Having studied  quite extensively on the subject of MDR. We might well have been caught up in the idea that; "No where in the Bible does it deny the guilty party to be remarried".  But when we took a closer look at the words of Jesus in (Mt. 19:9); --- (Isn't it amazing how one can read the same Scripture over and over and miss its complete import?) 
Jesus stated; --- "And I say unto you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." --- When He said he who marries her who is divorced points out in no uncertain terms He's talking about the guilty party. "We rightly conclude that the person who is divorced (put away) may not remarry without committing adultery, since Jesus said that the person who marries a divorced (put away) person commits adultery." 
Mt. 5:32  "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except for sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; --- and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." 

Mt. 19:9  "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; --- and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 

Note: In the NKJV, Mt.5:32 and 19:9 read essentially the same. Only difference; (5:32) "causes her to commit adultery". And (19:9) "The one who divorces his wife unlawfully and marries another commits adultery". 

Scenario One: Husband divorces innocent wife causes her to commit adultery if she marries another. (visa-versa) --- Neither party may marry again without committing adultery AND causing the new marriage partner to enter  into an adulterous state. 
                                                                       
Scenario Two: Husband divorces his guilty wife he is free to marry another (because of her adultery) whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. 

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: For the sake of clarification, all quotations from Larry Haverstock will be in brown lettering.
 
Moving on to (1 Cor. 7:) 
1. Larry Haverstock says; --- 
  A. "The essential foundation in 1 Cor. 7: is, That it is better to marry than to burn." --- We find      this to be in error. Plus we find the most likely central foundation is, how Christians are to conduct themselves in marriage, out of marriage or what ever circumstance UNDER THE PRESENT OR PENDING DISTRESS. (Vs. 26) --- We must keep in mind that Paul was very conscious of the great persecution which was raging against the Lord's church (indeed he took part in it before Jesus "got hold" of him on the road to Damascus) and this persecution would continue for quite some time. 

  B. Larry states; "One must remain in the condition or state in which he/she is called." 

#1. He doesn't mention anything about the "present distress".  Does he mean if one is in an adulterous marriage when he is baptized, that he rises up to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4), but gets to keep living in a sinful (unscriptural) marriage? --- N.T. baptism washes away past sins, NOT wives/husbands! --- "Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? --- God forbid!" (Rom. 6:1-2) 

#2. The pattern Larry presents does not properly apply God's requirements of repentance. In giving his defense before King Agrippa, Paul said; --- "--- I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those in Damascus first, and also in Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, --- performing deeds (fruit)appropriate to repentance." (Acts 26:19-20) --- (They tried to kill him for it too.) 
One who truly repents would naturally want to show his sincerity by doing whatever is necessary to please God and to demonstrate his willingness to give up the sinful way of life. --- Also please read; (Mt. 3:8; Lk. 3:8 and Rev. 9:20-21) --- One fruit of the Spirit is self-control. (Gal. 5:22-23)

   ALL the "conditions" Paul talked about in this context, were lawful conditions, that were acceptable to the Lord. 

C. Bro. Haverstock says; --- "(1 Tim. 4:3) has reference to those people who forbid marriage even to those who may have been divorced for the wrong reason, and that God would not impose celibacy on anyone." ---We fail to understand why a preacher of the gospel would make such a gross misapplication of God's word in order to justify his own slant on MDR. --- Does he not realize Paul has reference to the soon to come apostasy, specifically in the form of the "son of perdition"; 
(that is, anyone who might set aside the order of God to establish his own). In reality, this apostasy was already in its early stages, or infancy during the times of Paul. Over the next 500 years it grew and festered into what was to become the Pope of Rome and Catholicism. Later on it was decreed by the catholic church as a major part of their dogma, to forbid marriage among the "priesthood", "bishops" and even the "pope". --- They also for hundreds of years forbid eating meat on Fridays. Paul and the Holy Spirit called this the"doctrines of demons". THIS is the "forbidding of marriage" Paul warned Timothy about. --- (Acts 20:28-30) Paul warned the Ephesian elders; --- "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood. --- I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; --- and from among your own selves 
men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." --- In explaining as to
                                                                        
 when the second coming of Christ would be, Paul told the Thessalonians in (2 Thess. 2:3-4); ---
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (2nd coming) will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction/perdition,--- who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, --- displaying himself as being God." 
Note: There were only two entities that I know of which fit this description; 
1. Caesar or emperor of Rome, but did not take his seat in the temple of God.
2. The Pope of Rome who does claim to be seated in the temple of God and claims infallibility. 

D. The good brother claims; --- "(Mt. 5, 19 & Deut. 24) was directed at the Jews, while (1Cor. 7) is directed for Christians." --- Where pray tell, does he get this idea? 

#1. That's like saying, one law for unbelievers (i.e., universal moral law; law of the heart),  and another law for believers (the gospel). According to the Bible, Larry's pattern does not recognize the universal nature of marriage. (Mk. 10:6; Mt. 19:4-6, 9) 
Likewise it does not recognize the universal authority of Christ. (Mt.28:18; Jn.17:2) 

#2. He has Jesus teaching the Jews only how to obey the Law of Moses in Mt. 19:3-9. 
Jesus plainly stated, --- "from the beginning of creation" (long before there were any Jews)--- (Mk.10:6-9; Mt. 19:8)  Jesus said, --- "male and female" (whoever) --- (Mk. 9:6) 

E. Another quote from Larry: --- "It's better to marry than to be single --- the preferred state for a person so as not to touch." and "To touch does not carry with it any sexual connation; but merely to literally touch a person." 

#1. It is better to marry than to be single. God said so when He said; --- "It is not good for man to be alone; ---" (Gen. 2:18) --- What makes this right is not because Larry Haverstock or Earl Wilburn said it;--- but because God said it! --- But the Lord also said; --- "I will make him a helper suitable for him." Whatever Eve was, it's for sure she was not an adulteress. 

#2. We're not sure exactly what Larry meant when he said the word "touch" as Paul used it, was not sexual/lustful, but merely a literal simple touch.” --- We must again agree on this point, for both the Greek and many other Scriptures using the word "haptomai" bear this idea out. --- BUT either way you look at it; if simply touching a woman would lead to more passionate ideas, then it's just better to stay away, stay single. And then on the other hand; --- If Paul meant a simple touch, why on earth would he say; --- "--it is good for a man not to touch a woman. --- But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife,---"? Answer: --- For the same reason he said to the unmarried and widows down in (Vs. 8-9); "-- it is good for them to remain even as I (single). --- But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn." --- We must not lose sight of the fact that Paul has in the fore front of his mind in giving these instructions that it is because of the present distress placed upon all Christians at that particular time.

F. While explaining his position on Jesus' teaching the Jews (Mt. 5 & 19), Larry said; "Jesus never mentioned anything about 'mixed' marriages (believers to unbelievers), and He never said anything about baptism for remission of sins either." --- What does he do with Scriptures like; --- 

#1. (Mt. 26:28); "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for the remission of sins." 
#2. (Lk. 24:44-47); "Now He (Jesus) said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which were written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' ---Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; --- and that repentance for the remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all nations beginning 
from Jerusalem."                                          

#3. (Mk. 16:15-16); On the same occasion Mark wrote; --- "And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. --- He who has believed and is baptized shall be saved; --- but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." --- Now if our Lord was not teaching baptism for the remission of sins and commanding the apostles to do the same, what was He doing? 

#4. Question: “Why didn't Jesus teach or preach on mixed marriages? (Christians/believers married to non-Christians/unbelievers)” 
Answer: For the same reason Jesus never mentioned when to observe the Lord's supper. He never mentioned giving on the first day of the week or how much. --- No hint of singing and making melody in your heart; --- nothing about organization in His church, such as elders and deacons; and many other aspects of His NT church. --- What He DID say; (speaking to the apostles) was, --- "I have many more things to say to you, but you can not bear them now. --- But when He, the Spirit of truth, 
comes, He will guide you into all truth." (Jn. 16:12-13) --- Also, keep in mind what John had to say in the conclusion of his narrative; --- "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written." (Jn. 21:25)

G. Larry claims: --- “the gift from God" in (1 Cor. 7:7) was "sex itself" and NOT the self control Paul had.” ---  Paul says; "Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that."

#1. The apostle is simply expressing his wish (especially in light of the present distress) that all men were capable, as he was, to abstain from sex or live without marriage. 

#2. Never the less God has given each man his own gift (or ability). One may have the "gift", (strength) to control his sex drive, lust or appetite. --- Others may be "gifted" in some kind of work (like tent making, as Paul and Aquilla); and still others may have talents of differing sorts. So Paul is saying that each should act according to ability. --- He who could live and control himself  without marriage should do so, but if he can not, he should find himself a good wife.

H. Larry asserts that "unmarried" in (Vs. 34) means divorced!” --- Where does he get this? 
The Greek word "agamos" is used in (1 Cor. 7:8, 11, 32 & 34) is unmarried, simply defined; one who is not married. 
#1. (Vs.8) Unmarried could be virgins (male or female) or spouses who had put away adulterous partners and also widows who would certainly be unmarried. 

#2. (Vs. 10-11) "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send away his wife." 
What Paul is saying here is; --- If the wife and husband for some reason can not live in harmony(as in Vs. 5 for example), let her remain unmarried. That is, she is not allowed to marry another lest she become an adulteress. Then he says; --- 'The same goes for the husband'. --- While they are separated they are in an unmarried state, but NOT divorced, because they still have the option to reconcile .

#3. (Vs. 32) Unmarried in this context simply contrasts the duties and hardships between those married and those not married.

#4. (Vs. 34) "--- And the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; ---." Slightly different from (Vs.8) where Paul specified unmarried and widows; --- here the subject turns to unmarried women and virgins. In this case the unmarried could include widows, a sister separated from her husband, or had put away her adulterous husband. Certainly NOT women who had divorced their husbands for causes other than adultery. For in doing so, how could she remain "holy in body and spirit, concerned about the things of the Lord", while at the same time breaking the law of Christ?

#5. Larry simply twists this word "unmarried"/ "agamos" to mean divorced in order to justify divorce for any cause, just as the Jews of old did because of "hardness of heart". Jesus said it was wrong then and by what authority does he change what God has said? --- After all, Larry's reasoning concludes; --- "It's better to marry than to burn, and even if you are in an adulterous marriage, just remain in that condition in which you are called and God will be well pleased." --- May I ask, what's wrong with this picture?

   a. Jesus forgave the adulterous woman, but told her to "go your way; from now on sin no more." (Jn. 8:11) In forgiving this woman the Lord implied a strong rebuke of her past life and a charge to repent and begin leading a new life. He did NOT say or imply she should "remain in the condition she was called", did He? 

   b. This thinking flies in the face of Paul's admonishment; --- "Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? --- May it never be! How shall we who have died to sin still live in it? (Rom. 6:1-2) 
And; --- "You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? --- You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal?  You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? --- You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? --- You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? --- For the name of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you." (Rom. 2:21-24)

I. In quoting (Mt. 19:6), "Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh. --- What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.", --- bro. Larry says; "That doesn't mean they can't separate." (to this we agree, for God didn't make us robots) But then he continues; --- "There are many people who can not live with this law and for whatever reason do separate or divorce and marry another." 
Farther, he says; --- "When they do, it's a shame, and that divorce is sinful.  But not all people can tolerate marriage to the original spouse so it's okay for them to marry another, for it's better to marry than to burn." "And what Jesus taught on marriage, adultery and divorce while on earth was for the Jews and did NOT apply to NT Christians." 
--- Sound familiar? In (Gen. 3:1-4) we read; --- 
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Indeed, God has said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?' --- And the woman said to the serpent, 'From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.' " --- And the serpent said to the woman, ' You shall surely not die!" --- What a LIE!! Then we drop down to (Vs. 6), 
"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh), and it was a delight to the eyes (lust of the eye), and that the tree was desirable to make one wise (the pride of life), she took from it's fruit and ate; --- and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate." --- And then what happened? Who was telling the truth? --- The Father = Giver of all truth. --- Satan = father of all lies!! 

   Now, what do we have? --- Jesus said; (Mt. 5:32) "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except for the cause of unchastely (sexual immorality), makes her to commit adultery; --- and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." 
Mt. 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery; --- and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 

   Larry preaches; --- "When they do, it's a shame, and that divorce is sinful. But not all people can tolerate marriage to the original spouse so it's okay for them to marry another, for it's better to marry than to burn." 

(You just go ahead and eat that fruit Eve, for God didn't really mean what He said!!) --- WHO WOULD YOU BELIEVE ??

J. There were several other points Larry made which we find to be in error: 
#1. The "altar" in (Mt. 5:23-24) applies only to the Jewish altar in the temple. While basically true, He was also teaching vital principals concerning the kingdom/church. "If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, --- leave your offering at the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." --- The principle that the salvation of one lost soul takes priority over worship. 
He also taught this same principle in (Lk.15:3-7) Where the good shepherd left the ninety nine safe sheep in order to find and save the one which was lost. ---And again, was not the Lord teaching about the kingdom when He said in (Mt. 18:17); --"Tell it to the church;"?

#2. In (Rom. 7:2) He somehow overlooked (or avoided) "The married woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives." 
Note: There may have been others we missed and it's quite possible we may have either misunderstood some of his teaching or misquoted some of his words. But to the best of our ability and with honest hearts determined to teach and defend God's truth, we have tested the spirits; compared them against the pure white light of the gospel of Christ and the apostles and have found in this case a very different gospel than that which was revealed by our Lord and His apostles. --- John said in 
(2 Jn. 9-10); --- "Any one who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God;--- the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and Son. --- If any one comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; (WHY?) For the one who gives him a greeting participates in (fellowships in) his evil deeds." --- 

Larry says; "I believed and taught this as truth on this for 21 years." --- Exactly what changed? The truth or Larry's thinking? 
 
   Paul writes; --- "For this you know with certainty, that no (sexually) immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. --- Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.---Therefore do not be partakers (fellowship) with them; --- for you were formerly in darkness but now you are light in the Lord; Walk as children of light --- (for the fruit of the light consists of all goodness and righteousness and truth ) --- Trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. --- And do not participate (fellowship) with the unfruitful deeds of darkness but instead even expose them;" (Eph. 5:5-11)

(Vs. 14-15) Continues; --- "For this reason it says;--- 'Awake sleeper, and arise from the dead, (death from sin) And Christ will shine on you." --- (Vs. 17); --- "So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is." 
   Why did Paul oppose Peter to the face? --- "because he stood condemned." ( Gal. 2:11) Paul loved his soul and loved God's truth. 
The Spirit also warns us; "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." (1 Cor.10:12) Also read; (Rom. 11:20-23) --- Finally, for those who might find themselves in an adulterous or other sinful situation; --- One of my favorite Scriptures;--- "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond 
what you are able, but with the temptation will provide a way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Cor. 10:13)
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Note: The next few lines were added later in another appeal to Larry Haverstock, which he refused to answer. (ew) 
   Let me leave you with this thought. When did God ever sanctify an illicit relationship or marriage? When God joins a couple together to be one flesh, shouldn't the couple be lawfully able to marry? And when a couple marries unlawfully, will their conversion dissolve that unlawful union? Remember, baptism washes away sins, NOT unlawful spouses! Isn't it the continual sex act that made them one flesh in the first place, and not the marriage ceremony itself? --- 1 Cor. 6:16; --- "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, 'The two will become one flesh."
And how are you in good conscience to answer; --- "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and the same judgment." 1 Cor. 1:10

Note: By his request and in light of him granting me permission to have this published on the web, as a courtesy to bro. Haversack, I agreed to also publish his contact information as follows:
Larry Haverstock
10010 Kenwanda Drive
Snohomish, WA, 98296
Phone: 360-652-6009
E-Mail: Larry@TruthOnDisc.Net
Web: www.TruthOnDisc.Net

*************************************************************************************
Prayerfully and humbly submitted
                                                                                                                           Earl Wilburn

Questions and comments more than welcomed: ewilburn@austin.rr.com 
Please don't delete this from your files, as who knows that while you may not at this time be moved by these scriptures but perhaps in time you might want to refer back to this and come to know better the love of the Lord. --- ew