Murray's exposition does adequately refute Engelsma's exegesis, but it doesn't even address the exegesis of Piper and Boice (and others I am sure).

I would really love to hear a good refutation of their understanding of Matthew 19:9, because their conclusion is very difficult to accept. However, until I find such a refutation, or develop one myself, I must accept it.

Let's not resort to which one is more traditional, that answer shouldn't hold much weight amongst Reformed folk. And Engelsma would disagree that your position has been held historically throughout the ages. He says his view was held amongst early Christians. Piper also references historians who agree with him in his position paper. The LBC removed the section about the remarriage of the innocent party found in the WC in 1689, meaning that they either disagreed with WC on the issue, or that they did not reach a conclusion amongst themselves. Either way it proves the position has not been unanimously held by the Church throughout the centuries.

I don't understand what you mean when you claim it becomes an unpardonable sin. Roll your eyes and blow it off if you want, but I don't think you're doing justice to the exegesis offered.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibra...Position_Paper/

-------------
-Brandon