From: Tom M Roberts [tmr65@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:20 AM
To: ckellywilson@sbcglobal.net
Cc: sportsstan@yahoo.com; oldfolkss@Aol.Com; jgallman@aol.com; bholmes180@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Response to Kelly Wilson

Close Article

March 15, 2006

 

Brother Wilson:

 

After reading your material carefully, I have come to the conclusion that your doctrine unwittingly makes it impossible to obey the Lord.

 

Please consider carefully what I say. When Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God.." (Lk. 18:29), your doctrine says it cannot happen!

 

Kelly, tell me how it is possible to "leave" (sunder) from a wife "for the sake of the kingdom of God," without sinning (according to your doctrine).  Your doctrine says that one cannot leave a marriage without sinning, under any circumstances. Your doctrine states that I Cor. 7:10-11 includes a sinful divorce, but you picture Paul as ignoring the "sin" by telling the one who sundered the marriage to "remain unmarried or be reconciled." Tell me plainly: was the person who sundered his/her marriage in 1 Cor. 7 in sin or not? If not in sin, your doctrine is wrong. If in sin, you have Paul overlooking a sinful situation and telling the guilty one to "stay as you are," after condemning the guilty person in chapter 5. Can you not see the errors in your doctrine?

 

You note that Peter still lived with his wife, and then conclude that Luke 18 does not mean what it says because Peter kept his wife. But you miss the obvious. Could Peter have left his wife (sundered the marriage) if she turned on the truth and made it impossible for him to go to heaven while married?  Could he have remained single (as per 1 Cor 7:10) without sinning? 

 

Of course, you have also taught that going to heaven is an individual choice, so you do not believe that one person can make another person lose his soul! You wrote: "In both of your responses, you assume, with absolutely no scriptural proof, that someone can prevent their mate from serving God" (p. 8). As I say, you have Jesus making a ridiculous statement since it is impossible for one person to make another person lose his soul! Can you read Luke 18 without prejudice? You are objecting to what Jesus stated, not me. Kelly, why did Jesus say for a disciple to sunder his marriage for the kingdom of heaven's sake if it is impossible for it to happen? I ask you plainly: is there any circumstance in which one person must sunder a marriage for the kingdom of heaven's sake? This is the crux of our discussion and you have not touched top, side, nor bottom of the material I have sent you. Why am I a false teacher for teaching exactly what Jesus said?

 

I do not intend to engage in an endless discussion of this issue. I have appealed to you to recognize that you may hold a personal view of your position if you wish so long as you do not bind it on others. While I know that you are wrong, I grant you the right to hold a personal opinion that differs from what I teach. You have ignored this and bound your opinion to the extent you call faithful brethren "false teachers."  Thus, you are binding where God has not bound and you are causing your brethren discord and unrest.

 

If brother Holmes or myself were "twisting" scripture (2 Pet. 3:16), you would be justified in objecting. However, "a careful reader can distinguish between a rejection of God's word, and a difference in applying that word" (Stan Cox, "Let None Deal Treacherously," pp. 32-33). It is obvious that we are making an honest attempt to properly "divide" scripture (2 Tim 2:15). We appeal to the exact wordage of Jesus Christ for authority for what we believe and practice. Neither of us is adding to or taking away from the scripture, nor redefining the text. We are making an application of scripture to an issue. You have ignored all of this and continue to brand a faithful brother as a false teacher.

 

There are other things you have ignored as well, Kelly.

 

h You have ignored my request as to the person who supplied some of your arguments.
     Much of what you have written has all the earmarks of debate material prepared by
     someone else. I do not intend to have a discussion with a "phantom" writer. Who
     supplied you with this material?

h You have ignored the situation between you and Sue as inconsequential when it should
     be addressed as a character issue. Is it moral for a man and woman to live together
    when they are unmarried? You are hypercritical of others but expect all to grant you
    room to act as you wish.

h You have ignored my exegesis of scripture by a smoke screen of many pages without
    analyzing what I have offered. Kelly, simply because you send many pages of
    extraneous material does not mean that you have answered properly. You reject
    scriptural exegesis by covering it with many pages that are not relevant. Such
    does not imply that you have answered me.

 

When I began this written discussion with you, I sincerely hoped to reach an agreement with you based on a study of scripture. Now, I am convinced that you are being coached by someone else who is adept at argumentation without substance. There are men in the brotherhood today who have made a hobby of the "race to the court house" and who brand all who do not believe them as guilty of the "mental divorce position." They are unreasonable and divisive and I have steadfastly refused to be drawn into that type of argumentation. If you are of that sort, I do not have the time to continue any further. I must confess that I find it strange to be called a false teacher for teaching exactly what Jesus taught.

 

Yours for truth,

 

Tom Roberts