RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

JesKlu -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 1:05:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
The idea that the marriage covenant is completely unbreakable is difficult to reconcile with Scripture, especially Due. 24:1-4 where a spouse who has remarried is specifically prohibited from ever returning to their former spouse. How can such a prohibition exist if the covenant is unbreakable?

To be clear, I do understand that some will see the permission to remarry differently, and although I disagree I have no difficulty with those who hold to that view.

Some on this thread; however, have added even more and what they teach is truly unbiblical.

They teach that every remarried person will go to HELL unless they divorce or their previous spouse dies.

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)

What they are teaching goes far beyond anything taught in Scripture, and it is that that I absolutely cannot support. They are just asking people to heap one sin on top of another, in the name of godliness???



You do have a point, and here is an article I found on the marriage bed forums, which is a conservative Christian website.

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/divorce.shtml

Anyway, but doesn't statistics show that 90% of divorces happen for reasons of bad communication? Surely, in these cases, the spouses who divorce and remarry are living in consistant adultery. Yes, Jesus did give exceptions of sexual immorality, and Paul for abandonment. But the abandonment part is if only the unbeliever leaves, not the believer.

My sister in law got divorced from her first husband because he broke both her legs. He was physically and verbally abusive. She then got married to my brother in law, and has 2 children by him, but she had none in the first marriage. In this case I would say divorce is allowed, because she could've been killed! But now she is happily married, and has been with my brother in law for 15+ years.

Anyway, like you said most divorces are unbiblical and sinful. I just want to stick up for marriage in a culture that allows for easy divorces.

But I will say this. Even for adultery, that does not give a couple the right to file for easy divorce. I believe adultery actually can be worked through. Abuse is a different case though, where it can actually be dangerous to the spouse and children, if children are involved.

quote:

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)


It all depends on the reason of the divorce. If the reason is communication problems, the person who remarried is living in consistent adultery, because in God's eyes, the marriage covenant is still there with the first spouse, and has not been broken.

Where, let's say for the example of abuse, that is a different story.

Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica



benelchi -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 1:36:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JesKlu

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
The idea that the marriage covenant is completely unbreakable is difficult to reconcile with Scripture, especially Due. 24:1-4 where a spouse who has remarried is specifically prohibited from ever returning to their former spouse. How can such a prohibition exist if the covenant is unbreakable?

To be clear, I do understand that some will see the permission to remarry differently, and although I disagree I have no difficulty with those who hold to that view.

Some on this thread; however, have added even more and what they teach is truly unbiblical.

They teach that every remarried person will go to HELL unless they divorce or their previous spouse dies.

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)

What they are teaching goes far beyond anything taught in Scripture, and it is that that I absolutely cannot support. They are just asking people to heap one sin on top of another, in the name of godliness???



You do have a point, and here is an article I found on the marriage bed forums, which is a conservative Christian website.

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/divorce.shtml

Anyway, but doesn't statistics show that 90% of divorces happen for reasons of bad communication? Surely, in these cases, the spouses who divorce and remarry are living in consistant adultery. Yes, Jesus did give exceptions of sexual immorality, and Paul for abandonment. But the abandonment part is if only the unbeliever leaves, not the believer.

My sister in law got divorced from her first husband because he broke both her legs. He was physically and verbally abusive. She then got married to my brother in law, and has 2 children by him, but she had none in the first marriage. In this case I would say divorce is allowed, because she could've been killed! But now she is happily married, and has been with my brother in law for 15+ years.

Anyway, like you said most divorces are unbiblical and sinful. I just want to stick up for marriage in a culture that allows for easy divorces.

But I will say this. Even for adultery, that does not give a couple the right to file for easy divorce. I believe adultery actually can be worked through. Abuse is a different case though, where it can actually be dangerous to the spouse and children, if children are involved.

quote:

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)


It all depends on the reason of the divorce. If the reason is communication problems, the person who remarried is living in consistent adultery, because in God's eyes, the marriage covenant is still there with the first spouse, and has not been broken.

Where, let's say for the example of abuse, that is a different story.

Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica


While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved, I don't think that abuse is an automatic reason for divorce any more than I would believe that adultery is an automatic reason for divorce. I have seen God work miracles in marriages where there has been abuse, adultery, or even both. It is not beyond God's ability to restore even the worst of situations. From a Christian perspective, I believe divorce is something that should happen only when no other option can be sought. One example would be when a spouse sinfully chooses o have an affair, leave the marriage, and marry the person they were involved with. Stopping them is often beyond anyones control.

One of the things I do reject is the idea that a remarriage (even those that were clearly sinful when they began) is ever a continuous act of adultery; when remarriage is entered in on unbibilcal grounds, it is the act of remarriage in those cases that is adulterous, and not the continuous state of the marriage. Repentance is always required, but another divorce is never the right answer, and scripturally speaking returning to a former spouse isn't even an option after a remarriage.



p.progress -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 3:29:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: JesKlu

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
The idea that the marriage covenant is completely unbreakable is difficult to reconcile with Scripture, especially Due. 24:1-4 where a spouse who has remarried is specifically prohibited from ever returning to their former spouse. How can such a prohibition exist if the covenant is unbreakable?

To be clear, I do understand that some will see the permission to remarry differently, and although I disagree I have no difficulty with those who hold to that view.

Some on this thread; however, have added even more and what they teach is truly unbiblical.

They teach that every remarried person will go to HELL unless they divorce or their previous spouse dies.

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)

What they are teaching goes far beyond anything taught in Scripture, and it is that that I absolutely cannot support. They are just asking people to heap one sin on top of another, in the name of godliness???



You do have a point, and here is an article I found on the marriage bed forums, which is a conservative Christian website.

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/divorce.shtml

Anyway, but doesn't statistics show that 90% of divorces happen for reasons of bad communication? Surely, in these cases, the spouses who divorce and remarry are living in consistant adultery. Yes, Jesus did give exceptions of sexual immorality, and Paul for abandonment. But the abandonment part is if only the unbeliever leaves, not the believer.

My sister in law got divorced from her first husband because he broke both her legs. He was physically and verbally abusive. She then got married to my brother in law, and has 2 children by him, but she had none in the first marriage. In this case I would say divorce is allowed, because she could've been killed! But now she is happily married, and has been with my brother in law for 15+ years.

Anyway, like you said most divorces are unbiblical and sinful. I just want to stick up for marriage in a culture that allows for easy divorces.

But I will say this. Even for adultery, that does not give a couple the right to file for easy divorce. I believe adultery actually can be worked through. Abuse is a different case though, where it can actually be dangerous to the spouse and children, if children are involved.

quote:

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)


It all depends on the reason of the divorce. If the reason is communication problems, the person who remarried is living in consistent adultery, because in God's eyes, the marriage covenant is still there with the first spouse, and has not been broken.

Where, let's say for the example of abuse, that is a different story.

Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica


While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved, I don't think that abuse is an automatic reason for divorce any more than I would believe that adultery is an automatic reason for divorce. I have seen God work miracles in marriages where there has been abuse, adultery, or even both. It is not beyond God's ability to restore even the worst of situations. From a Christian perspective, I believe divorce is something that should happen only when no other option can be sought. One example would be when a spouse sinfully chooses o have an affair, leave the marriage, and marry the person they were involved with. Stopping them is often beyond anyones control.

One of the things I do reject is the idea that a remarriage (even those that were clearly sinful when they began) is ever a continuous act of adultery; when remarriage is entered in on unbibilcal grounds, it is the act of remarriage in those cases that is adulterous, and not the continuous state of the marriage. Repentance is always required, but another divorce is never the right answer, and scripturally speaking returning to a former spouse isn't even an option after a remarriage.






"While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved"


"[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us:
"If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." 2Ti 2:11-13


"Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

"For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

"For what glory [is it], if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye take it patiently, this [is] acceptable with God.

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" 1Pe 2:19-21, see 22-25


"Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

"While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

"But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 1Pe 3:1-6


"Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

"Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

"For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully...


"And who [is] he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

"For [it is] better,
quote:

[b]if the will of God be so, that ye suffer [/b]
for well doing, than for evil doing.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit..." 1Pe 3:13-18


"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?...I speak to your shame...Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?" 1Cor.6:1-8


Don't try to read to much into why I quote these passages, just read and reread and reread them...meditate upon them, and I think that anyone will at the least be conflicted within themselves as to what is to be the true and godly response of the believe to them regarding all this talk about 'abuse'.

One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death...but to then justify divorce and to marry another when no such liberty has been granted is folly. And what of those who fail to return to their own husband, if or when the possible threat of death is gone? Will they accept that suffering will still be there to endure?



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 3:49:05 PM)

quote:

One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death.

May? Perhaps? real threat of death?

You believe that a threat of death only "may perhaps" be a reason to leave?
You don't think that two broken legs indicates a need to leave? You believe that those verses tell women to stay and be physically abused by one who vowed to cherish them?

If that isn't what you believe, could you please explain your choice of words in the statement that I quoted?

quote:

And what of those who fail to return to their own husband, if or when the possible threat of death is gone? Will they accept that suffering will still be there to endure?

And could you please clarify what you mean by this. It sounds to me as though you are saying that the beatings are permissible and should be endured as long as there isn't an immediate threat of death.



benelchi -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 3:56:48 PM)

While I do understand and can respect the arguments for having a spouse remain separated and not remarry in the case of abuse, I DO NOT RESPECT ANY ARGUMENT THAT ADVOCATES FOR A SPOUSE TO REMAIN IN AN ABUSIVE SITUATION AND SUFFER FOR CHRIST!

The verses you quoted are just plain taken out of context, and the idea that you appear to be advocating is ungodly and heretical!!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: JesKlu

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
The idea that the marriage covenant is completely unbreakable is difficult to reconcile with Scripture, especially Due. 24:1-4 where a spouse who has remarried is specifically prohibited from ever returning to their former spouse. How can such a prohibition exist if the covenant is unbreakable?

To be clear, I do understand that some will see the permission to remarry differently, and although I disagree I have no difficulty with those who hold to that view.

Some on this thread; however, have added even more and what they teach is truly unbiblical.

They teach that every remarried person will go to HELL unless they divorce or their previous spouse dies.

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)

What they are teaching goes far beyond anything taught in Scripture, and it is that that I absolutely cannot support. They are just asking people to heap one sin on top of another, in the name of godliness???



You do have a point, and here is an article I found on the marriage bed forums, which is a conservative Christian website.

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/divorce.shtml

Anyway, but doesn't statistics show that 90% of divorces happen for reasons of bad communication? Surely, in these cases, the spouses who divorce and remarry are living in consistant adultery. Yes, Jesus did give exceptions of sexual immorality, and Paul for abandonment. But the abandonment part is if only the unbeliever leaves, not the believer.

My sister in law got divorced from her first husband because he broke both her legs. He was physically and verbally abusive. She then got married to my brother in law, and has 2 children by him, but she had none in the first marriage. In this case I would say divorce is allowed, because she could've been killed! But now she is happily married, and has been with my brother in law for 15+ years.

Anyway, like you said most divorces are unbiblical and sinful. I just want to stick up for marriage in a culture that allows for easy divorces.

But I will say this. Even for adultery, that does not give a couple the right to file for easy divorce. I believe adultery actually can be worked through. Abuse is a different case though, where it can actually be dangerous to the spouse and children, if children are involved.

quote:

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)


It all depends on the reason of the divorce. If the reason is communication problems, the person who remarried is living in consistent adultery, because in God's eyes, the marriage covenant is still there with the first spouse, and has not been broken.

Where, let's say for the example of abuse, that is a different story.

Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica


While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved, I don't think that abuse is an automatic reason for divorce any more than I would believe that adultery is an automatic reason for divorce. I have seen God work miracles in marriages where there has been abuse, adultery, or even both. It is not beyond God's ability to restore even the worst of situations. From a Christian perspective, I believe divorce is something that should happen only when no other option can be sought. One example would be when a spouse sinfully chooses o have an affair, leave the marriage, and marry the person they were involved with. Stopping them is often beyond anyones control.

One of the things I do reject is the idea that a remarriage (even those that were clearly sinful when they began) is ever a continuous act of adultery; when remarriage is entered in on unbibilcal grounds, it is the act of remarriage in those cases that is adulterous, and not the continuous state of the marriage. Repentance is always required, but another divorce is never the right answer, and scripturally speaking returning to a former spouse isn't even an option after a remarriage.






"While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved"


"[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us:
"If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." 2Ti 2:11-13


"Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

"For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

"For what glory [is it], if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye take it patiently, this [is] acceptable with God.

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" 1Pe 2:19-21, see 22-25


"Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

"While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

"But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 1Pe 3:1-6


"Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

"Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

"For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully...


"And who [is] he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

"For [it is] better,
quote:

[b]if the will of God be so, that ye suffer [/b]
for well doing, than for evil doing.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit..." 1Pe 3:13-18


"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?...I speak to your shame...Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?" 1Cor.6:1-8


Don't try to read to much into why I quote these passages, just read and reread and reread them...meditate upon them, and I think that anyone will at the least be conflicted within themselves as to what is to be the true and godly response of the believe to them regarding all this talk about 'abuse'.

One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death...but to then justify divorce and to marry another when no such liberty has been granted is folly. And what of those who fail to return to their own husband, if or when the possible threat of death is gone? Will they accept that suffering will still be there to endure?



PatHarris -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 7:36:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: JesKlu

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
The idea that the marriage covenant is completely unbreakable is difficult to reconcile with Scripture, especially Due. 24:1-4 where a spouse who has remarried is specifically prohibited from ever returning to their former spouse. How can such a prohibition exist if the covenant is unbreakable?

To be clear, I do understand that some will see the permission to remarry differently, and although I disagree I have no difficulty with those who hold to that view.

Some on this thread; however, have added even more and what they teach is truly unbiblical.

They teach that every remarried person will go to HELL unless they divorce or their previous spouse dies.

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)

What they are teaching goes far beyond anything taught in Scripture, and it is that that I absolutely cannot support. They are just asking people to heap one sin on top of another, in the name of godliness???



You do have a point, and here is an article I found on the marriage bed forums, which is a conservative Christian website.

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/divorce.shtml

Anyway, but doesn't statistics show that 90% of divorces happen for reasons of bad communication? Surely, in these cases, the spouses who divorce and remarry are living in consistant adultery. Yes, Jesus did give exceptions of sexual immorality, and Paul for abandonment. But the abandonment part is if only the unbeliever leaves, not the believer.

My sister in law got divorced from her first husband because he broke both her legs. He was physically and verbally abusive. She then got married to my brother in law, and has 2 children by him, but she had none in the first marriage. In this case I would say divorce is allowed, because she could've been killed! But now she is happily married, and has been with my brother in law for 15+ years.

Anyway, like you said most divorces are unbiblical and sinful. I just want to stick up for marriage in a culture that allows for easy divorces.

But I will say this. Even for adultery, that does not give a couple the right to file for easy divorce. I believe adultery actually can be worked through. Abuse is a different case though, where it can actually be dangerous to the spouse and children, if children are involved.

quote:

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)


It all depends on the reason of the divorce. If the reason is communication problems, the person who remarried is living in consistent adultery, because in God's eyes, the marriage covenant is still there with the first spouse, and has not been broken.

Where, let's say for the example of abuse, that is a different story.

Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica


While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved, I don't think that abuse is an automatic reason for divorce any more than I would believe that adultery is an automatic reason for divorce. I have seen God work miracles in marriages where there has been abuse, adultery, or even both. It is not beyond God's ability to restore even the worst of situations. From a Christian perspective, I believe divorce is something that should happen only when no other option can be sought. One example would be when a spouse sinfully chooses o have an affair, leave the marriage, and marry the person they were involved with. Stopping them is often beyond anyones control.

One of the things I do reject is the idea that a remarriage (even those that were clearly sinful when they began) is ever a continuous act of adultery; when remarriage is entered in on unbibilcal grounds, it is the act of remarriage in those cases that is adulterous, and not the continuous state of the marriage. Repentance is always required, but another divorce is never the right answer, and scripturally speaking returning to a former spouse isn't even an option after a remarriage.






"While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved"


"[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us:
"If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." 2Ti 2:11-13


"Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

"For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

"For what glory [is it], if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye take it patiently, this [is] acceptable with God.

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" 1Pe 2:19-21, see 22-25


"Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

"While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

"But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 1Pe 3:1-6


"Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

"Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

"For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully...


"And who [is] he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

"For [it is] better,
quote:

[b]if the will of God be so, that ye suffer [/b]
for well doing, than for evil doing.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit..." 1Pe 3:13-18


"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?...I speak to your shame...Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?" 1Cor.6:1-8


Don't try to read to much into why I quote these passages, just read and reread and reread them...meditate upon them, and I think that anyone will at the least be conflicted within themselves as to what is to be the true and godly response of the believe to them regarding all this talk about 'abuse'.

One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death...but to then justify divorce and to marry another when no such liberty has been granted is folly. And what of those who fail to return to their own husband, if or when the possible threat of death is gone? Will they accept that suffering will still be there to endure?


If you truly believe that someone who is being or has been abused should stay or go back to that situation, please refrain from counseling any married couples.

I truly feel sorry for someone who would advocate that based on the scriptures you took out of context.



SealedEternal -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 8:09:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: JesKlu

If the above verses allowed for remarriage why would the Apostle Paul state these things.

Romans 7:2-3
2For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an
adulteress.(ESV)


In this verse, the context had nothing to do with marriage, but used the example of marriage to explain how we as Christians relate to the Law. Paul was not intending to explain every detail of marriage in this verse, but every detail of how Christians are to understand the Law. Looking to this verse as complete statement by Paul on his view of marriage is taking this verse out of context, and stands in contrast to what he did say in 1 Co. 7 where he was speaking specifically about the marriage vow.


First of all the context has everything to do with marriage, because marriage only being dissolvable by death is the whole pretext of his analogy to teach about the necessity of Christ's death to free us from the letter of the Law. If this pretext were not fully true, then his whole case fails and we cannot assume that Christ's death was necessary either. An analogy only works if you begin with a true and well known pretext.

If for example I said "just as pigs can fly high in the sky, so too will Christ return in the clouds someday." My analogy would cause more confusion than clarity, and people would wonder whether I was saying He is going to return or that He isn't because my pretext is obviously false. In fact, they would likely think I was being sarcastic and actually don't believe He will return based on my false presupposition.

So too, if Paul didn't actually mean to say that only death dissolves a marriage and that any subsequent relationship while a spouse lives is adultery, then people would have to wonder if Christ's death actually freed us from the letter of the Law or if He died needlessly. His analogy not only would have failed, but causes more confusion than anything. I however believe that he really did mean what He said, and said exactly what he meant, and that his analogy was proper and true.

Secondly, He did reiterate this point in 1 Corinthians 7 which we both agree is about marriage and nothing else:

1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.


quote:

quote:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11
10To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11(but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (ESV)

Apparently marriage is binding until death. Even though you may meet the biblical grounds for divorce, such as adultery, the Bible does not state that you are allowed to remarry.


In this same passage Paul gives the instructions to those who are abandoned by an unbelieving spouse, and there he says they are no longer bound to that marriage. This happens to be the only circumstance in which the early church permitted remarriage, but in this case even they acknowledged that remarriage was allowed. The verse you quoted is exactly how those who separate for unbiblical reasons are to conduct themselves i.e. they are not to divorce, or remarry.


It doesn't say anything about not being bound to the marriage, and in fact in verse 39 says exactly the opposite. It only says that the believer is not bound to dwell with an unbeliever who refuses to dwell with them because God has called us to peace. That doesn't however negate the fact that he just said the only options for the believer are to remain unmarried or else reconcile, and what he said afterward that only death dissolves the marriage bond and frees us to remarry.


quote:

quote:


Jesus even said those who marry a divorced person has committed adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32
31 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.(ESV)

Even though Christ did say you are allowed to divorce because of sexual immorality, he does not say you can go ahead and remarry, actually, quite the opposite, because then you would be committing sexual immorality.


Not as I read the exception stated by Jesus i.e. those who divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality were prohibited from remarriage, not everyone.


That's not what the text says. It says that "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" without exception, which is consistent with what He said in the other two Gospels:

Mark 10: 6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

If your opinion were correct then Jesus would be teaching falsely to those He was speaking to, but obviously He is correct and you are not.



quote:

My personal view is that most divorces are unbiblical, and most couples should never be allowed to remarry, but I cannot say that is true of all because both Jesus and Paul acknowledge cases where divorce itself is permitted, and Paul specifically states that in such a divorce a spouse is no longer bound by the marriage.


Paul never said that anyone isn't bound to a marriage after a divorce, and in fact both he and Jesus specifically said they are, and are engaging in extramarital affairs by remarrying, which proves that neither of them believed that divorce dissolved a marriage, or else adultery couldn't be an issue:

Romans 7:3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

Matthew 5:31-32 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mark 10:11-12 And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

quote:

The idea that the marriage covenant is completely unbreakable is difficult to reconcile with Scripture, especially Due. 24:1-4 where a spouse who has remarried is specifically prohibited from ever returning to their former spouse. How can such a prohibition exist if the covenant is unbreakable?


First of all; Do you keep the Mosaic Laws? That provision for hard hearted Jews was very specific and didn't apply to fully married couples, and doesn't apply to anyone today. If you desire to use the Old Covenant Law to chastise those who wrong you, then you cannot demand the grace of Jesus Christ for your own transgressions. You have to choose which covenant you are under, and if it is the Old you must keep the whole Law.

SealedEternal



SealedEternal -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 8:20:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatHarris

If you truly believe that someone who is being or has been abused should stay or go back to that situation, please refrain from counseling any married couples.

I truly feel sorry for someone who would advocate that based on the scriptures you took out of context.


Does that mean we shouldn't forgive someone seventy times seven times (Matthew 18:22), turn the other cheek(Matthew 5:39), love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44)? We should just harden our hearts and tell someone they have committed the unpardonable sin by wronging us, and therefore deserve no forgiveness, grace, love, or compassion even if they repent and beg for mercy? Is that what Christ would do?

SealedEternal



keepingfaith -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 8:26:59 PM)

quote:

In this same passage Paul gives the instructions to those who are abandoned by an unbelieving spouse, and there he says they are no longer bound to that marriage.


You have just changed and added to the Word of God... he did NOT say "no longer bound to that marriage". He said "not under bondage." That's IT. And if you look at the original greek word for "bound" in verse 39, you can see that is not the same word as the one you are using. They are both not referring to the marriage bond.

Furthermore, Jesus himself refutes your claim because he says "EVERYONE who divorces and marries another commits adultery." The only way Luke 16:18 can be true is if your theory is false because the man who adandoned his wife is apparently STILL bound to her- which means she is bound back.

There is no WAY anyone can know FOR SURE, if someone is an unbeliever... seems kinda silly that if your BELIEVING spouse leaves you, you are stuck- but if your unbelieving spouse leaves you just got lucky because you are free.

There is no such thing as one party being able to be freed from the marriage bond and not the other. And your theory that both parties are free is quite troubling because that means anyone can just walk out of a marriage and they are free. That means one can divorce for ANY reason, but that's not what Jesus said. He said there were NO reasons for divorce.

There would be no reason for the command to remain unmarried if this applied only to the guilty party because one cannot be free to remarry and not the other. If this applies to "unbiblical divorces" let's get real here... there are VERY few that are mutual decisions. MOST would fall under abandonment or adultery. His command to remain unmarried is very clear... it says TO THE MARRIED (all of them)- he does not clarify, except for adultery or abandonment. That is adding to the Word.

Your claim that it is not continuous adultery is not supported by scripture. There is overwhelming scripture proving that it is continuous adultery. The mere fact that scripture proves divorce doesn't end the marriage...

In Romans Paul is referring to the law of marriage and he repeats exactly what he said in Corinthians "a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives" and says he is speaking to those who KNOW THE LAW... He is making an analogy that shows we are released from a marriage at death. And goes on to say "SO THEN... if while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she is called an adulteress... but if her husband is dead, she is not an adulteress even though she is married to another man." He is quite clear here... the only exception he gives in which she will not be an adulteress if she remarries is if her husband is DEAD. Read this verse very slowly over and over... you will see that he is saying "a woman is bound to her husband AS LONG AS HE LIVES... which means that if she marries another while he still lives- than she is still BOUND TO HER FIRST HUSBAND even though she appears to be married to another.

The lengths you have gone to explain this verse away is very disconcerting.



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 9:36:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatHarris

If you truly believe that someone who is being or has been abused should stay or go back to that situation, please refrain from counseling any married couples.

I truly feel sorry for someone who would advocate that based on the scriptures you took out of context.


Does that mean we shouldn't forgive someone seventy times seven times (Matthew 18:22), turn the other cheek(Matthew 5:39), love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44)? We should just harden our hearts and tell someone they have committed the unpardonable sin by wronging us, and therefore deserve no forgiveness, grace, love, or compassion even if they repent and beg for mercy? Is that what Christ would do?

SealedEternal

Forgiving someone for abusing you and putting yourself back into an abusive situation are two very different things. We can love and pray for someone without allowing them to abuse us.

And in the verses and commentary presented there was no mention of repentance or begging for mercy. There was only this
quote:

And what of those who fail to return to their own husband, if or when the possible threat of death is gone? Will they accept that suffering will still be there to endure?


There's just no way to make that kind of counsel acceptable and you do your credibility damage by trying to do so.



PatHarris -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/11/2008 10:09:18 PM)

sealedeternal

Forgiveness can be given to an abuser, without being foolish enough to go back to a bad situation.

Christ would never ask anyone to go back to an abuser.



car2ner -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/12/2008 6:57:31 AM)

quote:

"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;


I know we aren't supposed to talk about our personal situation but I used to say this verse to myself when I was with my first partner.

Let's just say it isn't my partner who is bringing the terror into the home anymore. God will let someone know when they are to leave, I doubt we are called to be martyrs to death in our families.



keepingfaith -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/12/2008 10:11:11 AM)

quote:

God will let someone know when they are to leave, I doubt we are called to be martyrs to death in our families.


No one here has said that or even remotely said someone should stay with someone who is physically abusing them or in other extreme cases. Somehow the other side always turns this around. The point is we are still called to remain faithful to our vows to a person who OBVIOUSLY needs JESUS. Even if we have to remove ourselves from a situation until repentance occurs.

There are MANY testimonies of people who were radically transformed by Christ... and marriages were saved. It is not for us to judge whether someone is beyond hope. There is always HOPE... if you believe Christ rose from the dead, than you believe that. I do not believe in the moving on mentality... nor do I see it anywhere in scripture whether one is separated or not.

We should have compassion for that person just as Jesus would... "forgive them Father they know not what they are doing."



keepingfaith -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/12/2008 10:32:44 AM)

quote:

It all depends on the reason of the divorce. If the reason is communication problems, the person who remarried is living in consistent adultery, because in God's eyes, the marriage covenant is still there with the first spouse, and has not been broken.

Where, let's say for the example of abuse, that is a different story.



Could you please provide scripture that supports this?



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/12/2008 10:45:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

No one here has said that or even remotely said someone should stay with someone who is physically abusing them or in other extreme cases. Somehow the other side always turns this around. The point is we are still called to remain faithful to our vows to a person who OBVIOUSLY needs JESUS. Even if we have to remove ourselves from a situation until repentance occurs.


Excuse me???? Someone most certainly has. p.progress first quotes a statement from benelchi in red and then produces verse after verse and finishes with
" Don't try to read to much into why I quote these passages, just read and reread and reread them...meditate upon them, and I think that anyone will at the least be conflicted within themselves as to what is to be the true and godly response of the believe to them regarding all this talk about 'abuse'.

One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death...but to then justify divorce and to marry another when no such liberty has been granted is folly. And what of those who fail to return to their own husband, if or when the possible threat of death is gone? Will they accept that suffering will still be there to endure?"

There is no ambiguity here. This is a blatant misuse of God's word to tell people that they must stay in abusive situations. No one has to turn this around, it's already twisted. And you and sealedeternal are trying to spin it and justify it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: JesKlu

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
The idea that the marriage covenant is completely unbreakable is difficult to reconcile with Scripture, especially Due. 24:1-4 where a spouse who has remarried is specifically prohibited from ever returning to their former spouse. How can such a prohibition exist if the covenant is unbreakable?

To be clear, I do understand that some will see the permission to remarry differently, and although I disagree I have no difficulty with those who hold to that view.

Some on this thread; however, have added even more and what they teach is truly unbiblical.

They teach that every remarried person will go to HELL unless they divorce or their previous spouse dies.

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)

What they are teaching goes far beyond anything taught in Scripture, and it is that that I absolutely cannot support. They are just asking people to heap one sin on top of another, in the name of godliness???



You do have a point, and here is an article I found on the marriage bed forums, which is a conservative Christian website.

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/divorce.shtml

Anyway, but doesn't statistics show that 90% of divorces happen for reasons of bad communication? Surely, in these cases, the spouses who divorce and remarry are living in consistant adultery. Yes, Jesus did give exceptions of sexual immorality, and Paul for abandonment. But the abandonment part is if only the unbeliever leaves, not the believer.

My sister in law got divorced from her first husband because he broke both her legs. He was physically and verbally abusive. She then got married to my brother in law, and has 2 children by him, but she had none in the first marriage. In this case I would say divorce is allowed, because she could've been killed! But now she is happily married, and has been with my brother in law for 15+ years.

Anyway, like you said most divorces are unbiblical and sinful. I just want to stick up for marriage in a culture that allows for easy divorces.

But I will say this. Even for adultery, that does not give a couple the right to file for easy divorce. I believe adultery actually can be worked through. Abuse is a different case though, where it can actually be dangerous to the spouse and children, if children are involved.

quote:

They ask those who have remarried to divorce and return to their former spouse (something prohibited in Scripture!)


It all depends on the reason of the divorce. If the reason is communication problems, the person who remarried is living in consistent adultery, because in God's eyes, the marriage covenant is still there with the first spouse, and has not been broken.

Where, let's say for the example of abuse, that is a different story.

Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica


While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved, I don't think that abuse is an automatic reason for divorce any more than I would believe that adultery is an automatic reason for divorce. I have seen God work miracles in marriages where there has been abuse, adultery, or even both. It is not beyond God's ability to restore even the worst of situations. From a Christian perspective, I believe divorce is something that should happen only when no other option can be sought. One example would be when a spouse sinfully chooses o have an affair, leave the marriage, and marry the person they were involved with. Stopping them is often beyond anyones control.

One of the things I do reject is the idea that a remarriage (even those that were clearly sinful when they began) is ever a continuous act of adultery; when remarriage is entered in on unbibilcal grounds, it is the act of remarriage in those cases that is adulterous, and not the continuous state of the marriage. Repentance is always required, but another divorce is never the right answer, and scripturally speaking returning to a former spouse isn't even an option after a remarriage.






"While I do think that safety has to be put first in any case of abuse, even if that means separating or getting the police involved"


"[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]:
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us:
"If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." 2Ti 2:11-13


"Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

"For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

"For what glory [is it], if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye take it patiently, this [is] acceptable with God.

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" 1Pe 2:19-21, see 22-25


"Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

"While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

"But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." 1Pe 3:1-6


"Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

"Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

"For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully...


"And who [is] he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

"For [it is] better,
quote:

[b]if the will of God be so, that ye suffer [/b]
for well doing, than for evil doing.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit..." 1Pe 3:13-18


"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?...I speak to your shame...Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?" 1Cor.6:1-8


Don't try to read to much into why I quote these passages, just read and reread and reread them...meditate upon them, and I think that anyone will at the least be conflicted within themselves as to what is to be the true and godly response of the believe to them regarding all this talk about 'abuse'.

One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death...but to then justify divorce and to marry another when no such liberty has been granted is folly. And what of those who fail to return to their own husband, if or when the possible threat of death is gone? Will they accept that suffering will still be there to endure?



Dakotasunbeam -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/12/2008 2:17:30 PM)

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath--Acts 15:19-21

Shortly after the apostles began to make disciples of the gentiles, an assembly was held. It was a summit if you will. Early Christians gathered together to decide what parts of the Law were an essential under tha new covenant of Grace. It was understood and later explained in depth about Jesus atoning blood. From that summit the above detrmination was made. This is further qualified in Colassians 2:16-23.

Divorce is an element of the OT law which was NOT qualified as a "carry-over" if you will. Paul who was a legal scholar of the OT never broached the subject of the mechanics of how to navigate a christian "divorce." Divorce, even in the OT has a specific and narrow use. Those who champion divorce champion the OT law.

Why would you still want to be under the OT Law? There is NO grace under that law.



benelchi -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/12/2008 5:24:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dakotasunbeam

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath--Acts 15:19-21

Shortly after the apostles began to make disciples of the gentiles, an assembly was held. It was a summit if you will. Early Christians gathered together to decide what parts of the Law were an essential under tha new covenant of Grace. It was understood and later explained in depth about Jesus atoning blood. From that summit the above detrmination was made. This is further qualified in Colassians 2:16-23.

Divorce is an element of the OT law which was NOT qualified as a "carry-over" if you will. Paul who was a legal scholar of the OT never broached the subject of the mechanics of how to navigate a christian "divorce." Divorce, even in the OT has a specific and narrow use. Those who champion divorce champion the OT law.

Why would you still want to be under the OT Law? There is NO grace under that law.



I think you need to reread your bible:

Paul spoke about divorce quite a bit in 1 Co. 7

Paul also called Christians to put the Law in its proper perspective i.e. Christians do not earn salvation by adhering to the Law. Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that Christ did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill the Law. Under the New Testament covenant (and in many aspects the OT covenant as well), it clear that our salvation doesn't come from obeying the Law, but because of our Relationship with Christ obedience to the Law should be the natural outcome; obedience should be reflection of the change that Christ as made in us.

Your conclusion that divorce was not something carried over in the NT is entirely false, the early church did accept divorce for adultery and abandonment of an unbeliever, and even remarriage in the case of the latter based on Paul's teaching in 1 Co. 7. Many of the things taught by the no remarriage ever group in this thread are not aligned with the teaching of the early church.



SealedEternal -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/12/2008 9:13:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi


Paul spoke about divorce quite a bit in 1 Co. 7


Yes, he said not to do it, but if it does occur the Christian must remain unmarried for as long as his or her spouse lives, or reconcile with the spouse:

1 Corinthians 7: 10-13 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, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

quote:

Paul also called Christians to put the Law in its proper perspective i.e. Christians do not earn salvation by adhering to the Law. Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that Christ did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill the Law. Under the New Testament covenant (and in many aspects the OT covenant as well), it clear that our salvation doesn't come from obeying the Law, but because of our Relationship with Christ obedience to the Law should be the natural outcome; obedience should be reflection of the change that Christ as made in us.


How does Christ "fulfill the Law"?

Titus 3:5-7 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Hebrews 10:14-17 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

2 Corinthians 3:2-18 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Romans 7:1-6 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The fulfillment of the Law is having God's Spirit write the Spirit of it on our hearts and minds, so that we are no longer under the letter which brings death. You however appeal to the letter given to hard hearted unregenerate Jews who had a veil over their hearts and could not therefore understand the grace of Jesus Christ, because their wicked hearts blinded them. New Covenant children of God don't look to the letter of the Law to condemn those who wrong us and justify not showing them grace, love, mercy, or forgiveness. We rather keep the Spirit of the Law which has been written on our hearts and minds by God's Spirit, so that we love others and show them the same grace, love, mercy, and forgiveness, that He showed to us:

Ephesians 5:22-33 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

SealedEternal



keepingfaith -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/12/2008 9:56:35 PM)

quote:

Your conclusion that divorce was not something carried over in the NT is entirely false, the early church did accept divorce for adultery and abandonment of an unbeliever, and even remarriage in the case of the latter based on Paul's teaching in 1 Co. 7. Many of the things taught by the no remarriage ever group in this thread are not aligned with the teaching of the early church.


I would highly recommend everyone studying for THEMSELVES what the early church taught. You grossly misrepresent what they taught. Finding one person who said something that you interpreted to mean remarriage was allowed in the case of abandonment does not constitute "the early church" teaching. They overwhelmingly taught NO REMARRIAGE EVER... and did come to the same conclusions that we have... that it was a permanent unbreakable covenant and entering into another union was entering into an adulterous relationship and not a marriage. Not one taught anything that even resembles your theology that all remarriages are lawful marriages.



benelchi -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/13/2008 12:05:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

Your conclusion that divorce was not something carried over in the NT is entirely false, the early church did accept divorce for adultery and abandonment of an unbeliever, and even remarriage in the case of the latter based on Paul's teaching in 1 Co. 7. Many of the things taught by the no remarriage ever group in this thread are not aligned with the teaching of the early church.


I would highly recommend everyone studying for THEMSELVES what the early church taught. You grossly misrepresent what they taught. Finding one person who said something that you interpreted to mean remarriage was allowed in the case of abandonment does not constitute "the early church" teaching. They overwhelmingly taught NO REMARRIAGE EVER... and did come to the same conclusions that we have... that it was a permanent unbreakable covenant and entering into another union was entering into an adulterous relationship and not a marriage. Not one taught anything that even resembles your theology that all remarriages are lawful marriages.



Show me one person from the early church who prohibited remarriage for those who divorced prior to conversion.

Show me one person from the early church who advocated that remarried people divorce.

Show me one person from the who said that those remarried would go to HELL unless they divorce.

Show me one person from the early church who advocated that a remarried person return to their former spouse after divorcing.

Basically all of the most objectionable of the doctrines you advocate are ones that were not supported by the early church.



p.progress -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/15/2008 4:00:11 PM)

EDITED


quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

quote:

One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death.


May? Perhaps? real threat of death?

You believe that a threat of death only "may perhaps" be a reason to leave?


I can't pretend to know every given situation in such cases, so yes, "one MAY, PERHAPS leave or flee to escape the REAL threat of death


You don't think that two broken legs indicates a need to leave? You believe that those verses tell women to stay and be physically abused by one who vowed to cherish them?

If that isn't what you believe, could you please explain your choice of words in the statement that I quoted?

quote:

And what of those who fail to return to their own husband, if or when the possible threat of death is gone? Will they accept that suffering will still be there to endure?

And could you please clarify what you mean by this. It sounds to me as though you are saying that the beatings are permissible and should be endured as long as there isn't an immediate threat of death.





You quote PART OF MY POST as saying: "One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death.

Then answer with: "May? Perhaps? real threat of death?

"You believe that a threat of death only "may perhaps" be a reason to leave?"


So I'll answer this slice by saying: I can't pretend to know every given situation in such cases, so yes, "one MAY, PERHAPS leave or flee to escape the REAL threat of death." But I certainly wouldn't personally be so bold myself to put it as an absolute, that leaving, fleeing, calling the police (or whatever), is the one and only recourse or direction for those that find themselves in situations, where they are being subjected to 'abuse' and as Peter puts it, "suffering wrongfully", as you seem to think everyone ought to think.

For in the times that Peter wrote these instructions, it is MANIFESTLY EVIDENT THAT he was taking into account the REAL LIFE circumstances that faced both servant/slaves and wives under "froward" (skolios: evil, crooked, perverse, wicked - churlish) masters and husbands - NEITHER OF WHICH were persuaded (apeitheo) that the Word of God was something they cared or needed to care was relevant to guide their thoughts or behavior by.

You, I'll have to assume here, have read for yourself what is written to such individuals facing such circumstances. And yet you have chosen to believe something that you cannot prove by scripture - as it is not only silent evidence wise in your case, but the scriptures PLAINLY teach or instruct otherwise. I look at the scriptures and I ask myself not what would a worldy professing believer claim they have a right and even an alleged 'responsibility' to DO in such circumstances; BUT I read and choose to accept the clear, plain and repeated testimony the scriptures present to my eyes, mind, heart and soul on this and whatever other question I have about life. I am not living in a vacuum in all this either, I know what it is like to suffer wrongfully and at times take it patiently. It is in the times where I am walking with Christ, abiding in him in a vital reality, that such firey trials do not burn or singe my spirit. Therein and therein alone lays peace, the peace that one's mind cannot wrap itself around and comprehend.

Outside of abiding in the Lord there is going to be a struggle, more like a massive campaign effort initiated by and driven by the flesh to convince the will to find a way - any way of 'escape' it can conjure up and convince the will to accept as 'biblically supported'. The degree of mental/emotional suffering anger, bitterness, resentfulness, etc. associated with "suffering wrongfully" and "suffering affliction", (among several other factors) is in direct proportion to the degree to which one is in reality abiding in the presence of Christ and God via a concerted effort ("labour') on the believers part to "enter into that rest"; a rest that is ONLY found in Christ, but ONLY found by labouring to enter that rest with God. Only those who have and maintain a sensitive conscious towards God and know his will in such cases, will be able or even willing to endure the suffering that comes into their lives that they cannot lawfully (God's Law) escape, but must pass through.

Again, don't smear me by claiming I am advocating remaining in the presence of one that you are connected to or unitied with in a lawful relationship (God's law again - not speaking about legal here) who is trying literally to kill you; that I leave to the individual to judge for themselves what they ought to do; BUT to all I say and to myself as well: without keeping in the love of God (abiding in him) nothing of suffering is going to be long tolerated or endured by such. That is the nature of the beast - OUR NATURE. BUT God has granted his owwn a new nature that can tap into the same power that Christ and other godly saints have to supply the 'oil' so to speak, that burns in the firey trial, while their souls remain steadfast and content in Christ.

It is this keeping in the fear of God and his love and obedience to his commands - hard sayings that they are - that ALONE will provide the power, the grace, "both to will and to do of his good pleasure". In the case of those that marry another when they have no lawful right to do so - when their first and lawful spouse is still alive - they ARE in my judgment abdiing in a continual state of adultery and need to repent of this; and repentance defined by scripture is to break off the thoughts and deeds that one is committing against the will and commands of God. God does not sanctify sin, he sanctifies those who have repented of their sins. To sanctify one who has been emotionally and physically unfaithful towards their lawful spouse requires they turn away from they thoughts and deeds they commit aagainst then and that means separating from those they are committing their sin with.

It is thought and claimed that 'God hates divorce' - it is true that the LORD God hateth (hates) the putting away - BUT IT IS JUST AS TRUE THAT HE REQUIRES SEPARTION FROM and THE PUTTING AWAY AS WELL OF CERTAIN KINDS of so-called 'wives' (or for that matter, so-called 'husbands')! Else wise Ezra and Nehemiah and David were all quit guilty of advocating and demanding sinful separations and divorces. Malachi is not saying that God hates ALL divorces as so many I hear wish to assert.

What God hates and is addressing in the book of Malachi is the putting away of one's wife that one left father and mother for to "cleave unto" - the "wife of thy [one's] youth", the "wife thy covenant" - he is NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE 2nd OR 3rd OR 4th SO-CALLED WIFE THAT YOU LEFT/DESERTED/ACTED TREACHEROUSLY AGAINST "the wife of thy youth" and "covenant" FOR!!! SHE IS THE ONE YOU OUGHT TO LEAVE - WHETHER YOU ARE ABLE TO REUNITE WITH YOUR FIRST WIFE "THE WIFE OF YOUTH" or NOT!

Context...context...context. If you have divorced your lawful husband or wife; you are to try to return - this is repentance. If he or she wont accept you, thats on them - you remain single. But don't marry another - thats adultery...adultery in heart and body - from one thought and act to the next thought and act and to the next, so on and so on...continuously WHILE YOU CONTINUE IN THAT SIN. God does not want you to sin, so separate from your sin and the one you are sinning with - whether you've entered into a legal contract them or not! Divorce is the fruit of repentance in such cases not a violation of Malachi 2.





There is a reason why Christ said that few find the narrow and obstacle laden way to life and the many the broad less encumbered path to destruction. There is a reason why most of Christ's disciples turned away from him, and only the twelve (later eleven) continued in the faith and followed Christ at one time. There is a reason why Paul warns of the time that will come when many will depart from the faith - THE TRUE FAITH, turn from the truth - and "be turned to fables" [mythos]...or vain faith that has a form of godliness encrusting it.

You believe what you will about all this or about the original question(s) posed by the OP: "Is it ok to get married when one is divorced? Should a person who has been divorced and since re-married be allowed to serve as pastor/deacon/elder/minister/etc.?" . I say from my studied perspective (my opinion if you will) on these questions, that you are misguided and flat out wrong. And it is your kind and or acceptance of this kind of unbiblical counsel and misrepresentation of the facts of scriptures that has the professing Ekklesia on the same footing and level of ungodliness and self-absorption as the world. It is for this reason that Peter's predictive warning of the latter times has come to pass and we (I at least as well as others) see the reality of his words in "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" - that is, "And many [professing christians] shall follow their [the real false teachers] pernicious ways [destructive, wasteful, damnable, ruinous, useless]; by reason of whom ['christians' following this error] the way of truth [the true grace of God, that teaches otherwise] shall be evil spoken of [ridiculed, counted as worse than worthless and hypocritical by the world looking on]. "

Both you and benelchi AND WHOEVER ELSE are free to presumptively and falsely accuse me of being a 'false teacher' and a 'heretic'; or whatever else may be employed in an attempt to stigmatize me with, 'cause I will not run like a overly offended child to the moderator and lounge a complaint...a thing that others are too quick to do when they misrepresent what I have said in other of my posts. Yours or benelchi's issue is not with me, so I leave it to the Judge that alone only counts in my 'book' (and life).


So what did God, Christ and the Spirit of Holiness instruct both of these to THINK and DO in such DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES? JUST WHAT I cited FROM THE scriptures. I am not ADVOCATING ABUSE of one's authority as a master or husband; I am saying that Peter addressed in plain language what is the will of God for such in that time (or simular times I dare say). Take it up with Christ.

Reread what I said IN TOTAL next time and see my main point - don't go on a tangent.



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/15/2008 7:07:00 PM)

Wow. That is one long post. Lots of words and you even edited to add more. I have to admit that I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of going on a tangent.[;)]

And, for the record, I did ask you for clarification of what exactly you meant.

I'll try to quote the whole thing since that's important to you but I'll have to take it in chunks because...well...I don't know what else to do with it.

quote:

You quote PART OF MY POST as saying: "One may perhaps leave or flee to escape the real threat of death.

Then answer with: "May? Perhaps? real threat of death?

"You believe that a threat of death only "may perhaps" be a reason to leave?"


So I'll answer this slice by saying: I can't pretend to know every given situation in such cases, so yes, "one MAY, PERHAPS leave or flee to escape the REAL threat of death." But I certainly wouldn't personally be so bold myself to put it as an absolute, that leaving, fleeing, calling the police (or whatever), is the one and only recourse or direction for those that find themselves in situations, where they are being subjected to 'abuse' and as Peter puts it, "suffering wrongfully", as you seem to think everyone ought to think.

I find it disturbing that there's any question here at all. When someone is trying to kill you, there is no may and perhaps about it. Yes, I think escaping immediately is the one and only recourse. And, frankly, if you were in a situation of a real threat of death, I think that would be your recourse, too. I pray you never need to know the truth of that.

quote:

For in the times that Peter wrote these instructions, it is MANIFESTLY EVIDENT THAT he was taking into account the REAL LIFE circumstances that faced both servant/slaves and wives under "froward" (skolios: evil, crooked, perverse, wicked - churlish) masters and husbands - NEITHER OF WHICH were persuaded (apeitheo) that the Word of God was something they cared or needed to care was relevant to guide their thoughts or behavior by.

So what you're saying here is that Peter specifically told women to stay and endure being beaten? What did he say about staying and watching your children be beaten? And just so we're clear on what I mean by "beatings", I'm talking blood, bruises and broken bones. What does Peter tell mothers to do about that? These are the REAL LIFE circumstances that I'd like you to address with all your words.

quote:

You, I'll have to assume here, have read for yourself what is written to such individuals facing such circumstances. And yet you have chosen to believe something that you cannot prove by scripture - as it is not only silent evidence wise in your case, but the scriptures PLAINLY teach or instruct otherwise. I look at the scriptures and I ask myself not what would a worldy professing believer claim they have a right and even an alleged 'responsibility' to DO in such circumstances; BUT I read and choose to accept the clear, plain and repeated testimony the scriptures present to my eyes, mind, heart and soul on this and whatever other question I have about life. I am not living in a vacuum in all this either, I know what it is like to suffer wrongfully and at times take it patiently. It is in the times where I am walking with Christ, abiding in him in a vital reality, that such firey trials do not burn or singe my spirit. Therein and therein alone lays peace, the peace that one's mind cannot wrap itself around and comprehend.

Again, many, many words. You say you have read the clear, plain and repeated testimony on this. Would you care to share what you believe that is? One sentence should do it.

quote:

Outside of abiding in the Lord there is going to be a struggle, more like a massive campaign effort initiated by and driven by the flesh to convince the will to find a way - any way of 'escape' it can conjure up and convince the will to accept as 'biblically supported'. The degree of mental/emotional suffering anger, bitterness, resentfulness, etc. associated with "suffering wrongfully" and "suffering affliction", (among several other factors) is in direct proportion to the degree to which one is in reality abiding in the presence of Christ and God via a concerted effort ("labour') on the believers part to "enter into that rest"; a rest that is ONLY found in Christ, but ONLY found by labouring to enter that rest with God. Only those who have and maintain a sensitive conscious towards God and know his will in such cases, will be able or even willing to endure the suffering that comes into their lives that they cannot lawfully (God's Law) escape, but must pass through.

Again, don't smear me by claiming I am advocating remaining in the presence of one that you are connected to or unitied with in a lawful relationship (God's law again - not speaking about legal here) who is trying literally to kill you; that I leave to the individual to judge for themselves what they ought to do; BUT to all I say and to myself as well: without keeping in the love of God (abiding in him) nothing of suffering is going to be long tolerated or endured by such. That is the nature of the beast - OUR NATURE. BUT God has granted his owwn a new nature that can tap into the same power that Christ and other godly saints have to supply the 'oil' so to speak, that burns in the firey trial, while their souls remain steadfast and content in Christ.

It is this keeping in the fear of God and his love and obedience to his commands - hard sayings that they are - that ALONE will provide the power, the grace, "both to will and to do of his good pleasure". In the case of those that marry another when they have no lawful right to do so - when their first and lawful spouse is still alive - they ARE in my judgment abdiing in a continual state of adultery and need to repent of this; and repentance defined by scripture is to break off the thoughts and deeds that one is committing against the will and commands of God. God does not sanctify sin, he sanctifies those who have repented of their sins. To sanctify one who has been emotionally and physically unfaithful towards their lawful spouse requires they turn away from they thoughts and deeds they commit aagainst then and that means separating from those they are committing their sin with.

It is thought and claimed that 'God hates divorce' - it is true that the LORD God hateth (hates) the putting away - BUT IT IS JUST AS TRUE THAT HE REQUIRES SEPARTION FROM and THE PUTTING AWAY AS WELL OF CERTAIN KINDS of so-called 'wives' (or for that matter, so-called 'husbands')! Else wise Ezra and Nehemiah and David were all quit guilty of advocating and demanding sinful separations and divorces. Malachi is not saying that God hates ALL divorces as so many I hear wish to assert.

What God hates and is addressing in the book of Malachi is the putting away of one's wife that one left father and mother for to "cleave unto" - the "wife of thy [one's] youth", the "wife thy covenant" - he is NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE 2nd OR 3rd OR 4th SO-CALLED WIFE THAT YOU LEFT/DESERTED/ACTED TREACHEROUSLY AGAINST "the wife of thy youth" and "covenant" FOR!!! SHE IS THE ONE YOU OUGHT TO LEAVE - WHETHER YOU ARE ABLE TO REUNITE WITH YOUR FIRST WIFE "THE WIFE OF YOUTH" or NOT!

Context...context...context. If you have divorced your lawful husband or wife; you are to try to return - this is repentance. If he or she wont accept you, thats on them - you remain single. But don't marry another - thats adultery...adultery in heart and body - from one thought and act to the next thought and act and to the next, so on and so on...continuously WHILE YOU CONTINUE IN THAT SIN. God does not want you to sin, so separate from your sin and the one you are sinning with - whether you've entered into a legal contract them or not! Divorce is the fruit of repentance in such cases not a violation of Malachi 2.


This was all added and I'm not quite sure what to do with it. I had been addressing your post #9703 in which none of this came up as far as I recall. I will say that I have NOT smeared you. I have told you what I took your words to mean and asked you to clarify. Sealed and keepingfaith tried to jump in and put their spin on it and I responded to them. I may come back to this section and comment once I've sorted out what it says.

quote:

There is a reason why Christ said that few find the narrow and obstacle laden way to life and the many the broad less encumbered path to destruction. There is a reason why most of Christ's disciples turned away from him, and only the twelve (later eleven) continued in the faith and followed Christ at one time. There is a reason why Paul warns of the time that will come when many will depart from the faith - THE TRUE FAITH, turn from the truth - and "be turned to fables" [mythos]...or vain faith that has a form of godliness encrusting it.

You believe what you will about all this or about the original question(s) posed by the OP: "Is it ok to get married when one is divorced? Should a person who has been divorced and since re-married be allowed to serve as pastor/deacon/elder/minister/etc.?" . I say from my studied perspective (my opinion if you will) on these questions, that you are misguided and flat out wrong. And it is your kind and or acceptance of this kind of unbiblical counsel and misrepresentation of the facts of scriptures that has the professing Ekklesia on the same footing and level of ungodliness and self-absorption as the world. It is for this reason that Peter's predictive warning of the latter times has come to pass and we (I at least as well as others) see the reality of his words in "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" - that is, "And many [professing christians] shall follow their [the real false teachers] pernicious ways [destructive, wasteful, damnable, ruinous, useless]; by reason of whom ['christians' following this error] the way of truth [the true grace of God, that teaches otherwise] shall be evil spoken of [ridiculed, counted as worse than worthless and hypocritical by the world looking on]. "

And right about now I'm thinking "tangent". Me & my kind have caused what????

quote:

Both you and benelchi AND WHOEVER ELSE are free to presumptively and falsely accuse me of being a 'false teacher' and a 'heretic'; or whatever else may be employed in an attempt to stigmatize me with, 'cause I will not run like a overly offended child to the moderator and lounge a complaint...a thing that others are too quick to do when they misrepresent what I have said in other of my posts. Yours or benelchi's issue is not with me, so I leave it to the Judge that alone only counts in my 'book' (and life).


I don't recall using the words "false teacher" or "heretic" when responding to your post or any other's. Who is accusing who now? Neither have I ever reported you for anything anywhere. And my issue is very much with you. I'd like a plain answer...are you saying that the verses you quoted should be applied to a spouse being beaten and that they maintain that her duty as a Christian is to stay and be beaten? And, if not, then what WAS the purpose of post #9703?

quote:

So what did God, Christ and the Spirit of Holiness instruct both of these to THINK and DO in such DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES? JUST WHAT I cited FROM THE scriptures. I am not ADVOCATING ABUSE of one's authority as a master or husband; I am saying that Peter addressed in plain language what is the will of God for such in that time (or simular times I dare say). Take it up with Christ.

This leads me to believe that what I asked you above is exactly what you meant. "Take it up with Christ". That's really rich.

quote:

Reread what I said IN TOTAL next time and see my main point - don't go on a tangent.

Well, I tried but I'll be perfectly honest, there are so many words here and yet so few of them plainly spoken that I am at a loss to know what your main point is. That's why I only quote and comment on the things that I really have something to say about. Otherwise 'the point' becomes lost in quote boxes and verbosity.



the_silver_cup -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/15/2008 7:27:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress

Context...context...context. If you have divorced your lawful husband or wife; you are to try to return - this is repentance. If he or she wont accept you, thats on them - you remain single. But don't marry another - thats adultery...adultery in heart and body - from one thought and act to the next thought and act and to the next, so on and so on...continuously WHILE YOU CONTINUE IN THAT SIN. God does not want you to sin, so separate from your sin and the one you are sinning with - whether you've entered into a legal contract them or not! Divorce is the fruit of repentance in such cases not a violation of Malachi 2.


Are you advocating remarried couples divorce their spouses to return to those they have been divorced from?

Your theory runs right into this Scripture:

If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? from Jeremiah 3:1

People in Christ under grace aren't going back under the law. Sin must be confessed and repented of, and it is forgiven through Christ. Shouldn't a Christian view advocate faithfulness to the marriage one is in? Doesn't repentance find you where you are?

One thing in particular is wrong with legalistic ideas and that is that one person is responsible for another's behavior. Each person is responsible to God. That's all.



keepingfaith -> RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread (7/15/2008 7:50:57 PM)

quote:

If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? from Jeremiah 3:1


you left off the end of that verse...

"...but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD."

The only legalism here is in the theology that we can go back and use the laws from the OT that we are not even under to divorce our spouse instead of giving them the same grace and mercy that we claim we are now under in the NT.

We however believe that Jesus has told us NOT to cast stones unless we are without sin- even using the example of an adulteress. The legalistic Pharisees were the ones who wanted to use the law to stone her to death... If you read the Westminster Confession, that is actually how this whole "innocent party" exception came about. They said we could pretend our spouse who committed adultery was "dead." The problem with that is they are not dead, and Paul says as long as they are alive... we are still bound to them.

We are not responsible for another's sins, but we are responsible for holding our end of the bargain til death like our vows say, and do not get to use someone else's sin to justify our own. 1 Cor 7:10-11

It is not legalistic to believe Paul when he says "a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives" 1cor7:39, and "if she marries another while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress" Rom 7:2-3, and Jesus who says "everyone who divorces and marries another commits adultery."

The fact that marriage is a permanent covenant that is only broken by death, and that God makes us one flesh...and we are never again two, really has nothing to do with legalism.