Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Divorce and Remarriage


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, BibleBruce said:

I also believe that the following verse (which occurs after God stated that he had divorced Israel) is just as clear regarding the state of  the marriage after divorce:

“Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:” - Jeremiah 3:14

Oh I  see brother but I am assuming you are not claiming a contradiction? Wouldn't it make more sense to understand that none of the OT prophetic Books nor Revelation were written in chronological order but rather in the order the visions were received all being in the future at that point. Our Lord did the same on purpose I believe in the Gospels. Everything at the time God used Jeremiah to write this Book was in the future and the Lord seemed to be issuing stern warning in a repetitive manner. He knew by foreknowledge that they wouldn't heed the warnings but God always over-issued them stripping away their later excuse. I think the events of verse 14 above occur during His Kingdom Reign on earth after the remnant nation of Israel is graft back into the Tree of Life. Those dots connect in many places helping with chronological order in my opinion. He does bring the surviving remnant of the nation of Israel whom now trust, worship and serve the Lord Jesus Christ back to Him as part of His New Bride during His Reign but this occurs after the Marriage Supper in Heaven in my opinion.

God does not say that he “was” married to Israel, but that he “is” married to Israel (after the divorce - that the marriage was still in force after the divorce).

The 3rd chapter of Jeremiah is one of the many passages in the Bible that, about 40 years ago, caused me to change from believing that God authorizes divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances to believing that he doesn’t.

My thoughts lie with what applies to us in our New Testament time today. Last mention would be God through Paul in I Corthians 7: 27-40. Which places little value on the importance of saints marrying but rather the utmost importance on His Saints following Him (whether it is the first or fourth marriage), denying the flesh and looking past this soon to burn world. Not just marriage but every other temporal pursuit or change of status to improve our temporary life in this fake world system. Emphasis on physical marriage is actually deemed "worldly" in this passage. I wonder if that is linked to our Spiritual state as His Bride having no regard for the flesh?

So I ask, why would you consider this subject of such importance when God clearly no longer does? 

 

Secondarily:

I honestly do not understand your point regarding your following statement :

“Pastor qualifications are all written in the ‘present’ tense and not in the past tense.” 

This one seemed relevant in the thread (perhaps not the OP however) because divorce and pastors are taboo in several IFB camps but if out of place, I apologize. 

I hope that I do not sound contentious (that is not my heart). I am simply asking for clarification regarding how you believe this is related to the topic in at hand so that I can respond accordingly.

 

I have no other agenda other than standing for God’s truth regarding this topic. It is settled in my heart and mind. There is no earthly advantage to me in taking this stand. It has cost me dearly.

If you are saved and have not studied this topic as I have (with an open mind, willing to live by whatever God reveals to you in his word regardless of cost, diligent study, and earnest prayer and fasting) I would encourage you to do so.

Thanks brother, I studied more indirectly and can explain it better here generally and here specifically (click the links)

Hey Brother, responses in bold above: Just to make sure you know, my post was not directed at anyone nor was it a critique of your posted study but my summarized take on the matter since this subject has been discussed many times on this forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 7/7/2021 at 3:59 PM, BibleBruce said:

Hi Ukulelemike,

Thanks for responding to my post.  I don't have time to respond to your comments in the detail that they deserve right now but plan to do so soon. BTW, I don't believe (and never have believed) that divorce and remarriage is an unforgiveable sin.  I do believe that repentance is required and I can explain what I believe repentance would entail for this sin.

Take care and may God bless you mightily.

Brother Bruce

 

On 7/7/2021 at 5:50 PM, wretched said:

Hey Brother, responses in bold above: Just to make sure you know, my post was not directed at anyone nor was it a critique of your posted study but my summarized take on the matter since this subject has been discussed many times on this forum. 

Hi Wretched,

Thanks for the clarification.  I would still like to respond to your comments.  I'll begin with the question of whether or not divorce and remarriage is "unforgiveable":

I do not believe (and never have believed) that divorce and remarriage is an unforgiveable sin. I do believe that it is a sin (the sin of adultery) and I believe that God requires us to repent of sin in order to receive his forgiveness.  I don't believe that this sin is an exception.  I believe that repentance is a change of heart and mind regarding sin and that it results in a turning away from sin rather than a continuing in it. The following verse states that this sin of adultery persists as long as the husband of the wife who has remarried is living. 

“So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” -Romans 7:3

I am confident that the same principle would apply if the husband were the one who had remarried.

We know that verse 3 is used by the Holy Spirit to help us understand the “marriage relationship" between the believer and Christ. Some claim that we are not free to literally apply the statement in verse 3 to earthly marriages because it is only an example, not the subject of the passage.  I do not believe that God would use a faulty earthly example to help us understand a faultless spiritual truth. 

To summarize my position on this particular portion of the divorce and remarriage issue, I would say that I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that:

  • Divorce and remarriage is adultery
  • Adultery is sin
  • Forgiveness requires repentance
  • Repentance results in a forsaking of sin
  • Continuance in a lifestyle of sin does not result in forgiveness

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" - Romans 6:1-2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 7/6/2021 at 8:10 AM, Ukulelemike said:

I am not an advocate of divorce, I read the paper put forth, which lays out all the reasons in the typical manner, but I disagree with some of the interpretation, taking simple scriptures and putting a spin that isn't necessarily there. 

for instance, clearly, believers are NOT to marry unbelievers-but if we choose to ignore God's command there, and do so, does that mean that God just shifts His position on it, and blesses that unequally-yoked relationship, just because WE chose to marry outside of His will? Would not, then, that instance make acceptable the divorce from that unsaved person, particularly if they chose to leave, because we are not under bondage to that unsaved person, and make us free to marry within His will?

Hi Ukulelemike,

I am in complete agreement with you that it is against God’s will for believers to marry unbelievers (the Bible clearly says so).  I do believe that there are times when God will allow a commitment that is against his will to stand once it has been made.  It seems to me that an example of this is the unlawful commitment that Joshua made to the inhabitants of Gibeon (Joshua 9). It appears to me that some blessings resulted from this since God’s people got a lot of free labor J and the Gibeonites were exposed to the Gospel (as seen through the symbolism of the sacrificial system).  On the other hand, there are examples of where God requires that people disavow a commitment that is against his will, as was the case with the Jews who had married strange wives (Ezra 10).  If I am wrong about the situation with Joshua (and I can certainly be wrong at times – just ask my wife J), I still believe that the following passage describes God’s will under the circumstances that you have presented:

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?  - I Corinthians 7:12-16

Since this instruction applies to “any brother” and “the woman” (which I believe is a general term meant to apply to any woman) I believe that this instruction is inclusive (not pertaining exclusively to those who are saved after having married an unsaved person but also pertaining to those who married in disobedience to God’s commandments regarding unequal yokes).

I believe that the word “bondage” in this passage has a distinctly different meaning than the meaning that you understand it to have and that this has caused us to draw opposing conclusions regarding whether or not God allows divorce and remarriage under the circumstances described in this passage.  I invite you to read the attachment which explains my understanding of this word in this context.

 

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, I have prayed that God would bless you mightily.

Brother Bruce

I Cor 7 - Bondage.pdf

Edited by BibleBruce
Clerical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 7/7/2021 at 4:06 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Thank you Bruce, I appreciate the spirit and attitude that you are manifesting in your posts, even though I think we probably would disagree on this subject. 

Hi Jordan,

 

Thanks again for responding to my post.  I hope that you are doing well.

I'd like to address each of the issues associated with the underlined/highlighted portions of the scanned book in the order that they appear in your response:

1.    The author appears to believe that all who take the betrothal exception position also believe that marriage and the Jewish betrothal are equally binding. I believe that the exception almost certainly applies to the betrothal period but I do not believe that marriage and Jewish betrothal are equally binding. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who believes that the two are equally binding.  So I don’t think that this particular point applies to me or to most people who believe as I do.

2.    Over 20 years ago I decided to dedicate myself to the study of the Bible translation issue. I did so diligently and with prayer and fasting, asking God to show me the truth.  As part of this study I researched some of the translators. I was amazed at the skill that the King James Version (KJV) translators possessed in languages. Some of them were truly geniuses.  They were also men who believed the Bible and believed God’s promises to preserve it throughout each generation.  I believe that the modern translators just can’t compare.  Also, a study of the history surrounding the KJV translation convinced me that God had his hand upon it in a mighty and miraculous way. Some of the enemies of the KJV have admitted that it is so accurate that it can be used as a lexicon for defining the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words that it has rendered in English. I came to the conclusion that there simply is nothing to compare with it in the English language and that it contains no errors. This is a belief based upon simple faith in God’s promises and an objective and careful analysis of historic facts. Because of this, I do not question the rendering of Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words into English within the KJV.  This would include the word “husband”.

3.    I do believe that it was wrong to break the Jewish betrothal except for fornication.  I believe that this is what the Bible teaches. I do not believe that marriage is forbidden after a Jewish betrothal is broken (and I don’t think that I have ever met anyone who believes this).

4.    Because I believe that the KJV contains no errors, I believe that the word “wife” is the proper rendering in the following verse:

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Luke 2:5

If this is the proper rendering, then the word “wife” can refer to a woman who is in a Jewish betrothal process as well as to a woman who is married. Words often have multiple meanings and I believe that this is the case here.

 

I have the impression (and I may be wrong) that the author of this book used the “straw man” method of arguing in at least two instances.  To use the straw man method is to falsely claim that the opposing side is basing their belief on certain things that are easily proven to be wrong, demonstrating that they are wrong, and then falsely claiming to have won the argument.

I hope that none of my comments sound uncharitable - I do not mean them to be.  I am simply stating my beliefs and providing the reasons for them.  You might agree or disagree.  Regardless, I have prayed that God would bless you mightily.

 

Brother Bruce

 

Edited by BibleBruce
Added additional info regarding the accuracy of the KJV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Bruce,

Thus far I have not directly engaged your doctrinal position concerning the matters of divorce and of remarriage after divorce.  However, I have carefully followed the discussion to this point, and have carefully noted your responses throughout.  I have waited and watched in this manner specifically so that (as I expressed with my first posting in the thread discussion) I might approach this discussion with you from an appropriate perspective.

First, I would commend you for the spirit in which you have engaged those who have written in disagreement with you and with whom you obviously disagree.  Although you have expressed firm disagreement with them, you have also done so with a gracious spirit.

Second, I would express that I myself do indeed stand in disagreement with your originally posted position on a few points and with some of the arguments/evidences that you have presented in your responses to others.  I do not intend to handle each of these points of disagreement with you through this particular posting.  Rather, I wish to present the "highlights" of my own position on this matter, as follows:

1.  I believe that remarriage after divorce is always a sin against God.  However, in some cases I believe that God views such remarriage as the sin of adultery, whereas in other cases I believe that God views such remarriage simply as the sin of disobedience (sin nevertheless, but not the sin of adultery).

2.  I do NOT believe that in those cases where a remarriage after divorce is equivalent to the sin of adultery, the sin of adultery is to be viewed Biblically as "perpetual adultery" (as long as the remarriage remains in effect).

3.  I believe that most cases of divorce are a sin against God; however, I believe that Biblically divorce is not a sin against God within two possible cases - in the case of fornication and in the case wherein the unbelieving spouse chooses to pursue the divorcement.  (Note: My position as presented in this point would also indicate that I do not hold to the same definitional application for the word "fornication" in the Matthew passages as you do.)

(Further note: Yes, I have also spent a great deal of time in prayerful Bible study over this matter; and yes, I have payed some prices for the position that I hold.  However, I do not hold a doctrinal position in order to gain or retain friends.  Rather, I hold a doctrinal position because that is what I find through a diligent study of that which God's Holy Word precisely teaches on a matter, for God's Holy Word alone in its precise teaching on any matter is my absolute authority for all of belief and behavior.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." (1Cor 7:27, 28)

Clearly here, it was Paul's opinion, and I firmly believe it was based on an excellent understanding of the mind of the Lord, that if a man is loosed from a wife, they ought not remarry, so they can set their mind on the things of God, BUT, if they remarry, they have NOT sinned. The term of being loosed from a wife clearly doesn't refer to being loosed by the death of the spouse, because that was earlier dealt with in some length-this clearly must speak of divorce. And this probably also has to do with having been married to an unbelieving spouse who has chosen to depart, and Paul says a brother or sister is not bound in such a case. Therefore, when my wife, (passed away now) and I married, both being believers, but both having been left by unbelieving spouses, neither of us were under bondage in such cases, and being properly loosed, we were free to remarry. And both our former spouses had committed adultery against us before the marriages ended, so there's that, as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Bruce,

Thus far I have not directly engaged your doctrinal position concerning the matters of divorce and of remarriage after divorce.  However, I have carefully followed the discussion to this point, and have carefully noted your responses throughout.  I have waited and watched in this manner specifically so that (as I expressed with my first posting in the thread discussion) I might approach this discussion with you from an appropriate perspective.

First, I would commend you for the spirit in which you have engaged those who have written in disagreement with you and with whom you obviously disagree.  Although you have expressed firm disagreement with them, you have also done so with a gracious spirit.

Second, I would express that I myself do indeed stand in disagreement with your originally posted position on a few points and with some of the arguments/evidences that you have presented in your responses to others.  I do not intend to handle each of these points of disagreement with you through this particular posting.  Rather, I wish to present the "highlights" of my own position on this matter, as follows:

1.  I believe that remarriage after divorce is always a sin against God.  However, in some cases I believe that God views such remarriage as the sin of adultery, whereas in other cases I believe that God views such remarriage simply as the sin of disobedience (sin nevertheless, but not the sin of adultery).

2.  I do NOT believe that in those cases where a remarriage after divorce is equivalent to the sin of adultery, the sin of adultery is to be viewed Biblically as "perpetual adultery" (as long as the remarriage remains in effect).

3.  I believe that most cases of divorce are a sin against God; however, I believe that Biblically divorce is not a sin against God within two possible cases - in the case of fornication and in the case wherein the unbelieving spouse chooses to pursue the divorcement.  (Note: My position as presented in this point would also indicate that I do not hold to the same definitional application for the word "fornication" in the Matthew passages as you do.)

(Further note: Yes, I have also spent a great deal of time in prayerful Bible study over this matter; and yes, I have payed some prices for the position that I hold.  However, I do not hold a doctrinal position in order to gain or retain friends.  Rather, I hold a doctrinal position because that is what I find through a diligent study of that which God's Holy Word precisely teaches on a matter, for God's Holy Word alone in its precise teaching on any matter is my absolute authority for all of belief and behavior.)

Pastor Markle,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  If you believe that the KJV is God's Holy, inerrant Word in the English language then we have the same foundation upon which to continue the discussion (if you wish to do so).  Disagreement on the KJV would make things a bit more difficult but I'm willing to continue the discussion either way.  We could also simply disagree on the matter and not continue the discussion - I'll respect your decision either way.

1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." (1Cor 7:27, 28)

Clearly here, it was Paul's opinion, and I firmly believe it was based on an excellent understanding of the mind of the Lord, that if a man is loosed from a wife, they ought not remarry, so they can set their mind on the things of God, BUT, if they remarry, they have NOT sinned. The term of being loosed from a wife clearly doesn't refer to being loosed by the death of the spouse, because that was earlier dealt with in some length-this clearly must speak of divorce. And this probably also has to do with having been married to an unbelieving spouse who has chosen to depart, and Paul says a brother or sister is not bound in such a case. Therefore, when my wife, (passed away now) and I married, both being believers, but both having been left by unbelieving spouses, neither of us were under bondage in such cases, and being properly loosed, we were free to remarry. And both our former spouses had committed adultery against us before the marriages ended, so there's that, as well. 

Hi Ukule

1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." (1Cor 7:27, 28)

Clearly here, it was Paul's opinion, and I firmly believe it was based on an excellent understanding of the mind of the Lord, that if a man is loosed from a wife, they ought not remarry, so they can set their mind on the things of God, BUT, if they remarry, they have NOT sinned. The term of being loosed from a wife clearly doesn't refer to being loosed by the death of the spouse, because that was earlier dealt with in some length-this clearly must speak of divorce. And this probably also has to do with having been married to an unbelieving spouse who has chosen to depart, and Paul says a brother or sister is not bound in such a case. Therefore, when my wife, (passed away now) and I married, both being believers, but both having been left by unbelieving spouses, neither of us were under bondage in such cases, and being properly loosed, we were free to remarry. And both our former spouses had committed adultery against us before the marriages ended, so there's that, as well. 

Hi Ukulelemike,


Thanks again for your response.  We disagree on the meaning of I Corinthians 7:27 & 28.  No offense taken and none intended.  I appreciate the manner in which you have disagreed. 

Since we both firmly believe what we believe on this subject it may not be worthwhile to continue the conversation between us, but if you would like to do so I'm perfectly willing to continue.  I will submit to your decision.

I have prayed that God would bless you mightily,

Brother Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, BibleBruce said:

Pastor Markle,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  If you believe that the KJV is God's Holy, inerrant Word in the English language then we have the same foundation upon which to continue the discussion (if you wish to do so).  Disagreement on the KJV would make things a bit more difficult but I'm willing to continue the discussion either way.  We could also simply disagree on the matter and not continue the discussion - I'll respect your decision either way.

Brother Bruce,

I would hold that the Lord our God divinely preserved His Holy Spirit inspired Word in the Masoretic text for the Old Testament Scriptures and in the Received text for the New Testament Scriptures.  I would further hold that the King James translation is a perfectly accurate translation in the English language of God's divinely preserved Word, and thus that the King James translation is the absolutely authoritative and holy Word of God for English speaking peoples.  However, I would NOT hold that the King James translation is somehow more inspired or authoritative than the divinely preserved Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated, or that it somehow supersedes them.

The Lord our God inspired His Holy Word by His Holy Spirit in Hebrew and Greek.  The Lord our God preserved His Holy Word by divine providence and power in Hebrew and Greek.  The Lord our God providentially worked so that His Holy Word might be translated with perfect accuracy from the Hebrew and Greek into the English language through the King James translation.  Even so, that English translation is perfectly reliable for English speaking peoples; but that English translation neither erases the inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek, nor overrules the inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek.

Indeed, I am quite comfortable continuing any discussion on the Biblical doctrine of divorce and of remarriage after divorce.  Just recognize that I will be quite driven toward grammatical, contextual, and Biblical precision within any such discussion.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Bruce,

I would hold that the Lord our God divinely preserved His Holy Spirit inspired Word in the Masoretic text for the Old Testament Scriptures and in the Received text for the New Testament Scriptures.  I would further hold that the King James translation is a perfectly accurate translation in the English language of God's divinely preserved Word, and thus that the King James translation is the absolutely authoritative and holy Word of God for English speaking peoples.  However, I would NOT hold that the King James translation is somehow more inspired or authoritative than the divinely preserved Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated, or that it somehow supersedes them.

The Lord our God inspired His Holy Word by His Holy Spirit in Hebrew and Greek.  The Lord our God preserved His Holy Word by divine providence and power in Hebrew and Greek.  The Lord our God providentially worked so that His Holy Word might be translated with perfect accuracy from the Hebrew and Greek into the English language through the King James translation.  Even so, that English translation is perfectly reliable for English speaking peoples; but that English translation neither erases the inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek, nor overrules the inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek.

Indeed, I am quite comfortable continuing any discussion on the Biblical doctrine of divorce and of remarriage after divorce.  Just recognize that I will be quite driven toward grammatical, contextual, and Biblical precision within any such discussion.

Pastor Markle,

I absolutely believe, as you do, that the KJV is completely accurate and in no way overrules or erases the Hebrew, Greek, (or Aramaic) texts from which it was translated.  I use Strong's Concordance for various purposes but when it comes to determining the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words I tend to rely more heavily on the ways that the KJV renders those words.  I also find that old English dictionaries can be helpful at times. 

I am in complete agreement regarding proceeding with grammatical, contextual, and Biblical precision.  I think that we both would like this conversation to be one of "iron sharpening iron" without contention.

Thanks much for being willing to continue the conversation.

I have prayed that God will bless you.

Brother Bruce

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 7/13/2021 at 11:21 PM, BibleBruce said:

Pastor Markle,

I absolutely believe, as you do, that the KJV is completely accurate and in no way overrules or erases the Hebrew, Greek, (or Aramaic) texts from which it was translated.  I use Strong's Concordance for various purposes but when it comes to determining the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words I tend to rely more heavily on the ways that the KJV renders those words.  I also find that old English dictionaries can be helpful at times. 

I am in complete agreement regarding proceeding with grammatical, contextual, and Biblical precision.  I think that we both would like this conversation to be one of "iron sharpening iron" without contention.

Thanks much for being willing to continue the conversation.

I have prayed that God will bless you.

Brother Bruce

 

Pastor Markle,

Please proceed however you wish with our conversation.  I'll follow your lead.

Brother Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, BibleBruce said:

Pastor Markle,

Please proceed however you wish with our conversation.  I'll follow your lead.

Brother Bruce

Brother Bruce,

I thank you for this message, since I have been pondering on this (how to proceed) for the past few days.  In a broad sense, I suggest that we proceed in the following order of discussion:

1.  The Permanency of Marriage (God's primary intention)
2.  The Permission for Divorce (If God has granted any)
3.  The Perspective on Remarriage (From God's viewpoint)

Even if someone comes to the conclusion the the Lord our God through His Holy Word has granted some provision for divorce (which I presently hold), and even maybe for remarriage after divorce (which I presently do not hold), I still believe that the discussion should always begin with our Lord God's original and primary intention for the PERMANENCY of marriage.  What do you think about the order above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members
On 7/6/2021 at 7:25 AM, Jordan Kurecki said:

https://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Remarriage-Christian-Spectrum-Multiview/dp/0830812830

I just recently finished reading this, I found it helpful. 

Hi Jordan,

I purchased the book that you recommended and read it through.  I found it helpful in the sense that it presented some angles to the issue that I had not heard before.  It didn't change my position but was helpful in understanding some of the contrary positions that are taken.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...