Parker/Broking Debate on Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
Proposition: 
The Bible teaches that when Matthew 19:6 marriage ends in divorce,
the only party with scriptural authority to marry another is one innocent of
fornication, who put away a spouse guilty of fornication.

Affirm:  Darrell Broking
Deny:  Gerry Parker

Darrell, I will not argue over your not answering questions (with one exception).  
Those who can read can decide that for themselves.  

I agree with you Darrell, that God will not forgive people who are continuing in a 
sinful lifestyle.  What you have not established yet is that the GUILTY PARTY is 
continuing in sin when he/she marry another.  As a matter of fact you seemed to 
be addressing some other  questions in your second affirmative that are not even 
in question in this exchange.  And as for Malachi 2, I really saw no argument that 
needed to be dealt with.  Maybe if you clarify it for me then I can deal with it. 

Darrell, I did see your endnote references but you gave no direct quotes.  I think it 
would have been helpful if you had done so.  But that is your choice. 

Darrell, you say that the GUILTY PARTY is not released from his original vow.  
And somehow you think this proves he commits adultery when he marries again.  
So, I must continue to ask, if the GUILTY PARTY is LIVING IN ADULTERY 
when he/she remarries you must tell us  WHO they are married to still.  Can you 
not see that this just destroys your whole argument?  By your definition of 
ADULTERY, the GUILTY PARTY must still be married to someone.  Who is it 
please?  The innocent has divorced them because of FORNICATION.  You and I  
agree that the INNOCENT may marry again.  You say that if the GUILTY 
PARTY marries again they are in ADULTERY.  I can accept that Darrell, if you 
can give a LOGICAL answer.  But so far you have not even  attempted to give an 
answer.  You say you accept "the Lord's word on the matter".  I appreciate that.  
But it is clear that you do not know what His words are when you cannot answer 
this one simple question. 

Let me see if I can make this clearer.  Dick and Jane are married.  Dick commits 
fornication.  Jane divorces him because of this.  Jane marries someone else a 
couple of years later(you and I agree that she has the right to do this). Dick meets 
Susan.  They get married.  They begin to attend church where you are preaching.  
They wish to be baptized.  You tell them they cannot be baptized until they get a 
divorce because they are committing ADULTERY.  Dick asks you  then,” Who 
am I still married to"?  Darrell, what are you going to tell him and us?  You know 
he is not married to Jane anymore.  Susan has never been married before.  What 
are you going to say?  What do you tell Dick?  "He is committing ADULTERY", 
you say.  Please tell us who Dick is married to in order to be committing 
ADULTERY?    

Darrell, thanks for clarifying your question about Matt. 19:9b.  I admit I was not 
sure what you were trying to say at first.  And Darrell, I have an answer.  Your 
not going to like the answer but I  have an answer.  And furthermore, I hate to be 
hardnosed about this but I am not going to answer this question until you answer 
my question above.  You have one more response.  Please answer my question.  I 
have asked it repeatedly and you have not given a direct  answer.  Please do so.  
So please Darrell, tell us who Dick is married to in the above example if he is 
indeed committing ADULTERY?  

Darrell, as for my LACK of understanding of NT Greek being a problem, I am 
fairly certain that I have had as much as you if not more.  I have studied under 
Floyd, Oster, and Cloud.  After finishing Elementary Greek I moved on to 
Advanced Greek NT.  We translated  Romans chapters 1-8 in my last quarter.  
Does this make me a scholar?  No.  I have never claimed such.  But it should tell 
you I have the background that you deny I have.  I have quoted from Lenski, and 
Osburn. You say that Edwards is biased and therefore what he says cannot be 
considered.  Darrell, I could easily say the same about your sources.  This proves 
nothing? These men are Greek scholars.  To deny this is to show your bias.  And 
to go further, in the example of Dick and Susan above I believe even Homer 
Hailey would agree with my conclusion based on his book, The Divorced & 
Remarried Who would Come To God (Hailey may come at it from a different 
direction, but  our conclusions are the same).  Not to mention McGarvey who I 
have already mentioned.  So, do I have any support from Greek scholarship?  
Yes! 

And as for the Greek being PUNTILIAR, you even gave us an example of the 
Present Tense being Puntiliar, showing that what I am saying is indeed a 
possibility. But let's look at another example; Matthew 13:44 "...thereof goeth and 
SELLETH all that he hath, and BUYETH that field".  These are the same type of 
verbs and they clearly are PUNTILIAR.  Do you want some more for proof?  

Also, I want to express my appreciation to you for giving us another Greek 
scholar (Lawrence Barclay) who says the GUILTY PARTY may marry again.  
You did not tell us why he believes such, but I do thank you  for that information.  
The fact that he might disagree on the text is interesting but again this proves 
nothing because we can go tit for tat with Greek scholars who agree with us as we 
have both  demonstrated.  

Darrell, asked about WHEN does ADULTERY actually take place.  He even 
acknowledged that I answered the question but I will elaborate here even though 
he still has not yet told who the GUILTY PARTY is married to if he commits 
ADULTERY when he marries again.  ADULTERY, may even occur before the 
divorce takes place.  If you understand that it is a matter of covenant breaking this 
would be clear.  As for Matt. 19:9 ADULTERY initially takes place when the 
divorce occurs.    

As for Matt. 5:28, you seem to equate ADULTERY and FORNICATION.  If they 
are the same, why did Jesus use two different words.  Clearly they are not the 
same.  Jesus called the LUSTFUL LOOK (your words) ADULTERY.  In doing 
this the man has broken his covenant with his wife.  Your argument is with Jesus 
not me.  Question Darrell, if you have a LUSTFUL LOOK toward another 
woman, have you broken your vow to your wife?