Parker/Broking Debate on Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
Proposition:  
The Bible teaches that when a Matt. 19:6 marriage ends in divorce, 
the person put away for fornication may marry another with the Lord's 
approval. 

Affirm: Gerry Parker 
Deny: Darrell Broking  
Darrell Broking's Second Negative: 

Gerry agreed to affirm the following:  "The Bible teaches that when a Matthew 
19:6 marriage ends in divorce, the person put away for fornication may marry 
another with the Lord's approval."   

Furthermore, Gerry alleged that I have gone beyond the text.  The indication is 
that Gerry knows something about Bible authority and the need to stay with book, 
chapter, and verse teaching for scriptural authority.  Gerry is trying to affirm the 
aforementioned proposition, but he has yet to use any Bible to do so. 

Gerry, since you acknowledge the need for Bible authority, will you please 
present one of the following:  1) A direct statement by an inspired writer of the 
New Testament that allows the guilty put away party to marry another. 2) An 
approved Bible example of a guilty put away party marrying another. 3) Any 
passage wherein an inspired writer of the New Testament implied that the guilty 
put away party may marry another.   

Brother, the final argument in a debate is supposed to be free of new material.  
However, since you are attempting to prove the proposition above, and have yet 
to offer any Biblical evidence for your proposition, I encourage you to go ahead 
and give the readership of this debate some kind of evidence for your allegation. 

In my last negative I presented the following to support the Biblical definition of 
adultery: 1) The definition of the Greek word translated adultery.  2) Wayne 
Jackson's research (I double-checked his sources before using the information) 
into how the ancient Greeks used the term adultery. 

By this method one can clearly understand how the word adultery used by Christ, 
was understood in Christ's day.  Gerry wants to take Tyndale's English translation 
of the Greek term for adultery, "breaketh wedlock," and "advoutry" to support his 
philosophy.  If "advoutry" as used by Tyndale means what Gerry alleges it to 
mean, then one can only conclude that Tyndale tried to change the traditional 
definition of the word adultery.  This is the case because, as Jackson's research 
clearly indicates, the Greeks did not use the term in the manner that Gerry 
affirms.  Before Gerry can successfully argue that Tyndale implied what Gerry 
teaches, Gerry needs to do some research into the vernacular and learn what the 
term meant in sixteenth century English.  This he has not done.  If one wants the 
available research behind Gerry's doctrine read:  Hicks, Olan. What the Bible 
Says About Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage.  Searcy:  Gospel Enterprises, 
1987: 140-152.  After reading that section, remember that the language of the 
New Testament was not used by the writers of the New Testament only, but it was 
the common language of that period. 

Understanding how a word was used and understood by the Greeks, allows one to 
know what that word means.  Jackson's research goes right to the heart of the 
matter and reveals how the word adultery was used in Jesus' day.  As you noticed 
in Gerry's second affirmative, Gerry did not try to refute this research, as it cannot 
be refuted! 

Gerry alleges that I said, "Adulterers will not go to heaven."  What I said was, 
"adulterers cannot remain in adultery and go to heaven."  Forgiven adulterers are 
no longer adulterers!  Adultery, just like homosexuality, drunkenness, and such 
like things, has to stop before one can be forgiven of the sin.  Adultery, as used in 
Matthew 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18, means "keeps on 
committing adultery."  Gerry, how many major translations say that "if we walk 
in the light as he is in the light, we keep on having fellowship one with another, 
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son keeps on cleansing us from all sin"?  As 
many as say that adultery in the aforementioned passages means "keeps on 
committing adultery."  Gerry, as a preacher you must know that this is exactly 
what is taught in First John 1:7, even though major translations do not read that 
way.  When an argument is used that tears down Christ's truth, like the argument 
Gerry used, it needs to be abandoned immediately!  Gerry, this serves as an 
answer to your second question.  I will also do a good bit of work here in my 
affirmative.  Yes, I will actually use the Bible to support what I am to affirm. 

Gerry, it looks like Gus Nichols left God out of his mule illustration.  Biblically, 
in marriage the Lord joins scriptural candidates for marriage (Matt. 19:6). God is 
the third party involved in marriage and he alone can release any married person 
from his vow.  Notice that God was angry with his people because of their 
"putting away" (Mal. 3:16).  To the treacherous, the divorced (by man's standard), 
God said, "yet she is (please note the tense of the word is.  Unless you are a 
Clintonite you can understand the word). . . the wife of his youth" (Mal. 2:14).  
Gerry, God holds one to his vow and God alone can release one from that vow.  
This will serve as an answer to your first question. 

In answer to your third question, the Bible says that the innocent person in 
divorce is free to marry another.  This excludes the guilty party from remarriage, 
just as the command to sing excludes mechanical instruments of music in 
worship!  This is where you have failed in this debate.  You have not even 
attempted to give Bible authority for the guilty party to marry another.  You made 
a tragic mistake when you assumed that my argument hinges on the definition of 
the word adultery.  By pushing your view of the word adultery, and by not using 
God's word to make your case, you wasted two of your three affirmatives!  Will 
you please, for the sake of Christ, the church, unity, and the lost, do what you 
agreed to do and give us some Bible for what you allege to be the truth?