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  

Gerry agrees that there is not one direct statement in the New Testament, which 
allows a guilty, put away fornicator to marry another.  Gerry also agrees that there 
is not one approved apostolic example of a guilty, put away fornicator marrying 
another in the New Testament.  He then says that the authority for his position 
rests in the implication of Matthew 19:9, First Timothy 4:3, and First Corinthians 
7:27-28.  Since Matthew 19:9 allows the innocent person in the marriage to marry 
another without sin, Gerry infers authority for the guilty party to marry another 
from this statement, but God did not imply such!  Gerry took First Timothy 4:3 
and First Corinthians 7:27-28 so far out of context that it is not even worth the 
space to explain them at this time. 

Gerry needed to explain how, and at what point, marriage covenants are broken.  
Gerry suggests that adultery is covenant breaking, but he did not tell us when the 
covenant breaking happens (adultery). Is it at the point of the divorce?  Is it at the 
point of the remarriage?  Is it at the point of the divorce and remarriage?  Is it 
when fornication has been committed?  Gerry did not even attempt to explain his 
position, except to say that Matthew 19:9 implies that the guilty party may 
remarry with the Lord's approval. I would infer that Gerry is suggesting that all 
remarriages are scriptural.  It may be that Gerry understands the number of 
problems that he would have been faced with had he attempted to explain his 
doctrine.      

The Lord said that whoever divorces and marries another commits adultery.  He 
said that put away persons who marry another commit adultery, and he said that 
when a person marries a put away person, the party marrying the divorced person 
commits adultery.  The Lord also gave one, and only one exception to this rule.  
When one in marriage, innocent of fornication, divorces a guilty fornicator, then 
the innocent party can marry another with the Lord's authority.  This is the only 
exception to the rule given by Christ.  Gerry alleges that this exception frees the 
guilty party from any obligation he has before God, but Gerry did not prove his 
case.  If he had attempted to prove it, Gerry would have opened himself to several 
problems attempting to explain how people can divorce and remarry with God's 
approval, when fornication has not been committed.   

Gerry makes an argument by appealing to the silence of the Bible.  Gerry, why 
was Jesus unqualified to be a priest while he was on this earth? Moses said that 
priests had to come from the tribe of Levi.  Jesus sprang forth out of Judah, "of 
which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Heb. 7:14).  The 
Hebrews writer makes it clear that one cannot use the silence of the Bible for his 
authority. This is exactly what Gerry is guilty of doing! 

Gerry alleges that my position is based on a faulty definition of adultery.  I tried 
to warn Gerry that I do not base my position on the definition of adultery.  Gerry 
says that adultery is "breaking ones vows or covenant breaking."  Dear reader, 
notice the problem Gerry created for himself by basing his position on his 
definition of adultery.  Jesus said, "And whoso marrieth her which is put away 
doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19:9; see also Matt. 5:32).  How does the person 
marrying the divorced person break covenant?  Now, if A divorces B, and B 
marries C, how does C break a covenant between A and B?  The very idea is 
asinine!  Yet, this is exactly what Gerry's philosophy suggests. 

Gerry tried once again to use Wycliffe and Tyndale to support his "covenant 
breaking" doctrine.  Gerry then rests his case with a definition from the Middle 
English Dictionary, which says, "Avoutre-A violation of the marriage vows."  
Yes, adultery is a violation of the marriage vows.  Gerry your definition does not 
explain how the vows were violated.  You did not go to the literature of the day to 
see how the term was commonly used.  My friend, you are reading your doctrine 
into the text of God's word.  In the marriage, divorce, and remarriage passages, 
adultery comes after the divorce and the remarriage.  Gerry, how is it, according 
to your philosophy, that one can "break the marriage covenant" after the divorce 
and remarriage has taken place?  No wonder you did not try to explain your 
doctrine!  Don't forget, you also have a third person, C in the aforementioned 
example, breaking a marriage covenant that he never made!  Gerry, it is easier just 
to believe and obey the truth of the gospel. 

As for the Clintonite comment, I wanted Gerry to notice the tense of the verb.  
Gerry, you never did tell us your definition of "is."  This was especially important 
since I gave you a passage to deal with that defeats your doctrine.  The amazing 
thing to me about religious liberalism is that the religious liberal does not feel the 
need to use the Bible to justify what he believes.  

Gerry asked me three questions that have to do with sin being held against the 
guilty party after he is forgiven.  What Gerry fails to realize is that there is a 
difference between guilt and the consequences of one's behavior.  May a murderer 
be forgiven?  Yes.  Does his forgiveness resurrect the dead?  Does his forgiveness 
free him from civil prosecution?  No, this is a consequence of his action. As a 
consequence of his actions, the guilty party may not marry another.   

Gerry wants to hear more from me on the duration of adultery, and he will in my 
affirmatives.  For now I only have space for the following comments.  If the 
guilty party is free to remarry, then the term "except" in Matthew 19:9 really does 
not mean "except."  If both the innocent and the guilty party are free to marry 
another, why did the Lord bother giving the passage?  Furthermore, the phrases, 
"except for fornication," and "committeth adultery" are meaningless if the guilty 
party is free to marry another.