Stringer/Bunch Debate on Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
 Proposition:  The New Testament teaches that the only cause for 
 divorce and remarriage is when sexual immorality is involved and 
 only the innocent party has a right to remarry."
 
 Affirm: Larry A. Bunch 
 Deny: Jason E. Stringer
 
 Greetings from Waco, TX......
 
 Since this is the final posting on this discussion I would like 
 to express my gratitude to my opponent for his willingness to 
 defend his position, and to the moderators of this list for 
 providing this forum.  As I stated a couple of weeks back at the 
 end of my 3rd affirmative, your soul does not depend on what 
 Jason Stringer or Larry Bunch says about the matter, but what the 
 Bible says.  I continue to study these things, and I hope that 
 you will too.
 
 Now, on to it.  
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "Moses' Law gave several reasons for the Jewish male to divorce 
 his wife: 1-- Wife he had bought (Exodus 21:7-11) 2--Wife taken 
 captive (Deut.21:10-14) 3-- Wife in whom was uncleanness (Deut.24:1-4)."
 
 Jason here:
 First of all Exodus 21:7-11 deals with a master/slave 
 relationship.  There is actually no marriage mentioned here.  
 This is a "concubine" which is something the Lord permitted under 
 Mosaical Law, but is another thing that "from the beginning was 
 not so.
 
 Secondly, Deut. 21:10-14 deals with another special situation 
 under Mosaical Law.  God did not wish for Israel to intermarry 
 with the other nations.  They were to keep the lineage pure.  As 
 far as God's law regarding a marriage between two Jews Deut. 24:1 
 is the law which God gave.  God's law permitted divorce for 
 "uncleanness" Hebrew word "ervah" which meant something that took 
 place before the marriage took place, and this is what Christ 
 deals with in Matthew 19:9.
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "Jason contends Mark 10 is something different from Matthew 19. 
 His contention does not have enough support to prop it up! 
 R.C.H.Lenski: "From Mark 10:10-11 one might conclude that Jesus 
 spoke this word only to the disciples after they and Jesus had 
 gone into the house; but this is not necessary. We may assume 
 that Jesus concluded his answer to the Pharisees with this final 
 statement and then repeated it in the house during the discussion 
 with the disciples, of whom Matthew also speaks in v.10." (THE 
 INTERPRETATION OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL By R.C.H.Lenski, p.732, 
 comment on Matt.19:9.)"
 
 Jason here:
 Larry lamented earlier in this debate my experience in debating 
 by saying he had "only a high school education" and was just a 
 "poor farm boy" indicating that he didn't have as much schooling 
 as I have.  This is not to brag about my education, I got what I 
 could afford, and paid for it myself.  However, even a poor old 
 farm boy with a high school education should be able to read the 
 words in Mark 10:10, "In the house" and pretty much figure out 
 that this is a different place and event from when He had spoken 
 to the Pharisees earlier.  In this context  He (1) is speaking to 
 a different group of people who are not questioning Him 
 concerning the Law of Moses and (2) does not give an exception.  
 Note the man that Larry quotes says, "We may ASSUME . . . ."  We 
 may ASSUME a lot of things, Larry, but that doesn't make them so, 
 now does it?
 
 Larry writes:  
 "This is another example of Jason's failure to read carefully 
 what I wrote. I did not claim an "exception" from the beginning, 
 but I did say that JESUS GIVES ONE! (caps for emphasis) Accept 
 what Jesus says or deny that exception today and deny His 
 authority!"
 
 Jason here:
 First, I think Larry owes me an apology here.  I do not deny the 
 authority of Christ.  Read Matthew 28:18-20.  I believe every 
 word of it!  What I am saying here is that Jesus is explaining 
 the LAW OF MOSES in Matthew 19:9.  Note verse 3 of Matthew 19  
 "The Pharisees came to Him TESTING Him."  What were they TESTING 
 Him on?  The Law of Moses.  If Jesus had taught them anything 
 outside the Law of Moses in this situation He would have been 
 giving them EXACTLY what they wanted, fuel for their fire to 
 discredit Him.  If He had given them something beyond the law 
 which He was under (Gal. 4:4), then they would have proven their 
 point that He was not who He said He was.
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "Jason charged that my teaching ".allows those who are not in a 
 right state with the Lord to remain in fellowship with him." I do 
 not understand his charge and disallow it as further 
 misunderstanding on his part concerning the Truth and my 
 exposition thereof."
 
 Jason here:
 I thought what I meant was clear as branch water, but apparently 
 not.  Apparently Larry neglected to read the entire paragraph 
 that statement is taken from.  When Larry allows Christians who 
 have been divorced for adultery to remarry and he accepts them 
 into fellowship with him, it is my contention that he is allowing 
 those who are not in a right state with the Lord to have 
 fellowship with him, and is there for guilty of having fellowship 
 with "the unfruitful works of darkness." 
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "Jason fails in his attempt to negate Matthew 18 as something 
 applicable to us today. He assumes that because withdrawing of 
 fellowship is found in Acts-Revelation that takes care of the 
 matter. He says to go to Matthew for the example of how to do 
 this.....  The only thing Jason can find in Acts-Revelation is to 
 withdraw from disorderly brethren and to treat a withdrawn-from 
 brother as a Gentile and tax-gatherer. Nothing else can be found. 
 Jason has made an arbitrary division of God's Word that will not 
 hold up under careful scrutiny."
 
 Jason here:
 And the only thing I can find on taking the Lord's Supper in Acts 
 through Revelation is that we partake of it on the first day of 
 the week.  The order is not found anywhere else except for when 
 Christ established it.  I have to go back to the accounts in the 
 Gospels to find that first He took bread then He took the cup.  
 Likewise I go to Matthew 18 to find the process for carrying out 
 God's command on the proper way to withdraw from one who "walks 
 disorderly."  This proves nothing about what is being taught in 
 Matthew 19.  Again, Matthew 19 Christ is explaining the Law of 
 Moses.
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "Guess what? Concerning divorce and remarriage, I can go to 
 Matt.19:9 to find out about that!"
 
 Jason here:
 Matthew 19:9 does not explain any kind of "process" like Matthew 
 18 does for a command that would later be given to the Lord's 
 church.  Nor does it explain any kind of "order" like the 
 example of the establishment of the Lord's Supper.  So, Larry, 
 "Guess what?"  I can go to Matthew 19:9 and find out what Moses 
 Law, which Christ was answering a question from, teaches 
 regarding the way a Jew was to put away his wife.  If I want to 
 know what I am to follow I need to turn to 1 Cor. 7!
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "He further fails regarding baptism as taught UNDER THE LAW by 
 John the baptizer and, later, Jesus. Jason says, "There was no 
 "washing away" of anything in this baptism.  If there was, please 
 show me."
 
 Mark 1:4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a 
 baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. -- Luke 3:3 
 And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a 
 baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;"
 
 Jason here: 
 Larry needs to note the language of these two passage.  What was 
 for the remission of sins in these passages?  Not the baptism, 
 the repentance.  Both passages quote pretty much the same and 
 say, " ....preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of 
 sins."
 
 The repentance was for the remission of sins under John's 
 baptism.  If the baptism itself had been for remission of sins 
 Apollos would have never have needed to have been baptized again.  
 Those who Paul found worshipping in Ephesus who had been baptized 
 under John's baptism would have not to have needed to be baptized 
 again.  This was prior to the establishment of baptism being the 
 means of the remission of sins.  Under Moses' Law there was no 
 command to baptize for the remission of sins.  However, God did 
 demand repentance from Israel, we see it over and over again in 
 the Old Testament.  Question, and I know Larry does not have 
 another affirmative, but one for him and the rest to chew on a 
 bit:  If a Jew were to repent during the time of John, but was 
 not baptized by John or a disciple of John, would he be lost?  
 Absolutely not, why?  Because the baptism of John was NOT a 
 requirement.  Under New Testament Law it is!
 
 Larry concluded his part of this discussion by saying:  
 "My proposition stands unanswered. Everything has been covered 
 more than once and to continue the arguments would be redundant. 
 To reject what Jesus said in Matt.19:9 is to reject the authority 
 of our Lord"
 
 Jason here:
 Larry is certainly bold in his statement.  I have answered him 
 point by point in everything he has brought up in this 
 discussion.  I do not reject the authority of Jesus, and I think 
 Larry needs to repent of accusing me of such a thing.  I 
 explained it in my first affirmative, and I'll explain it one 
 more time for emphasis:  Look at who he was talking to:  Jews.  
 Look at what the question was about:  A point from the law of 
 Moses.  The facts are there, He was explaining the Law.  
 
 So, yes, Larry, your proposition has been answered, and continues 
 to be answered.  You're right, everything has been covered more 
 than once.  But, Larry, I do not reject what Jesus said in 
 Matthew 19:9.  I accept it for what it is, an explanation by a 
 Jew living under the Law of Moses, to Jews, living under the Law 
 of Moses, about the Law of Moses.  
 
 I brought it up in my second affirmative, and I think in closing  
 here it is appropriate to bring it up again:  Why does the rule 
 of forgiveness in Matthew 18:22 (a chapter Larry seems to be very 
 fond of, because he thinks it proves his point but doesn't) valid 
 for everything BUT the marriage relationship in Larry's mind?  
 
 Under "all truth" that we have been given following the close of 
 the book of John (and I would remind you that the word all 
 includes everything and excludes nothing regarding the noun that 
 it modifies, in this case truth), the only dealing we have with 
 the subject of divorce is in 1 Cor. 7.  In this passage of 
 scripture we have one reason given for divorce:  The departure of 
 the unbelieving spouse.  We have no exception given for 
 remarriage.  And Larry is yet to find one law that we are to 
 follow today, other than what he teaches on MDR, that is not 
 found beyond the book of John.  
 
 Thank you for your time,
 Jason E. Stringer