rock of “cooperation” and again producing two distinct, non-fellowshipping groups of people professing, in their collective existence as local churches, to be New Testament churches in which said “ancient order” has been restored: liberal and conservative (“anti”); institutional and non-institutional. This is quite strange since the word “cooperating” is not once found in English translations of the New Testament. The idea of “cooperation” may be found but not the word. In a “Special Issue” of the Gospel Guardian, in the early days of the present cooperation controversy, I called attention to two distinct uses of the term: “concurrent effort” and “joint effort.” I pointed out that “concurrent effort” of churches in a common endeavor is clearly taught and exemplified in the New Testament, but “joint effort” of churches is neither taught nor exemplified. Brother Roy H. Lanier, distinguished preacher and writer among our “pro” brethren, denied that concurrent effort of churches is in fact “cooperation,” hence charged us with opposing “cooperation.” In this, of course, he but contradicted no less an authority than Noah Webster, hence was obviously mistaken.

Later, brother Lanier, now deceased but then able and active, also took issue with me over the historical development of the Missionary Society. I had stated in articles and lectures, which he heard, that the cooperation meetings of churches in the early days of the “Restoration Movement” were forerunners of and led inevitably to the formation of the Missionary Society – that they were incipient societies. Brother Lanier affirmed this to be an error. He said that they existed as “alternatives” to the society, hence did not possess its fundamental characteristics. He recognized that the so-called “Sponsoring Church” arrangement for church cooperation was identical with the early “Cooperation Meetings,” but declared both to be opposed to the Missionary Society concept and were “alternatives” to it. In doing this, he felt that he had taken care of the obvious inconsistency of opposing the Missionary Society and defending the “Sponsoring Church.” Also, he felt he had proved that brethren had always accepted the cooperation of churches in a “joint effort” with control and oversight centralized in a single church and its eldership.

I knew then as I do now, that brother Lanier was wrong, but I have been impressed anew with the correctness of my conviction by reading again J.B. Briney’s analysis of the matter in the article to which reference has been made in this article. Brother Briney, keep in mind, was an ardent defender of the cooperation of churches in centralized control and oversight arrangements both in the “cooperation meetings” and the Missionary Society, so he cannot be regarded as partisan relative to the difference between me and brother Lanier in this matter. Briney found the principle in the early meetings and regarded the society as simply an inevitable next step in its application. He believed that the society was but an evolving to a higher plane of usefulness of the principle and necessity of “church cooperation” implicit in the early “Cooperation Meetings.” I only wish that space would allow the inclusion in this article of Briney’s lengthy and irresistible delineation of the matter.

However, every student of the history of churches of Christ in Texas knows that there were first “Cooperation Meetings.” One of the first was held at Mt. Enterprise, Rusk Co., Texas near where I presently live. Second, these meetings evolved into “State Meetings.” The last “State Meeting” in Texas resulted in the majority deciding to move on into a State Missionary Society and affiliation with the American Christian Missionary Society. This, along with the introduction of mechanical instruments of music, at Thorp Spring, Texas, created bedlam among the saints of Texas and divided the churches. The liberal element took most of the brethren and churches, and conservatives almost had to begin again. Why cannot our so-called “cooperative” brethren learn from history?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 355-356
June 21, 1990

By Ron Halbrook

When a review of my debates with Jack Freeman is published, I would like to append an expression of deep appreciation for all who helped to make the debates possible. These brethren are to be commended for my inadequacies. Without them these two debates would have been far less effective.

Wayne Goforth’s stand for the truth occasioned these debates. Truman Smith supplied me with resource materials which were an invaluable aid in preparation. Harry Osborne spent countless hours studying with me and familiarizing me with the many twists and turns of error on divorce and remarriage, in addition to serving as my chart man during the actual debating. Mike Willis did a great deal of reading and research on the subject, gave me several important insights, and offered many helpful suggestions. David Padfield took my rough sketches of chart ideas and produced top quality charts from them. Keith Sharp and J. T. Smith shared useful materials with me, and J.T. called several times to give much needed encouragement.

Larry Hafley was an able moderator at both debates; his incisive mind and indomitable courage in the kingdom of God are constant sources of strength. The presence and advice of Cecil Willis was most helpful and encouraging. The Vegas Drive Church in Las Vegas extended their hospitality in a number of ways, and invited Harry Osborne, Larry Hafley, and myself to preach at their Sunday and Wednesday services. Doug and Kathy Freeman immediately adopted us as members of their own family. Keith Greer and his family are especially to be commended for making clear their stand for the truth at great personal sacrifice.

The frequent prayers, patience, financial support, and loving words offered by the church at West Columbia have sustained me throughout this challenging time. These debates would not have been possible without the constant love, patience, and help of my family. Thank you Donna, Jonathan, David and Deborah.

The fruit resulting from these debates abounds to the accounts of these good brethren and others who contributed so much to this effort, “We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father” (1 Thess. 1:2-3).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, p. 334
June 7, 1990

By Bobby R. Holmes

There is a little “ditty” that was popular when I was a boy growing up that went, -Same song, second verse, could get better, but it’s gonna get worse. ” I thought about that little “ditty” when I was given a clipping, by one of our members last Sunday (Feb. 25, 1990). It was taken from the “Entertainment” section of the Dallas Times Herald. It was entitled “Not the same old grind” by Robert Abele and concerned a “new” dance that is being offered to (and urged upon) the public. The article in part is as follows:

Couples on the dance floors around the United States may be getting to know each other sooner than they care to if the lambada catches on. The lambada, a Brazilian dance craze with its own hit European single, is trying to worm its way into the American consciousness as a sexy, snazzy, culturally hip body contact grove – a dirtier dancing. Dallas got its first live sampling of the sensuous dance last weekend at Prizm, a Deep Ellum nightclub. Press and public were treated to a performance of the lambada by, oddly enough, the Arthur Murray dancers – that bastion of the ballroom. It was an appropriately young group of couples, however, that swirled and gyrated to Kaoma’s European smash hit “Lambada,” the single that ignited lambada-mania. . . . Europeans loved it: In one instance, Frenchauto workers who were on strike told reporters they’d rather lambada than go back to work. The lambada’s trademark is constant body contact, and a grinding pelvic motion that keeps the action certifiably steamy (emp. mine – bh). Arthur Murray dancer Michael Hamilton labels it “the safe sex of the ’90s. ” What does it take to do the lambada, aside from sheer will power?

“It takes rhythm, a kind of looseness and maneuverability,” says Hamilton, of Dallas. “It’s a new sound and dance that’s going to bring partners back together on the dance floor.” (What he means is that it will bring back body contact dancing on the dance floor. -bh) . . . The gutsy movement and suggestive interlocking of limbs, however, is what seems to mystify onlookers most. At Prizm, the Arthur Murray dancers performed first as three separate couples, then in two groups of three – lambada “sandwiches” – and finally in one long chain lambada. And not one pelvic grind was lost (emp. mine – bh). “There’s definitely more freedom involved in Latin dancing,” says Kelly Heisler, another Arthur Murray performer. It’s getting to know your partner really close . . . The dancing is so fast, so swift, so torrid. It’s more aerobic than “dirty dancing,” and more fun.

Whatever our opinion of this style of dancing may be is of little importance. I do not believe that any style of dancing is conducive to Christianity and the saving of souls. (In stating this I am not referring to the dance of praise that was practiced under the Old Testament.) I believe I can prove this to all who would be honest with the word of God and themselves. I realize that the subject of dancing is seldom spoken on by religious leaders and that it (dancing) is readily accepted by society and by most of the modern religions of today. (Its acceptance has even invaded the church of Christ in some places.) To hear preaching on this subject is quite out of the ordinary, and to condemn the dance is to be branded as a radical, religious fanatic. If this be my lot, then so be it. One of the greatest contributing factors of weakness among Christians and churches lies at the feet of spineless, weak, mealy-mouthed, forked-tongued preachers who are more politicians than preachers of the word. Note the admonition of the Holy Spirit to preachers (2 Tim. 4:1-5): “I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word, be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.”

Those who have chosen to preach need to get busy at the task assigned them by God. Too many are more afraid of losing their popularity or their pay checks than of the judgment of God. I affirm in the beginning of this article that the dance is: the child of the brothel, the sister of drunkenness, lewdness, divorce and murder, the mother of lust, and a road to hell! I shall now endeavor to prove these charges. Take your Bible and read of the shameful acts the Israelites engaged in while Moses was receiving the O.T. law from God (Exod. 32:1-6; 15-28). Note in verse 6 that it declares, “. . . the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. ” The “drink” wasn’t sweet milk and the “play” wasn’t ring-around-the-roses. This is obvious from the reading of verses 19 and 25. Verse 19 said they were dancing and verse 25 says they were naked. Some take exception with the wording found in verse 25 in the K.J.V. that declares they were “naked,” but there is strong evidence that upholds that rendering of it. Pulpit Commentary declares it to be correct (p. 340, Vol. 3). Its usage is certainly permitted according to Wilson’s O.T. Word Studies (p. 284). Take the Book of God now and turn to the New Testament and look at Mark 6:14-28. In this account of a young woman dancing before Herod and his companions, she “pleased him ” so much that he promised her anything she desired, even to the half of his kingdom (vv. 22-23). Now notice some points we have seen so far:

A. Drinking and dancing go hand in hand (Exod. 32:6). The same thing is true today!

B. Dancing and adultery go hand in hand (Exod. 32:6). The same thing is true today!

C. Dancing and nakedness go hand in hand (Exod. 32:6,25). The same thing is true today! Have you noticed that there are stores that sell special “dance clothes”? Why? They are designed to reveal more of the human body through their skimpiness or their tight fit so that the most can be gained. Many times a boy or girl’s lust is inflamed for the first time because of either the close contact of the human body, or, seeing the wiggling, twisting, suggestive motions of the opposite sex.

D. Dancing and murder go hand in hand (Mk. 6:14-28). The same thing is true today! Police records are full of evidence that supports this. A man begins to dance with another man’s wife, they begin to dance closer together as lusts begin to burn in them, the husband sees what is happening, a fight erupts and a life is taken. Deny it if you please but you know it happens.

We shall continue this study. Please, take your Bible and study these things for your self and take a stand for things that are right! May God help us to that end.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 12, pp. 353, 375
June 21, 1990