|
Go to marriage, divorce
and remarriage audio
Before I begin this critique of the booklet Twelve Lessons On Marriage and
Divorce By Ronnie Simpson PHD., Presdent of Carolina Bible Collage, written 1996 and used in his college, I
would like to say I have nothing personal against Ronnie, I have never met
him or seen him. I have heard him one time on tape and realized he enjoy
attacking Dr. Ruckman over his teaching on what constitutes a marriage and
Ronnie knows less about the subject than Dr. Ruckman. My purpose in this is
to expose the false doctrine on marriage and divorce and the depths those
who believe it will stoop to in order to prove it. Their doctrine hinders
the people of God from doing the work of God thereby hindering God’s work .
There is a group of independent Baptist that will change the KJV Bible to
prove they are right in theirdoctrine, so their doctrine is more important
than the authority of the KJV. Ronnie Simpson is one ofthe leading
preachers in North Carolina and is looked up to by other preachers as an
authority. Therefore his influence not only effects his students but many
other preachers who let him do their thinking for them.
When referring to his booklet, the headings will be bold, and the quotes
will be in italics, also the page number will be the actual page number in
his booklet. Then the letter, number or the combination of the two following
the page number will be the sub points on that page.
First, let’s look at some general things about his writing:
1. Though he never says it, he implies in several places that the King James
Version could
have been better translated. (Page 23 point D “The Husband Of One Wife”,
2.note: In the
Greek Text this expression is found without the article (the) and thus it
has a qualitative
Emphasis. (A MANUAL GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by H.E.
Dana and J.R. Mantey) It could well be rendered “a one-woman man”.
Page 23 3- b. The Literal translation is “a man of one woman” but when used
in the
marital sense, it has been correctly translated in the KJV, “the husband of
one wife.”
1. Note - Both nouns, husband and wife, are without the definite article in
the Greek,
Which construction emphasizes character or nature. The entire CONTEXT is one
in
Which the character of the Bishop is being discussed.
C. The literal translation can be “a one-wife sort of a husband” or “ a
one-woman
Sort of man.”
ANSWER:
He tries to have it both ways, the KJV is correct but not a literal
translation.
2. When he can’t get the KJV to say what he wants it to, he will use the
scholars to
Prove his point.
3. He acts like a pope speaking excatherial when he can’t back up statements
with the scripture, like on Page 23 E Correct Interpretation - Divorce and
marriage or marital infidelity, whether before or after Conversion, would
disqualify one from the office of elder or deacon.
Answer:
He Gives no scripture, so a person is to accept his statement as truth
without checking it out.
4. He will use the definition of a word he wants to emphasis but will not
give the definition of words that show he is wrong.
5. He is either a liar or very shallow in the scriptures, which I will point
later.
6. He will use part of a verse to prove his point but will not comment on
the rest of the verse
Which is a crooked way of proving the point.
7. Page 5. ARGUMENT FOR STUDING THE GREEK AND HEBREW. He implies that if you
don’t know Greek and Hebrew then you can’t interpret the Bible correctly.
This makes the interpretation of the educated the authority instead of the
King James Bible. This is the same attitude the Catholic priests have.
Having said that, let’s take a look at his lesson and I will point out some
mistakes,
contradictions and private interpretations. II Peter 1:20
On page 3 he is so weak on what constitutes a marriage it is funny
considering he has a Ph.D. degree. He states leaving, cleaving and becoming
one flesh constitutes a marriage.
ANSWER:
People who shack up can do all three and still not be married. I know a
couple who have shacked up for about fifteen years, have one child and
another on the way. They have left, cleaved and come together. What if a
couple gets married and lives with one of the parents are they not married
seeing they did not leave?
It takes three things to make a marriage according to KJV Bible.
1. A covenant between two parties.
2. A public confession.
3. A coming together.
If you compare all the marriages in the Bible, these three things stand out
in all of them.(See my work on “what constitutes a marriage” on this web
site)
On page 4 E he says, “Cleave unto his wife” clearly teaches that God
established a monogamous institution, one man and one wife. (1) How do we
reconcile this teaching of monogamy with polygamy that is found in the
Bible? Genesis 29:15-30 and I Samuel 1:2 - Though a variance with God’s
ideal for marriage, the Old Testament allowed polygamy for
two reasons: (a) In the case of a childless first marriage (Deuteronomy
21:15-17) (b) In the case of a leviable marriage when a man married his
brother’s widow. (Deuteronomy 25:5)
ANSWER:
Here he shows his shallowness or he deliberately over looks II Samuel 12:7-9
where God says He gave David Saul’s wives and had that not been enough, He
would have given him more! Also what about Jacob’s two wives of which God
used to start the twelve tribes of Israel? Were they started with a sinful
marriage? Did God bless them in their sin?
On page 5 “CORRECT ATTITUDES TOWARD DIVORCE 1. The grace of God is
sufficient for the unmarried divorced Christian to remain unmarried. 2. The
divorced and remarried believer cannot undo what has been done. I
Corinthians 7:20 3. The married Christian who has never been divorced must
guard against a self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude. 4. The believer
who is yet unmarried must marry only a Christian with the full understanding
that marriage is God’s institution for life.
Answer:
It is amazing that God’s grace is sufficient for a divorced Christian to
remain unmarried without
burning. But a single person will burn if they don’t marry. I Corinthians 7:
2,9 according to Ronnie, Paul is talking to people who have never been
married but a close reading reveals that he is speaking to every man or
woman not just those whom have never been married.
On page 5 LOOSED - I CORINTHIANS 7:27 - One who is already married should
not seek to be loosed from the marriage contract. The verbs “bound” (deo)
and “loosed” (luo) are perfect passive indicative, which indicates settled
states. Therefore, the verb “loosed” refers not to a divorced person but to
one who has never married.
ANSWER:
The first sentence and the second is a contradiction. The word loosed means:
Strongs #3080- divorced, #389 - dissolved, put off . In Webster 1828
Dictionary - untied, unbound, freed from restraint. Now according to Ronnie
you must have something beside a KJV, a Strong’s Concordance and a Webster
Dictionary to understand God’s Word. Ain’t that a laugh.
On page 5 THE LAW AND MARRIAGE - 2. Three Illustrations b. (1) Loosed is a
perfect passive indicative of “katargeo”, which means to render null, to
abrogate or cancel, or to free from.
Answer
He gives the proper definition for the word but gives a different definition
On page 5 “LOOSED - I CORINTHIANS 7:27 - One who is already married should
not seek to be loosed from the marriage contract. The verbs “bound” (deo)
and “loosed” (luo) are perfect passive indicative, which indicates settled
states. Therefore, the verb “loosed” refers not to a divorced person but to
one who has never married.”,but considering the context of both portions of
scripture in the KJV, it would carry the same definition.
Page 5 THE LAW OF MARRIAGE - 1. There is only one divine standard for
marriage for all mankind.
ANSWER
This contradicts page 13, b and c. b Luke wrote to the Greeks. Therefore, he
did not include information relating to Jews or the Romans. c. Matthew wrote
to the Jews. Therefore, he included many quotes from the Old Testament and
spoke of the exception clause which related only to the betrothal period of
the Hebrew marriage.
On page 6 No contradictions in passages of scripture about divorce 2. he
states that divorce and remarriage are not under consideration in I
Corinthians.
ANSWER:
What about 1Cor. 7:27-28 without changing one word or giving a false
meaning? You read it for yourself don’t take my word for it.
On page 6 - ERRONEOUS REASONS FOR DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE 2. Fornication and
adultery gives the innocent person the right to remarry. (Matthew 5:32;
19:9)
ANSWER:
This is what the KJV SAYS in the very scriptures he used. He changes it to
suit himself with no respect for the KJV. It just happens to be six grade
English.
On page 6 ERRONEOUS REASONS FOR DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE #4. Divorce dissolves
the marriage relationship, giving the divorced person the right to remarry.
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
ANSWER::
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does give the woman the right to remarry, “ she may go
and be another man’s wife”. He can’t read sixth grade English, makes you
wonder how he got his Ph. D.
On page 6 - ADULTERY AND DIVORCE UNDER THE LAW - #3. Under the law, Moses
suffered divorce in the case of fornication (Deuteronomy 24). The purpose of
Moses’ legislation was to REGULATE and thus to make less severe what he
could not fully control.
ANSWER:
No where can I find the word “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24 meaning
fornication. Also is he saying it was Moses’ place to control it, could not
God control it just like other acts of disobedience? Am I to assume that if
God can’t control something then He will allow it? Fornication in the old
testament was punishable by stoning not divorce.
On page 7 - II. THE CREATION OF A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT 2. The Determent of
Divorce b. Often the process of writing out the divorce document kept the
husband from divorcing his spouse while emotionally disturbed.
ANSWER:
This is his private interpretation, which may or may not be so, seeing he
has no scripture for it.
On page 8 - B. The Grounds for the Bill of Divorcement - Promiscuity of the
Wife # 2. It is important not to take the words ‘wife’ and uncleanness”by
themselves without comparing what other scriptures mean. The word
“uncleanness” has been a subject of debate for centuries but more likely it
refers to some shameful or repulsive act such as the “ unclean thing”
referred to in Deuteronomy 23:13.
ANSWER:
He uses the word promiscuity which means “An indiscriminate mingling or
mixture, also promiscuous sexual union” there by implying sexual
uncleanness, which the word does not imply. He also uses Deuteronomy 23:13
as reference to prove his point, which has nothing to do with sex. “Deu.
23:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when
thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back
and cover that which cometh from thee:” Can anyone tell me what he is trying
to say? Beats the fire out of me, I guess he didn’t think any one would
check his reference.
On page 8 - C. The Granting of Divorcement 1. Deuteronomy 24:1 - “then let
him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her
out of his house.” This process of divorce was designed to discourage
divorce. Moses did not command divorce; he simply permitted it. This
permission was based upon the hardness of the Israelite hearts. Their hearts
were hardened by their sinful rejection of God’s original plan for marriage.
(Mark 10:9; Genesis 2:24). 2. Although divorce was permitted, remarriage was
prohibited in Deuteronomy 24:2-4. The point of this passage is that a man
may not remarry his former wife if she has in the meantime married another
man. This restriction seems to guard against divorce becoming a “legal” form
of committing adultery. The prohibition against remarrying the same woman
undoubtedly acts as a moderating influence on divorce.
ANSWER:
He is a Bible changer or is biblical illiterate . Verse 2 could not be any
plainer in the English Language. She could marry another man. Look at “Deu
24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another
man's wife.” Who is right the bible or Ronnie?
On page 11 - I. THE CONTENT OF JESUS’ TEACHING. A. The Political Context #2.
Herod Antipas and Herodias had recently divorced their spouses and were
married. The marriage of Herod and Herodias was in direct conflict with the
teaching of Mosaic Law.
ANSWER:
There is no scripture that says she was divorced, this is his private
opinion to bolster this stupid doctrine. In fact, the Bible says she was
still his brother Philip’s wife. Matthew 14:3 Also Herod was a Gentile and
in Matthew, the Jewish law doesn’t apply to Gentiles, according to Ronnie,
unless he wants it to. Notice page #13 B, below how he divides the
scriptures.
On page 11- I. THE CONTENT OF JESUS’ TEACHING. Point A. The Political
Context # 3. In Matthew 14, John the Baptist had condemned the marriage of
Herod Antipas to Herodias and had received the death penalty at the request
of Herodias’ daughter, Salone. Matthew 14:4 states, “For John said unto him,
It is not lawful for thee to have her.”
ANSWER:
The reason John said this was because she was still his brother Philip’s
wife “Mat 14:3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him
in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.” I would like to
call to your attention that Herod and Herodis are Gentiles and Ronnie is
using the book of Matthew which he says is for the Jews only.
On page 11 - B. The Religious Content #1. At the time of Christ, the
religious world was divided over the controversial subject of divorce.
Divorce was allowed throughout the Roman Empire and basically there were two
schools of thought among the Jews which governed divorce. a. The School of
Shammai - The Shammai ideology consisted of the view that “a man may not
divorce his wife unless he had discovered something unchaste about her. They
supported their view by use of Deuteronomy 24:1 “he hath found some
uncleanness in her...” B. The School of Hillel - This group taught that a
man could divorce his wife “even if she spoiled a dish” or if “he found
another woman fairer than her.” It is believed that Josephus followed his
group because he divorced his wife being “displeased at her behaviour.”
ANSWER:
If Shammai used Deuteronomy 24:1 to support their view of unchaste, chaste
means “faithful to the marriage bed” so unchaste would mean unfaithful to
the marriage bed, this kind of unfaithfulness was a ground for stoning not
divorce. I could not find where they used that verse in their teaching, they
were not that dumb.
On page 11 - II. THE CONTENT OF JESUS’ TEACHING A. Focused on the Creation
of Marriage - Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:9 #1. Christ put the question of
marriage and divorce in light of God’s original plan for marriage. Jesus
defined the marriage relationship as ordained by God.
ANSWER:
It was not God’s plan for sin to enter but after sin entered then other
provisions were made for salvation, and offering the right sacrifice for
sins committed. Stoning of the adulterer in Deuteronomy 23 and divorce in
Deuteronomy 24 was due to sin and the hardness of heart. In the New
Testament, people are no longer under the law, there is no death penalty for
fornication. Jesus made provisions for the person the sin of fornication is
committed against.
Page 12 # 3. There is no hint of possibility of divorce in a marriage
ordained by God. Divorce has no place in the institution of marriage.
ANSWER:
If God has no place for divorce in the institution of marriage, then why did
He divorce Israel? Jeremiah 3: 8 “ And I saw, when for all the causes
whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given
her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went
and played the harlot also.” Was God’s marriage with Israel ordained or not?
Page 12 #4. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus used the First Mention principle to say
that all marriages should be patterned after the first marriage of Adam and
Eve.
ANSWER:
Ronnie uses the first mention rule here but refuses to use it in connection
with uncleanness.
Page 12 - III. THE CLARIFICATION OF JESUS’ TEACHING B. The Clarification of
Christ - Mark 10:10-12 #1. Jesus cleared up any misunderstanding concerning
divorce as being adultery in these verses. #2. The disciples suffered from
the same problem many suffer from today. It is the problem of trying to
unite the teaching of the Scriptures with the traditions of religion. #3.
Jesus used the opportunity given Him by the Pharisees for two reasons: a. To
refute the teachings of the Shammai and Hillel groups. b. To reveal to the
disciples that God has only one policy for marriage.
ANSWER:
You will notice there are no grounds for divorce mentioned in Mark 10. Jesus
and the group Shammai agreed it had to be unchaste. Also another
contradiction,” God has only one policy for marriage, notice page 13 B next.
Page 13 - B. The Differences of Mark, Luke and Matthew #1. Although the
historical and geographical setting was the same in all three passages, they
each have individual facts that were purposefully placed considering the
people to whom they were writing. #2. Notice the differences. These will be
studied in greater detail in the following lesson. A. Mark wrote to the
Romans. Therefore, he did not include the many quotes from the Old
Testament, but he did include the command to the women. The Jews had no law
relating to the divorce of women from their husbands, but the Gentile women
were putting away their husbands. For this reason, Mark included both male
and female. B. Luke wrote to the Greeks. Therefore, he did not include
information relating to the Jews or the Romans. C. Matthew wrote to the
Jews. Therefore, he included many quotes from the Old Testament and spoke of
the exception clause which related only to the betrothal period of the
Hebrew marriage.
ANSWER:
He didn’t give a chapter and verse for his teaching but I did notice that he
had said that the teaching of divorce applied to Jew and Gentile until he
needs to separate it in Matthew, then it applies to the Jews only. Are not
Greeks and Romans gentiles? If this be so we now have Jews, Greeks, Romans,
Gentiles and the church.
Page 14 - I. MISUNDERSTANDING THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE A. The Misinterpretation
of the Pharisees #1. The Law of Moses dealt with a specific problem of
divorce among the Jews. By the time of Christ’s teaching, the oral tradition
of the Pharisees had expand the acceptability of divorce to practically
every cause. The debate over divorce divided the Pharisees in two groups,
the Hillels and the Shammais. See the last lesson to understand the views of
these groups. #2. The Pharisees considered their traditions to be as
important as the Mosaic Law. For this reason, Jesus questioned them
concerning the “commandment” of Moses. #3. An all important point is to
remember that the permission of divorce did not constitute its acceptance as
God’s will. The purpose of the law of Moses was to “regulate” divorce so
that its use was not abused. A parallel can be made with other regulations,
such as regulations concerning murder. The Bible has a death penalty for
murder, but it is absurd to think that the penalty or regulation institutes
the sin. Murder is wrong. Divorce is wrong. The bill of divorcement simply
limited the committing of a particular sin. #4. The Pharisees, in their
tradition, took a mile when God only allowed for an inch.
ANSWER:
The whole article is saying that the KJV doesn’t mean what it says. Matthew
5:32, Matthew 19:9 You will notice he does not mention the clause in Matthew
5:37 “saving for the cause of fornication”. In #4 above he says the words
don’t mean what they mean. He must change the meaning of the words so he can
prove his doctrine. I have no more respect for him than the Pope. The Pope
is probably a good man also.
Page 15 - II. UNDERSTANDING THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE Point A. #4. Now if during
the betrothal period, uncleanness was found in the woman, he could go before
the court or the judge and get a written bill of divorcement to break the
engagement or betrothal period. There is no place in the Bible where any
mention of divorce is given after the marriage altar or bed.
ANSWER:
If what he says is so, then the couple of Deuteronomy 24 were shacking up
before marriage or why is she living with him? Also if Joseph and Mary were
not married why were they traveling together as husband and wife?
B. The Betrothal Period #2. A parallel can be seen with God’s marriage to
Israel. Although Israel is considered the “wife” of God, her marriage to him
has not been consummated. This will happen after Israel is converted at the
close of the tribulation period. Now notice page 17,f.(“In Matthew 5 and 19,
fornication could not speak of adultery. Although both are sexual acts,
adultery is different because it violates a covenant. Adultery is not
necessarily the act of
sex ,but the violation of the marriage covenant. If Matthew 5 and 19 were
written concerning a consummated marriage the use of the term adultery would
have been necessary.”)
ANSWER:
According to Ronnie God’s marriage has not been consummated. Why did God use
the word adultery when He divorced Israel in Jeremiah 3:8-9 And I saw, when
for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put
her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah
feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through
the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed
adultery with stones and with stocks., if the marriage was not consummated?
Who is right God or Ronnie? Again he does err not knowing the scriptures.
Page 15 - The word “espoused” is used five times in the Bible, one time in
II Samuel 3:14 concerning David, three times in Matthew and Luke concerning
Joseph and Mary and one time concerning the Church and Jesus Christ, II
Corinthians 11:2.
ANSWER:
So the case with Joseph and Mary is an exception, not the norm due to Jesus’
conception by the Holy Ghost and He had to be born of a virgin, so they
could not come together until after Jesus was born.
Page 16 - AN EXPLANATION OF FORNICATION Point A. Eliminating Wrong
Applications of Fornication #1. It cannot relate to adultery. A. Adulterers
in the Old Testament were put to death. Leviticus 20:10; Numbers 5:11-31;
Deuteronomy 22:22; John 8:4 - 5. Divorce was not possible in the case of
adultery, because the offender was stoned.
ANSWER:
It is a funny thing that Matthew has a different meaning for fornication
than the rest of the Bible. All the people who have not been to Ronnie’s
Bible College sure are confused since the same word is used in different
places in the KJV, and they don’t know that Matthew has a private
interpretation of the word fornication. Compare 1Cor. 5:1-5 “It is reported
commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not
so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's
wife.” Here a man is committing fornication with his father’s wife. She is
married or she could not be his wife, so according to Ronnie the word has a
different meaning here than in Matthew, if this was right then you could not
compare scripture with scripture in a KJV Bible to learn the truth.
. Page 17 - B. Explaining the Possible Applications of Porneia #2. Almost
all theologians and scholars agree that the context of Matthew 5 and 19
connects the term “fornication” with the “uncleanness” of Deuteronomy. Now,
we must find the meaning of the term uncleanness. Which of the definitions
applies?
ANSWER:
I checked 10 commentaries and only ONE said what he said they say. There is
a big difference in one in ten and almost all!
Page 17 - B. Explaining the Possible Application of Porneia #3. Numbers 5:19
is clear that the uncleanness is a sexual act.
ANSWER:
“Uncleanness” only means a sexual act in 2 references out of 40 times the
word is used. This is called forcing the scriptures to teach what you want
them to teach. Also, let’s apply the law of first mention. Uncleanness is
first mentioned in “Lev 5:3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man,
whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be
hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.” This is not a
sexual act. The preachers who believe this stupid doctrine will stoop to any
level to prove their doctrine.
Page 18 - The Concept of Release from the Law - Romans 7:1-6 1. Paul first
introduced this concept in Romans 6:14. #2. In verse 1 of chapter 7, Paul
presents a principle and an example of that principle. A. Principle - Death
releases man from the law. B. Example - The marriage contract ends with
death. #3. This tells us that as long as the Law says it is wrong to steal,
murder, covet, etc., it will also be wrong to divorce and remarry. #4. The
Law God established is only relevant to those who are living. At the Great
White Throne Judgement, sinners will not be judged because of their pre-life
state and post-life state, but rather by the deeds committed during their
lifetime. #5. Notice there is not “exception clauses”! Why? # 6. Notice the
time of rejection to remarriage. It is rejected if the woman remarries while
her previous husband lives. Why? She has not yet been released from the Law.
#7. Notice the time of acceptance for remarriage. It is accepted only when
the husband is no longer alive. #8. The word “join” does not speak of
illicit sexual relations, but rather to marriage. A legal transaction.
ANSWER:
Paul is speaking to those who knew the law “Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren,
(for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over
a man as long as he liveth?”. Under the law a woman had no right to divorce
her husband under any circumstances “Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an
husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the
husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” Paul is using
this passage to show the present relationship of the Law to a saved, born
again Christian. In doing this he shows our eternal security in Christ
seeing that we are the bride and have no right of divorce and Jeaus will
never divorce us. In the New Testament we are not under law and to apply the
law to people in grace is wicked and is to wrest the scripture. By appealing
to the law is Ronnie saying that a man can divorce his wife but she can’t
divorce him in the church age?
Page 18 - The Type of Our Salvation through Death When we accept Christ and
are saved we can experience the marriage of ourselves to Christ. This
principle not only applies to people who are legally joined in marriage, but
also the individual who will die to the Law, breaking its binding, and
receiving a new union with Christ. Thank God for the release from the Law by
death. The sinner must die to his righteousness to gain Christ. Paul again
states the permanence of marriage in I Corinthians 7:39 - “The wife is bound
by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is
at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord”. Paul plainly
states that remarriage while both spouses are living results in adultery in
the eyes of God. Next comes the argument, “What if my husband or wife is
lost?” Does the Bible allow for divorce and remarriage in this case? In
chapter 7,8,12,16, Paul seeks to answer the question of the Corinthians.
This can be seen in his use of the phrase “now concerning”.
ANSWER:
Here he is dealing with I Corinthians 7:39, there are no grounds referred
to. In this same chapter he is dishonest about I Corinthians 7:28 - 29. You
call this picking and choosing.
Page 19 - PAUL’S VIEW ON MARRIAGE TO UNBELIEVERS B. There is one exception
to separation - If the unbelieving partner will not stay. However, it does
not constitute divorce, merely separation. Regardless of the actions of the
other party (divorce or separation), you are still not released from the
Law.
ANSWER:
“1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a
sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to
peace.”Seeing we have an English Bible, let’s look at the word “bondage”
which means: obligation, tie of duty, so the scripture is teaching that the
person who has been deserted is free, no longer responsible for the departed
mate’s up keep or anything that is associated with marriage, seeing the tie
of duty is broken.
Page 20 - I. MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY - I Corinthians 7:1-9 3. A person could
serve God better as a preacher, or evangelist, if he were not married. The
reason is because he would not have the cares of maintaining a home.
However, if there is no self-control, he should marry.
ANSWER:
Number one, if he was normal and no special grace given, he would have a
constant battle with lust. Number two, if he was divorced, according to
Ronnie, God’s grace would take care of the self-control, but not if he is
single.
Page 20 - II. MARRIAGE AND SEPARATION - I Corinthians 7:10-16 A. This study
deals with mixed marriages. The scriptures condemn the marrying of a
believer with an unbeliever. This situation occurs when one of the mates
becomes a Christian after marriage. Point: Many are teaching that divorce
for believers and unbelievers is discussed in I Corinthians 7:10 - 16. THIS
IS NOT SO! Those advocating divorce for mixed marriages say the church is
not to become an ANTIDIVORCE SOCIETY.
ANSWER:
Seeing Ronnie likes to go to the commentaries I checked John Gill, Matthew
Henry, Vincent’ Word Studies and all agree that the deserted has the right
to remarry. The word depart according to Strong’s is put asunder, the same
as Mark 10:9 .
Page 20 - B. The Correct Interpretation #3. C. #2. The correct
interpretation - The believer is left free to serve the Lord without
encumbering problems caused by the demands of an unbeliever. The freedom
applies not to the right of remarriage but to the Christian life.
ANSWER:
So they are left to burn the rest of their lives and Paul said that is not
good. Ronnie likes the Greek so let’s use the Greek. Thayer’s Greek English
Lexicon of The New Testament Page 624- depart “to leave a husband or wife:
of divorce. Three other lexicons say the same thing.
Page 21 - IV. MARRIAGE AND EXPEDIENCY - I Corinthians 7:25 - 38
D. Verse 27– the abnormal condition of verse 26 made it necessary for the
Corinthians to remain as they were: a married man should not seek to be
loosed, and an unmarried man should not to get married. The word bound ( by
marriage) and the word loosed (from Marriage) are perfect tense verbs, which
indicate settled states. There is NO reference to divorced persons implied
in the tense of the verb “loosed” The word “assunder” means loosed, but it
is not the same as “loosed” in this verse.
ANSWER:
Seeing we have an English Bible, let’s just take it like it is. Loosed means
untied, unbound, freed from restraint. So before you can be loosed, you
first must have been tied, bound (Romans 7), restrained. I have never seen
scripture twisted so in my life, any one who says they believe the KJV and
then say something as stupid as this can‘t be taken seriously, (To quote Dr.
Ruckman When a man messes with the KJV, God messes with his mind.) After
all, are we not to compare scripture with scripture to learn the truth?
Page 21 E. Verse 28 Both these marrying in this verse are single
individuals. The “loosed “ man in verse 27 is a single man, the virgin is,
of course, single.
ANSWER:
A single man should be a virgin, so this statement would be redundant if the
loosed man is just a single man.
Page 23 - D. “THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE” I Timothy 3:2; 3:12; Titus 1:6 #1.
There have been many different interpretations - It is a subject of
considerable controversy. NOTE: In the Greek Text this expression is found
without the article (the) and thus it has a qualitative emphasis. (A MANUAL
GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by H.E. Dana and J.R. Mantey. It could
well be rendered “a one-woman man.”
ANSWER:
Ronnie first changes the KJV by leaving the word must out, this reminds us
of Genesis 3:2. Notice the definition of must: to be obligated: to be
necessitated. It expresses both physical and moral necessity. A man must eat
for nourishment and he must breath to live. It expresses moral fitness or
propriety, as necessary or essential of the character. (From Webster’s
1828). Taken without exception then, if a man is pastoring a church and his
wife dies he must resign because he is disqualified, he has no wife. Also
this would keep a single man from pastoring. We know this is
incorrect Paul had no wife and he pastored the churches he started, so there
are exceptions and it is not just death. To make it death only is private
interpretation.
Page 23 - F. How strong is the word “ONE” in I Timothy 3:1 #1. B. Marriage
is permitted after the death of the spouse.
ANSWER:
Seeing he likes to go to scholars and the Greek, Weust says it is one in a
lifetime. I don’t agree but I wanted to show how going to scholars and the
Greek can be used against him.
Page 24 - I . BIBLICAL MODELS FOR THE CHRISTIAN COUNSELOR #3. The Lord and
Hosea - God teaches that His will for divorced or separated couples is
ALWAYS reconciliation.
ANSWERr:
Hosea, a prophet of God, was instructed to marry a woman who was a whore. He
forgets to mention this. Hosea pictures God and Israel.
One more thing, according to I Corinthians 5:1 - 11, a church can put a
fornicator, which means adultery in the context, out of the church but
Ronnie expects a man or woman to continue to live with an unfaithful mate or
burn the rest of their life. He has set himself up as a pope and speaks
excathedra.
People who believe this doctrine of devils are more concerned with a person
having two marriage certificates than the sin they say they are fighting. In
closing I would like to use an allegory to prove my point. In our allegory
we will use two boys named Bill and Bob, they were raised in a Christian
home. Bob gets saved at an early age, but Bill is not saved until late in
life.
Let’s examine Bill’s Life. Seeing that Bill was not saved as a young
man he began to run after the women. Being a very attractive young man he
had no trouble finding women to fornicate with, including married women. He
was very careless in his immorality therefore he had serval bastard children
with different women of whom some he had shacked up with. He also busted
several marriages by his escapades. Bill finally gets married but continues
to run around until he gets saved. After being saved the Lord calls him to
preach and pastor a church. Every body talks about the grace of God being
far greater than sin, which is true. No one has a problem with him preaching
or pastoring which is right.
Now let’s look at Bob’s life. He gets saved when he is just a teenager and
becomes active in church. God calls him to preach and uses him with youth
meetings. He meets a young virgin girl and gets married. Then God calls him
to pastor a small church which has a lot of trouble in it. The people keep
him poor which puts a strain on his marriage, his wife takes all she can and
leaves him for someone else. God moves him to another church to pastor where
he meets another young woman who is a virgin. They fall in love and get
married. Now according to the brethren he is disqualified to preach or
pastor. In his life time he has only laid with two women of whom he was
married to at the time.
When you look at the two brothers, Bill has a very low moral record, Bob on
the other hand has been pure all his life. Question: is it the two marriage
certificates that disqualify Bob?
Is God’s grace greater for a low down sinner but not for the innocent
partner? If so then, are they saying live like hell until you get saved then
you will be fully qualified as long as you don’t have two marriage
certificates? Also could this be to cover their past and justify themselves
or to cover their unhappy marriage? Notice the quote by Dr. Roy Branson in
his book “Dear Abner I Love You Joab” He states on page 165 “When one
becomes privy to the home life of preachers and others who wish to ban
divorced people from church offices, especially the pulpit, he finds that
over ninety percent of such men have unhappy, miserable marriages. If they
could do it without being ostracized as they ostracize others, most of them
would end their marriages posthaste.”Bro. Hubert Martin, a pastor who was my
friend and has already gone to heaven, would say those preachers who fight
divorced preachers the hardest have trouble between the sheets. If these be
so, that is why they try to make everybody miserable.
Related Article
|