Warren - Trammel Debate
The church at Benbrook, Texas has for many years been divided in sentiment regarding the significance of the "except for fornication" phrase in Matthew 5:31 and 19:9. Some hold there is no ground whatever for divorce and remarriage; others maintain that in the event of fornication, the innocent party has the right of divorce and remarriage. The congregation at Benbrook is now actually dividing over this matter.
Recently Manning Trammel, who has preached at Benbrook for fifteen years, challenged the local preacher, Bob Farris, to debate the matter. Brother Farris requested Brother Thomas Warren of Fort Worth to do the debating. The proposition was: The New Testament scriptures teach that fornication is grounds for divorce and remarriage. Brother Warren affirmed; Brother Trammel denied.
The significance of the study of this subject is this: the marriage and divorce question is not the real issue. Rather, it is only one point involved in the real issue. The issue is "What is the New Testament. Trammel, and those who stand with him, hold that nothing is binding upon Christians prior to Acts 2. The principles of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are no part of the New Testament unless repeated after Acts 2.
Brethren Warren and Trammel agreed to ask and answer in writing five questions before the debate began. Brother Warren presented his questions at the proper time, was informed that Trammel had no questions, hence refused to answer those asked by Warren. No amount of urging could persuade Brother Trammel to answer the five questions after he had read them. These questions would have been a written record of Trammel's inconsistencies. The following is a brief summary of the debate:
1. Brother Warren emphasized the fact that Trammel had refused to answer the questions in spite of the agreement, and, based upon this refusal, Brother Warren predicted that Trammel would hold whatever material he had until his last speech so that no reply could be made. As predicted, Trammel presented seven new arguments in his last speech. When objection was filed, Brother Warren was given three minutes to reply to the new material.
2. Brother Warren emphasized the principle that law can be stated before it comes into effect, as in John 3:5. The Lord, while on earth, gave instruction which was to apply after the New Covenant came into effect, as the beatitudes, the parables regarding the kingdom (John 14:6; Math 7:21; Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 22:30). Brother Warren asked, "Do these belong to the Old Testament, or do they apply today?"
3. Relative to Matt. 5:31,32 and Matt. 19:9 Brother Warren showed these passages were not explanatory of the Mosaic law. The law (Dent. 24:1) allowed divorce and remarriage for some "unseemly thing" which Brother Warren showed was not fornication. Also, the Greek construction emphasizes contrast between the teaching of Moses and that of the Lord. If the Lord was not explaining the law, then to whom does Matthew 5:31 and 19:9 apply? If not to those under the law, and if not to those who live now, then when and to whom did they apply? This question probably accounts for the much talk now in the Benbrook vicinity regarding the "dispensation of John."
4. Brother Trammel ridiculed the use of Greek, then proceeded to assert that the adversative "de" did not mean contrast, but meant "moreover, in addition to." He failed to show when, where, and to whom the "addition" would be applicable.
Brother Trammel labored upon the theory that "Anything in the four gospels brought over into the New Testament I accept; where principles in them are not brought over I reject." If Brother Trammel knows that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written after Pentecost, it never was apparent.
6. Regarding Warren's discussion of Matthew 5:31 and 19:9 Brother Trammel made no attempt to refute what had been said. He simply stated that Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:111 mentioned no exception.
7. Trammel then proceeded to discuss the meaning of the New Testament. He emphasized that "the way into the holy place hath not been manifest while the first tabernacle is yet standing" (Heb. 9:8). He emphasized Jerusalem and Acts 2 as "the beginning," citing Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; Acts 2; Acts 11:15. He was willing to accept anything from Acts 2 to the close of Revelation — "the beginning and the end." He said, "Find a passage between the beginning and end that says fornication is grounds for divorce and remarriage." He sought to emphasize "Let not man put asunder" and that the law ended at the cross.
8. Brother Warren emphasized that "de" meant contrast, not "in addition to."
9. Warren referred to Matthew 19:28 and asked Trammel to find this restated after Acts 2.
10. He emphasized that Trammel had made a law — "You've got to find it after Pentecost."
11. He replied to Trammel's point on Hebrews 9:8 by asking whether or not John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 revealed the way into the kingdom.
12. He showed that the legislature can make laws to become effective on a certain date.
13. He called attention to the fact that Acts 1:8 was stated before Pentecost, but applied later.
14. Brother Warren noted that if "except for fornication" meant this was the only grounds for divorce and remarriage, and if "the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases" of 1 Corinthians 7:15 meant exactly what it says, then 1 Corinthians 7:16 presupposes "unfaithfulness" to the marriage vows and in which case the "exception" is restated after Pentecost. He showed that "maketh her an adulteress" of Matthew 5:32 presupposes that the one put away will form another union. There is no adultery in "putting away." Just so, in 1 Corinthians 7:15 it is understood that the unbeliever is guilty of "unfaithfulness" if the "brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases" and if "except for fornication" means only one cause for divorce and remarriage. The reply Trammel made to this was verses 10 and 11 of 1 Corinthians 7 say the husband or wife is not to depart, and that "not under bondage" doesn't mean one can remarry.
15. Brother Warren forced Brother Trammel to admit that Matthew 19:9 had its application in the gospel dispensation. Brother Warren asked, "Do you admit that Matthew 19:9 is actually a part of the Bible, or do you deny that it belongs in the text?" Brother Trammel answered from his seat, "It belongs in the text." Warren then asked, "Did it apply under the Law of Moses?" Brother Trammel answered, "No." Warren asked, "Then when does it apply? Is it a part of the Gospel"? Trammel answered, "a part of the Gospel." Brother Warren emphasized that Trammel admitted the very issue being debated. Trammel was sorely pressed on this point. However, after the debate Brother Trammel denied this admission.
This is another of the many theories threatening the unity of brethren. We make this report that others may know of it, and may prepare to meet it.