|
Robert Waters to all,
First, I appreciate list management's fairness in allowing the challenge I made to be published to Bible Matters. It is unfortunate that Don did not accept the challenge because, given his ability to debate and his knowledge of Greek, much good could have been accomplished. By "good" I mean people could have been helped to learn the truth on MDR. Despite the fact that a few write on MDR with seemingly great confidence, saying divorced people may not marry unless they initiate divorce for adultery, most brethren see problems with that stand and view the entire issue as very difficult. That was where I stood for about the first 20 years that I preached the gospel. I then became familiar with the view that Olan Hicks teaches. It made more sense to me than the traditional view that Don holds, but after arguing that position for a few years, while endeavoring to keep an open mind, I changed to something that seemingly has no flaws and therefore must be the truth. Hicks’ position does not deal with the problem that Jesus could not have changed the Law (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:17-19, 31-32), which is also the case with Don's position. Thus, Hicks does not properly explain what Jesus was teaching.
Virtually all brethren who hold the traditional position on MDR admit that Jesus could not have changed the Law while He lived. In 1984 J.T. Smith made that observation in STS ( www.Searchingthescriptures.com ). Their way of harmonizing this conundrum with their doctrine is to argue that while the teaching did not apply at the time it would apply later, after the cross. The argument is based upon what is perceived to be "other passages" from Jesus that they say did not apply then but would apply later. One must look to the context to determine if a passage applied at the time. (Albert Barnes, even though holding the traditional view on MDR, ably explains the "but I say unto you" passages.) Regarding Matt 19:9, Jesus spoke to people who questioned Him. The response condemned their practice. Thus, it cannot be denied that His answer was applicable to nor can it be affirmed that it applied to a later period.
Now, in view of the fact that the Jews were seeking to find a reason to kill Jesus and that they did not charge Him with contradicting the Law, it is prudent to accept that what He said was in perfect harmony with the Law that allowed divorced persons to marry (Deut. 24:1-3). The Pharisees sought to get Jesus to take sides on a controversial issue, but He did not fall into their trap. He took advantage of the opportunity to teach them regarding their evil practice, which was contrary to Moses' command to give the bill of divorcement (Deut. 24:1-4; Mark 10:4). Evidently, as Mike Willis explains, the men were sending the women out of the house without giving them the "bill of divorcement," which would naturally result in the act of adultery against the wife (Mark 10:11) as Jesus said (http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-willis-exegesis.htm ; see also: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-jewish-women-in-chains.htm ).
While many today view the "exception clause" as being the only reason a "divorce" could really be a divorce (and not result in adultery) it was nothing more than a statement that to "put away" (not divorce, according to God's way of ending a marriage, which included the bill of divorcement) did NOT result in adultery IF it was because of fornication. Now, as J.T. Smith also affirmed, adultery was not a "reason" for divorce under the Law (as is commonly taught today) because the law provided a means with which to deal with that circumstance. It required the death of the guilty party. Thus, the exception clause must have applied only to men putting away (sending away, permanent separation) a wife that was not legal/scriptural because the “marriage” was fornication.
In reply to my challenge, Don made the statement:
"As a rule, I qualify the offer by saying something to the effect, ‘I stand ready to debate the matter with any worthy disputant.’ In this case, I considered James a "worthy disputant" and I did not add the qualification."
Don, in what respect am I not worthy? Is it because I am mean? Is it because I don't have the ability to be rational? Is it because I have for a number of years sought diligently to get you to engage in honorable debate on MDR? Or is it because I teach contrary to your view, what I teach is difficult to defeat, and you don't want people seeing my position alongside yours in fear that they will see it as more logical and reasonable?
Don said:
"I have dealt with Robert for a number of years. He has now migrated to a ‘stranger’ position, based on the Greek apoluo (put away). The bad thing about this migration is I think he originally accredited me relative to an essay I did on apoluo as to his ‘new revelation.’ In some ways, he may be closer to the truth pertaining to divorce and marriage to another than he was a few years ago. I am really not sure.”
It is hard to fully understand what Don intended to communicate above. First he said the position I now hold is "stranger" than the previous position I held. But then he said, "In some ways, he may be closer to the truth…. I am really not sure."
What is he implying – that the truth is strange? Don, in what way(s) is my position closer to the truth? By your statement, "I am really not sure," does your statement “I am really sure” mean that you think my position may possibly be true? If that is the case please explain why I am unworthy for you to debate. It makes no sense. You say that I'm closer to the truth in some ways than Hicks (whose view is widely accepted) yet I'm unworthy. I have to say you have me confused as to your reasoning, if indeed you are reasoning at all.
Don wrote:
"The relationship between Robert and me then became highly adversarial, to the point, I decided not to excite him any more and I have ignored him for years."
I wonder, Don, were you really trying not to "excite me" when Jon Quinn, a few years ago, threatened to boot me off Mars-list (and then later did) and you sent a post in which you asserted that your "unworthy" text applied, thus encouraging Jon to shut me up, at least on Mars-list? It is interesting that recently Don wrote an article on that text and he told the truth about its meaning, i.e., that it applies to persons who refuse the gospel, etc. Now, does Don really believe that I refuse the gospel? I disagree with his teaching on MDR. Is this subject the foundation of our faith? We all know better. We also all, including Don, know that it is a misuse of scripture to argue that you are to “shake the dust off your feet” and view as "unworthy" someone who simply differs with you on a single subject like MDR. Don, if it is not MDR please tell me what it is that makes me unworthy of your effort to defend your position on MDR.
Don says:
"He seems to now believe and teach that the guilty put away can later marry without adverse consequence (his "original" teaching). If I understand Robert, he is now saying that the guilty put away on whom Jesus focused who cannot marry another is the one who was not properly put away (right protocol, apoluo). However, the guilty of fornication mate properly put away may marry another."
One of the reasons I want to debate Don is because he does understand my position. He understands it well. Also, if my position has a weak point he would be able to point it out. The fact that he refuses to debate me helps strengthen my faith in the position I hold, and probably helps others to clear their thinking so they too can see what I’m teaching.
Don wrote:
"The bottom line, Robert has the one who sinned against their mate being able to subsequently marry another, at least, in his supplied case, while the innocent putting away mate lives. I believe Robert seriously errs on this point and is extending sinful hope to those in adulterous marriages."
The Law allowed divorced persons to marry. The main passage that brethren use to teach that divorced persons may not marry is Jesus' statement, but since it cannot be interpreted to be contrary to the Law it must be interpreted some other way, which is what I have done in keeping with good hermeneutics.
Let me remind you that Don's view has the innocent person who is divorced not being allowed to marry - - even though the marriage is ended according to God's Law (Deut. 24:1-3), which subjects him to the temptation of fornication (1 Cor. 7:1, 2). And we know he is told by some that he cannot marry without committing adultery, which is contrary to Paul's statement to the Thessalonians if he is indeed without a spouse (1 Thes 4:1-3).
Don stated:
"He also encourages churches to fellowship the put away guilty who has married another (again, in keeping with Robert's qualification)."
This is much of the problem. While Paul said for people to stay where they are, but that they do not sin if they marry, Don urges that churches disfellowship those who do marry. More than that, over the years, Don has continually taken shots at high level preachers who have said things that indicate that they do not believe churches should divide over this issue. The shots that he has continually taken at me include his statement that I am not worthy and that it is against his principles to engage such a one in honorable Bible discussion.
Don wrote:
"At this time, I respectfully decline Robert's offer to debate the options of the put away guilty mate."
I think that Don fully understands that if all one does is put away his spouse and does not ALSO give her a "bill of divorcement" (which was the sins Jesus dealt with) then indeed adultery is committed by marrying another. I also think that Don fully understands that, at the time Jesus spoke, a person who sent away his wife (permanent separation) because it was not legal due to incest, etc., could marry another without committing adultery. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could fail to see this. It makes perfect sense.
It is interesting how Don worded his excuse for declining to debate. He wrote:
Robert and perhaps another may decide one of many things as to my decline:
1). I am afraid of Robert's debating skills, knowing that he really has the truth.
RW: Don is not afraid of my debating skills. He is very capable. He did say he was not sure about my position being closer to the truth. So it appears that "truth" is what Don fears, not me.
2). I do not consider Robert stable enough to conduct such a debate.
RW: Nah. Don has surely read some of my debates and therefore knows I am stable.
3). I do not believe in debating.
RW: Nah. Don will debate at the drop of a hat if the conditions are right for him.
4). Should I agree to debate Robert, my lily white reputation might be tarnished and some would think of me as a mean-spirited debater and I can not have that .
RW: If Don is not seen as "mean spirited" by now his debating me would likely not result in that happening. Don can be very cordial, but it appears that when he cannot defeat a doctrine with reason and logic he sometimes makes personal attacks instead.
5). Based on past experience with Robert, I believe if I would debate Robert, I would be violating the command of Matthew 7: 6.
RW: The above is the reason Don has given in the past for not engaging in honorable debate with me. However, he has often responded in the manner you have seen in his response here. I have already shown that Don misused this text and that he knows what the text teaches. Here is what he said in a recent article posted to Bible matters: “The "dogs" and "hogs" stand for people not only without any spiritual aptitude, but who are violently opposed to the spiritual. The "holy" and "pearls" represent the gospel. We can know people by their "fruits," Jesus taught, and when they show such fruit as hating the gospel, we are to let them alone (cp. Matt. 7: 15-20).” Nothing could be more insulting to a gospel preacher than to tell him he is not worthy to hear the gospel. Thus, Don refused to debate because, as he charges, I'm not worthy. Yet he offered no proof. This obviously is against the list rule that states that we are not to make "unfounded charges."
I want to close by commending Robert, yes, commending him. At least he is desirous of being accountable for what he teaches, albeit twisted and convoluted it may be. I also, in all fairness, know and realize that some whom I urge for a debate may think me unworthy of their time and perhaps I am. This is why I often mention that one whom they view as worthy could perhaps be presented.
Again, Don alludes to the "unworthy" excuse. He states that some may not want to debate him because they might also view him as unworthy. If anyone refused to debate Don because of his being unworthy it would NOT be because of what Matt. 7:6 teaches, but because he believes Don would make personal attacks, etc. I don't know of anyone that really believes Matt. 7:6 would forbid him from engaging in honorable debate with another gospel preacher on a controversial issue. Why, if you look at Don's article you will see that even he knows the truth as to what the passage teaches.
“Robert offered his challenge and I declined. According to list rules (BM), Robert has that right and I also have the right to refuse. I do not intend to say any more about the matter.”
If Don is not persuaded to engage in the honorable debate that I have proposed, for the purpose of seeking and promoting truth, then this will be the end of this discussion.
In my first article I stated:
"On a list a few years ago I exposed his teaching as being contrary to the nature of God as well as contrary to the clear teaching of Paul; a doctrine of demons that causes needless division in churches and families; and a doctrine that makes Jesus a liar and law breaker. Nevertheless, Don continues to teach that same doctrine, which he claims to be ready to defend in debate."
Did Don deny what I said about his doctrine? I did not see it. Evidently he is not willing to deny it. But will he continue to teach what he has taught, even though he evidently cannot defend it? Time will tell.
I will close by once again putting before you the propositions that set forth the issues that Don, if he is truly honorable in seeking and defending truth, needs to fully address.
Propositions:
The Law of Moses, under which Jesus lived and taught, allowed divorced persons to marry and Jesus could not have taught contrary to Moses without sin.
The "put away" person of Matt. 19:9 that commits adultery by marrying another applies only to those who were ONLY put away or sent away and not also given the bill of divorcement.
The phrase "except for fornication" does not refer to sexual unfaithfulness (adultery) in a legitimate marriage, being the only reason a marriage may be dissolved, but merely refers to the putting away or sending away of a "wife" that is not scriptural or legal.
|
