Proposition: In the
New Testament, the apostle Paul teaches that all competent adults, including
the divorced, may marry.
In my first affirmative I
listed a number of passages that clearly show the gist of Paul's
teachings--"let them marry."
But my opponent does not read this phrase and see the meaning as would
one who had not been taught the traditional position and would readily
understand. J.T. questions whether my
arguments are even arguments. But if someone
does not recognize "here is plain language from the Scripture, and here is
what it means" as an argument then he does not know what an argument
is.
If you have been reading
these discussions you have observed that J.T. has done three things that are
indicative of his failure to answer my first affirmative: 1) He built a strawman and proceeded to debate him; 2) He went into the
affirmative mode (instead of using his space to answer my arguments) in his
effort to defeat the strawman he concocted; and 3) He
assumed what he wasn’t able to prove in the last debate, which is what I said
he would do. He assumed Jesus changed the law and is twisting Paul’s teachings
to harmonize with that idea.
The strawman
believes that the teaching of Jesus is not applicable to us. I believe it is
and so stated in the previous debate. J.T. tells this strawman
that because of his belief he can't use Deuteronomy 24:1-4 because he doesn't
believe any teachings before Paul are applicable. I have not used much space defending Mr. Strawman. Instead, I
have pressed my points, and J.T. can respond as he wishes.
The idea of the debate’s
being limited to Paul's teachings has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus'
teachings are applicable. My point in
limiting this debate to Paul's teachings is to let his teachings stand on their
own rather than interpret them in light of what may or may not be true of
Jesus' teachings. Jesus dealt with the
Jewish men's unlawful putting away of their wives, whereas Paul deals with
actual questions from Christians regarding who may marry, and his writings are
inspired of God.
J.T. tells the strawman he can't use Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and that since he
can't use Jesus' teaching he has no Scripture condemning divorce--people may divorce
and remarry as many times as they want to.
(Nobody is saying it’s GOOD to divorce—just that God forgives divorce,
when it is a sin, just like He does anything else. Can J.T. prove God DOESN’T
forgive divorce like He does everything else?) I'm going to help the strawman out here just to show how illogical my opponent,
who is supposed to be defeating my arguments, has become. If Deuteronomy 24:1-4
is not applicable then we have no Scripture giving us the definition of a
divorce. Also, the strawman could show J.T. various
passages that condemn divorcing a faithful spouse (See Eph. 5:22, 25; Col.
3:19).
Things to Observe
Under the above heading J.T.
had some questions about “the present distress.” He insists Paul forbids the
divorced to marry and would use certain statements that Paul made as
support. For example: the encouragement
to be celibate as he was, and for a separated couple to remain in that state (1
Cor. 7:11). J.T. will try to force this
passage to support his view, but his use of it proves too much. If it is
talking about divorce (it is not) then not even those who did the divorcing
“for fornication” may marry because Paul made no mention of an exception.
I made the argument that Paul
did not even hint that a divorce needs to be "for fornication" to be
a divorce that frees the parties.
Instead of providing the passage, or argument, that showed I erred, J.T.
demands that I provide the
passage. Remember, my argument was that THERE
IS NO SUCH PASSAGE, as we would logically expect to find if we are to
understand Paul to teach that the divorced may not marry. Here is how J.T. deals
with such arguments as the one above: "they are not arguments." Nevertheless,
I agued, “If God had intended for us to understand that only those who initiate
divorce for fornication may marry another, would he not have inspired Paul to
teach the same in no uncertain terms?” Now, we are studying Paul’s
teachings. Will J.T. bring forth the
proof? Will he show where PAUL said one has to have a reason for a divorce
before God recognizes it? Where is it?
J.T. does not have a good
answer for this VERY important observation, which I used as an argument. All he does is mention what he insists Jesus
taught. But this is circular reasoning—he has no answer for what is in the texts
that we are debating. The truth of
Jesus’ teaching applies today, but J.T. is debating me, not a strawman, on Paul’s teachings regarding who may marry.
I Corinthians 7:1-2
J.T. says he agrees with the
above text, yet he tells men who have been divorced and who have no wife that they
must remain celibate. Paul says,
"let them marry," but J.T. says, “No, you can't, it would be adultery.”
We are not talking about having someone else's spouse; we are taking about
legal scriptural marriages. John the baptizer judged a man who was illegally
married to his brother's wife, which according to the Law he could not do while
his brother was still living (Lev 20:21). John was never guilty of forbidding
anyone to marry. But J.T. makes a
practice of it, even in cases involving one who is innocent of marital sin, and
teaches others to do the same. God’s condemnation of such evil evidently has no
effect on J.T. (Prov. 17:26; 1 Tim. 4:1-4).
1 Corinthians 7:8, 9
J.T. says, “Robert thinks
that all that are unmarried are divorced.” No, that is not what Robert thinks. The
above passage commands preachers to let the unmarried marry. Divorced people
are “unmarried” and therefore, to obey Paul, we must let the divorced
marry. But J.T. cannot believe and obey
Paul until he gives up his false belief regarding Jesus’ teachings, which has
the Scriptures in conflict.
1 Corinthians 7:27-28
This text clearly states that
the “loosed” may marry. But, instead of
acknowledging this fact and obeying the command, J.T. says, “God does the
binding and the loosing." How true
this is! But it does not help J.T. God gave
the law for how to divorce, as opposed to a man’s simply sending a wife out of
the house, which resulted in adultery.
When a divorce is done God's way, the “loosing” is accomplished and the
woman may “go be another man’s wife” (Deut. 24:1-2).
J.T. quoted Romans 7:2-3 but
gave no explanation. When he is in the
affirmative and brings this up I will show it does not support his teachings,
as most brethren already know.
I Timothy 4:1-4
In this text, Paul makes it
plain that “forbidding to marry” is sinful.
In his effort to answer, J.T. misapplied 1 Corinthians 7:11. He asked if
Paul was forbidding someone to marry. No,
that would be contrary to the gist of his own teaching.
This text speaks of “reconciliation,” not divorce. This is a good time to remind the reader that J.T.’s
doctrine (not the truth) has Moses teaching what God didn’t want, Jesus
teaching contrary to Moses, Paul contradicting Jesus and Paul contradicting
himself.