Brother Roberts,
Here is a short side-by-side comparison between the position you
have taken and what the scriptures
say ...
Luke 18:18-30:
- The context shows that the rich young
ruler would not set his love of the Lord above his love of riches.
- Peter affirmed that he and the other
disciples had left all
for the Lord. In effect they were saying that, unlike the rich,
young ruler, they had
set their loyalty and service to Him above all else.
- The Lord praised those who did as
Peter and the disciples had done and promised them, in the end, eternal life.
- The context establishes that each
disciple must leave all
to serve the Lord.
- Neither Peter, nor the other apostles
divorced their mates, any more than they abandoned their children, parents, or familial
responsibilities. Thus, divorce is not under consideration in this passage.
- The companion passages (Luke 14:26-27,
33; Matt. 10:37-38; Mk. 10:30) teach the same thing this passage teaches: in order
to serve the Lord, you must set your love, loyalty, and service to Him above
all
else, not divorce your wives, abandon your children and parents, and reject
your familial responsibilities.
Comparison:
- Tom Roberts contends:
- Peter and other disciples
did not
leave all.
- If
their wives had hindered them from serving the Lord, they
would have had
to leave them which would mean
divorce them in order to serve God
- Thus, one divorces their mate, abandons
children, parents, and familial responsibility to obey the Lord's instructions in
v.29
- The scripture affirms:
- The Lord states no condition of hindrance
by which you may
have to leave all
- The Lord affirms that one
must
love Him more than anyone or anything else (Matt. 10:37-39), must hate (comparatively and
figuratively speaking) everyone else in comparison to their love for Him (Luke 14:26-27),
must forsake all he has
(Luke 14:33) to be His disciple, and will only receive the blessed promises,
including eternal life, if they emulate the example of Peter and the other disciples
and leave all
(Luke 18:28-29)
- The Holy Spirit affirms that Peter
and the other disciples had
left all
- Peter and the other disciples, according
to the context, didn't divorce their wives, abandon their children, or forsake their
other responsibilities and yet the scriptures confirm that they had left all
- The word left does not include divorce
as a definition, in this or any other context,
for the sake of the kingdom
- In order to obey the Lord in this
passage one devotes their love and loyalty to the Lord above their loyalty to anything
else, including parents, wives, and children.
- The scriptures do not teach that
one divorces their mate, abandons their children and parents and forsake their other
responsibilities to serve Him.
Comparison in I Cor. 7:10-15:
- Tom Roberts contends:
- The word sin is not used directly and
no command to withdraw from this woman is given in the context
- Thus, the woman in v.10-11
did not
violate God's direct prohibition in v.10
- No sin was committed
- Paul told them to stay as you are
(remain unmarried) since no sin was committed in the first place
- The scripture affirms:
- God's direct commands:
- Don't
divorce your husband (v.10)
- Don't
divorce your wife (v.11)
- Don't
divorce your unbelieving mate (v.12-13)
- If you keep the whole law and offend
in one point, you are guilty
of all (Js. 2:10).
- If you commit sin, you commit lawlessness
(I Jn. 3:4) or violate God's Law
- If you fail to abide in the doctrine
of Christ, you are not
His disciple (Jn. 8:32; Jn. 14:21) and do not have God (II Jn. 9-11)
- Unless you repent, you will perish
(Lk. 13:3, 5).
- God does not need to state that repentance
is necessary in any
context, since it is
always required (I Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:21)
- To the one who contravened God's
instructions in v.10, the Holy Spirit commanded:
- (let her ) Be reconciled and
restore the wrong, in accordance with godly sorrow and a desire to righteously vindicate
oneself (II Cor. 7:9-11) or
- If restoring the marriage is not
possible due to conditions beyond her control, (let
her) remain unmarried
- Neither in this passage, nor in any
other, does the Spirit state or imply that you can sin and just stay as you are
Comparison of the whole counsel of God on the teaching about divorce:
- Tom Roberts contends:
- The Lord's one exception of fornication
applies only to divorce and
remarriage,
not divorce only.
- No passage of scripture forbids anyone
from divorcing their mate, as long as remarriage is not under consideration.
- The scripture affirms
- One cannot divorce their wife for
any cause (Matt. 19:4-6), in response to the Pharisees' question in Matt. 19:3
- What God has joined together, do
not
separate (Matt. 19:6)
- Under Mosaic Law, men were permitted
to divorce their wives because of hard hearts, but from the beginning it (divorce)
was not
so (Matt. 19:8).
- Jesus teaching under His Law is if
one remarries after divorcing their mate for a cause other than fornication, they
commit adultery.
- The Lord's illustration of adultery
shows:
- The bond remains (Rom. 7:1-2)
- The one who divorced their mate for
a cause other than fornication violated the instruction to not separate what God had
joined together (Matt. 19:6)
- The one who divorced their mate for
a cause other than fornication sinned, as illustrated by the adulterous remarriage
(Matt. 19:9) and in accordance with the original question asked by the Pharisees
in Matt. 19:3
- If you divorce your mate for a cause
other than fornication, you cause her to sin (Matt. 5:32) illustrating the sin committed
by the one who unlawfully divorced their mate
- Only one exception given by the Lord
by which one may divorce their mate: fornication (Matt. 19:9; Matt. 5:32), whether
remarriage is under consideration or not
- No authorization is given by God
to divorce one's mate for
any other reason
These few words illustrate the sharp contrast between what your position
is and what the scriptures teach. You used definitions of words that defy the context
(i.e. the word left
means divorce
in Luke 18:29) instead of using the contextual definition
(i.e. the word left
in Luke 18:29 means to subvert all love and loyalty for anyone and
everyone to the Lord). Furthermore, instead of accepting what a passage
does teach (i.e.
Peter and the other disciples did
leave all), you speculated about what a passage may mean (i.e.
If Peter's
wife had hindered him from serving God, he would have had to divorce her).
I am sorrowful to say that I cannot recognize you as a faithful gospel preacher
as long as you hold this doctrine (Rom. 16:17: II Thes. 3:6) because this doctrine
is contrary to the doctrine of Christ.
In a bulletin you emailed to several brethren about a week ago, you announced that
several useful and profitable public discourses on a number of bible subjects have
been conducted to further truth.
Will you be willing to have a public discourse on this subject in a forum that will
further truth?
Your brother,
Kelly
|