|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 6:59:57 PM
|
|
|
Keabird
Posts: 785
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Let's say Fred is your dear brother, a generally upright Christian man, who still makes this "mistake" - he is not a "partier". Does this change your view at all...
I still maintain that Sally was saved from a potentially devastating marriage. Who is to say that Fred would not, in the future, have a one-night stand as a result of this "condition"? Fred needs prayer for healing and deliverance from the Lord, Whom, I believe, would be more than happy to heal in such a situation!  God DOES heal .
However, the real question was where do Fred and Jane stand, afterwards, wasn't it. I think that there would be no doubt that because Fred was not in control of his faculties, that this could not actually be considered a real marriage. When people make covenants, they do it with their minds as well as their voices. In this instance, Fred did it with his voice only. Fred would need to decide what he was going to do from there. If it was not his fault (such as a drunkard enterin g marriage while in a state of drunkenness) then I believe that God's justice and mercy would prevail - God would not hold Fred accountable for "sin" for annulling the "marriage". But he would have to prove it somehow to Jane, if she believed he was genuine. But then, if Jane was genuine, she would recognize the foolishness of marrying after one party and would not hold it against Fred for annulling the marriage if she realized he was mentally incapable.
I think a drunken marriage question would be more difficult here. People DO do stupid things like that when they are drunk. But in that instance, they are clearly not fully walking with the Lord, and once again, Sally is saved from an awful life. Fred and Jane would need to repent and then seek wisdom and direction. I would think, that the Lord, in His mercy would forgive them and accept an annulment. But they would have to live with that stupid mistake for the rest of their lives. Of course, they do have the option to actually STAY married as well. But once having made that decision to stay married, they are declaring that they take the vows seriously and must abide by them as Christian marriage.
Well, what do the rest of you think? 
Sherri
_____________________________
"The thief comes to kill, steal and destroy, but I have come that you may have life and have it abundantly." John 10:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/5/2005 10:33:34 AM
|
|
|
SusieQue
Posts: 3
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey everybody! I have a question... Can anyone tell me about their second marriages, and what works for them to stay happy? Thanks for any replies. :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/12/2005 5:07:42 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
The contradiction to Jesus' plain words that remarriage is adultery is a result of the flood of humanistic thought prevalent in our society. Humanism focuses on man and his idea of right and wrong and his "rights" and sense of justice.
Hence the presumed right to remarry on the grounds that his flesh burns and he is lonely etc. And feeling sorry for his condition the humanist perspective sees it as love to concede to his fleshly needs in contradiction to what Jesus said about marriage and what it's basis is as defined by the first couple.
If Eve was not literally made from her husbands rib and if the same pronouncement of one flesh that was made over that first couple had not been made over all subsequent lawful couples, then, yes, we could have grounds to suppose that our own interests in persuing a second mate while as the first one still lived are lawful and even commendable.
But Christianity doesn't cater to humanistic perceptions but bases marriage on the reality that Adam and Eve were one flesh which was impossible to reverse until one had died.
Hence, contrary to the humanist mentality, God's interests are preferred at the expense of their own by the Christian's willingness to deny himself.
So likewise, in respect to what Jesus revealed placing all lawful marriages on equal footing as that first marriage: it is but arrogance and ignorance and the humanistic brainwashing that spurs on the incentive to contradict the basis of marriage seen in the first couple, which basis defines and draws the perimeter surrounding marriage.
It's simple, until the one is dead, they are bound to one another and a remarriage while both are alive is adultery. The remarried, since Jesus revealed that the divorce DOES NOT dissolve the marriage, are in effect polygamists in ignorance. Their divorced partner is still their one flesh in lawful marriage while as their second partner, though sanctioned by the laws of man, are one flesh only in adultery and are not bound as one flesh as were Adam and Eve. In fact that is a one flesh situation that must be repented of as is any other type of fornication or adultery.
Is it not true that in order to repent of adultery, effort should be made to withdraw from seeing the person with whom the adultery is being committed?
To say, where does Jesus say the remarried must get out of the second marriage is like saying where does Jesus say that the thief should stop stealing. The very definition of repentance mandates the turning from the committing of adultery as the definition of adultery reveals that someone is having sex with someone who is not their lawful mate.
Hence, remarriage is adultery because in the remarriage there is sex and that sex is adultery because the divorced person's first and lawful spouse is still their spouse in God's eyes as would have been the case if Eve had committed adultery.
Whatever she did could not change the historical fact that she was in fact one flesh with Adam having been made from his rib.
All lawful marriages have the identical status as if the wife was made from her husbands rib.
The second one is not the rib.
The second one is adultery and must be gotten away from as any other form of adultery must be gotten away from.
We're talking about heaven and hell here. I refuse to pretend that it's not more serious than the most grievous warfare. Those who are remarried after divorcing from lawful marriages are being destoyed by Satan's lies and unless they get out of sin which Jesus says is damning, well, that will happen.
Those interpreting the exception clause to mean a liberty to divorce for adultery are grievously taking Jesus' words out of their context and are contradicting Him as he made the same pronouncement on all present lawful marriages as was made on that first one.
Since divorce was not so from the beginning and Jesus used the basis of intention at the beginning to establish what the final truth is on marriage now, the proponents of the divorce for adultery position must prove that divorce for adultery was from the beginning.
Will they conclude that no, it was not from the beginning and even though Jesus made that statement as a basis of truth for what he taught, it is so now for adultery? Unless it can be proven that it was so from the beginning and the status of one flesh between Adam and Eve could be altered by Eve's adultery, then the divorce for adultery folks should quietly cease from their tirade against the words of Jesus. Mark 10:2-12
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/12/2005 11:38:39 PM
|
|
|
FlyingPenguin
Posts: 20
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
If I had not gone through my divorce with my first husband I may never have been saved. It was the horrible time I went through in my divorce that helped me to seek God. I had never known Jesus. I did not believe in a hell. I had never read the Bible. I basically grew up in an athesist family. I have a father who believes the Bible is just a book that someone made up and that churches only want our money. And I have a mother who belives she was abducted by aliens and "taught" me to read taro cards. I grew up in a very liberal family. My divorce brought me to rock bottom. I was ready to commit suicide. I wanted to die. I felt like I had NOTHING to live for. My husband now is the one who introduced me to Christ. He is the one who helped me to see that Jesus was my way out of the mess I was in. My husband now was married before but his first wife passed away from cancer. In my case divorce is what brought me to seek Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/13/2005 1:10:55 AM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 976
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
[quote
The contradiction to Jesus' plain words that remarriage is adultery is a result of the flood of humanistic thought prevalent in our society.
[/quote]
Jesus is a secular humanist?
Matthew 5:32
32 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.
All, please read the entire thread when posting. Much of this topic brought up has been brought up and addressed several times over. While it is interesting to debate, there is no point in repeating the posts.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/13/2005 1:12:59 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
You fail to acknowledge that an exception clause can relate to a closely associated aspect of the subject being addressed and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed.
True, Jesus is addressing the completely married state but the exception pertains exclusively to the premarital divorce commonly understood in their culture.
The reason why Jesus could mention the exception in Matt. and leave it out in his discourse in Mark is because the exception doesn't pertain to the married state anyway.
Surely Mark would have been very aware that an exception existed to the married state if that were the truth when he wrote his Gospel. If the exception does in fact allow divorce for adultery, how could he have written an account leading his readers to the obvious conclusion by his writing that after the pattern of Adam and Eve there is no divorce or remarriage allowed for the married state?
However, if the exception was intended to pertain exclusively to the premarital divorce for fornication, not the postmarital for adultery, then the omission of the exception clause doesnt contradict the total prohibition of divorce since the exception doesn't pertain to the married state anyway.
The divorce for adultery people cannot take as literal the different statements Jesus made.
"What God has joined together let not man put asunder" doesn't really mean what those words say if the exception is interpreted to allow for adultery.
"It was not so from the beginning" is forced to mean, but it is so now.
The equating of Adam and Eve to all lawful marriages as seen in Paul referirng to this as a great mystery is negated and with it the respect that God bestows on the lawfully married.
No longer are they one flesh as were Adam and Eve if the decision of the man can terminate that status.
Divorce being allowed for the hardness of their hearts but it was not so from the beginning is forced to give us the message that hardness of hearts is allowed under the NT.
The context does not support the theory that the exception pertains to termination for adultery.
This is because in that chapter 5 Jesus refers to 6 things based on their beliefs that were acceptable which he reveals to be no longer acceptable. It violates the tenor and mode of Jesus' speech to have the allowance of divorce the only one of the six with a partial allowance still in tact.
An exception can be inserted within a statement, which exception obviously pertains to a closely associated aspect of the subject being addressed as a means of emphasising how that which is being directly addressed is being prohibited in its entirety.
That's how language works.
The entire context of Matt. 5 taking into account that there was such a thing as an unmarried wife and a premarital divorce in their culture, can be looked at and understood, that the exception clause, far from being a permission to divorce was rather a means of very strongly prohibiting the divorcing of the married wife by in effect saying, that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if he does it BEFORE he marries her.
I can priovide an example of how language accomodates the insertion of an exception clause that relates to a closely associated aspect of the subject being addressed and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed as a means of emphasising finality and prohibition.
The case against the heresy allowing divorce is overwhelming. Too bad Christian leaders have for so long caused the sheep to err in this most important fundamental doctrine for which many will lose their souls.
It gets real messy this supposition that divorce is allowed for adultery. What if she does something much more serious than adultery like kill the children or attempt to kill her husband? Allowing it for anything opens the door for all kinds of other reasonings and disputations while as all along the truth is so clearly worded in childlike simplicity in Mark 10:2-12 which is the final truth as worded with no need to add anything. The exception doesn't make it necessary for me to contradict the apparaent message in Mark because the exception clause is a minor detail used to make a point of prohibition, not a loophole of permission.
The leaven of allowing divorce for adultery then necessitates the addition of any other offence that is at least as offensive or as heinous as adultery. So a doctrine is created that Jesus didn't teach but which is necessitated by the original seed of leaven responsible for the outbreak. Already we've seen statements on this thread concerning divorcing for abandonment or the rights of those claiming to be the innocent party. Real messy.
Satan has, I believe, corrupted many from the simplicity of Christ in this basic subject.
Let us seek the old paths where is the good way and return to the simple put powerful and wise total prohibition of divorce from the lawful spouse based on the reality of the situation of the first couple whose status of one flesh could not be altered except by death. It is that situation from which Jesus makes the conclusion of truth, let not man put asunder.
Can't you people see the blatant permission being granted for man to decide to put it asunder by this heinous doctrine allowing divorce? Let not man put asunder but man may put asunder?
< Message edited by alaska -- 12/13/2005 1:14:10 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/13/2005 1:37:13 PM
|
|
|
Expos4ever
Posts: 23
Joined: 11/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Hello Alaska (and others):
If I understand you correctly, remarriage is a "mortal" sin in the sense that someone who re-marries (before their first spouse dies) is destined for hell by vritue of being an adulterer and in light of the following from 1 Corinthians:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, not homosexuals, nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God." 1 Cor. 6:9-10
As I have argued before (and I find it interesting that no one has really commented on this), this same text effectively condemns any wealthy Christian to hell as well. How can I say such a thing? Consider the issue of idolatry. Who is an idolater? I understand that an idolater is someone who values someone or something more than God in Jesus.
The next para is a repeat of something I wrote in a previous post in the present thread:
I think that a very fair case can be made that any western christian with an SUV, or a pool table, or a diamond ring is an idolater precisely because they effectively place a love for material things above Jesus' clear call to help "the least of these" - the money used on these things can literally mean the difference between life and death for someone else. We will play a game with ourselves that an idolater is one who worships "some other god with a name and a face", and yet not realize that our wealth-drenched lifestyle suggests that we indeed do worship another god, just not one with a face.
I wish I could convince myself otherwise, but I think we are almost all idolaters - it would seem that we are all damned.
I think the only reason that divorce / remarriage gets "singled out" in respect to the 1 Corinthians text is that it is obvious when someone gets remarried. However, the fact that there is no discrete public event that recognizes a person as an idolater does not mean that they are not, in fact, idolators. If we wealthy Christians do not qualify as idolators, then I cannot imagine what an idolator would be.
I realize that I am introducing another issue here. I do think it is relevant, insofar as it speaks to matters of consistency. If we are going to recognize remarriage as a mortal sin, do we not also need to recognize idolatry as one. And where does that place all of us?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/13/2005 7:57:28 PM
|
|
|
FlyingPenguin
Posts: 20
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
I read the thread. I just felt my "story" was worth posting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/13/2005 10:20:13 PM
|
|
|
FlyingPenguin
Posts: 20
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
I should be the one apologizing. I thought it was my post since it was not as in-depth as the others. I should not jump to conlusions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/13/2005 11:43:20 PM
|
|
|
TimothyTwo226
Posts: 30
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Central Mass.
Status: offline
|
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, not homosexuals, nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God." 1 Cor. 6:9-10
Or....What if Paul meant that someone knowingly/actively involved in the act of adultery while still married vs. a second marriage where, lets say, a believer left a believer, and there was no adultery....or any other situation where there is a person left behind....Are they supposed to remain single...?
Just a thought....
_____________________________
No power of hell, no scheme of man can ever pluck me from His hand...
No guilt in life, no fear in death, this is the power of Christ in me....Rita Springer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/14/2005 1:30:03 PM
|
|
|
lilkitties
Posts: 28
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
Is it ok to get married when one is divorced?
I have mixed feelings about this. I know you're going to disagree but I think it is unreasonable to ask someone to spend the rest of their life alone just because (for example) their spouse did not live up to their vows in some major way (causing divorce) or chose to initiate the divorce.
Should a person who has been divorced and since re-married be allowed to serve as pastor/deacon/elder/minister/etc.?
I think it should be up to each church to detirmine if that person is spiritually ready for such a responsibility but I don't think it should be denied them outright. We all have had problems and sins in our lives and unless that person is an unrepentant sinner, then I see no reason why they couldn't serve in such capacities in the church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/14/2005 3:43:20 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Overlooking the facts that make it possible for Jesus' exception clause to have been referring exclusively to the premarital divorce, a rendering that does not put asunder that which God has joined together, is the same type of overlookings responsible for other misunderstandings of scripture.
These misunderstandings are due to the existance of a duality pertaining to a situation, which duality is not seen, hence a wrong understanding by coming to a conclusion only being aware of the one side.
An example is the wrong conclusion that Jesus died on Friday based on the fact that the day following his death was a Sabbath. Well if the day following his death was a Sabbath then the day he died must have been a Friday. Right? Hence good Friday.
Seems to make sense until looked at more closely and at other scriptures revealing there to exist more Sabbath days than the regular seventh day sabbath. There were sabbaths that could occur on any day of the week because they were appointed to be on set days of different months. And like your birthday or any other set date, it falls on different days of the week from year to year.
By being aware of that reality of the duality of sabbaths, we can now account for and defend statements about being in the heart of the earth for 3 days and nights as specified by Jesus instead of settling for the maximum 2 night scenario offered by the Friday death theory, which conclusion was born of ignorance of the existance of a duality of sabbaths.
So likewise, at first glance, it would seem that there could exist an allowance by Jesus for divorce from the married state. And even though there are serious warnings to jumping to that conclusion such as the total omission and contradiction of any allowance by other writers and Jesus' strong statement that what God has joined together man may not put asunder, many have boldly tread where angels would dare not, and that is into the rash conclusion that when Jesus inserted an exception, while addressing the married state, that exception has to be an allowance to put asunder that which God has joined together.
Like the error of conclusion of Jesus' death to have been on Friday because of being ignorant to the fact that the sabbath following his death was not necessarily a Saturday sabbath due to the existance of duality of sabbaths, this hideous heresy allowing men to put asunder that which God has joined together, which Jesus said is not to be done, is the product of ignorance to the fact that there exists a duality of putting away a wife. There also exists a duality of definition of the words husband and wife in their culture. Their exists also a duality of definition of the word fornication as it can be used where context permits to mean exclusively the act committed by single unmarried persons.
The dismissive attitude that some of what I am bringing up has already been discussed, and therefore no need to be concerned is just that. Dismissive.
I do not recall in this thread anyone offering to give real life examples of how language works showing that an exception clause can relate to a closely associated aspect of the subject being addressed and not to that aspect being directly addressed and how doing so can be for the purpose of showing total prihibition of that which is being directly addressed.
The fact that language does work this way discredits the dismissive attitude based on the presumption that since Jesus was talking about divorce from the married state, an inserted exception clause can ONLY relate directly to the married state. That argument is one of the main pillars of establishing the legal loophole that man may in fact put asunder that which God has joined together after Jesus plainly said that is not to be done.
That argument concerning Jesus' exception clause, in light of how language accomodates the type of exception clause I am referring to has been totally smashed.
Once being made aware of the existance of duality and definition and then looking at Jesus' words point blank, we find it is alright after all to accept Mark 10:2-12 in childlike trust and simplicity without any concern that His exception clause threatens that childlike faith.
It was not so from the beginning, it is not so now.
Divorce as a whole (not with exceptions) was allowed for the hardness of their hearts.
What God has joined together (lawful marriages) let not man put asunder.
Allowing divorce and remarriage desecrates the historical foundation of marriage and thereby desecrates the first marriage and every marriage following as not one flesh as were Adam and Eve.
Eve could not at anytime truthfully claim that Adam was not one flesh with her while as they both lived.
Those allowing divorce must deny this truth since Jesus used that literally true event of the creation of their marriage as an equation to all subsequent beginnings of marriages.
The only way to deny identical status with Adam and Eve is to deny the fact that it happened like that in the beginning.
But then that is what we are dealing with, a lack of faith.
Such as in believing that what God has joined together, man may not put asunder.
< Message edited by alaska -- 12/15/2005 12:11:48 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/16/2005 12:24:17 AM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1598
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lilkitties
Is it ok to get married when one is divorced?
I have mixed feelings about this. I know you're going to disagree but I think it is unreasonable to ask someone to spend the rest of their life alone just because (for example) their spouse did not live up to their vows in some major way (causing divorce) or chose to initiate the divorce.
I am grieved that anyone who professes to follow Jesus would say such a thing. Jesus has spoken on the matter and He HAS said that to enter into a marriage after divorce is to commit adultery. Did He understand human lonliness? Of course He did, yet He also led Paul to reaffirm His teachings on the matter: If a woman does depart, she is to remain UNMARRIED OR be reconciled to her husband and a husband is NOT to put his wife away (I Cor. 7:10-11)? Why must we honor this in spite of lonliness---BECAUSE we say we love the Lord and because when we marry our first marriage partner, we are joined for life. Only death will free one to marry again (Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/16/2005 8:56:01 AM
|
|
|
tians
Posts: 1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Fred and Sally are a married couple. However, Sally meets Bob at her work place and starts having an affair. Fred chances upon them and is angry at Sally. Sally refuses to repent and seek forgiveness, instead, she continues with Bob.
Matthew 19:9 (NIV) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
In this case, Fred is justified if he divorces Sally, since Sally is an adulterer. Since the divorce is lawful in the eyes of God, then naturally if Fred remarries, it is a blessed union and God will smile upon it. Sally though, has sinned.
If Sally remarries, she and the man she is with are considered adulterers because Sally is sinful. But if Sally comes before God and asks God for forgiveness and genuinely repents, then I believe that God will mercifully forgive her adulterous ways and then she can remarry if she wants to.
Matthew 5:32 (NIV) But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
If Sally had NOT committed adultery, and Fred insisted on a divorce because he didn't like her anymore, then while the divorce is lawful in the court of law, it is unlawful in the eyes of God. That means that the marriage HOLDS. In God's eyes, Fred and Sally are still a couple, so if either one of them has relationships after that, then they have committed adultery in the eyes of God.
Say Sally meets a man she really likes, and marries him. She has sinned, she is an adulterer because it counts as cheating on Fred. Similarly, if Fred meets a woman he likes and marries her, he too has sinned. Their new partners have also sinned, because they are sleeping with married people in the eyes of God.
So if you're married and thinking of divorce, don't. Make the relationship work even if you think it was a mistake because God still honors it.
If you're divorced, reconcile, because the marriage is sacred in the eyes of God and you must pray that God will fix it. If however your ex-spouse has found another person, then in God's eyes it is ADULTERY (Matt 5:32) and then you are allowed to remarry so you can go ahead.
But if you're divorced and remarried without knowing that it was a sin to do so, then pray for God's forgiveness and he will forgive you of what you have done. And then don't look back, but look ahead at what you have and keep on living.
I think the most important thing is for us to know that God loves us enough to forgive us no matter what we have done.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/16/2005 12:43:13 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1598
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tians
In this case, Fred is justified if he divorces Sally, since Sally is an adulterer. Since the divorce is lawful in the eyes of God, then naturally if Fred remarries, it is a blessed union and God will smile upon it. Sally though, has sinned.
If Sally remarries, she and the man she is with are considered adulterers because Sally is sinful. But if Sally comes before God and asks God for forgiveness and genuinely repents, then I believe that God will mercifully forgive her adulterous ways and then she can remarry if she wants to.
How would Sally be an adulteress if her 1st husband remarries---in your opinion? Don't you believe the divorce dissolved her marriage? If so, wouldn't she be free to marry? In other words, if you believe adultery allows a marriage to be dissolved through a divorce, how could Sally then be guilty if she marries another man AFTER her husband divorces and marries another woman?
quote:
If you're divorced, reconcile, because the marriage is sacred in the eyes of God and you must pray that God will fix it. If however your ex-spouse has found another person, then in God's eyes it is ADULTERY (Matt 5:32) and then you are allowed to remarry so you can go ahead.
But if you're divorced and remarried without knowing that it was a sin to do so, then pray for God's forgiveness and he will forgive you of what you have done. And then don't look back, but look ahead at what you have and keep on living.
If you believe that adultery dissolves the "one flesh" joined by God how do you reconcile what Paul taught in Rom. 7:2-3 and I Cor. 7:39..................and I Cor. 7:10-11? In none of those passages does Paul ever gives allowance for another marriage to take place while one has a living spouse----EVEN though he specifically mentions adultery/remarriage in Rom. 7:2-3. He also never mentions divorce due to adultery dissolving the "one flesh"-----He only speaks of death dissolving the "one flesh". Blessings in Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/16/2005 5:24:03 PM
|
|
|
Keabird
Posts: 785
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Cindy ... I was just wondering ... do you ensure that you wear a headcovering in church? Do you always remain silent in church, or do you sometimes take part in the service, even if in some small way? Paul advocated both these things very strongly, but they are pretty much discarded in Western society. If you interpret Paul's words so very legalistically in regard to marriage, I would hope you would do the same regarding these other things.
I feel somewhat saddened that you are still ignoring the fact that God DOES bless remarriage and DOES help people move on.
Interestingly, in thinking about God's covenant with Israel, He kept His side of the covenant, but Israel did not. God refers to giving Israel a certificate of divorce. Then He talks about forgiving her and taking her back. However, He resolved it completely by making a NEW covenant - that of Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins, and placing the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
Sometimes God allows people to make new covenants, as the old ones are no longer standing. Sadly, some folks are obviously not prepared to accept this, in spite of many people explaining the Scriptures in just as valid a way as theirs, and in spite of testimonies of God's love, renewal and restoration going on all around them. It really is sad.
_____________________________
"The thief comes to kill, steal and destroy, but I have come that you may have life and have it abundantly." John 10:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/17/2005 1:01:37 AM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1598
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Keabird
Cindy ... I was just wondering ... do you ensure that you wear a headcovering in church? Do you always remain silent in church, or do you sometimes take part in the service, even if in some small way? Paul advocated both these things very strongly, but they are pretty much discarded in Western society. If you interpret Paul's words so very legalistically in regard to marriage, I would hope you would do the same regarding these other things.
I feel somewhat saddened that you are still ignoring the fact that God DOES bless remarriage and DOES help people move on.
Interestingly, in thinking about God's covenant with Israel, He kept His side of the covenant, but Israel did not. God refers to giving Israel a certificate of divorce. Then He talks about forgiving her and taking her back. However, He resolved it completely by making a NEW covenant - that of Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins, and placing the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
Sometimes God allows people to make new covenants, as the old ones are no longer standing. Sadly, some folks are obviously not prepared to accept this, in spite of many people explaining the Scriptures in just as valid a way as theirs, and in spite of testimonies of God's love, renewal and restoration going on all around them. It really is sad.
I say this Sherri, not in an angry or frustrated way, but in sadness. To me, it is quite sad that people do not follow God's Word on what HE determines to be lawful and unlawful. We hear people who profess to be Christians say such things as this: "I know many people will disagree with me, but I "feel"".............."I don't "think" God wants any of us to be alone the rest of our lives"..................."surely God wouldn't expect me/her/us, etc........."
Where is the Lord's Word? I see concerning this particular subject a flat out rejection of Paul's teachings............and a flat out rejection of Jesus' labelling of another marriage while one has a living spouse as ADULTERY. Instead, what I see are many, many arguments as to why we can go ahead and disobey and not remain "unmarried" and how God will and DOES bless those who commit adultery. None of this has any scriptural backing. There is no scriptural backing to state that our current divorce/remarriage practices are ok because of our changing "customs"............ I don't recall the Lord or Paul saying that women who do not wear head coverings will not inherit the kingdom of God, so I'm not quite sure why you are holding this practice/lack of practice on par with adultery----which the Lord has MUCH to say on in the New Testament.
I'm not against discussing head coverings or Western prosperity, but it seems to me that some of these other issues are brought into this conversation to minimize the sin of adultery somehow.......or excuse it away. Am I wrong in thinking this? In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/17/2005 1:46:47 AM
|
|
|
Georgiagirl
Posts: 47
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
|
Keabird said: quote:
Interestingly, in thinking about God's covenant with Israel, He kept His side of the covenant, but Israel did not. God refers to giving Israel a certificate of divorce. Then He talks about forgiving her and taking her back. However, He resolved it completely by making a NEW covenant - that of Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins, and placing the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
Sometimes God allows people to make | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
