Who Teaches a “Doctrine of Demons”?
Exchange with Robert Waters Message #23852 on Focus on Truth
Re: [Focus_On_Truth] Re: Moses versus Moses
Robert Waters to Terry,
TB: It does not hurt me because you misuse 1 Tim.4:1-3 and apply it to others, It just shows that you are not being honest. The passage does not say "forbidding people who have no heterosexual marriage after they have divorced to marry", but just simply "forbidding to marry". You CHOOSE to apply it to people that forbid some marriages they believe JESUS said would be "ADULTERY". If you can apply it that way to me, then I can apply it to YOU, because you "forbid to marry"(doctrine of demons) the homosexuals who have no marriage, and you forbid to marry, the woman in 1 Cor.7:11 whose husband will not take her back. You forbid to marry such people as Herod and Herodias, and you forbid to marry those who have no marriage such as minors, and you forbid to marry those women who were put away without divorce papers.
rw: First, you are not really dealing with what I said. You are just venting. (There are several questions in this post. Will you answer them? At the end of this post are 3 questions you did not reply to in my last post.) The “forbidding to marry” that Paul put in the light that you do not like was the practice of telling people they cannot marry anyone at all, i.e., they cannot have a marriage. This is evidently what YOU do or teach regarding people who are divorced and by definition have no marriage. I’m talking about people who are of age, according to Paul (1Cor7:36): men and the women having reached “the flower of her age.”
TB: So, when Paul and Jesus told people that they could not marry ANOTHER without committing adultery, Paul and Jesus are thereby forbidding to marry. The option you give in 1 Cor.7:11 is remain unmarried or wait out the present distress for no telling how long. Yet, even in that time-slot you have Paul "forbiddding to marry". You have women "put away" but unable to marry until and unless her husband gives her the paper, if he ever does, and you have Jesus "forbidding to marry" when she is at the mercy of a man giving her a paper.
Rw: I do not tell homosexuals they can have no marriage. They can. But God says it is not to be with one of the same sex.
TB: So, there are other verses that have to be brought in, and the "forbidding to marry" does not include unlawful marriages. You make my point.
Rw: I would not forbid Herod or Herodias to have a marriage, but I can see, based upon what John said that they could not legally be married to each other.
TB: So, again, you concede that "forbidding to marry" does have other restrictions. An unlawful marriage is always forbidden.> You forbid to marry those who have no marriage who Paul said to "remain unmarried" even though it is God's way for all people to "avoid fornication" (according to your logic). >
rw: This is another passage that is often perverted without care that their interpretation has Paul contradicting himself. The context is: “the present distress” which if overlooked will result in a wrong interpretation of Paul’s teachings.
TB: Well, even then Paul is saying that certain people must remain unmarried for no telling how long. That is forbidding to marry in this case. This shows that you cannot apply the "forbidding to marry" statement to all relationships and under all circumstances. You cannot escape the fact that the only forbidding to marry that Paul could be talking about is where a person could lawfully marry without committing adultery or incest or homosexuality.> So, your game does not work unless it works for you too. Paul is speaking of those who have a legitimate right to marry, not those who do not. >
rw: This brings us to the question of whether a divorce, as prescribed by God (Deut. 24) actually did anything. Evidently you think it did not and that the couple that is divorced are still married. This is beyond absurd. You did not answer my question on this matter.
TB: I have pointed out that God did not "prescribe" divorce. But God did control it and regulate it so that a man would not be so hasty and reckless in his decision to divorce. Jesus is the one that said it was suffered to put away because of the hardness of your hearts. Jesus is the one who said "but from the beginning it was not so".
> Your logic says that Paul is condemning himslf in 1 Tim.4:1-3 for telling someone that they must be reconciled or "remain unmarried"(1 Cor.7:11). >
rw: No, the non-obscure passages verses are: 1-2, 7-8 and 27-28. The only way to harmonize verse 11 with these is to see that he is talking about a couple that is separated but not divorced—they are still married. The context supports this idea. (See Bloomfield.) See also:http://www.totalhealth.bz/apostle-paul-celibacy.htm
TB: You are saying they are "still married" when Paul said they are "unmarried". You are forbidding the unmarried to marry, and you are accusing Paul of teaching "doctrine of demons" by telling this couple to "remain unmarried". You cannot escape this. > Obviously if they cannot reconcile they must "remain unmarried". >
rw: Where does the “except for fornication” fit in on this? Obviously it is missing completely. There is no hint of it. Thus it is evident that Paul is not teaching the traditional doctrine that you teach. A couple is to remain in the separated condition, and of course the “present distress” also comes into play. It applies for the time period specified. To apply it to all time is to ignore the context. Paul does not say anything about fornication nor does he say anything about the death of the spouse, which indicates he is not dealing with divorce and what he did say was in view of the present distress. The context: “the present distress” is the all important factor. But you completely ignore it because it hurts your effort to justify our doctrine.
TB: You are trying to dodge the point here. We are discussing the fact that Paul did forbid some unmarried people from marrying another person when reconciliation cannot be had between the two had become "one flesh". You now want us to think that you have covered your tracks by saying it was only for the present distress. But, other unmarried people were free to marry during the present distress to avoid fornication. But, here you have Paul teach a doctrine of demons. Shame on you Robert, because you prove here that you are not honest and own up to the fact that you are teaching what you call a "doctrine of demons" in others.> So, your logic says that Paul later condemned himself for teaching a doctrine of demons in 1 Cor.7:11. Robert, your charge does not effect me at all, because I am convinced that you are wrong, and that your charge is against Jesus and Paul. >
rw: Evidence does not affect some people. Some have no concern for truth. People love tradition and will say and do anything to defend it.
TB: Yeah Robert, you do love your traditions and you will do anything to defend it, even manipulate the evidence.> Now Robert, I have proven that you are deliberately making a false charge against people like myself who teach that the divorced should not remarry another and thereby commit adultery. >
rw: No, you have proved no such thing. All you have done is recite the same old arguments that traditional defenders have settled on, regardless of the fact that they do not allow the scriptures to harmonize and that their doctrine has God punishing innocent people for the sins of another.
TB: Robert, you are the one not allowing scripture to harmonize and you have God punishing innocent women because a sinful man will not give her a writing of divorce. You are merely reciting your same old traditional arguments that you have settled on regardless of the fact that it has no biblical support or harmony.> You are misusing 1 Tim.4:1-3 for the sole purpose of promoting prejudice. You even pervert 1 Tim.4:1-3 and add some special words to set it up as if it means that the divorced must never be told that they cannot remarry. >
rw: What special words are you taking about. Don’t need to do that. It is plain enough as it is.
TB: The special words you insert are words like "forbidding the divorced to marry" or "forbidding heterosexuals to marry". There are lots of words you imagine into the phrase that is not there and you allow other verses to regulate the extent of the application of that phrase while disallowing me to bring in other unlawful relationships such as those Jesus said would be adultery. If it is plain enough as it is, why do you start bringing in other passages when someone points out that you are forbidding certain people to marry. The legs of the lame are never equal.> You know it does not say or imply that. You get to that conclusion by first twisting other texts such as Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 so that it only means "putting away without a divorce paper". Then, having reached your erroneous conclusion, you start applying 1 Tim.4:1-3 to people including many major scholarly translators for putting the word "divorce" in those and other places and believing that the divorced cannot remarry, but even there the legs of the lame are not equal because where does that leave a person who was not given a divorce paper? It leaves them in a situation where they are "forbidden to marry" until that husband breaks down and gives them the paper. You are playing the game of the Pharisees. Until you stop teaching like the Pharisees that the divorce paper makes all putting away acceptable to God, I will believe more strongly that you are aligned with the Pharisees than you can ever be that I am teaching the doctrine of demons.
rw: Terry, I want you to continue on this list because you are a good writer. But if you continue to make the false charge that you are making you are not likely to be here much longer. I have clearly shown that the charge you make is false. This is not the same list that we were on some time ago where this kind of thing was not rebuked by the owners. You know the charge you make is false. The divorce papers do not make all putting away “acceptable” to God – the act by the men. It does, however END THE MARRIAGE. You need to get his point. The man may have sinned in divorcing his wife, NEVERTHELESS, it ended the marriage; otherwise God gave a divorce law for no reason at all.
TB: Robert, I don't really care if you want me on this list or not. You are teaching what the Pharisees would have been perfectly fine with. They could easily accept your sayings. You are saying that it is wrong to put away, but after you do the wrong thing and put away anyway, God accepts all remarriages after the paper is given. This is what the Pharisees taught. Give the writing of divorce and God accepts it. He's disappointed that you decided to do that, but since you have decided to do it, He will accept the divorce paper and recognize any new marriages as legitimate. My charge is not false, but if you are able to influence the list owners to side with you in this matter and remove me from the list, then I will gladly leave the list. You will not be allowed to make false charges toward me, and then hold me to a different standard. You may get away with it on this list, but you will not get away with it ultimately where it counts.> You know that the "doctrine of demons" accusation never did apply to me. >
rw: It does if you teach the traditional doctrine that DW teaches. I hope you will show me that you do not teach the same thing. But some have deviated from the traditional doctrine (evidently not liking the idea that it needlessly punished the innocent, which has God being unjust) by teaching that one who is divorced may also mentally divorce the other. Where are you on this? Do you have no problem at all with telling an innocent woman, who her mean husband divorced, that she cannot ever marry?
TB: Do you have no problem telling an innocent woman, whom her mean husband put away, that she cannot ever remarry unless she can get her mean husband to give her a writ of divorce?
> So, unless there is a better case you can make, I am fully convinced that the Pharisees would be content to say that if you are going to divorce make sure you give a writing of divorce and it will be lawful to divorce for every cause when you do it this way. >
rw: I have observed that your wording has changed. You are now taking about “lawful” rather than “right or wrong,” which I have been trying to get you to see. Indeed, a divorce, regardless of the reason (the man made the choice and it was not contested) ENDED THE MARRIAGE, which allowed the woman to marry another.
TB: I've noticed that you say that a woman could not lawfully remarry if she has a mean husband who won’t give her the writing of divorce. You are saying the same thing the Pharisees taught in principle. All divorce is legitimized by a husband giving the piece of paper. They would be very happy with your position, but they were not happy with Jesus' position.
> That is what you teach too. I see no difference between you and them. >
rw: The problem that I have been having, prior to the above wording, is that you have been saying that I think it was ok for a man to divorce his wife for any cause. I have not said that and do not believe it. He may well have sinned, but that does not mean that the woman could not be freed by the certificate given to her.
TB: But, you are saying that she cannot be free to remarry until and unless he gives that piece of paper. The Pharisees said "whoever divorces let him give a writing of divorce" (Matt 5:30). That is what you teach too. But Jesus said something different than you and them.
Rw: Was that not the purpose of the divorce decree in the first place? If the man was wrong was the decree that showed she was free of no value? Who was to determine whether the man was justified or not? No one. Was the woman lost if she married another because the man was not justified in giving the divorce? Terry, you talk about me not being honest. Unless you answer these questions and the others that I have posed to you, it will be glaringly evident that you are not honest—unless you repudiate your teachings, which I hope you will do.
TB: I'll say it again. These regulations were for the hard-hearted and controlled the man from hasty divorce. It was suffered judgment, and it was case-law that said certain things may be done and if they are, here is the ruling. The man could not take her back "after she has been defiled". The one flesh law of Gen.2 was still in place, but this case-law regulated the ability of the hardened to get back the woman he sent into the arms of another man to become defiled. Would the woman be lost if she married another man when her husband would not give her the writ? Your position has huge holes in it, and it is glaringly evident that you are not honest.> Further, since your doctrine says that a put away woman cannot marry until and unless her mean husband gives her the certificate, then here is a woman that Jesus forbids to marry (a doctrine of demons according to you). >
rw: So, Terry, do you actually believe that a woman that was separated from her husband could marry another man? Do you think Jesus did not deal with this issue?
TB: You are dodging the point again. Jesus dealt with fornication as well as the adultery that results when one divorces and remarries. However, you are teaching a doctrine of demons (according to your logic)since your doctrine says that a put away woman cannot marry until and unless her mean husband gives her the certificate, then here is a woman that Jesus forbids to marry (a doctrine of demons according to you). >
> So, in addition to you taking the Pharisees position, you are also to be charged with teaching a doctrine of demons in forbidding to marry a woman who cannot get her certificate from her husband.
rw: How can you charge Jesus and me with “forbidding to marry” when the scenario is a case where the woman is in fact married.
TB: I don't charge Jesus. I charge you. You are the one saying that a woman had to get the certificate from her mean husband else she can never remarry. You are the one making the arbitrary distinction between putting away and divorcing that is not inherent in the text.
rw: This was the problem that Jesus condemned his accusers of practicing and it shut them up. But in our country, and in most places in the world, women can initiate the divorce. Thus, in such cases the problem of one being “put away” but not divorced is not such a big problem. However, those who teach the traditional doctrine (telling people who have no marriage that they cannot have a marriage) are putting people in the same position the Jewish men were putting their women by putting away and not giving the bill of divorce. It deprived(s) them of a marriage, family, home, sex, and happiness. Furthermore, it often causes them to turn from the church and God. Thus, God appropriately called the “forbidding to marry” concept “doctrines of demons.”>
TB: When you stop doing it I'll stop applying these things to you (isn't that what you said above to me?) Then it is fair game for me to say it back to you with an even stronger case against you. >
rw: You stop teaching people who have no marriage that they cannot marry, and stop breaking up marriages where one has been divorced, and I promise I will no longer apply the teaching of Paul to you. I do not teach what the Pharisees taught and you know it. It has been explained to you very plainly and you most definitely have not misunderstood. Divorce for any cause is not right—Jesus condemned the Pharisees for it. But he did not say the divorce did not end the marriage—it did. It still does. Thus, when one is divorced you may condemn them for their evil that brought things to that severing of the relationship—but don’t ruin their lives by telling them they cannot have a marriage. Brother, you are going to stand in judgment for those actions if you do not repent. And if you keep charging that I teach the same thing as the evil Pharisees you are going to stand in judgment by FOT management. I have been patient.Oh, here are some questions you dodged:1. Do you think a divorced (not for fornication) person is still married?
TB: Bound but not married. Married speaks to presently involved relationship. A person can be married but not bound, and bound but not married. Herod was married to Herodias but not bound. The woman in 1 Cor.7:11 is bound but "unmarried".
2. Well, if Jesus said a divorced woman could not marry then where did Moses say it? TB: Gen.2 - "one flesh".
3. Also, what good was a divorce in the first place? (if it did not free the woman)TB: I've already addressed this several times.
Brotherly,Robert Waters
TB: Was Deut.24 saying the same thing as Gen.2? Was Deut.24 "so from the beginning" or did it trump Gen.2 only in hardened hearts? Would the Pharisees teach that when you divorce give her the writing of divorce? Would the Pharisees teach that all divorces carried out with the writ of divorce will be recognized and approved by God? Do you teach the same?
Terry W. Benton
(Note: Robert never answered those questions. His teaching is the teaching of the Pharisees, and therefore, his teaching is a doctrine of demons that teaches the very opposite of what Jesus taught.)
