Proposition: In the New Testament, the apostle Paul teaches that all competent adults, including the divorced, may marry.
In his second affirmative, brother Waters complains that because Paul said “let them marry” that he has proven his proposition. Robert you have not yet shown that Paul was talking to people who had divorced. Of course all competent adults who are eligible may marry – but where does Paul teach that the ones to whom Paul refers had been divorced? That’s the reason I said you had not made an argument. You not only need to show what is said, but why it is said in order to prove your assertion that all divorced people may marry. THAT’S WHAT YOUR PROPOSITION SAYS.
You accuse me of setting up a straw-man and “proceeding to debate him.” No, the “straw-man” is just a figment of your imagination as is your doctrine.
2) You said, “He went into the affirmative mode (instead of using his space to answer my arguments)…” That’s my point, Robert. You just made statements instead of making arguments. Examples: Paul said “Let every man have his own wife.” I don’t deny that. What was your argument on that passage? What does that have to do with people who are divorced remarrying?
Throughout his second affirmative Robert continues to talk about me teaching things that will support my view. The passages that I used in my first negative were to show that Robert’s view is false. But, this wrangling about who said what is not getting us anywhere.
Under his subheading “I Corinthians 7:8-9” I read: “J.T. says, ‘Robert thinks that all that are unmarried are divorced.’ No, that is not what Robert thinks.” Robert says I misrepresented him in saying that he believes that all that are unmarried are divorced. Let’s say it another way. Robert believes that all divorced people are unmarried. He applies this statement to I Corinthians 7:8-9 in his second affirmative. He refers to the above passage and says “Divorced people are “unmarried” and therefore, to obey Paul, we must let the divorced marry”. So, in these two passages Robert thinks that the word unmarried includes those who are divorced.
The word “unmarried” is used four times in this chapter – verses 8, 11, 32, and 34. If the word unmarried in verse 8 included divorced people, then the same word (unmarried) is used in verse 11 means that the wife was divorced from her husband. Now, in his last affirmative, Robert said, “When a divorce is done God's way, the ‘loosing’ is accomplished and the woman may ‘go be another man’s wife’ (Deuteronomy 24:1-2).” If the woman in 7:11 is unmarried, (according to Robert she is divorced God’s way) she may go and be another man’s wife.
Now let’s get this straight according to “Dr:” Waters:
1. A person considered unmarried must be divorced according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and therefore loosed.
2. The wife in I Corinthians 7:11 is said to be unmarried. Therefore she was divorced according to Deuteronomy 24 and thus loosed and free to remarry – according to Robert.
This also places the husband in the position of being able to remarry without sin according to Deuteronomy 24. But Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was contingency law that was given by God through Moses to correct a mistreatment of wives BECAUSE OF THE HARDHARTED JEWS (Matthew 19:8). Now it was contingency law, given to the Jews because of the hardness of their hearts and yet Robert wants to bring it over into the New Testament. WHY? Because he has to have it in order to sustain his doctrine – THAT’S WHY!
But now, let’s go back to the wife of I Corinthians 7:11. According to Robert’s theory, she is divorced, loosed and free to marry. Yet Paul said, NO! Do you mean to tell me that Paul contradicted himself? In his very last paragraph, Robert mentions “I Timothy 4:1-4. In this text, Paul makes it plain that ‘forbidding to marry’” is sinful. I Timothy 4:1,3, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 3Forbidding to marry…” Now what did Paul say in I Corinthians 7:11? “remain unmarried – is that the same as “forbidding to marry,” Robert?
Now to I Corinthians 7:27-28 – bound and loosed.
Robert thinks that because I used Scripture to answer his argument that I am getting in the affirmative. Not so! I am simply allowing God to reply to Robert.
I Corinthians 7:27-28 “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.” No doubt in the latter part of this passage Paul is having reference to the “present distress” he mentions in verse 26.
Marriage Does Not Equal Bound – Loosed Does Not Equal Divorce
Brethren have made this mistake for many years. But as I mentioned in the first negative, Paul discusses both the words in Romans 7:2-3. “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (all underlining mine for emphasis – jts)
God’s law binds and God’s law looses. He looses one when his/her spouse dies.
Man’s law marries and man’s law divorces. Again I say, according to Robert’s theory one could divorce and remarry every six months for the rest of his life and still stand in favor with God. He has not denied it.
This is my second effort in which I have called upon Robert to show me where divorce is found in I Corinthians 7, but to no avail. Maybe he will tell us in his next effort.
See the entire debate in one file: http://www.totalhealth.bz/smith-waters-divorce-complete.pdf