Thank you, Wyatt, for your work on this - I found this extremely stimulating. Unfortunately, I fear I must have missed something important and wonder if you can help me find it. For background, I came in more or less endorsing the Westminster view, but the essay shifted me substantially towards the more restrictive view. What I am strugg…
Thank you, Wyatt, for your work on this - I found this extremely stimulating. Unfortunately, I fear I must have missed something important and wonder if you can help me find it. For background, I came in more or less endorsing the Westminster view, but the essay shifted me substantially towards the more restrictive view. What I am struggling to grasp is how you get to the premises of some of your closing section. You say towards the end that 'the Bible is more or less silent on remarriage after divorce', but that surely isn't what you have shown in the body of the essay. Isn't it more accurate to say that, while the Bible repeatedly forbids remarriage after a divorce, it is more or less silent on whether we may draw a distinction based on the guilt/innocence of the divorcing party? Can you not form the syllogism as:
1) The unambiguous texts all prohibit remarriage after divorce.
2) While two texts may countenance exceptions based on circumstance, neither is unambiguous.
3) The Fathers are more or less in consensus that they do not constitute exceptions.
Therefore
4) On the balance of probabilities (admitting room for disagreement) there are no exceptions to the rule that remarriage after divorce is permitted.
Clearly, I have read your essay at cross purposes. Could you help me?
P.S. I cannot speak for other protestant traditions, but while the Erasmian position has clearly had a large influence in many Reformed churches, the Church of England only started permitting remarriage in church after a divorce in 2002.
Thank you, Wyatt, for your work on this - I found this extremely stimulating. Unfortunately, I fear I must have missed something important and wonder if you can help me find it. For background, I came in more or less endorsing the Westminster view, but the essay shifted me substantially towards the more restrictive view. What I am struggling to grasp is how you get to the premises of some of your closing section. You say towards the end that 'the Bible is more or less silent on remarriage after divorce', but that surely isn't what you have shown in the body of the essay. Isn't it more accurate to say that, while the Bible repeatedly forbids remarriage after a divorce, it is more or less silent on whether we may draw a distinction based on the guilt/innocence of the divorcing party? Can you not form the syllogism as:
1) The unambiguous texts all prohibit remarriage after divorce.
2) While two texts may countenance exceptions based on circumstance, neither is unambiguous.
3) The Fathers are more or less in consensus that they do not constitute exceptions.
Therefore
4) On the balance of probabilities (admitting room for disagreement) there are no exceptions to the rule that remarriage after divorce is permitted.
Clearly, I have read your essay at cross purposes. Could you help me?
P.S. I cannot speak for other protestant traditions, but while the Erasmian position has clearly had a large influence in many Reformed churches, the Church of England only started permitting remarriage in church after a divorce in 2002.