Adultery: No “Cause” for “Controversy?”
A Review of Harry Osborne’s Sermon
“Fight of Faith or Needless Controversy?”
Paden City, West Virginia (4-10-03)
To read the
entire transcript
Click Here.
By Jeff Belknap
Recently, I received two audio cassettes from a Gospel Meeting sermon that
brother Harry Osborne preached in Paden City, West Virginia almost two months
ago, entitled “Fight of Faith or Needless Controversy?,” in which I was
named and quoted (along with brother Don Martin and an unnamed brother)
Addressing the
Current Controversy, or Throwing Out Red Herrings?
Throughout this lesson, brother Osborne speaks of what he describes as
the current controversy. However, the controversy he names (the procedure of
putting away vs. the cause, as applied to the one who is divorced
by an already fornicating mate during the marriage) is not
the scenario which prompted the controversy that was brought to the public
forefront at the time I began my website just over two years ago.
Out of a lesson which filled 23 transcribed pages, Harry did not even begin
to touch the issue of controversy until page 16. Even then, he diverted the
issue instead of clarifying the basis of our controversy, as is characteristic
of all his previous teaching on the topic. It is true that from page 16 to the
end of the transcript, our brother discussed his idea of the issue’s placement,
such as matters “where the details are not specified in the gospel of
Christ,” “Jesus did not specify procedure,” “you must initiate it,” etc.
Unfortunately, Harry spent a considerable amount of time dealing with non-issues
that only stir up the emotions and prejudice the hearers. Notice a
sample in the following quotes below, and ask yourself, just who are these
spokespersons, who have tried to bind these ideas in the past two years of
controversy?:
“Then there’s another one comes along and says, ‘no not only do you need to
initiate it, you need to take it, it need to be on the divorce paper,
but you need to put fornication there on the divorce papers because that
civil action is putting away. And if it’s to be done for the cause of
fornication, then that has to be on the divorce papers’” (emp. jhb).
“I would love to see them in an argument with somebody who says it has
to be that fornication is on the papers and find them arguing from
God’s word and see what they’re going to turn to” (emp. jhb).
“Some will say ‘the one who initiates and secures the
civil action, that’s the only one who can remarry.’
Yeah? You show me where that’s so. Does your Bible say anywhere in it, ‘the
one who files the divorce?’ Does that wording appear? Does the word court
appear? Does the word judge appear? Does the idea of civil divorce appear?” (emp.
jhb).
“The innocent party needing to initiate that civil action is not found in
the word of God” (emp. jhb).
“When one says that civil law supercedes…” (emp. jhb).
Nevertheless, who in this present controversy is arguing for these
and other such like things? Certainly not myself, nor brother Martin,
whom Harry quotes. Although such things may have been argued at one time
or another by some brethren, they certainly are not a relevant factor in
this present controversy. If there is a case in which such ideas were publicly
advanced in the last two years, I have not seen nor heard it.
The present controversy is, in reality, over the
presupposition that there is authority for a person who has been
put away to employ a subsequent “putting away” and remarriage for post-divorce
fornication. Brother Harry’s addressing of the controversy began after I wrote
an article that addressed brother Ron Halbrook’s post-divorce “putting away” for
the post-divorce fornication scenario (Mental
Divorce, Revamped and Revisited,
October, 2000, Gospel Truths Magazine, and a second article that
addressed fellowship with it as an alternate “application,” “Differences
in Application”,
March, 2001; Gospel Truths Magazine). Prior to the
publishing of Harry’s rejoinder to those articles, he wrote email letters to me
(including cc’s to other brethren) indicating his “understanding” that the two
articles were “related” to one another and stating, “Your articles in Gospel
Truths have stood without rebuttal for months.”
Yet, the two articles that Harry esteemed as worthy of rebuttal were prefaced
upon my examination of the following scenario, which was clearly stated at the
very beginning of my first article:
“The Position
Although this stance agrees with the
‘Biblical principle’ of ‘one man for one woman, for life, except for the cause
of fornication,’ it differs in ‘application.’ The contention is that since
God’s law supercedes man’s law, God does not ‘sanction’ an unscriptural
divorce. Therefore, when an unscripturally put away spouse has
fervently protested the divorce, and his/her ex-spouse remarries another
(after the divorce), then the unscripturally put away person actually
becomes eligible to ‘put away’ (by public declaration) the spouse who had
already put them away. This act of publicly vocalizing a (mental) decision
to put one’s ex-spouse away for the cause of their fornication, is said to free
them to remarry. In this position, the condition of a public declaration is yet
another addition to the mental divorce (which is, in itself, an addition to
God’s word).”
After these articles which only
address post-divorce “putting away” for post-divorce fornication
(and fellowship with it), Harry’s immediate rejoinder (similar to the sermon he
preached in Paden City), dealt with various side issues and post-divorce
“putting away” for pre-divorce fornication, and he has
repeated this diversion for over two years now. Even the very title to
his rejoinder, “Do All Applications Equal Doctrine?” was a distortion,
as I never claimed that ALL applications equaled doctrine, just those that end
in sin (i.e. adultery).
This is clearly pointed out in my second article with the following quote:
“In addition, when a man’s ‘application’ of scripture ultimately validates an
adulterous marriage, how can we say it is acceptable to disagree? When an
erroneous application of truth endorses a sinful act, it has disastrous
consequences for the souls of the sinners involved, as well as those who
fellowship them (Eph. 5:11).”
Although the scenario to which Harry diverts the issue stands or falls
together with the scenario that I have focused on, he refuses to address
anything but this less extreme, more emotional “application”
of mental divorce, while he pretends to actually address my writing. However,
not only has Harry written several articles that denounce my teaching against
post-divorce “putting away” and remarriage for post (not
pre)-divorce fornication, Harry has himself admitted his acceptance
of Ron’s more extreme application (see
An excerpt from Ron Halbrook’s rebuttal to Bob Owen), and
has been defending fellowship with Ron and his “applications” during the
entire two years of controversy over this issue.
Why does Harry continue to so misrepresent and distort the real
issue of concern? Such repeated diversions manifest brother Osborne’s
understanding that it involves less personal risk to tackle a straw man than one
of substance!
Identifying
Factors of Error
Although Harry addresses the context of brother Martin’s quote (which
dealt with post-divorce putting away for pre-divorce fornication), Harry
himself reveals that Don had only addressed that particular scenario two
days prior to Harry’s sermon, and only in response to a very
specific question that was posed to him. Obviously, unless Harry was
talking about a controversy that began only two days prior, the scenario that
Don addressed was not the one behind what Harry portrays as the current
controversy.
Moreover, my own quote (included later in this review) which brother Osborne
used in his Paden City lesson, came from an article in which I dealt with
post-divorce “putting away” for post-divorce fornication,
yet Harry clearly inserted it in the context of fornication which occurs
before the unapproved divorce takes place. Unfortunately, that was
using my quote out of context. (If you doubt this, please refer to the
article from which Harry quoted:
God Given Rights Nullified By Man’s Wrongs.)
Brethren, I have a whole website full of articles that I wrote –
available at the simple click of a mouse – and this one-sentence, out-of-context
quote is the best he could come up with to show my supposed error? Again,
Harry’s avoidance of discussing the genuine scenario that prompted
my writing, coupled with his having taken my quote out of context tells more
about the baseless nature of his own position than the one he opposes,
when you also consider the following quote from his Paden City lesson:
“Truth is never afraid to
stand there and have a discussion of truth, to have an open Bible and
to
study those issues.
Truth is always ready to do that. Error is not. Error is going to be
something that tries to work behind the back, it’s going to be something that
tries to label through unnecessary means, it’s going to be something that
takes quotations out of context,
attributes things to people that are not so. That’s what error does”
(emp jhb).
The ironic thing is, I have shown quotes to prove that Harry fits his own
description of one who promotes error. I have provided documentation that
proves he has taken “quotations out of context.”
Further
Deceptions Stand Uncorrected
Additionally, in an e-mail letter sent on September 6, 2001 to myself (as well
as six other brethren), Harry stated, “Brother Phillips and I were united
doctrinally on this issue.” Yet, all who are familiar with the
Patton – Phillips debate know that brother Phillips denounced the
very doctrine that Harry defends and called the results of its application, “adultery.”
The debate proposition which Brother Phillips DENIED was the following:
RESOLVED: The Scriptures teach that the innocent person (free of
fornication) who has been put away without God’s or his/her approval and
against whom adultery has been committed may remarry. See
http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/PattonPhillipsDebate.htm
Moreover, in the past, I have confirmed that a supposed true-life example
which Harry portrayed as an absolute fact (to prove his emotional case
about how unjust civil divorce law is) was a fabrication. I showed that,
according to documented law, it is absolutely untrue that a person could
have been put away in Nevada in three days - without their knowledge (see
The Nevada Straw Man) and yet brother Osborne has never
retracted or apologized for his misrepresentation.
The
Controversy is Not Over “Cause” for Divorce, But Over Divorce’s “Effect”
This controversy did not come about as a result of brethren’s failure to
consider the question which the Lord’s teaching was based upon, in Matthew 19:3
(“Is it lawful to put away for any cause?”), as Harry claims. Yes, that
question was asked – and answered in the first half of Matthew
19:9. If Jesus had stopped his teaching regarding Marriage, Divorce and
Remarriage right then and there, the Pharisees’ question had been answered.
Nevertheless, Jesus included the remaining portion of the verse, “And
he who marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery,”
which is not an answer to the question that the Pharisees’ asked.
Do you think that someone who desires the right to put away (do “violence” to,
cf. Malachi 2:14-16) a wife “for any cause” would be concerned about that
party’s remarriage-ability rights? It is obvious that those Jews were only
concerned about their own rights to put away. Never once, did they ask
“the question” of how such a putting away would affect the one whom they
would put away. However, Jesus added the unsolicited teaching
regarding the one who is put away in such a circumstance because it was
truth (God’s Law), and because it was relevant to the salvation
of souls. (We all know what the unfortunate and eternal fate of
adulterers
will be, and that those who maintain fellowship with them will share in
the same, I Corinthians 5:9, 11-13).
In the secular world, we all understand the premise of cause and effect.
When someone does something, it causes something else. When someone puts away
(cause), their spouse becomes put away (effect). Additionally, when
someone unlawfully puts away their mate, their action “causes” their mate
to commit adultery upon remarriage to another (Matthew 5:32; cf. Romans
7:3).
Hence, it is clear that the second clause of the verse (which deals with the
effect) is not related to the “cause” for putting away, for the putting
away has already been effected. If you doubt this, simply go to Luke 16:18,
which makes no mention of any lawful “cause,” but nevertheless states the same
truth about the fate of those who are put away.
Civil Law is
Irrelevant to the Controversy
Again, Harry distorts the argument, then argues against the distortion, when he
brings up the civil authorities. Harry was able to derail my focus with
this diversion for a while (approximately two years ago), but the fact is that
it is not even germane to this discussion. Why? Because, regardless
of the procedure, Jesus acknowledged that people were capable of
unlawfully putting away their bound mates. Note:
Harry Osborne and Apoluo
Here is brother Osborne’s Paden City quote, in which he refers to what I
stated:
“Here’s another one. Brother Jeff Belknap said ‘God’s will is for us to obey
the higher powers, even though they may nullify our God-given liberties.’ Now
the idea is, here’s some innocent party out here and this innocent party
is forbidden from taking the civil action because that guilty already has. Now
this civil law has defined who the party is that put away, ‘cause that’s
to be seen as the civil action, you see, and so now here’s this admittedly
innocent individual, this one who the other one has committed fornication, and
that’s the cause for this divorce, that’s the cause for the putting away, that’s
the cause for the sundering, but this innocent can’t marry. Why? Because civil
law defined it that way, it nullified God’s law” (emp. jhb).
First of all, as I have shown before, “the idea” (scenario) that
Harry describes regarding my quote, is not the one I conveyed in my article.
Secondly, notice Harry’s contention that I assert it is civil law
that defines who the put away party is. I know of none who have
taught such, and if Harry knew of anyone who actually did, it is certain he
would have supplied that quote, as well.
However, I do recognize Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew
19:6, that it is possible for man to actually “put asunder”
a mate for a cause other than fornication (cf. I Corinthians 7:10-11). I
also recognize that when man does so (“shall put away”, Matthew 5:32a;
19:9a, Luke 16:18a), the one whom he takes the action against, is the one
whom Jesus says “is put away,” and is precluded from lawful
remarriage to another (Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b, Luke 16:18b).
If it were not for the God-ordained civil authorities who slow man’s
divorce process down, wives could be put away immediately and without just
cause. Their ungodly husbands could make them put away people by simply putting
them out of the house, as was done before the law of Moses required a bill of
divorcement.
Regardless of the various agencies or socially-recognized means one uses to
accomplish divorce, Jesus taught that it is “man” who is responsible for -
and capable of - unlawfully putting “asunder.” I know of nobody who teaches
otherwise.
[Brethren’s attempt to blame the unlawful divorce on civil law – and thus,
deny its validity – reminds me of the efforts of some liberal politicians to
outlaw guns for causing the death
of innocent people. Those who understand reality know that it is the
person pulling the trigger who is responsible for killing another (not the
gun).]
The Source of
Our Disagreement
Our disagreement stems from the fact that God’s Law precludes those
who are already put away from lawful remarriage to another, while
Harry’s teaching allows it (in some cases). In the one and only divorce which
scripture refers to (whether lawful or not), the one who is put away is
not the one whom Jesus gave the exception clause to.
Harry’s exclusive reference to the two divorce partners as “the innocent” and
“the guilty” (instead of the one who puts away and the one who
“is put away,” as Jesus described them), blatantly
disregards an important point of what Jesus taught on the
subject of Divorce and Remarriage. In the last halves of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and
Luke 16:18, Jesus’ preclusion of remarriage to another was simply to “put away
people” (unqualified), not exclusively to put away fornicators.
The Pharisees asked about the cause for the action of PUTTING
AWAY. When a person puts his spouse away (whether lawfully or not), there is a
subject of that putting away: the one whom the Lord called “put away.”
The only thing that Jesus said about such a person - whether put
away for fornication or for another cause is, “and he who marrieth her
which is put away doth commit adultery.”
In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus simply gives
the one who puts away an
exception to the general rule. All bound people involved in a
divorce are prohibited from lawful remarriage to another while their
bound spouse lives (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; cf. Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; Romans
7:1-3; I Corinthians 7:10-11), except for those who
Put Away for fornication. Never
does scripture command, give approved apostolic example, necessarily infer, or a
state a fact that authorizes a subsequent “putting away” after an
unapproved putting away, nor authorizes the “put away” to remarry another (save
after the death of their bound mate, Romans 7:2-3). The exception in the
first clause (a) of Matthew 19:9 does not apply to the second half of the verse
(b), and the exception given to the one who puts away is not
relevant to the one who is put away. See
Who Does the Exception Clause Apply To?
Failure to
Address the Lord’s Teaching Regarding Those Who Are “Put Away”
On page 16, Harry professes to bring the general subject matter of “Fight of
Faith vs. Needless Controversy” to the topic of the current controversy
with the following statements:
“I want to notice with you the same thing on an issue that has been of much
discussion among the people of God…But I want us to think about this matter with
regard to divorce and remarriage, and see where this issue fits.”
Nevertheless, when Harry finally got around to dealing with the issue, the
closest that he ever came to commenting on the Lord’s decree
regarding the put away are the following statements:
“No, it’s not right to sunder, to put away, to go separate ways, to be living
separately for any other reason than the cause of fornication. That’s it. If
you do, you’re committing adultery, and if she goes out there in that kind of
relationship, she’s committing adultery” (emp. jhb).
“He’s saying if there is a state in which there is sundered what God
joined together for any other reason than fornication having caused that,
nobody has the right to remarry” (emp. jhb).
“If that happened for any other reason than fornication or adultery took
place back there, and now, we’re severing from one another for that cause,
nobody has the right to remarry” (emp. jhb).
Is it not strange, that in a lesson designed to address this “needless
controversy” among us, brother Osborne fails to discuss the very portion of
scripture which the controversy revolves around: “and he who marrieth her
which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke
16:18b)? Though it is apparent (noting brother Osborne’s 23 pages of
transcript) that he has no problem with elaboration, he never once explains
or comments on Jesus’ doctrine applied to the “put away.” He does
comment on the unlawfulness of remarriage for a guilty party (which Jesus
did not specify), but he fails to comment on the very one that Jesus
actually named – the “put away.”
Is Controversy
“Needless” When One’s Teaching is Contrary to Christ?
If the “application” of allowing a put away person to remarry
another, (after a subsequent “putting
away” for post-divorce fornication) involves adultery (Matthew
5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18b), then it is not an acceptable “application”
that can be fellowshipped. However, Harry will not even attempt to show how he
arrives at his conclusion that some people who have been put away
(qualified) are exempt from God’s decree regarding those who are put away
(unqualified).
Surely, Jesus knew that the bond remained after an
unapproved divorce. Yet, He precluded those whom He simply
described as “put away” (in approved and unapproved sunderings) from
remarriage to another while their bound spouse lived (cf. Romans 7:2-3; I
Corinthians 7:10-11, 15, 39). [In marriage, two become one.
In divorce, one becomes two (they have been “put
asunder” – Matthew 19:6).] Regarding a subsequent “putting away,” the
Lord “spake nothing” (cf. Acts 15:24; Heb. 1:5; 7:12-14).
However, the Lord’s statement of fact regarding the unfortunate
circumstance of the put away person is unequivocally clear: “and he who
marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Dear reader, I
cannot think of one passage of scripture that is any easier to understand in all
of God’s word, can you? Jesus makes no exceptions for the put away (as
opposed to the one putting away) in any of the passages in which He
addresses them. The only exceptions to that rule are divinely
specified in Romans 7:2-3, and I Corinthians 7:10-11, which are
remarriage to another after the death of a bound partner, and remarriage to
one’s own bound spouse. That’s not “about it;” that “IS
IT!”
So, for Harry to come along and say in essence, “in some (unrevealed) cases,
God’s law about the put away person is not so,” he has a mighty
big burden of proof to overcome! How can he expect me (or anyone else)
to just go along with his (and his associates’) “application,” when they will
not even try to address God’s law regarding those who
are put away (as opposed to God’s law for those who
put away)?
What About the
Put Away?
One thing is for sure, when discussing a divorce (sundering) that involves two
people, one cannot honestly claim to be “open to study” if he repeatedly
avoids discussion of what the Lord taught about half of the involved parties
(those who are put away).
If Harry believes that those faithful mates who are put away in unapproved
divorces are not truly “put away” (as he asserted in his “Nevada
Strawman” quote, linked above) then he needs to cite a Biblical statement of
fact, approved example, command, or necessary inference to verify it. If he
believes that those who are put away in unapproved divorces are indeed put away,
he first needs to prove that the exception Jesus gave to those who put
away in Matthew 19:9a, also applies to some who are
put away. He then needs to establish
exactly which put away people it does apply to and which it doesn’t,
since Jesus clearly said that those who
marry a put away person (unqualified)
commit adultery.
Although I have been asking for this kind of verification for over two years
now, Harry has yet to provide divine documentation. Until he is willing
and able to back up his foundational belief about those who are put
away with reasoning that is in harmony with scripture, all discussion about
how “needless” this “controversy” is, is putting the cart before the horse.
Before we are authorized to discontinue a fight of faith (Jude 3-4), we must
first be “fully persuaded” that the issue at hand involves a practice that is
inherently “clean” and “pure,” in and of itself (Romans 14). Nobody on either
side of this controversy believes
adultery belongs in that category!
No Timeframe
Involved in “Putting Away”?
Furthermore, what brother Harry boldly advocated in his sermon is cause
for great concern. Four times, Harry denied that there is a
timeframe for putting away
(offering no proof for this conclusion). Note the following:
“Folks, for the life of me, how in the world can someone calling himself a
gospel preacher say that, in answer to what the word of God says very clearly in
Matthew 19 that we just looked at. For the life of me, I can’t see that. What
I do see, is that somebody’s looking at Matthew 19:9 in the word of God, and
somebody is looking at the timeframe, the actions that are out here by
civil law. Since when did God give over to civil law the right to declare who’s
to take what action, how it’s to be seen, what the timeframe is, where
it’s to be taken, who’s to rule upon it, how it’s to be ruled upon, how the
filing is to take place, when it is, who’s to do it? We don’t find any of that
in the word of God.”
“What’s the only way we can look at it scripturally? God’s word talks about
cause. That’s where we focus, and we leave it there. When one builds a
timeframe and says when that judges brings the gavel down, that’s when
everything is judged by, and you’ve got to act before that process
finishes (by that judge gaveling it), where is that in the word…”
“The idea of the timing, that all of it ends at the gavel of the judge,
where’s that found in the word of God? It’s not there, folks. It’s something
that simply is not found, it’s an addition.”
“Folks, there are people out there who start to disturb the people of God by
making additions and causing this idea, you’ve got to initiate, you’ve got to
take this civil action, you’ve got to take that civil action, you’ve got to do
it before a judge bangs his gavel, or whatever it might be that’s added
to the word of God.”
In essence, what Harry is saying is that the right for “an innocent” person to
put away for fornication and remarry another is supreme; that it
cannot be limited even by
the Lord’s own decree that the “put away” commit adultery when
they remarry another.
The problem with the second “putting away” (mental divorce) theory is
that it emphasizes one aspect of God’s will (the right to put away
for fornication) to the exclusion of another (the subsequent,
divinely-imposed consequences for those who are put away).
According to the teaching of God in Matthew 19, there is a definite
time at which one becomes
put away and is precluded from remarrying another while their bound
spouse lives.
What is a
Doctrine “According to Godliness?”
Within brother Osborne’s sermon, he asserts that “an innocent” (put away)
person has the “right of remarriage,” and then concludes that this “right” is
“according to godliness.” Unfortunately, both points in this circular
reasoning are portrayed as reinforcements of his unsupported claims, yet he
pretends that each unsubstantiated assertion proves the other. In spite of his
claims, my Bible still says that God authorizes only the one who
puts away for fornication the freedom to remarry, and that the one who
marries a divorced person commits
adultery, how about yours?
In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus contrasted His law (which is “according to
‘godliness’”- II Peter 1:3) with the law of Moses, using the words, “but I
say unto you.” In Matthew 19, the Lord also contrasted His law
(and that which was “from the beginning”) with the Mosaic
law regarding divorce (which permitted putting
away for causes short of fornication - and which had also allowed
remarriage for those who were put away).
In Deuteronomy 24:1-2, Moses commanded a bill of divorcement to be given
by those individuals who put away, for the benefit
of those who were being put away. Because of man’s hardness of heart
(Matthew 19:8) and the “violence” (cf. Mal. 2:14-16) of this putting away,
Moses’ law made provision for the remarriage of one who was put away.
However, since Christ’s law supercedes that of Moses, the provision for
remarriage of put away people has also passed away. The only provisions (in the
one and only doctrine according to GODLINESS) for remarriage of the put
away today, are revealed in Romans 7:3 and I Corinthians 7:11.
Brother Harry’s unrevealed provisions for the put away are not
found in the law of Christ, therefore they are according to death
and ungodliness (Romans 1:18, 6:23; I Timothy 6:3-5)!
Desperate Accusations
Moreover, the accusation that Harry made about brother Don Martin’s quote will
raise hair on the back of many sound brethren’s necks, who have taught the
same thing for many years. Harry stated:
“When we come along and we forbid marriage to an innocent in a case where
marriage is sundered for the cause of fornication, we’re speaking against
Jesus. In Biblical terms, that’s blasphemy, that’s speaking
against the will of God, that’s fables, it’s that which
stands in contrast to God’s law, that’s lies, it is not the truth.
And brethren, that’s serious and we need to be wary of it” (emp. jhb).
This is no less than an indictment against the Lord himself, who taught, “and
he who marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
(Note: Harry refuses to accept this teaching as “it is written.” He accepts
it only with his own implied exception added to it, which excludes
“an innocent” put away person who was divorced against both his/her will and
God’s.) The Lord never made any such exception for the put away!
Unfortunately, brother Osborne fails to realize that he is the one who is
adding to the word of God, not those who oppose the
post-unlawful-divorce “putting away” theory.
Additionally, Harry’s above statement is a condemnation of highly
esteemed brethren such as H. E. Phillips, J. T. Smith, Gene Frost, Maurice
Barnett, Carroll Sutton, Connie Adams, Donnie Rader and many others who have
vigorously upheld Jesus’ teaching regarding the put away, while
denouncing the doctrine that authorizes remarriage for those whom Jesus,
Himself precluded from it.
After reading brother Martin’s quote (which affirmed that no put away person
is authorized to “put away” and remarry another), Harry also stated:
“Folks, for the life of me, how in the world can someone calling himself a
gospel preacher say that, in answer to what the word of God says very
clearly in Matthew 19 that we just looked at” (emp. jhb).
In reference to Harry’s preceding quote, once you acknowledge that even an
unlawful divorce sunders the marriage (as Jesus unequivocally taught in
Matthew 19:6, 9; cf. I Corinthians 7:10-11), then what is done is done.
Nowhere does scripture indicate that further sundering, nor subsequent
remarriage to another (while one’s bound mate lives), is possible.
Therefore, such teaching is of man, and not of God. We must
respect the silence of the scriptures.
The
Progressive and Corruptive Nature of Error
Two decades ago, public attempts to gain acceptance for this doctrine of
post-divorce “putting away” were soundly refuted and denounced in
forceful terms by those men who were considered faithful. However, now
that the doctrine has been circulated in more private settings for the
last several years and has gained increased acceptance among some brethren,
those who hold to it are not content to simply try and gain acceptance of
it anymore.
Now, those who dare to refute it are accused of “human binding,”
“blasphemy,” “speaking against the will of God,” “lies,”
etc. This is a perfect illustration of Harry’s observation of error’s
effect – a progressive and corruptive nature, indeed.
This very phenomenon is exposed in the following quote, from an article recently
posted by brother James Shewmaker (but written 32 years ago) to Bible Matters:
“Many times false teachers try to convince everyone that their ideas
are merely matters of opinion. Then, after asserting that it is
only a matter of opinion, they will insist that those who do
not believe it is just opinion go along with their ideas. Such
action is sin.” (emp. jhb).
Throughout the course of church history, doctrines of men have begun with a
simple plea for tolerance of a new idea, and ended with an outright
demand for full acceptance of the teaching and practice of it. If
such acceptance is not received, those who dare oppose it are accused of
all manner of evil (cf. I Peter 4:4) and considered as “antis” or heretics who
teach the “doctrines of devils.” As the old television commercial stated, we’ve
“come a long way, baby.”
|