'Theology Discussion Group'

Subject: Jerrold Lewis Continued From: John P. To: All Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 19:56:55 (PDT) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Greetings All Interested: I'm sorry this has taken me so long, but - to be honest with you - I have been exceptionally busy. I just finished my summer education, got married, went on my honeymoon, and now am back in school again. So, if you can imagine, I've been busy. Nevertheless, I do have part of my response finished: I thought that I would take the time to respond to Mr. Lewis’s post first, since he wrote first. Time has not allowed me to get to Pilgrim’s post completely, yet (it also will need some clarifications when I do get time, anyway). Also, by way of introduction, I think it is important to encourage those of you reading along to not simply agree with Mr. Lewis (or myself) simply because he is (or I am) arguing for a position to which you already hold. For instance, I was rather baffled by how poorly Mr. Lewis responded, and yet Pilgrim was quick to say that his response was “erudite” (learned) - which baffled me even more than the wandering response of Mr. Lewis. We ought to have the courage to even think critically about doctrines to which we already hold; for, it is important that - when defending what we believe - we do it without debauching our consciences, and with the integrity that glorifies our Maker. If we are unable to defend our positions in this manner, it is time to suspend our defending them and question whether or not we have been led astray either by love of ease, a desire to be in the majoriy, by the deception of others who - with smooth speech - lead away the multitudes, or other means. So, please be careful, and keep in mind that it is not a fault to even critique the arguments of those with whom you agree. Indeed, keep in mind that critiquing their arguments doesn’t even necessarily mean that you disagree with their conclusions. Without integrity, sound argumentation counts very little, and facility of language counts for a lot. Having thus introduced my response to Mr. Lewis, I will now go through what he has written in the order of his doing so. I think anyone following along, who isn’t already biased against what I have to say, will find that his arguments are extremely weak, and - in fact (with respect to method) - almost exactly what one would have expected from someone who is not defending their position adequately. He began by answering the questions I put to him when asking him to Scripturally demonstrate why we may separate from Reformed Baptists if the only grounds of separation is if a church has “touch[ed] the heart of the gospel message,” or laid a blow to, “the very foundation of Christ’s work, his person or his office,” &c., and when I asked him to show which nonessentials warrant separation and which do not warrant separation (again, from Scripture). His answers were sadly wanting if we consider what he actually proved (or even tried to prove) from Scripture. First: In his answer to my question about how one can separate from Reformed Baptist community while remaining consistent with his belief that one ought not separate from churches which haven’t struck the foundation of the office of Christ or the Gospel, he simply said that the Reformed Baptists in his area are essentially Antinomians (Gr. equivalent to “against the Law”) who hold to the London Baptist Confession of 1644. Now, to be honest with you, I don’t see how his answer proved anything except that these Baptists possibly weren’t reformed at all (in the sense that was intimated by Mr. Lewis in his ‘treatise’) in the first place. I suppose my question is this: how did Mr. Lewis determine that this group, which claims to be reformed, isn’t reformed? Well, interestingly, he tells us: “The Law of God,” says he, “is so tampered with that it warrants a separation from such churches.” Wonderful! And who is going to tell us how, “tampered with,” the Law must be for it to be, “so tampered with that it warrants a separation from such churches”? I suspect this requires argumentation from Scripture, does it not? And where is that to be found? Certainly not here, for he has begged the question; in order to answer a question which ultimately required him to tell me (and those of you reading along) what warrants separation, he essentially said that those things which warrant separation, are those which warrant separation. Terrific! No doubt, he may say to me, “Yes, but, you see, being an Antinomian strikes at the very heart of what is essential to salvation; for, if one doesn’t believe that saving faith causes them to love and obey (as far as infirmity allows) the law, then the heart of the Gospel has been stuck!” Indeed, I agree that Antinomianism can strike at the very heart of the Gospel in extreme cases; however, I suspect that you would believe that there is a certain degree of Antinomianism (albeit it ought to be avoided by all who bear Christ’s name, and trembled at by all who love Him) which does not hinder the salvation of those who hold to it. Not that there are venial sins (for all are mortal without Christ our Savior); however, for one to persist in driving over the speed limit in a lawful nation, I am less apt to think damning (although I don’t speed in our nation, which I believe is covenant-breaking) than, say, unrepentant gross adultery. Or, for Martin Luther to have persisted in a belief in consubstantian (which certainly is sinful), or even his habitual Sabbath-breaking, doesn’t require us to think that he has damned himself (for God is merciful to those with sincere faith, although He sometimes doesn’t reveal to all believers what we sometimes may presumptuously feel like He ought). Now, I suspect this leads me to this question, again: where in Scripture do you determine what degree of “so”-ness (with respect to Antinomianism) warrants separation? As for me, and my covenantal family (Mr. Lewis’s former church), we won’t tolerate (by God’s grace) any obstinate, persistent, unrepentant, known, wilfull Antinomianism in our church insofar as infirmity can help (God help us). And, yes, we know that we are separating from many brethren who are sincere Christians in the Lord, who (for some reason known to God alone) have not been given as much light as others who were no more deserving. However, we also know that we are commanded by God to separate from erring brethren, when Paul writes, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) For, if they walk disorderly who may be called “brothers,” from such the believer is commanded to, “withdraw thyself.” (1 Timothy 6:3) Note: If someone is a “brother” then they obviously believe that which is necessary to salvation and have not struck the “heart of the Gospel”; and if they havn’t done that, and we are commanded to separate from them, does it not follow that Goodwin’s claim about not separating from those who haven’t struck the heart of the Gospel is contrary to the plain words of Scirpture? This conclusion is undeniable, and, were it not for the natural (and sinful) tendency of man to hate a call to go against the stream, and, man’s natural desire to, “follow a multitude to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I suspect any unbiased reader would come to the same conclusion. Second: After having demonstrated that Mr. Lewis hasn’t sufficiently answered my first question, I think his response to the second question still warrants a response. I asked him, “I would ask you to please prove to me exactly where in Scripture you can determine what doctrines merit separation, and which don’t. What I mean is this: If we are bound to separate over some Biblically defensible nonessentials to salvation, and are not bound to separate over others, please show me from Scripture which are which.” To this, Mr. Lewis responded by first admitting that this question was, “a bit harder to answer,” than the first one (which he didn’t legitimately answer, but begged the question). Then he continued to affirm that he essentially agreed with Thomas Goodwin’s thoughts that, “If the doctrine does not touch the heart of the gospel message, if it does not strike at the very foundation of Christ’s work, his person or his office, we must regard the general end of glorifying God in this man, and bear his burden with him.” Now, before I continue, I would just quickly like to mention that this quotation may appear to many reading along to intimate that we don’t believe in bearing the burdens of young, weak, relatively ignorant, Christians and only accept as members “theological giants” (if I may use such an expression). I would just mention that by my disagreeing with Goodwin here, I am not saying that young Christians who don’t know much more than the most fundamental articles of the faith (the Trinity, faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone, &c.) can’t be members of our Church until they know theology well enough to refute the gain-sayers; rather, young Christians are more than welcome to join with us, and can be assured that (excepting infirmity) we will endeavor with all our sincerety and hearts to love and bear with them as they learn and ask questions. However, we do not believe in bearing with a person who obstinately opposes (or willfully countenances) any practice or doctrine expressly contrary to what our Church Confessionally understands to be Scriptural. Rather, we prefer that one who disagrees with us would either repent and remain, or peacefully depart as a brother; for, we will “count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (2 Thessalonians 3:15) Notwithstanding that parenthetical remark, I think it is also worth noting that Mr. Goodwin typically does not intend this, because he believes in tolerating people within the church who err willfully and obstinately in areas that are other than the “heart of the gospel message,” &c. For, if they are reformed brethren, why separate? (As Goodwin might well say - or at least Mr. Lewis implies) Now, having said that, I will return to Mr. Lewis’s argument in favor of a type of reformed toleration. He argued from Scripture in the following manner: --- --- Quote Begun --- --- (Says Mr. Lewis) To prove this by scripture I would point you in the direction of 1 Corinthians 11:28,29. “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” In this text we see two qualifications for communion. 1. Self-examination. 2. Discerning the Lord’s body. By Self-examination it appears that one would need to be equipped with the tools of examination. These in my estimation are the 10 rules, or the law of God-- the Ten Commandments. Discerning the Lord’s body likewise would warrant knowledge of the doctrine of Christ’s person and his work, in other words, a correct Soteriology. This is both the start and foundation of church communion in my mind. While there are secondary doctrines that are very important none straddle alongside these two vital heads. The Law. Christ’s Person and work.” --- --- -End Quote --- --- - Now, first, I would call to Mr. Lewis’s attention the fact that this passage has nothing to do with church membership and of which church we are to be members - Paul was writing about the Lord’s Supper, and at best, it can only be used for discerning communicant membership within a church. Next, I would call into question Mr. Lewis’s interpretation of this passage concerning what he believes the discerning of the Lord’s Body to be. For, his interpretation of the “Lord’s body” means that many people who disagree theologically may come to the table of the Lord, as though this is not a social supper (but meant merely for the individuals of the congregation as individuals). However, this passage must be interpretted within the context of this letter of Paul’s. And what is the main point of this epistle? Not having divisions among the brethren. Indeed, that is why at the beginning he rebukes them for claiming to follow different men (some Apollos, Cephas, Paul, and others Christ), commanded them to, “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10), spoke about the body of Christ being made many members of “one body” (1 Cor. 12:12), &c. In fact, even the immediate context in 1 Corinthians 11 is speaking of divisions within the Lord’s body - first, with respect to head coverings (v. 1-16), then with respect to their coming to the Lord’s table (v. 17ff; “For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.” v. 18). Now, with this in mind, and with a right understanding of what is meant by the word “body,” when we are to discern the “Lord’s body,” (in order to not die for participating while having divisions in the church as Corinth did) it only seems appropriate to recognize that we are to be primarily discerning the unity of the “body” (the Lord’s body) of believers, lest God’s terrible chastisement fall upon us. Therefore, one ought not come to the Lord’s table until they are capable of discerning the confessionally oneness of the participants, unity of Spirit, bond of peace among their brethren, &c. under the Lord Jesus Christ. This is important when considering the Lord’s Supper, since it argues less for Mr. Lewis’s position of allowing theological differences than he would allow (indeed, it contradicts him concerning the Lord’s Supper, and has little to nothing to do with discerning who may be a member of a certain church; Moreover, it says nothing at all to favor nor has anything to do with that for which Mr. Lewis is arguing). Furthermore, when considering what is necessary in order to, “examine yourself,” Mr. Lewis says that, “in [his] estimation,” all that is needed is to know the ten commandments. Now, this shouldn’t suprise Mr. Lewis, but God’s “commandment is exceeding broad.” (Psalm 119:96), and the ten commandments deal even with what we believe with respect to nonessentials. For instance, consider the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Now, this commandment forbids, as the Westminster divines rightly concluded agreeably to the word of God in the Larger Catechism, “atheism, in denying or not having a God; idolatry, in having or worshiping more gods than one, or any with or instead of the true God; the not having and avouching him for God, and our God; the omission or neglect of anything due to him, required in this commandment; ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy and wicked thoughts of him; bold and curious searching into his secrets; all profaneness, hatred of God; self-love, self-seeking, and all other inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will, or affections upon other things, and taking them off from him in whole or in part; vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief, distrust, despair, incorrigibleness, and insensibleness under judgments, hardness of heart, pride, presumption, carnal security, tempting of God; using unlawful means, and trusting in lawful means; carnal delights and joys; corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal; lukewarmness, and deadness in the things of God; estranging ourselves, and apostatizing from God; praying, or giving any religious worship, to saints, angels, or any other creatures; all compacts and consulting with the devil, and hearkening to his suggestions; making men the lords of our faith and conscience; slighting and despising God and his commands; resisting and grieving of his Spirit, discontent and impatience at his dispensations, charging him foolishly for the evils he inflicts on us; and ascribing the praise of any good we either are, have, or can do, to fortune, idols, ourselves, or any other creature.” (emphasis added) Now, if it weren’t for Mr. Lewis’s misapplication of this passage in 1 Cor. 11 as speaking about church membership rather than who may approach the Lord’s Supper (for these are two different things), then all I would have to say is that, if a keeping of the commandments must be seen before one is to be granted membership (of which this passage isn’t speaking) by the elders of the church, and the first commandment (which forbids misbelief, heresy, &c.) is to be considered by the session before granting someone membership, then, as far as the candidates for membership know, and the session can discern from interviewing them, they must not be people holding to any heresies nor obstinately holding any erronious beliefs (misbelieving) concerning any doctrines of which the session knows if they are to be granted membership. And, therefore, even according to Mr. Lewis’s distorted interpretation of this text, church membership ought to be those who are like-minded theologically. Continuing. At this time, I am going to respond to Mr. Lewis by responding to his objections to the interpretations I gave for the various texts of Scripture in the first of our posts. Concerning the first text(s): Matthew 13:54 “When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue.” In interpretting this passage, I essentially argued that it implies (by calling the synagogue “their synagogue”) that Christ was not a regular attendant; that Christ was teaching, not hearing in their synagogue; that using this passage (and those like it) in favor of attending the worship led by people who err from the truth confessionally, leads us to the absurd conclusion that we may worship under those who deny the divinity of Christ; &c. For a lengthly look at what I argued and its defense, see my first post. In opposition to the interpretation that I presented, Mr. Lewis said little to nothing that refuted what I wrote. In fact, all that he gave was the bald and defenseless claim that, “Christ was a member of the local synagogue for 30 years before he spoke out against that fraudulent system. That means that for 30 years Christ was under the teaching of ‘covenant-breaking’ elders. Elders who were in substantial, if not complete agreement with the apostate teachings of the National Church in Israel.” We have all of two times in Christ’s life wherein it speaks of what Christ did before He was engaged in public ministry, and Mr. Lewis wants to base his refutation of what I have drawn immediately from Scripture by a claim about what Christ did during that time? That seems to me to be presumptuous. Nevertheless, I do desire to make one more comment about Mr. Lewis’s mentioning that Christ spent 30 years in a Synagogue under an covenant-breaking teacher. Because of how little is said concerning where Christ worshipped in His youth, we must assume that He worshipped in a place which would be agreeable to the rest of Scripture. Therefore, we need to search out - from Scripture - whether or not it is lawful to participate in corrupted ordinances of worship; upon which investigation, we will be able to conclude that Christ did that which wasright. Now, seeing as though this is the very thing in question in this debate (viz., whether or not it is lawful to worship under an obstinately covenant-breaking minister), it is fundamentally begging the question to simply assume that Christ did worship under false teachers. Unless it is explicitly stated that He did so, then where He worshipped is subject to various different conjectures until the rest of Scripture is consulted. For instance, one can argue that Christ was circumcised either by a covenant-keeping, or a covenant-breaking, minister; likewise, if it can even be proved that there was a synagogue at which Christ attended - sitting under a teacher - it still could be argued that He sat under one of the few covenant-keeping ministers as well as Mr. Lewis could say that He sat under a covenant-breaking one. The rest of Scripture must be consulted -- simple claims don’t make arguments. Now, this leads us to this question: Is it a sin to participate in, or to give approbation to by not separating from, corrupted ordinances in the worship of God (whether by corrupted doctrines preached, or elements of worship practiced)? One ought not to even hesitate to answer in the affirmative - Of course it is sin for one to participate in, or give their approbation to by sitting under, corrupted ordinances in the worship of God. Is it not a sin to countenance that for which Nadab and Abihu were destroyed? They worshipped the true God wrongly (Lev. 10:1,2)? If it isn’t sin, then what are we to make of the following rhetorical question which expects the answer no: “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3) For, this passage teaches that you can’t walk with someone at peace unless you are in agreement; meaning that, if you worship with (or “walk with”) a person participating in false worship, you are at heart in agreement with them at least in principle. Or, what are we to make of God’s commandment concerning Ephraim: “Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.” (Hosea 4:17) And again, what are we to think when we read that Jeremiah he, “sat not in the assembly of mockers, nor rejoiced;” but rather, “sat alone,” because God had, “filled [him] with indignation.”? Indeed, and what are we to think of it when God commands Jeremiah not to return?!? --“Let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.” (Jeremiah 15:17-19)?? I pray, what are we to make of all these passages? Ephraim let alone, a Jeremiah indignant at the ridiculous worship of his time, Nadab and Abihu burned with the fire from heaven, Amos acknowledging that two can’t walk together (in sincerety) except they be agreed, --- indeeed, what are we to make of Jesus our Lord Himself commanding His disciples, concerning the Pharisees, to, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matthew 15:14) I couldn’t - with all my asking - ask for a text more clear! If we sit under the blind rather than “letting them alone,” we will fall into their ditch. It is no wonder Solomon warned us so solemnly: “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.” (Proverbs 19:27). For, we are commanded to be, “perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment,” (1 Cor. 1:10) and to, “withdraw [our]selves from every brother that walketh disorderly,” (2 Thessalonians 3:6), and to, “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom 16:17) Now, I scarcely could dare bring myself to think that Christ didn’t avoid a teacher who “caused divisions and offences contrary to the doctrines” which Christ had learned and taught; nor that He didn’t withdraw Himself from the assembly of mockers, as Jeremiah did; nor that He could walk with another with whom He was not agreed (when they were obstinate); nor that He sat under the blind! Now, Mr. Lewis can argue all he wants in his claims that Christ violated all of these examples and commands (and even His own words!) based on the silence about where Christ worshipped in His youth - I, for my part, will be more careful, and assess Christ’s practice by studying the more clear passages of Scripture. Continuing (still on the same passage). Then, after making that assertion of his - that Christ sat under a covenant-breaking teacher for decades, he says, “I will defer the other points of extremity that Mr. Putz implies within his original response (such as the divinity of Christ, and acceptance of Arminianism) simply because they are his words, not mine.” That isn’t much of a response to what I have argued, is it? I don’t believe ignoring the argument of the opposition counts for much in argumentation, so I will only point out that He has ignored my argument. I believe what I have said follows if he is to consistently apply this text to proving his own fancies. If Christ sat under a Christ-denying, 2cd-person-of-the-Trinity-denying, covenant-breaking, teacher, then how can it not follow that we may do the same thing? He simply is avoiding a logical inference from that for which he desires to argue. Continuing. Now, concerning his discussion of how I handled Acts 21, where Paul sacrificed. I would first like to point out that I wasn’t the person who changed the subject in the debate. I answered his use of Acts 21 precisely as it appeared to require a response. In his first post several weeks ago, after he mentioned texts which he said were intended to refute occasional hearing, he quoted this passage from Acts 21 and, rather than referring to occasional hearing, he wrote the following, “Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. (Post cross ceremonial worship-ergo idolatry).” How did I respond? I responded by demonstrating from Hebrews 8:13 that, at the time when Paul participated in “Post cross ceremonial worship,” it was lawful. I didn’t avoid his intent - in spite of the fact that he (in his most recent post) said concerning my response from Hebrews 8:13 (which was perfectly pertinent to his point about worship), “This is a good point. The Old economy was waxing old, and the New covenant was dawning. But let me ask a rhetorical question. Was it any less a sin to enter that system and take part in that system in light of the text just quoted? Mr. Putz has not proven anything by quoting Hebrews 8. All he has done is make an assertion in light of Acts21: 26,” as though I hadn’t answered his original intent. Now, I understand that we often make mistakes like this - so I certainly won’t impute it against Mr. Lewis (this is why I ask for charity when people judge me in argumentation). I simply want to let people know that I am not merely avoiding objections, as Mr. Lewis seems to have (whether wittingly or unwittingly) intimated I had done. Nevertheless, let me answer this as Mr. Lewis now desires me to answer it. Would we have to conclude that Paul was necessarily in sin for violating occasional hearing? I don’t think we have anything in this text which clearly states what Mr. Lewis would have us conclude, viz., that Paul’s example in Acts 21 gives us warrant - over and above the other express texts of Scripture which condemn occasionally hearing teachers erring from the truth - to worship in a church which is teaching false doctrine, worship, church-government, or discipline. The reason I say this, I’m sure, will require a little bit more thorough defense than other passages here shown. And, I’ll make it known up front, that I am uncertain as to which of the two understandings of this passage I am going to present is true - however, I am certain that Mr. Lewis’s is false. My intent is to simply show that there are other ways of understanding this passage and Paul’s example which in no way justify our joining ourselves to a church which errs from the truth. This ought to satisfy the minds of those who are honestly inquiring into what the Scripture teaches in this matter - for, if we find that Paul did attend to the elements of worship adminstered by false teachers, all we have found is that Paul either sinned and / or contradicted his own apostolic commands (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:1-5). Which, to all who believe Scripture, is preposterous. Nevertheless, let me show what I believe are two legitimate possibilities in answering this objections while neither abusing Scripture or defiling my conscience: (1) Paul may indeed have been in sin. This may seem to be far-fetched claim, but commentators have (even before the time of Calvin, though not Calvin) made it. For, as all who have spent even a little time reading other historical books of the Bible, we find that men who are otherwise godly men, sinning in various ways which are not expressly condemned by the author. Examples of this would be Noah and Lot’s drunkeness; David and others’ polygamy; &c. These were sins which the author of these histories did not expressly condemn, but merely glossed over and recorded various temporal effects which indicate the negative consequences of such behavior (such as domestical problems, envy, &c.). Likewise, in Acts 21, we may be reading of Paul’s participation in a sinful act of man-pleasing. For, when Paul went to Jerusalem, we read that Paul’s reason for engaging in this worship was in order to silence the believing Jew’s (correct) belief that Paul, “teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” (v. 21) In other words, Paul was trying to please these believing Jews - who were, “zealous of the law,” (v. 20) - by acting contrary to how he truly had taught other Jews in the Gentile lands (Romans 2:25-29; Galatians 6:13). Indeed, the purpose for which James and the others desired Paul to participate in the Jewish worship seemed almost deceptive. For, they said to him, “Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walketh orderly, and keepest the law.” (v. 24) Which seems to intimate that they wanted these Law-zealous believing Jews to be under the impression that Paul kept the ceremonial law regularly. Furthermore, this would lead us to the conclusion that, just like in the historical examples of the Old Testament (where men sinned, and the sin was not expressly condemned but only the temporal consequences of it shown), in the verse immediately following verse 26 - which speaks of Paul’s participation in the worship - we read that, 'the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him [Paul] in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help:” &c. (v. 27,28a) And this consequence seems as though it could have been avoided had not Paul acquiesced to the advice of James and the others. The other possibility is this: (2) It is also possible that Paul, after having purified himself, had a believing priest offer his offering (Num. 6:10,11). For, in light of the context, if it was proper for Paul to participate in this worship in this instance, his purpose was not to convince the unbelieving Jews that he kept the law, but rather to convince the believing Jews who were, “zealous of the law.” Furthermore, having a believing priest to offer his offering would seem to be the most appropriate and practical step Paul could take in achieving his purpose of getting the believing Jews to accept his claim that he didn’t teach against the law. With such a great number of believing Jews (thousands) in a city as small as that of Jerusalem (well under 100,000 people at this time in history), it would seem doubtful that there was no believing priest for Paul to approach in order to present his offering. Thus, the other option is this: Paul could have been worshipping lawfully under a lawful (temporal) priest (who, by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, would no longer be capable of being a “lawful” priest because that office was ceremonial; see my explanation of Hebrews 8:13 in my previous post for a further explanation). Either way, it is clear that there are ways of understanding this passage which do not require us to believe Scripture has contradicted itself. One more note about this passage. Mr. Lewis wrote that, “it is not sinful to attend a less reformed service than your own, but sinful to partake in their sinful acts in your heart.” This is a sophistical argument which simply ignores the fact that one isn’t only sinning if they participate in a sin, but they are also sinning if they give their approbation to another who is sinning. “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:32) --- This is one of the greatest signs of a depraved person in heart. One may say that they don’t have pleasure in those in their church who are habitually covenant-breaking; preaching up Anabaptism, Arminianism, or Antinomianism; permitting scandalous sinners to remain members of the church without excommunication or suspension from the Lord’s Supper; remaining a part of a denomination which - by their church government - denies the headship of Christ over the Church; &c., while yet remaining at that churc

Subject: Re: Jerrold Lewis Continued From: monitor To: John P. Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:46:19 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: JP - I appreciate the care you take in underlining, bolding and italicizing for the sake of clarity. However, you often forget to check your work after you've posted and I've felt compelled to tidy up your posts as I'm sure your intent was not to have italicized the last 40% of your above post. Can you check your loooong posts after you've submitted them to make sure you've properly html coded? I think the system gives you 1 hour to edit your own post. thanks and blessings, monitor

Subject: For the Monitor From: John P. To: monitor Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 10:57:40 (PDT) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Do you have access to the last half of my post, which seems to have disappeared? If at all possible, could you re-post that, so that I don't have to do the work which goes into posting these all over again? Thanks and blessings.

Subject: Re: For the Monitor From: monitor To: John P. Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 31, 2000 at 11:05:05 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: No...sorry...not sure what to make of your post...I do recall it being complete at one time and after I merely added a single html code to stop the italic script. The server did go down and perhaps something got truncated and lost? Perhaps another monitor would know more and lend a hand? monitor

Subject: Re: Jerrold Lewis Continued From: John P. To: monitor Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 10:31:18 (PDT) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Monitor, Thanks. I certainly will try to be more clear. I didn't realize that we could edit our posts, otherwise I would have done that. I usually glance over what I write on my posts, but - you're correct - I am less careful with the html codes. Sorry. Godspeed, John P. Just joking with the italics. :) Blessings.

Subject: What do y'all think about this. . . From: Anne To: All Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 11:39:49 (PDT) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Over at the Renewing Your Mind General Forum, someone asked about Beth Moore, one of those I-dunno-what-you'd-call-'em . . . teacher? spiritual mentor? writer? Whatever. She has written books, and has a video series (which my church is going to use as the basis of a women's study group this fall), not to mention holding rallies for thousands of people, most of whom are women. She definitely intends to target women. I'm still not totally comfortable with the whole women-as-Christian-celebrities thing. According to Paul's letter to Titus, someone, presumably the pastors and/or elders, are to teach the older women to then teach the younger women to love and care for their families, to be subject to their husbands, and to increase in self-control, purity, and kindness. There is no mandate for younger women to train older women. There is no mandate for older women to teach doctrine, etc. to those younger women, much less ther contemporaries. (Hardly means they can't sit and discuss it amongst themselves on a casual, personal basis, certainly! Let's not go overboard in the other direction.) The instruction Paul gave struck me as quite specific regarding who is to teach who, what. (There ought probably to be a whom in there, but I can't decide where.) In true, inimitable American style, haven't we left Scriptural direction behind regarding this stuff? Older women (being trained themselves, first) teaching younger women specific subjects, has evolved into any woman teaching any other women anything at all, with men's attendance optional, but permitted. Perhaps I'm being my usual picky, crabby self, though? Anne

Subject: Re: What do y'all think about this. . . From: cousin Earl To: Anne Date Posted: Tues, Aug 29, 2000 at 19:24:49 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I have taken several studies offered at our church by Beth Moore. As with any teacher you must study the scriptures and check out what you are being taught. I think she is pretty solid. You talk about 'celebrities' and place her in that catagoty-I think with out cause. I have no need to defend her. God is her judge. R.C. Sproul is a teacher with many videos, etc. out there for our studies-do you question him too? I think he is pretty solid but still study the scriptures to know if whatI'm am being taught is truth.

Subject: Re: What do y'all think about this. . . From: Pilgrim To: cousin Earl Date Posted: Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 07:10:37 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I have taken several studies offered at our church by Beth Moore. As with any teacher you must study the scriptures and check out what you are being taught. I think she is pretty solid. You talk about 'celebrities' and place her in that catagoty-I think with out cause. I have no need to defend her. God is her judge. R.C. Sproul is a teacher with many videos, etc. out there for our studies-do you question him too? I think he is pretty solid but still study the scriptures to know if whatI'm am being taught is truth. --- cousin earl, It may very well be that Beth Moore's theology is 'pretty solid'. When at under graduate school, I had a Bible teacher who was a woman whose biblical knowledge and theology was unquestionably 'solid'. But I don't think Anne's main concern was the reliability and credibility of Beth Moore's teaching, but rather if she, being a woman, should be teaching men. Personally, I have supported Ligonier Ministries since 1972. Dr. R.C. Sproul has a long history of being an able and 'pretty solid' biblical teacher. Yet, as you have also said, one must put their final trust in the Scriptures and not in any man. So just because Ligonier Ministries is a sponsor/supporter of Beth Moore doesn't make her 'pretty solid' nor, does that give her warrant to teach men. Let's let the Scriptures decide on ALL matters of 'faith and practice'! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: What do y'all think about this. . . From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Aug 31, 2000 at 06:25:40 (PDT) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Now, Ligonier is not supporting Beth Moore . . . . . someone had asked about her on the RYM Forum, is all. And hoo, boy! That thread splintered into a gazillion different directions! My question really wasn't about Beth Moore, who must be at least reasonably sound or Christ Chapel wouldn't use her video for a women's study group. Sorry if that's how it came across! My question was intended to be very general. I just used Beth Moore as an example, is all. Elizabeth George would work, too, and I love her books. Here's another thread (they're everywhere! they're everywhere!) . . . . is appears that today, any group of women is automatically taught by a woman. Is this what Paul meant? I must say, it doesn't read like that to me. Today's church (in the larger sense) defaults to the following: Men are taught by men. Women are taught by women. Men and women, combined, are taught by men (well, usually). Do y'all consider this a fair assessment, and if so, is it supported by Scripture? Anne

Subject: Re: What do y'all think about this. . . From: Pilgrim To: Anne Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 16:18:38 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, I don't know if you are 'being my usual picky, crabby self, though?' hehehe. Are you? :-) But I can respond to you query. I do not recall any biblical mandate that would allow a woman to teach dogma, albeit restricted to women regardless of their age. Neither can I recall any examples of women instructing others in dogma by themselves. We do have the example of Priscilla where she took Apollos aside and 'expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.', but this was along side of her husband Aquila (Acts 18:2, 26). What grabbed my attention even more though was this statement, 'I'm still not totally comfortable with the whole women-as-Christian-celebrities thing.' Anytime I see this word celebrities, my 'red flags' go up immediately. Now, I'm not suggesting that NO celebrity can be saved, no no! But in the main, it is a rare occurrence to see any who have attained 'celebrity status' give a credible testimony and/or to show forth a life indicative of one that has been transformed and is living a righteous life. But perhaps I'm being my usual critical, nit picky self? :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: What do y'all think about this. . . From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 16:04:44 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Anne, Hi, I think you're fundamentally correct. I am going to nit-pick one item, but I think we're already in agreement on this. You wrote: 'I'm still not totally comfortable with the whole women-as-Christian-celebrities thing.' I'm not the least bit comfortable with any Christian as 'celebrity.' Certain people pedestalize preachers and teachers, but there is no warrant for it. Elders are to be 'honored,' but that is in return for their first being true to and honoring the Lord Jesus. 'He must increase; I must decrease'--John the Baptist.

Subject: As to 'Christian celebrities' . . . From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 17:54:05 (PDT) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Well, really, Rod, I agree with you, I do indeed. Someone had suggested at RYM that Knox and Calvin were 'celebrities' in their day, but I don't know about that. Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon also packed 'em in to hear their preaching, but I don't really call that being a celebrity, as we understand the term. There's just something about book after book being turned out, along with audio tapes, video tapes, workshops, rallies, conferences, who knows what all, that makes me squirm a trifle. Even when I like the author (I could give an example or two but shan't . . . discretion is such a useful, if rather dull, trait!), and find his or her books to be of value. It especially bothers me when it's women doing this, however. If I have understood correctly, there have been at least one or two of these women who have seen their marriage go on the rocks because of her horrendous schedule. Or sometimes her husband quits his career to 'manage' hers. Darn it, Paul and Peter would not approve of this! How can anyone read their epistles and not grasp how deep would be their dismay at Christian women putting themselves forward to such a degree? Oh, well. Why should I be surprised? Oct. 14th will see the start of women's professional full-contact football, after all. Honestly! The Milwaukee Minx? The Atlanta Amazons? I mentioned this to my nearly-20-years-old son and had the pleasure of watching his jaw drop several inches. Then he clamped it shut before declaring, in a voice that brooked no argument, 'That's just wrong.' What a society! The 'silly season' has settled in permanently, t'would appear. Ciao! Anne

Subject: Hey there Anne! From: DWC To: Anne Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 12:58:21 (PDT) Email Address: cybersmirk@hotmail.com Message: Look! I finally posted on the Offramp (or whatever this is called)! I went to a Protestant parochial HS in the 80's and I recall a powderpuff flag football game that I heard actually got pretty rough. Uh, I better go before I get frivolous!! That's an official sin here, right? ;~) - DWC P.S. - Buffalo Banshees? OOPS! ''Anne started it!!!''

Subject: Re: As to 'Christian celebrities' . . . From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 18:58:33 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Anne, 'preciate your thoughts. I didn't know about the professional footballers. Somehow, though I wasn't surprised. There are so many things wrong with our society, I just can't get started on it--it would solidify my rep as a grumpy old man. :>)

Subject: Re: What do y'all think about this. . . From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 17:08:18 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Number of years ago a little Bible college in the midwest had big names in for Bible conference once a year. They decided for some reason to try local pastors for a year or two and found that the conferences were just as good as with the big namers ;-) Not that I was surprised! Then again there is the celebratiiiii that was advertized as making the Word of God live! AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Grumpi

Subject: Hey, Grumpi! :>) From: Sleepy, Sneezy, and Dopey To: stan Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 17:24:14 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Stan, I wonder if that could give us a clue wherein the power lies?

Subject: Re: :-) NT From: stan To: Sleepy, Sneezy, and Dopey Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 17:38:27 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: What do y'all think about this. . . From: Brother Bret To: Anne Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 13:11:59 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Seems to my feeble mind that you are on the right biblical track, sis :-) Brother Bret P.S. What about women teaching children??? Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Faith From: saved To: All Date Posted: Sat, Aug 26, 2000 at 05:34:08 (PDT) Email Address: saved4service@yahoo.com Message: Faith is the spiritual spy of the soul. It travels far into the promised land, gathers the ripe clusters—the evidences and earnests of its reality and richness—and, returning, bears with it these, the 'first-fruits' of the coming vintage. 'My soul hath desired the first ripe fruits:' and he who has in his soul the 'first-fruits of the Spirit, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body,' knows something in his experience of heaven upon earth. Ah! many a glimpse and gleam of the heavenly land dawns upon the Christian in the darkness of his dungeon, in the loneliness of his exile, in the cloistered stillness of his suffering chamber. Such was the rapture of a departing saint: 'The celestial city is full in my view. Its glories beam upon me, its breezes fan me, its odours are wafted to me, its sounds strike upon my ear, and its spirit is breathed into my heart. Nothing separates me from it but the river of death, which now appears but as an insignificant rill, that may be crossed at a single step, whenever God shall give permission. The Sun of Righteousness has been gradually drawing nearer and nearer, appearing larger and brighter as He approached, and now He fills the whole hemisphere, pouring forth a flood of glory, in which I seem to float like an insect in the beams of the sun; exulting, yet almost trembling, while I gaze at the excessive brightness, and wondering with unutterable wonder why God should deign thus to shine upon a sinful worm'—Payson. Thus, long ere the believer reaches the celestial city, the evidences of its existence and fertility float past his barque, as manifestly as did the tokens of a new world the vessel which bore Columbus to its shores. The relation of present grace to future glory is close and indissoluble. It is that of the seed to the flower—of the morning twilight to meridian day. Grace is the germ of glory; glory is the highest perfection of grace. Grace is glory militant; glory is grace triumphant. Thus the believer has two heavens to enjoy—a present heaven experienced in the love of God in his heart, and a future heaven in the fulness of joy that is at Christ’s right hand, and the pleasures that are for evermore... Octavius Winslow

Subject: Marriage Annulment From: Dish To: All Date Posted: Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 17:51:30 (PDT) Email Address: gfibach@carroll.com Message: What is the reformed view of marriage annulment?

Subject: Re: Marriage Annulment From: john hampshire To: Dish Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 16:17:19 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Annulment? You mean Divorce! While it is not universally recognized due to certain verses that SEEM to imply divorce for adultery. I have found absolutely there is NO DIVORCE for any cause since the cross. Divorce was permitted by God (introduced by God) to permit the divorce of Israel from God. Jesus very carefully removes this temporary economy returning the matter back to the original intent-- no divorce for any cause. john

Subject: Yeh, yeh, yeh! :-) From: Pilgrim To: john hampshire Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 21:29:12 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, We've been exposed to your 'view' on no divorce and your attempts to support it, which have been found wanting at best. But it is noted once again here what you hold to on this issue. Hyper-Spiritualization of the Scriptures will get you in trouble more often than not.... :-)! However, you are certainly 'right on' concerning annulment for it is nothing less than divorce! Peace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Yeh, yeh, yeh! :-) From: john hampshire To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 01:35:42 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Most views which other people do not hold, nor care to hold, somehow as if by majic are 'found wanting'! I don't find my view wanting, nor do I find anyone refuting it. I do find most everyone simply ignoring it, which is perhaps more noble than trying to argue FOR divorce. My viewpoint doesn't even require spiritualizing on this matter, but if you do there is even more support (aaaaah). My viewpoint remains: NO DIVORCE FOR ANY REASON!!! The Bible is clear on this, even if the churches and history are not. john

Subject: john, just so you'll know... From: Rod To: john hampshire Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 09:22:30 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: I chose not to rebut your position about no divorce at all because it was from the 'Hampshire Reversed Version' :>) (sorry, but it isn't Biblical) and because you've not been receptive to other views in the past, not because I was 'scared,' or, as you always resorting to, 'partial to the sinful position' on whatever the particular issue is. (That's a reprehensible misrepresentation, BTW.) I just figured most folks who had read much of your stuff and had discernment would realize that this is one of those places where you err seriously. You seem to pride yourself on being 'frank,' so I've been frank in return. When one takes bold stands, whether he is right or wrong, he is to expect that it will provoke people to take equally strong stances.

Subject: Re: john, just so you'll know... From: john hampshire To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 16:48:23 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Regarding your statement: I chose not to rebut your position about no divorce at all because it was from the 'Hampshire Reversed Version' :>) (sorry, but it isn't Biblical) and because you've not been receptive to other views in the past, not because I was 'scared,' or, as you always resorting to, 'partial to the sinful position' on whatever the particular issue is. Don't know what the Hampshire Revised Version is supposed to imply. Apparently you mean the syntax question which underlies the understanding of 'the cause of fornication'. While you may not agree with the conclusion, there is no twisting of scripture as you infer. As to 'it isn't Biblical, we'll my friend, if arguments were won by such simple pleas—they are not; and what have we proved by such statements? As to the charge of my not being receptive of other views, that is because, as you know, I do not find any Biblical merit for the 'divorce' position. As I am upfront concerning this, I can see no reason to pretend that I'm stubbornly refusing to understand. I understand full well the attempt to make divorce continue for fornication, it is nothing new, all the arguments are old. I have examined the position and don't agree, which you have labeled as not being receptive. By the way, I'm 'not receptive' to a whole lot of other bad doctrine--so be forewarned. I don't recall saying anyone was scared(?), nor do I know what the fragment 'partial to the sinful position' refers to. I do know YOU Rod (from your writing), and so I understand your method of attack, which I am not interested in playing. Stick to Scriptures, inflammatory innuendo, though your specialty, is truly wasted effort. Again, 'reprehensible misrepresentation' means nothing to me, can you explain? Do you mean that people who understand there to be no Biblical grounds for divorce today to be misrepresenting the Bible, and that then is reprehensible? Truly I have no idea where you are coming from, nor do I know why every disagreement is life or death to you. You said I 'err seriously', do you believe I am a heretic? Apparently so, as that is the common appeal to frighten away the uninitiated and win arguments without a shot being fired. Every person who rightly disagrees with you Rod is not a heretic or involved in 'serious' error or 'reprehensible misrepresentation'. I will not be silent while you insinuate my unfaithfulness to Scripture, God, or truth. You should know (since no one has informed you yet) that this bile you spew to try and defame your opponent is unChristlike and does not escape notice (at least not mine). Sir, you demonstrate an impatient and judgmental disposition--rather unbecoming. No one has 'provoked' you to take a strong stance, which I take to mean you are showing a righteous indignation in defending truth. If you are more honest you will find less indignation and something more approaching judgmental arrogance. Sir, do not think you shall attack me with your typical vitriol, I will not stand for it! By the way, I have no problem with 'frankness', (which I don't pride myself with). Don't confuse frankness with a mocking rudeness and contempt for people. john

Subject: Re: john, just so you'll know... From: keyboardQB To: john hampshire Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 23:13:28 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: jh writes: 'You should know...that this bile you spew to try and defame your opponent is unChristlike' jh then writes: 'Sir, do not think you shall attack me with your typical vitriol, I will not stand for it!' The keyboard QB could possibly believe that Rod's posts might be full of vitriol and/or bile (nothing personal Rod, just following jhampshire's reasoning here), but doesn't see how jh's posts could, in contrast, be considered unvitriolical or nonbileful (making up words here, placing prefixes and suffixes where I will, this is the internet, you know) and, therefore, Christlike. keyboardQB notes Christ standing for plenty of vitriol and bile... keyboardQB further wonders whether or not, based on second quoted statement, whether or not jh plans to challenge Rod to a duel...

Subject: Re: john, just so you'll know... From: keyboardQB To: keyboardQB Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 23:28:22 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'And, when he was unable to peacefully impose an end to the contentious quarrel, he determined that a judicial battle [duellum] ought to be fought concerning this matter between Engelardus and the monks at the villa which is called Vi, doing so under his [the bishop's] judgment.' Let us hope that an end to this quarrel is peacefully imposed. Charters relating to Judicial Duels www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/12Cduels.html

Subject: Re: A Biblical rebuttal of John Hampshire's view! From: Pilgrim To: john hampshire Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 07:49:58 (PDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Matthew 19:9 As respecting divorce and its implications this is on all accounts the most pivotal passage in the New Testament. It occupies this crucial position particularly for the reason that it is the only passage in the New Testament in which we have the combination of two clauses, namely, the exceptive clause (ma epi porneia) and the remarriage clause (kai gamasa allan). Both of these clauses occur elsewhere, the former in Matthew 5:32, in the (parektos longou porneia) and the latter in Mark 10:11, as also in the form (kai gamon eteran) in Luke 16:18. But only in Matthew 19:9 are they coordinated. It might not be proper to maintain that the question of the legitimacy of remarriage on the part of the innocent spouse after divorce for adultery would not arise if we did not have Matthew 19:9. The question might well emerge in connection with Matthew 5:32. For if a man may rightly divorce his unfaithful wife and if such divorce dissolves the marriage bond the question of remarriage is inevitably posed. And, again, though there is no allusion to adultery as an exception in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, yet the Old Testament law respecting adultery and the peculiar character of the sin of adultery might well compel us to inquire whether or not, after all, adultery might not have been assumed as a notable exception to the principle affirmed in these two passages. Furthermore, I Corinthians 7:15 would certainly face us with the question of the effect that desertion by an unbelieving partner would have upon the marital status of the deserted believer. Nevertheless, Matthew 19:9 is distinctive in that here the question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of remarriage after divorce for adultery is thrust upon us directly and inescapably. At the present stage of the discussion we shall assume that the correct text of Matthew 19:9 reads as follows: lego de umin hoti hos an apolusa tan gunaika autou ma epi porneia kai gamasa allan, moichatai. The matter of textual variation will be discussed later. On the above reading of the text it may be well in passing to note some of its distinctive characteristics. (a) This text does not reflect upon the character of the man's sin if he puts away his wife (for any other cause than that of adultery) but does not himself remarry. As found already, Matthew 5:32 deals very directly and decisively with that question and views the sin of the man from the standpoint of his responsibility in the entail of consequence involved for the divorced woman. In Matthew 19:9, however, it is the sin of the man who contracts another marriage after illicit divorce which is the express subject of our Lord's judgment. (b) The man who puts away his wife (except for fornication) and marries another is expressly condemned as an adulterer. This is an inference properly drawn from Matthew 5:32 but here it is directly stated. (c) The rights of a woman in divorcing her husband for adultery and the sin of the woman who remarries after divorce for any other reason are not reflected on in this passage. Only in Mark 10:12 is there any express allusion to divorce action on the part of the woman and there, as we shall see later, no reference is made to the intrinsic right of divorce but only to the adulterous character of remarriage. The real crux of the question in Matthew 19:9 is, however, the force of the exceptive clause, 'except for fornication' (ma epi porneia). In the actual terms of the text the question is: does this exceptive clause apply to the words (gamava allan) and therefore to (moichatai) as well as to the verb (apolusa)? There can be no question but the exceptive clause provides an exception to the wrong of putting away. The kind of wrong from which it relieves the husband is not intimated as in Matthew 5:32 but, like the latter passage, it does enunciate a liberty granted to the innocent husband. It does not intimate, any more than Matthew 5:32, that the man is obligated to divorce his wife in the event of adultery on her part. It simply accords the right or liberty. The question then is: does this exception, by way of right or liberty, extend to the remarriage of the divorcing husband as well as to the putting away? Obviously, if the right extends to the remarriage the husband in such a case is not implicated in the sin of adultery in the event of his remarriage. On this question the professing church is sharply divided. On the one hand, there are those who claim that while Matthew 19:9 (as also Matthew 5:32) gives to the innocent husband the right to put away the wife who has committed adultery, yet this does not give any warrant for the dissolution of the marriage bond and for the remarriage of the guiltless spouse. In other words, adultery gives the right of separation from bed and board (a thoro et mensa) but does not sever the bond of marriage nor does it give the right to dissolve that bond. Perhaps most notable in maintaining this position is the Roman Catholic Church. The position should not, however, be regarded as distinctively Romish. The distinguished Latin father, Augustine, can be enlisted in support of this interpretation. Canon law of the Church of England, while allowing separation for adultery, does not permit of remarriage for the parties so separated as long as they both live. If the text of Matthew 19:9, quoted above, is adopted as the genuine and authentic text, then there is considerable difficulty in holding to this position. The reason is apparent. It is the difficulty of restricting the exceptive clause to the putting away (apolusa) and not extending it also to the remarriage (gamasa allan). This is, however, the construction that must be maintained if Matthew 19:9 is not interpreted as legitimating remarriage after divorce for adultery. The Romish Church is insistent that the exceptive clause modifies the first verb in the statement concerned but does not apply to the second. This exegesis is stated quite clearly by Aug. Lehmkuhl as follows: The complete exclusion of absolute divorce (divortium perfectum) in Christian marriage is expressed in the words quoted above Mark x; Luke xvi; I Cor. vii). The words in St. Matthews Gospel (xix, 9), 'except it be for fornication', have, however, given rise to the question whether the putting away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery. The Catholic Church and Catholic theology have always maintained that by such an explanation St. Matthew would be made to contradict St. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed by these latter would have been brought into error in regard to the real doctrine of Christ. As this is inconsistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, the clause in Matthew must be explained as the mere dismissal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond. Such a dismissal is not excluded by the parallel texts in Mark and Luke, while Paul (I Cor., vii, 11) clearly indicates the possibility of such a dismissal: 'And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband'. Grammatically, the clause in St. Matthew may modify one member of the sentence (that which refers to the putting away of the wife) without applying to the following member (the remarriage of the other), though we must admit that the construction is a little harsh. If it means, 'whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery', then, in case of marital infidelity, the wife may be put away; but that, in this case, adultery is not committed by a new marriage cannot be concluded from these words. The following words, 'And he that shall marry her that is put away' - therefore also the woman who is dismissed for adultery - 'committeth adultery', say the contrary, since they suppose the permanence of the first marriage. This construction of Matthew 19:9 is admitted to be 'a little harsh' even by the foregoing apologist for the Romish interpretation. We shall see that this is very much of an understatement. It must indeed be allowed that an exceptive clause is sometimes used in the Greek to intimate 'an exception to something that is more general than that which has actually been mentioned'. We have examples of this use of ei ma [but/except] in Matthew 12:4; Romans 14:14 and probably in Galatians 1:19. In such a case the exception stated here (ma epi porneia) would not be an exception to the principle that whosoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery but simply an exception to the principle that a man may not put away his wife. Consequently the real intent of the whole sentence would be, 'But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery - only, a man may put away his wife for the cause of fornication'. Such a rendering does in itself make good sense and would solve a good many difficulties in harmonising the accounts given in the three synoptic Gospels. The question remains, however: is this construction defensible? There are preponderant reasons for rejecting it. (1) If the exceptive clause is of the sort indicated above, namely, not an exception to that which is expressly stated but an exception to another closely related and more general consideration, then this is a most unusual, if not unparalleled, way of expressing it. In other instances where we have this kind of exception the construction is quite different from that in our text. In these other instances the statement of that to which a more general exception is appended is given first in its completeness and then the exception in its completeness follows. But this is not the case here - the exception is inserted before the statement is completed. Analogy does not, therefore, favour this rendering. (2) While it is true grammatically that an exceptive clause may modify one member of a sentence without modifying another, yet it must be noted that, in this particular case, the one member which the exceptive clause, on the Romish construction, is supposed to modify does not and cannot stand alone in the syntax of the sentence concerned. Even if we eliminate the clause (kai gamasa) from any modification by the exceptive clause we have not reached any solution as far as the grammatical structure is concerned. In order to complete the sense of what is introduced by the clause (hos an apolusa tan gunaika autou) we must move on to the principal verb, namely, (moichatai). But if we do this without reference to the remarriage clause (kai gamasa allan) we get nonsense and untruth, namely, 'whoever puts away his wife except for fornication commits adultery'. In other words, it must be observed that in this sentence as it stands no thought is complete without the principal verb, (moichatai). It is this thought of committing adultery by remarriage that is the ruling thought in this passage, and it is quite indefensible to suppress it. The very exceptive clause, therefore, must have direct bearing upon the action denoted by the verb that governs. But in order to have direct bearing upon the governing verb (moichatai) it must also have direct bearing upon that which must occur before the action denoted by the principal verb can take effect, namely, the marrying of another. This direct bearing which the exceptive clause must have on the remarriage and on the committing of adultery is simply another way of saying that, as far as the syntax of the sentence is concerned, the exceptive clause must apply to the committing of adultery in the event of remarriage as well as to the wrong of putting away. A comparison with Matthew 5:32 will help to clarify this point. There it is said, 'Everyone who puts away his wife except for the cause of fornication makes her to commit adultery'. In this case the exceptive clause has full meaning and relevance apart altogether from remarriage on the part of the divorcing husband. This is so because the sin contemplated on the part of the divorcing husband is not the committing of adultery on his part but the making of his wife to be an adulteress. But in Matthew 19:9 the case is entirely different. The burden thought here in 19:9 is the committing of adultery on the part of the divorcing husband himself. But this sin on his part presupposes his remarriage. Consequently, in the syntax of the sentence as it actually is, the meaning and relevance of the exceptive clause cannot be maintained apart from its application to the remarriage as well as to the putting away. (3) What is contemplated in this sentence is not merely putting away, as in Matthew 5:31, 32, but putting away and remarriage on the part of the husband. In this respect it is to be carefully distinguished from the logion of Matt. 5 :32 and must be placed in the same category as Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. The subject dealt with, therefore, is putting away and remarriage in coordination, and this coordination must not be disturbed in any way. It is this coordination that leads up to and prepares the ground for the principal verb, namely, the committing of adultery on the part of the divorcing husband. It would be unwarranted, therefore, to relate the exceptive clause to anything else than the coordination. Furthermore, the exceptive clause is in the natural position with reference to the coordination and with reference to the resulting sin to which it provides an exception. Where else could the exceptive clause be placed if it applies to all three elements of the situation expressed? And if it is in the natural position as applying to the coordination the natural construction is that it contemplates an exception to the statement of the sentence in its entirety. (4) The divorce permitted or tolerated under the Mosaic economy had the effect of dissolving the marriage bond. This Mosaic permission regarding divorce is referred to in the context of this passage as well as in Matthew 5:31 and in the parallel passage in Mark 10:2-12. In each of these cases the same verb (apoluo) is used with reference to this Mosaic provisions. Now since this was the effect of the divorce alluded to in this passage and since there is not the slightest indication that the actual putting away for adultery, legitimated in Matthew 19:9; 5:32, was to have an entirely different effect, we are surely justified in concluding that the putting away sanctioned by our Lord was intended to have the same effect in the matter of dissolving the marriage tie. It should be appreciated that the law as enunciated here by Jesus does not in any way suggest any alteration in the nature and effect of divorce. The change intimated by Jesus was rather the abolition of every other reason permitted in the Mosaic provisions and the distinct specification that adultery was now the only ground upon which a man could legitimately put away his wife. What is abrogated then is not divorce with its attendant dissolution of the marriage bond but rather all ground for divorce except adultery. If divorce involves dissolution of the marriage bond, then we should not expect that remarriage would be regarded as adultery. (5) It is surely reasonable to assume that if the man may legitimately put away his wife for adultery the marriage bond is judged to be dissolved. On any other supposition the woman who has committed adultery and who has been put away is still in reality the man's wife and is one flesh with him. If so it would appear very anomalous that the man should have the right to put away one who is permanently, while life lasts, his wife and is one flesh with him. To take action that relieves of the obligations of matrimony while the marital tie is inviolate hardly seems compatible with marital ethics as taught in the Scripture itself. It is true that Paul distinctly contemplates the possibility of separation without dissolution and propounds what the law is in such a contingency (I Cor. 7:10, 11). But to provide for and sanction permanent separation while the marriage tie remains inviolate is something that is alien to the whole tenor of Scripture teaching in regard to the obligations that inhere in and are inseparable from the marital bond. (6) The position that adultery warrants putting away but not dissolution of the marriage bond would appear to conflict with another principle of Scripture that applies to the aggravated case of harlotry or prostitution. If adultery does not give ground for dissolution of the marriage bond, then a man may not secure dissolution even when his wife has abandoned herself to prostitution. This seems quite contrary to the principle of purity expressed by the apostle (I Cor. 6:15-17). It would appear, therefore, that dissolution of the marriage bond must be the proper means and, in some cases, the mandatory means of securing release from a bond that binds so uniquely to one who is thus defiled. On these various grounds we may conclude that it is not feasible to construe the exceptive clause of Matthew 19:9 as applying merely to the putting away and not to the remarriage on the part of the divorcing husband. The considerations preponderate rather in favour of the conclusion that when a man puts away his wife for the cause of fornication this putting away has the effect of dissolving the bond of marriage with the result that he is free to remarry without thereby incurring the guilt of adultery. In simple terms it means that divorce in such a case dissolves the marriage and that the parties are no longer man and wife.

Subject: Re: A Biblical rebuttal of john's view! From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 10:19:59 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Pilgrim, Very well done. Thank you, brother, for your time and effort. john's thesis seems to revolve around the fact that this was pronounced under the Mosaic System and was a reiteration of the Law, and, therefore, not applicable 'after the cross,' to use his phrase. I'd like to address that. The basic fault with that view is that it ignores a fundamental principle. The context of Matt. 19 is that the Pharisees came as asked him, 'testing him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?' (verse 3). But the Lord Jesus' reply utilizes the Law while also delving into the eternal principles of God. In verse 4, He points them to the clear indications of the whole of Scripture, not just the law: one man and one woman for one another under God. In verse 6, 'man' is not to 'put [God's way] asunder.' But then they utilize 'Moses,' or the Law: 'Why did Moses then command...' (verse 7). (Later, we can see that they were twisting the Scripture to use it conveniently.) The Divine answer of the Lord Jesus was that it was an accomodation because of their internal weaknesses, the 'hardness of [their] hearts' (verse 8). Then He restates the one and only reason which has ever been legitimate for divorce, 'except it be for fornication' (verse 9), referring them back to the principles of God established in verses 5-6, that man is not to sin and do anything which would dissolve the marriage. With the sexual union of an adulterer(ess), the 'one flesh' principle is violated and that person is united in a way not altogether understood with another person. The union is damaged and the person is 'joined' with another. Note carefully in this connection the words Paul uses in 1 Cor. 6:15-16: 'Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I, then, take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? Know ye not that he who is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.' In that brief passage we get an insight into the fact that adultery breaks the 'one flesh' union and we can see how it is the unfailing principle of Scripture that such an action joins the sinning one to another, breaking the special spiritual union between a husband and a wife. It's no wonder the OT speaks of it this way: 'When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, becasue he hath found some uncleaness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement...and send her out of his house' (Deut. 24:1). Carefully comparing that word 'uncleanness' we find some interesting things. It's used in the previous chapter, but rarely or never in other connections: 'For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy, that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee' (23:14). To say that he may divorce her "for every cause," as the Pharisees did, is a real perversion of the Word of God. Unholiness in God's people breaks their union with Him. Unholiness in upholding the laws of God in marriage destroys that union. Once a man divorces his wife because of it, he may not rejoin with her, according to verses 2-4 of chapter 24 (cp. again 1 Cor 6). But she is free to marry again, the marriage being dissolved. A little research on the use of the special and unusual word translated 'uncleanness' in this instance is revealing. Thus we see that God's principle has never varied. There is one cause for divorce, and that for a very particular reason. There is nothing in the books of the NT 'after the cross' to alter that fact and there is actually support for it in various places in Paul's doctrine and elaborations.

Subject: Re: Marriage Annulment From: Rod To: Dish Date Posted: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 15:39:07 (PDT) Email Address: na Message: Dish, Not being 'Reformed,' I've kept quiet about this to let those who are of that persuasion have their say--that's what you asked for, after all. I think it's important to keep in mind that though Joseph and Mary were what we would call 'engaged' today and hadn't consumated their marriage with physical union, Joseph was obligated to divorce her under the OT law. That's what is referred to when Matthew writes, 'Th