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

Gerry, thank you for your effort in this debate.  I pray that those who read what 
has been written herein will benefit from it.  

During the course of this debate I have demonstrated that the guilty party in a 
divorce may not remarry with the Lord’s approval.  

First of all, the conditional sentences used in the Lord’s doctrine on marriage, 
divorce, and remarriage are clear.  When one unscripturally divorces, as is the 
case with the guilty party, and marries another he commits adultery.  As long as 
the conditions of the protasis are in place (unscripturally divorced and married to 
another), the apodosis is true (commits adultery).  

Therefore, the kind of action of the present tense verb “commits adultery” is 
progressive.  Gerry failed to answer this argument.

Throughout this debate Gerry kept his focus on the definition of adultery.  I tried 
to get Gerry to see that the definition of the word adultery is not where the line of 
fellowship is drawn on this issue.  If the phrase “commits adultery” is replaced 
with any other phrase that is condemned by the Lord then the result if the same, 
the action is condemned.  For example, Gerry insists that adultery is covenant 
breaking.  If  we replace the words of Christ and the inspired writers of the New 
Testament, “commits adultery” (1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4; et al) with Gerry’s  
retrojected interpretation, “breaks covenant,” we still end up with the same 
teaching.  Notice the conditional sentence with Gerry’s retrojected interpretation 
in the apodosis.  Whosoever divorces and remarries (protasis) breaks covenant 
(apodosis).  Jesus did not say that the divorce alone equals adultery, but that the 
divorce coupled with marriage to another; therefore, as long as the conditions of 
the protasis are in place the apodosis is a true condition realized in the present 
time, progressively or linearly.  The blood of Christ forgives sinners who obey the 
Lord’s doctrine and live faithfully to it.  The Lord’s doctrine requires sinners to 
stop sinning.  Unscripturally married persons live in sin. In order to find 
forgiveness adulterers must get out of their  adulterous union. 

Gerry’s retrojected interpretation of “breaks covenant” is strange and problematic 
for him.  In my last affirmative I asked Gerry the following: 

“According Matthew 19:9 exactly when does the “adultery” take place.  Is it at 
the point of divorce?  Is it at the point of remarriage?  Is it a combination of the 
divorce and remarriage?  Gerry, this is your doctrine so you ought to be able to 
tell us exactly when this covenant breaking takes place, so please tell us!”  Why 
Did Gerry fail to attempt to answer this question?  While I cannot look into 
Gerry’s heart and learn why he failed to answer it, I do know that it is extremely 
difficult to harmonize his retrojected interpretation with the compound  protasis of 
the marriage, divorce, and remarriage passages.  Unscriptural divorce is breaking 
a covenant, but the Lord did not teach that  unscriptural divorce equals adultery.

I also asked Gerry in my first and second affirmatives the following:  “A and B 
are married.  A divorces B. C then marries B.  According to Matthew 19:9b C 
commits adultery.  Gerry, how is it, according to your philosophy, that C commits 
adultery since C was not part of A and B’s marriage?”  The first time I asked 
Gerry this question he answered in a manner that suggests that he either did not 
understand the question or that he understood it and simply dodged its impact all 
together.  The second time I asked Gerry he refused to answer the question.  

Gerry said, 
“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.”
  
Gerry 
I did answer your question.  First of all, the Lord holds the guilty party to his 
original wedding vow.   In the second place, the conditional sentences of our 
Lord’s in his marriage, divorce, and remarriage  passages, forbids the guilty party 
from marrying another.  Gerry, I do know how much clearer I can be on this 
subject.  Having said that, again, let  me state that the way you dodged the 
aforementioned question is appalling to any serious reader of this debate.  You 
have waited to attempt to answer my question until a point at which I cannot offer 
a rebuttal argument, even after already being told that it is not proper to bring new 
material into the final arguments of a debate.

In summary, it is clear that Gerry is not able to defend his retrojected interpretation of “breaking covenant.”  
The arguments Gerry used in this debate work against his position, and Gerry has utterly failed to adequately 
defend his doctrine.  Gerry was unable to answer my arguments, especially the argument from the conditional 
sentence, and the argument from the silence of the scriptures.  With Gerry’s hermeneutic one is able to 
justify the addition of mechanical instruments of music into worship, prayer beads, et al.  The Holy Spirit 
does not agree with Gerry (Heb. 7:14), neither does this writer.  Friends, it boils down to respecting what 
the Bible says.  The Bible says that when unscripturally divorced persons marry another person they enter adultery.  
It is sad that Gerry disagrees with the Bible, but he does.  One last statement needs to be made here Gerry.  

You said, 

“I want to express my appreciation to you for giving us another Greek scholar (Lawrence Barclay) 
who says the GUILTY PARTY may marry again.”  

Let me restate this so the readers are clear on it.  Lawrence Barclay, a Greek scholar, 
does not make his argument from Greek exegesis.  His argument is theologically based.