PDA

View Full Version : Divorce and Baptist Pastors



premio53
May 13th 2007, 06:39 PM
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The subordinate clause "except . . " MUST be applied to all parts of the verse.

This allows a person whose spouse was involved in sexual sin and they were divorced to get remarried without stigma. Jesus allowed it. Paul allowed it.

DIVORCE, n. [L. See Divert.]

1. A legal dissolution of the bonds of matrimony, or the separation of husband and wife by a judicial sentence. This is properly called a divorce, and called technically, divorce a vinculo matrimonii.

Questions for Baptist Pastors:

1. When Jesus gave a judicial grounds for divorce (fornication), why do some assume the innocent party is guilty of adultery if they remarry?

2. If you pastor a church, would you perform the marriage ceremony of a member who is divorced for the cause of fornication?

3. As a pastor would you welcome a divorced couple into your fellowship?

Questions for ministers in the Church of Christ

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1. Did Jesus say that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?

2. Did Jesus say "he that believeth not shall be damned?"

3. As ministers of the Church of Christ, do you damn everyone to hell that does not believe and is not baptized by you?

Question for those on this forum:

What is the difference in the logic used by Baptist preachers and ministers of the Church of Christ?

I'll spell it out for you. Not only did the Lord allow for fornication as a grounds for divorce and remarriage, but the apostle Paul gave further revelation to the Christian church that wasn't covered by our Lord during his earthly ministry.

In Romans 7:1-3 the apostle to the Gentiles lays out the fact that death is a grounds for remarriage.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 Paul agrees exactly with what the Lord taught.

1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

In 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul says: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:"

The apostle is saying that he is going to cover things not taught by the Lord during his earthly ministry. "Paul is claiming, not disclaiming, divine authority for his teaching. In fact, he is even boldly superseding a command given by God through Ezra to the Jews. After returning from their captivity in Babylon, the Jews had taken wives from the unbelieving people of the land, and God told them: “Separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives” (Ezra 10:11). In the Christian context, however, a Christian is commanded not to divorce a non-Christian spouse, as long as the latter is willing to remain in the marriage." - Henry Morris

If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Paul goes from dealing with what the Lord rebuked the Pharisees for doing, which was allowing divorce for any reason (the hardness of their hearts), to giving the Corinthians guidelines for Christians that were deserted by an unbelieving spouse. Jesus plainly was dealing with the guilty party while Paul is dealing with the party that was wronged.

In verse 12 Paul is clearly talking about husband and wife. He explains to the Corinthians in verse 15 that "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:"

Those who say he is talking about a betrothal period are blatently dishonest or blinded by their own prejudices. I can read plain English and it is obvious Paul does not get into that until verse 25.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

If the apostle Paul was teaching false doctrine in these verses, the Holy Spirit would have told us. When Peter got caught up in heresy, the apostle Paul withstood him to his face to prevent error from coming into the church (Galations 2).

What amazes me is I know Baptist preachers that will stand behind a pulpit (upholding their [I]standards)and declare that they will never marry anyone (even the innocent party ) that has been divorced, yet will tell them that if they let someone else perform the ceremony, they are welcome with open arms into the church fellowship!

They don't have enough Christian grace to be honest with those who have gone through such hurt. If they really believe the ones hurting from a divorce (a scriptural one) are committing adultery (which most Baptist pastors I know assume) why not be consistent and tell them that until they separate from their current spouse and return to the fornicating partner (who could have AIDS), the church will have no fellowship with them? By the way, I have been married to the same woman for the past 25 years and have no personal agenda.

It is no exaggeration that divorce has been made into the unpardonable sin in Baptist churches.

Saved7
May 13th 2007, 06:58 PM
Excuse me, but why is such a question directed at only the baptist pastors? I know of many in many denominations and non-denominations who have divorced for the wrong reasons.
Let's not get into the denominational bashing here. There is plenty to be said of all of us. We all have faults and flaws, and if we were to sit and point out each of our flaws, there would be even less unity than there already is. WE don't need divisiveness. If you want to point out a fatal flaw in a teaching that has been found in "the church" , go ahead, but don't get on the denomational beating bus.
I have left many churches for that very reason, and each of them have been different, one was pentecostal, another, non-denominational, another, baptist, and still another, charismatic. I've attended many different churches, and in general, they all teach that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that's that. Each has their own focus which is in a different place, but they all believe very much the same.
As the bible says, each servant will answer to his Master, we all belong to the same One.

Jesus said something about this sort of thing to me years ago, because I was doing what you are doing...
He said, "who are you to judge my servants? They are my servants too, and they will answer to me just as you will. You worry about how YOU serve me, and don't judge them, My will is still getting done."

premio53
May 13th 2007, 07:07 PM
Excuse me, but why is such a question directed at only the baptist pastors? I know of many in many denominations and non-denominations who have divorced for the wrong reasons.
Let's not get into the denominational bashing here. There is plenty to be said of all of us. We all have faults and flaws, and if we were to sit and point out each of our flaws, there would be even less unity than there already is. WE don't need divisiveness. If you want to point out a fatal flaw in a teaching that has been found in "the church" , go ahead, but don't get on the denomational beating bus.
I have left many churches for that very reason, and each of them have been different, one was pentecostal, another, non-denominational, another, baptist, and still another, charismatic. I've attended many different churches, and in general, they all teach that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that's that. Each has their own focus which is in a different place, but they all believe very much the same.
As the bible says, each servant will answer to his Master, we all belong to the same One.

Jesus said something about this sort of thing to me years ago, because I was doing what you are doing...
He said, "who are you to judge my servants? They are my servants too, and they will answer to me just as you will. You worry about how YOU serve me, and don't judge them, My will is still getting done."
I didn't mean to offend you, but that is the denomination I grew up in and am still a member of. I realize it crosses all denominations but was pointing out what I know is true from personal experience. I still hold to strong Baptist beliefs and know that there are exceptions to most any rule. Regards.

Saved7
May 13th 2007, 10:19 PM
Unstandable, but next time maybe you should be careful not to address such things in such a divisive manner.
As I said, it's one thing when you wish to discuss a "doctrinal" issue, but this is not something I have found being 'taught as doctrine' in the baptist church.

FaithfulSheep
May 13th 2007, 10:44 PM
I am not a pastor, but I am Baptist. Our preacher does do marriage ceremonies for people who have been divorced for that reason. And we have several members in our church fellowship who are divorced for that reason as well as others. Not quite sure what you are getting at here... :hmm:

I don't know anything about the Church of Christ questions you asked.

uric3
May 14th 2007, 05:50 PM
Questions for ministers in the Church of Christ

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1. Did Jesus say that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?

2. Did Jesus say "he that believeth not shall be damned?"

3. As ministers of the Church of Christ, do you damn everyone to hell that does not believe and is not baptized by you?


I will try and answer your questions here Yes Christ made that statement in Mark 16:16 So if you believe you are to be baptized, if you didn't believe why would you even bother...? Some passages to read is Acts 16:28-35, 1st Peter 3:20-21, Acts 8:26-ff, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 22:16, etc...

I do not damn anyone to hell thats not my place for I am not God. However I do worry about those who don't follow what the scripture teaches such as what you mentioned about divorce above, those who can read that this or that should be done ignore it I worry about them I don't condemn them but I am afraid they will end up like those mentioned in Matt 7:21-23 They have done lawlessness or iniquity because they allowed this or that to go on and didn't follow the word of God... Such as allowing homosexuals in the church, women elders and deacons, marriage and remarriage for any reason, etc... I read in the paper the other day about a church opening in a strip club... I mean come on...

So many churches today do 2nd Tim 4:3 to a tee they get teachers / preachers that will tell them what they want to hear. They would much rather be told yeah you can do this or that and its ok you'll still go to heaven then go to a place the tells you its sin... thats what I worry about, so yes the Bible teaches Baptism so therefore I teach it, there are those who say you don't have to do anything, just believe and sit at home and your ok because you believe... well i read in the Bible that we are to be doers of the word in James 1, we are to worship, pray, not forsake going to church Heb 10:25 etc... so I worry about their souls condition but I don't place judgment and state you're going to hell because...

As for the person who performs the baptism shouldn't matter, its to how its done and your reasons for doing it... for example me and my wife used to live in another town and we went to church there and I married her and she hadn't obeyed so she decided to obey after studying with me and going to church with me... then we moved away when we got ready to move we found out the person who baptized her had, had an affair so I mentioned it to the elders and basically, how are we supposed to know if someone is in sin, what matters is she obeyed and she did what she was supposed because of what he did that wouldn't count against her...

I think if its done the wrong way it needs to be done again, or if it was for the wrong reasons it needs to be done again... if it was done to say make you a member of a church then it wasn't done for forgiveness of sins or to put on Christ so you would want to do it again, if you did it just to please your family or to make your spouses family happy then you'd need to redo it again. I know a guy who I thought had been a Christian for years obey and want to be baptized and he told us he did it to gain approve from his wifes parents to marry her... so we did it again... also as we can see in Romans 6 its a burial and we need to be completely covered so I think its you just had a dab of water tossed at your or a cup of water poured over you it needs done again...

I just try to do everything as the Bible teaches via example, command and necessary inference. Like I said before I don't say anyone is going to hell because however I do worry that since they ignore things as you mentioned such as allowing people to remarry when they shouldn't or what have you that they are in danger and be like those mentioned in Matt 7:21-23 If anyone does say they are going to hell because of this or that they are making a judgment call thats God's alone... However I do encourage people to study the Bible and look at what the Bible teaches compared to what they are doing or believe... hope that helps if you have any questions feel free to ask me here or pm me.

premio53
May 14th 2007, 06:02 PM
I will try and answer your questions here Yes Christ made that statement in Mark 16:16 So if you believe you are to be baptized, if you didn't believe why would you even bother...? Some passages to read is Acts 16:28-35, 1st Peter 3:20-21, Acts 8:26-ff, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 22:16, etc...

I do not damn anyone to hell thats not my place for I am not God. However I do worry about those who don't follow what the scripture teaches such as what you mentioned about divorce above, those who can read that this or that should be done ignore it I worry about them I don't condemn them but I am afraid they will end up like those mentioned in Matt 7:21-23 They have done lawlessness or iniquity because they allowed this or that to go on and didn't follow the word of God... Such as allowing homosexuals in the church, women elders and deacons, marriage and remarriage for any reason, etc... I read in the paper the other day about a church opening in a strip club... I mean come on...

So many churches today do 2nd Tim 4:3 to a tee they get teachers / preachers that will tell them what they want to hear. They would much rather be told yeah you can do this or that and its ok you'll still go to heaven then go to a place the tells you its sin... thats what I worry about, so yes the Bible teaches Baptism so therefore I teach it, there are those who say you don't have to do anything, just believe and sit at home and your ok because you believe... well i read in the Bible that we are to be doers of the word in James 1, we are to worship, pray, not forsake going to church Heb 10:25 etc... so I worry about their souls condition but I don't place judgment and state you're going to hell because...

As for the person who performs the baptism shouldn't matter, its to how its done and your reasons for doing it... for example me and my wife used to live in another town and we went to church there and I married her and she hadn't obeyed so she decided to obey after studying with me and going to church with me... then we moved away when we got ready to move we found out the person who baptized her had, had an affair so I mentioned it to the elders and basically, how are we supposed to know if someone is in sin, what matters is she obeyed and she did what she was supposed because of what he did that wouldn't count against her...

I think if its done the wrong way it needs to be done again, or if it was for the wrong reasons it needs to be done again... if it was done to say make you a member of a church then it wasn't done for forgiveness of sins or to put on Christ so you would want to do it again, if you did it just to please your family or to make your spouses family happy then you'd need to redo it again. I know a guy who I thought had been a Christian for years obey and want to be baptized and he told us he did it to gain approve from his wifes parents to marry her... so we did it again... also as we can see in Romans 6 its a burial and we need to be completely covered so I think its you just had a dab of water tossed at your or a cup of water poured over you it needs done again...

I just try to do everything as the Bible teaches via example, command and necessary inference. Like I said before I don't say anyone is going to hell because however I do worry that since they ignore things as you mentioned such as allowing people to remarry when they shouldn't or what have you that they are in danger and be like those mentioned in Matt 7:21-23 If anyone does say they are going to hell because of this or that they are making a judgment call thats God's alone... However I do encourage people to study the Bible and look at what the Bible teaches compared to what they are doing or believe... hope that helps if you have any questions feel free to ask me here or pm me.
It seems from your post that you are affiliated with the Church of Christ. If so, would you give your take on whether baptism is part of the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation?

My point in the post was to point out parallel passages that people use as proof texts to prove some doctrine or church tradition. Do you agree that Jesus gave the right to remarry in the context?

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Is it not clear that the flip side is if he puts away his wife for the cause of fornication and marries another, he has not committed adultery? Regards.

Steve M
May 14th 2007, 06:45 PM
It seems from your post that you are affiliated with the Church of Christ. If so, would you give your take on whether baptism is part of the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation?

My point in the post was to point out parallel passages that people use as proof texts to prove some doctrine or church tradition. Do you agree that Jesus gave the right to remarry in the context?

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Is it not clear that the flip side is if he puts away his wife for the cause of fornication and marries another, he has not committed adultery? Regards.
I do agree with most what you posted here. Initially I was unsure where you were going with the baptism passage, until I saw you were drawing out a parralel, albeit not very clearly. (it could use a little editting and rewording).

However, the biggest problem I see regarding divorce and remarriage is the ditch on the other side of the road--the abundant divorce and remarriage for any cause that is condoned by the mainstream church.

I know many of my brethren are very harsh on the teaching. I know one brother who holds that no remarriage for any cause can ever be just. But I would rather side with him than with the brethren who allow any divorce and any remarriage, even though I read the verses you quoted and see clearly that Jesus did not intend such.

So: I agree with you that Jesus intended that if you divorced a person who had committed adultery you could remarry, and I agree that Paul said an abandoned spouse could remarry.

But I think there's even larger problems regarding divorce infiltrating the church.

RogerW
May 14th 2007, 08:42 PM
Christ compares the law and the prophets with the era of the kingdom of God. Since Christ tells us that if we continue to adhere to the law, allowing divorce for adultery, then we do away with grace. We cannot hold to both the law and grace. The law is binding, but grace (in Christ) gives us freedom from the restrictions of the law. Grace teaches us that marriage is as it was originally given, for life. When we live by grace, then we must accept there is not to be divorce for those professing to be in Christ. We must view the Mosaic Law allowing for divorce as having been fulfilled in Christ. We are no longer bound to the law, but are under grace.

Mark makes it very clear that the one divorcing according to the Mosaic Law is still bound by the Law. Mark gives no exception clause, and the so-called exception clause in Matthew is not saying the one who divorces is free to re-marry. It is saying that adultery was to have been the only cause for divorce, but that does not free the divorced person to marry again.

Mr 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mr 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew cannot be contradicting what Mark has said, so how are we to understand this apparent exception clause in Matthew?

Christ is not saying that they could divorce for adultery, but that adultery was to have been the only cause for divorce in the Law of Moses. They used the wording of the Law (uncleanness) to divorce for any cause. But, then Christ says that if they divorce, they are still bound by the law because He says if they re-marry after divorce they commit adultery. Would Christ give us freedom from the law, and then tell us we are still bound by the law? His disciples understood this very well, and why they say to Him, if that is the case, then it is better never to marry. To make sure they understand well that the Law permitting divorce is still binding, and they are not permitted to marry again, Christ gives the example of eunuchs.

Christ is saying that you can choose to keep the Law, and divorce for adultery, but if you re-marry you MUST become as the eunuchs, because if you marry again while your first spouse still lives then you are still bound by the Law and committing adultery.

Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Mt 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Mt 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Mt 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Understanding that the Law permitting divorce is still binding, Christ shows us the better way, the way of grace. The way Christ is showing us is through forgiveness.

Under the Law of Moses divorce was made an easy matter. This is not so in the Kingdom era. There was only one clause for divorce then, which was adultery. Now, under grace (in Christ) only death can separate those whom the Lord has made one flesh (1Co. 7:39). We are not living under the Law of Sinai, but under the far more beneficent and restrictive Law of grace (Ro. 5:21). The Law has not been done away, but fulfilled in Christ.
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

When we look at the exception clause made under the Law, we must view it in light of the Law given at Sinai. Christ contrasts the Law of Sinai, with the Law under grace:

Mt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mt 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The Law through grace comes with much greater restriction, not only the one who commits murder is guilty before God, but even he who is angry without cause. Not only is adultery cause for Judgment, but also looking on a woman with lust. It is not possible for man to fulfill all the requirements of the Law. If it were then Christ would not have had to fulfill the Law for us.

If Christ had not fulfilled the requirements of the Law, then how could we find confidence being in covenant with God? Under the Old Covenant God put away (divorced) the nation for her spiritual adultery. If Christ has not fulfilled the Law making divorce for adultery still permissible then we could suffer the same fate as the nation of Old. We commit spiritual adultery every day, and so Christ would be telling us that we too are subject to divorce just as the nation. There could be no peace knowing that though we are chosen by Christ, we too in committing spiritual adultery are subject to the same fate. But Christ has given us a sure promise, a promise not dependent upon our obedience whereby He says: “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, NOR FORSAKE THEE.” (Heb. 13:4,5)

RW

hillbilly dave
May 15th 2007, 02:17 AM
1) As a deacon in a baptist church, Jesus did give an excusable reason of divorce. But with keeping with the full Gospel Jesus taught no breaking verses up to suit a point of view. Christ taught Peter on forgiveness, that if anyone sins against you forgive 70 times 7. Jesus taught forgiveness so that we could use it for all. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loves His church. For humans to forgive a spouse that had relations outside the marriage would take an extreme amount of love for that person. Yet their are those married that have went through this and saved their marriage. What a testamony they have as to the love shared between husband and wife. 1A) Who would you consider an innocent party in a divorce? What was one party not providing the one who went outside the marriage? The way I and my wife view our marriage is it takes the both of us and the Grace of God and our love for Him to keep our family together.
2) No I would not. Some will if so led to do so.
3) You better believe that we would accept a divorced couple into our fellowship. This is not the unpardonable sin anymore than an alcoholic, liar.
The greatest problem with most congregations in all denominations and we all have those that think they have no sin and are better than all. For man to humble himself is difficult yet those that can and welcome all as Jesus did are great for a church.

premio53
May 15th 2007, 04:28 AM
Divorce means you no longer have a husband or wife. Some accuse Jesus of not meaning what he said. To add to that problem they question apostolic authority when it comes to Paul who clearly gives further revelation to the church not found in the gospels.

The funny thing is, not only do most Baptist pastors question the commands of the apostle Paul, they even deny that Jesus gave an authoritative judgment concerning fornication. If a pastor who has been scripturally divorced (thus no longer has a wife) and remarries does he have two wives?

I like what Dr. Henry Morris said concerning this in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

7:15 bondage in such cases. If the unbelieving husband or wife chooses to leave the relationship, however, there remains nothing else the believer can do. The Christian spouse should remain unmarried (I Corinthians 7:11) as long as there is any possibility of reconciliation. Otherwise he or she “is not under bondage”—that is, no longer bound by the law to remain with the other spouse. The situation seems analogous to that in which one partner dies. “If the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband?so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Romans 7:2-3). Once the ex-husband or ex-wife marries another, then the previous marriage relation is as permanently severed as if it had been severed by death, with no further possibility of reconciliation. When that becomes the case, it seems plain that there is no further “bondage” of any sort, so that the believer is free to remarry—but, of course, only “in the Lord” (I Corinthians 7:39).

From the familiar John 4 passage of the woman at the well -
Quote:

Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

The woman answered and said, I have no husband.

Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
Pretty definitive language. NO husband presently (just shacking up). HAD five husbands previously.

She did not HAVE 6 (still living) husbands. She had none. A divorce is a 100% separation, erasing the marriage bond. It is irritating to see pastors talk about a person who is divorced and remarried as having 2 or more wives.

uric3
May 15th 2007, 12:28 PM
It seems from your post that you are affiliated with the Church of Christ. If so, would you give your take on whether baptism is part of the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation?

My point in the post was to point out parallel passages that people use as proof texts to prove some doctrine or church tradition. Do you agree that Jesus gave the right to remarry in the context?

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Is it not clear that the flip side is if he puts away his wife for the cause of fornication and marries another, he has not committed adultery? Regards.


As far as marriage and remarriage goes I do think in Matt 19 Christ does give that person the right to remarry if their spouse commits adultery. However I do believe that its encouraged to try and work it out but if their is no fixing it then that person does have the right to remarry within the context of Matt 19.

As for Baptism I think its a vital part of the plan of salvation. Why well because we learn via three ways in the Bible, one is direction command such as John 13:34 we are commanded to love one another. We learn via example Christ set for the example of the Lords Supper well how do we know that we can't have coke and a burger for the Lords Supper well because in every reference to it we see them partake of breaking of bread and the fruit of the vine... so we follow that example. And Necessary Inference which is when something is necessarily inferred such as in Matt 8:14 we read that Peter had a mother-in-law, that infers that Peter was married no doubt about it and I don't know of any passages that mentions Peter having a wife or anything of a sort but this one mentioning he had a mother-in-law so with this verse alone we can see Peter was married.

Well throughout the entire NT everyone that was under NT order was baptized for forgiveness of sins and as part of the plan of salvation. I don't know of any command, example, or where its inferred that no one was baptized. However I do see examples of it and commands of it and where its inferred, and there are passages that explain that its for washing away our sins, and that it saves us, not that its baptism itself that saves us but more so the fact that we are Obeying God.

Notice 1st Peter 3:20-21 which states "20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

We can tell thats talking about water baptism because it gives the example of eight souls being saved via water. The like unto figure even baptism doth now also save us. Its a parallel in that water saved Noah and his family and water is now part of what saves us. However as mentioned its not washing away dirt of filth but its just in the answer of a good conscience toward God.

I think an excellent example of how people think of baptism today is what we see in 2nd Kings 5:1-14 which states

" 1Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the LORD had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper. 2And the Syrians had gone out by companies, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman's wife. 3And she said unto her mistress, Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy. 4And one went in, and told his lord, saying, Thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel. 5And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment. 6And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, Now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy. 7And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy? wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me. 8And it was so, when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.
9So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. 10And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean. 11But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. 12Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage. 13And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? 14Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean."



We can see clearly in verse 10 and 11 that Naaman was wroth because he was like shouldn't some great thing have happened and left mad however in 13-14 we can see his servant was like why not do it it something so simple.

So many people today want to hear God talk to them or some great feeling to let them know they are saved and think ahhh baptism is just getting wet... but its just like with Naaman don't question God just do what he says even though it may sound silly to us does mean we should ignore the wisdom of God.

Think of those in the wilderness who was bitten by vipers and was told to look at the brass snake and they wouldn't die in Numbers 21 if we were told to do that today most people would be like your nuts that doesn't make sense... just as they do with baptism.

Look at 1st Cor 1:21 it states "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." Look here it notes preaching as being foolishness its no different than Baptism its just showing God that you have faith in what he says to do so you do it without question...

I can go into more detail if you would like but I think I've made my point if you would like me to go into more detail just ask and I would be happy to. Sorry for the long delay in answering I mowed the yard yesterday afternoon and went to bed, anyway later.

premio53
May 15th 2007, 04:22 PM
As far as marriage and remarriage goes I do think in Matt 19 Christ does give that person the right to remarry if their spouse commits adultery. However I do believe that its encouraged to try and work it out but if their is no fixing it then that person does have the right to remarry within the context of Matt 19.

As for Baptism I think its a vital part of the plan of salvation. Why well because we learn via three ways in the Bible, one is direction command such as John 13:34 we are commanded to love one another. We learn via example Christ set for the example of the Lords Supper well how do we know that we can't have coke and a burger for the Lords Supper well because in every reference to it we see them partake of breaking of bread and the fruit of the vine... so we follow that example. And Necessary Inference which is when something is necessarily inferred such as in Matt 8:14 we read that Peter had a mother-in-law, that infers that Peter was married no doubt about it and I don't know of any passages that mentions Peter having a wife or anything of a sort but this one mentioning he had a mother-in-law so with this verse alone we can see Peter was married.

Well throughout the entire NT everyone that was under NT order was baptized for forgiveness of sins and as part of the plan of salvation. I don't know of any command, example, or where its inferred that no one was baptized. However I do see examples of it and commands of it and where its inferred, and there are passages that explain that its for washing away our sins, and that it saves us, not that its baptism itself that saves us but more so the fact that we are Obeying God.

Notice 1st Peter 3:20-21 which states "20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

We can tell thats talking about water baptism because it gives the example of eight souls being saved via water. The like unto figure even baptism doth now also save us. Its a parallel in that water saved Noah and his family and water is now part of what saves us. However as mentioned its not washing away dirt of filth but its just in the answer of a good conscience toward God.

I think an excellent example of how people think of baptism today is what we see in 2nd Kings 5:1-14 which states

" 1Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the LORD had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper. 2And the Syrians had gone out by companies, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman's wife. 3And she said unto her mistress, Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy. 4And one went in, and told his lord, saying, Thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel. 5And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment. 6And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, Now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy. 7And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy? wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me. 8And it was so, when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.
9So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. 10And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean. 11But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. 12Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage. 13And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? 14Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean."



We can see clearly in verse 10 and 11 that Naaman was wroth because he was like shouldn't some great thing have happened and left mad however in 13-14 we can see his servant was like why not do it it something so simple.

So many people today want to hear God talk to them or some great feeling to let them know they are saved and think ahhh baptism is just getting wet... but its just like with Naaman don't question God just do what he says even though it may sound silly to us does mean we should ignore the wisdom of God.

Think of those in the wilderness who was bitten by vipers and was told to look at the brass snake and they wouldn't die in Numbers 21 if we were told to do that today most people would be like your nuts that doesn't make sense... just as they do with baptism.

Look at 1st Cor 1:21 it states "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." Look here it notes preaching as being foolishness its no different than Baptism its just showing God that you have faith in what he says to do so you do it without question...

I can go into more detail if you would like but I think I've made my point if you would like me to go into more detail just ask and I would be happy to. Sorry for the long delay in answering I mowed the yard yesterday afternoon and went to bed, anyway later.
It might be best to start another thread to keep this one on target. When I get the time I'll try to respond. Regards.

Righton
May 16th 2007, 06:38 AM
"Questions for ministers in the Church of Christ

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1. Did Jesus say that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?

2. Did Jesus say "he that believeth not shall be damned?"

3. As ministers of the Church of Christ, do you damn everyone to hell that does not believe and is not baptized by you?"

1. Yes.

2. Yes. I think it's fair to say those who do not believe will also not be baptized. I don't know how Baptists get around the fact that scripture says baptism is necessary for salvation, nor do I understand why they like to argue the point.

3. I am not a minister, just grew up in the COC. But basically, COC believers believe they shall be the only ones in Heaven. At least that's the way I remember it.

I mainly wanted to answer question #2.

watchinginawe
May 16th 2007, 11:57 AM
1) As a deacon in a baptist church, Jesus did give an excusable reason of divorce.When was Jesus a deacon in a baptist church? :lol: jk
Who would you consider an innocent party in a divorce? What was one party not providing the one who went outside the marriage?What kind of comment is that? Is this the formal view of the Baptist Church? Maybe innocent is not a perfect word here but I don't understand the sentiment behind this comment. I know of many marriages where the desire to work in a marriage, reconcile a marrieage, etc. has been present only in one party. I know of marriages where one of the parties falls into a destructive habit destroying the entire family. Also, I know of some abusive marriages where one party physically harms or mentally abuses the other. In all of these cases, are you implying (or rather, is the Baptist Church implying) that one should feel responsible for their spouse's actions?

God Bless!

watchinginawe
May 16th 2007, 12:14 PM
What amazes me is I know Baptist preachers that will stand behind a pulpit (upholding their standards)and declare that they will never marry anyone (even the innocent party ) that has been divorced, yet will tell them that if they let someone else perform the ceremony, they are welcome with open arms into the church fellowship! Many pastors take the marriage ceremony as a sober responsibility and impose a set of personal standards (biblically based) on what ceremonies they will conduct. You seem to imply that a pastor might be compelled to marry a couple because of their office regardless of their view regarding the couple to be married or the circumstances.

Or, you might agree with the pastor exercising personal (biblically based) standards to be followed regarding the marriage ceremony but feel it would be inconsistent for the same pastor to then welcome the couple into Christian fellowship without the same stigma. I think this is a stretch. For example, we are given Biblical guidelines for those who are leaders in the Church but because someone doesn't meet those standards it would not be inconsistent for the Church to welcome them into Christian fellowship.

Those are some of my thoughts.

God Bless!

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 12:29 PM
Throughout Scripture we find teaching on forgiveness, especially through Christ. We're called to love even our enemies. We're told to forgive those who persecute, even kill us, why when it comes to divorce would Christ give us conflicting instructions? When it comes to our enemies, we are to forgive, but when it comes to how our spouse may transgress against us, now we are called to get rid of them, because they have sinned against God and us? That's very conflicting, and not at all of either Christ or Paul, neither of whom gives us (believers) grounds for divorcing our spouse. And since there are no grounds for divorce, very obviously there can be no re-marriage (except in death). The case with the unbelieving spouse wanting to separate from the believer, yes, Paul tells us to allow them their freedom, but Paul does not then contradict the teachings of Christ and say you are now free from the law and can therefore re-marry. Paul says we are free from the bonds of the marriage, but if he were saying we are then free to re-marry, he is very confused, because he also tells us that we are bound by the law until our spouse dies after telling us we are free from the bond of marriage.

1Co*7:39 ¶ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

RW

VerticalReality
May 16th 2007, 12:56 PM
Throughout Scripture we find teaching on forgiveness, especially through Christ. We're called to love even our enemies. We're told to forgive those who persecute, even kill us, why when it comes to divorce would Christ give us conflicting instructions? When it comes to our enemies, we are to forgive, but when it comes to how our spouse may transgress against us, now we are called to get rid of them, because they have sinned against God and us? That's very conflicting, and not at all of either Christ or Paul, neither of whom gives us (believers) grounds for divorcing our spouse. And since there are no grounds for divorce, very obviously there can be no re-marriage (except in death). The case with the unbelieving spouse wanting to separate from the believer, yes, Paul tells us to allow them their freedom, but Paul does not then contradict the teachings of Christ and say you are now free from the law and can therefore re-marry. Paul says we are free from the bonds of the marriage, but if he were saying we are then free to re-marry, he is very confused, because he also tells us that we are bound by the law until our spouse dies after telling us we are free from the bond of marriage.

1Co*7:39 ¶ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

RW

Let me see if I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that it is never acceptable to divorce even in the case of sexual immorality?

napsnsnacks
May 16th 2007, 02:18 PM
.......

What you bring up is one of the top 5 most practiced sins in the church, along with the subsequent adultery.

Infidelity is the only grounds for divorce in NT scriptures but divorce isn't mandatory if the two spouses can work out such a personal violation.

Divorce in the church is rampant, has been since my youth. Sadly, it was preachers and their divorces that made it so wildly popular. That is one of the main reasons I never married was because all my life I knew of the rare Christian couple here and there that had not been divorced and if they had they got remarried. They were all elderly. Every last one of EVERYONE else Christian or no, was divorced. All of them.

The NT relates that if you are just fine living without sexual relations then you should not get married. Most people tell me, "You just gotta do it and make it work." I tell them, "That is what they all had in mind too.

The non guilty party can remarry without that being sin but the guilty party cannot remarry without their relationship being adultery.

Once that is done it cannot be undone by the guilty party because the other non guilty party may have remarried already so if the guilty one repents and wants remarriage then it still cannot be because the non guilty party would have to divorce the current spouse outside of grounds of infidelity to remarry a former spouse. Then the positions of living in the sin of adultery would be reversed.

There are literally countless people living in the unrepentant sin of adultery. Many of them preachers, all wildly popular and at the top of their fields.

The way I see it, really the only way I have ever seen it, the only way the guilty party can repent is if they repent and remarry the same person, if that person will have them, or remain single for the rest of their lives because any remarriage of the guilty party is perpetual adultery.

The only way for it NOT to be adultery is to remarry the same person. This is one of those sins that last a lifetime.

This includes the sin of adultery by the one marrying the guilty party regardless of their preexisting status of being single or once married.

The sin compounds when two were both formerly married and divorced for reasons other than infidelity.

The biggest rationalization is that: "Well it doesn't matter and we are not living in sin because our marriage was a mistake and it wasn't put together by God anyway." That literally voids the scriptures on the matter.

Many, if not most, or outright all these Christians, if they still can be referred to as Christians, truly believe that they do not live in adultery and think that God has put their second marriage together (note: the same thing they said of the first marriage) and God would not sponsor an adulterous affair.

It is all a disaster.

VerticalReality
May 16th 2007, 02:38 PM
What you bring up is one of the top 5 most practiced sins in the church, along with the subsequent adultery.

Infidelity is the only grounds for divorce in NT scriptures but divorce isn't mandatory if the two spouses can work out such a personal violation.

Divorce in the church is rampant, has been since my youth. Sadly, it was preachers and their divorces that made it so wildly popular. That is one of the main reasons I never married was because all my life I knew of the rare Christian couple here and there that had not been divorced and if they had they got remarried. They were all elderly. Every last one of EVERYONE else Christian or no, was divorced. All of them.

The NT relates that if you are just fine living without sexual relations then you should not get married. Most people tell me, "You just gotta do it and make it work." I tell them, "That is what they all had in mind too.

The non guilty party can remarry without that being sin but the guilty party cannot remarry without their relationship being adultery.

Once that is done it cannot be undone by the guilty party because the other non guilty party may have remarried already so if the guilty one repents and wants remarriage then it still cannot be because the non guilty party would have to divorce the current spouse outside of grounds of infidelity to remarry a former spouse. Then the positions of living in the sin of adultery would be reversed.

There are literally countless people living in the unrepentant sin of adultery. Many of them preachers, all wildly popular and at the top of their fields.

The way I see it, really the only way I have ever seen it, the only way the guilty party can repent is if they repent and remarry the same person, if that person will have them, or remain single for the rest of their lives because any remarriage of the guilty party is perpetual adultery.

The only way for it NOT to be adultery is to remarry the same person. This is one of those sins that last a lifetime.

This includes the sin of adultery by the one marrying the guilty party regardless of their preexisting status of being single or once married.

The sin compounds when two were both formerly married and divorced for reasons other than infidelity.

The biggest rationalization is that: "Well it doesn't matter and we are not living in sin because our marriage was a mistake and it wasn't put together by God anyway." That literally voids the scriptures on the matter.

Many, if not most, or outright all these Christians, if they still can be referred to as Christians, truly believe that they do not live in adultery and think that God has put their second marriage together (note: the same thing they said of the first marriage) and God would not sponsor an adulterous affair.

It is all a disaster.

I'm sorry, but this is all one big confusing mess. In addition, much of what you posted here I can't find anywhere in Scripture. Where in Scripture does it say that the guilty party of a divorce that ended out of sexual immorality cannot remarry another?

skc53
May 16th 2007, 02:47 PM
Deuteronomy 24:1-6
1.When a man takes a wife and married her; and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house.
2. When she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife,
3. if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,
4. then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
5. When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, and bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken.
6. No man shall take the lower or the upper millstone in pledge, for he takes one's living in pledge.

Mark 10:4
4. They said, Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.

We studied about divorce a few Sundays at the church that we use to attend. In my opinion, if a spouse cheats on his/her spouse, the one who has been cheated on wouldn't be in the wrong, for lack of a better word, or if a spouse abandoned his/her spouse, then the spouse that was abandoned is free to remarry. That is the way that I understand it. My brother-in-law abandoned my sister. He just left one day and didn't say a word. My sister and I joined another church, and I asked our pastor to pray for her because she was going through this divorce, and she also wanted our Sunday school class to know her situation and everyone was in tears, and they have welcomed my sister with love and open arms. I do know some churches who don't want preachers who have been divorced, no matter what the reason. The church that we left earlier this year is one of those churches.

VerticalReality
May 16th 2007, 03:00 PM
I'll go ahead and post about my situation as well. Before I was saved I got involved with a woman who was going through the process of a divorce. They weren't officially divorced, but they were just going through the legal proceedings. They were already living apart and I met her through my employer at the time. Now obviously I was living in sin. I was committing adultery for being with a woman that was married. In addition, the marriage she was in was ending due to sexual immorality on both her and her husbands part. They were both having sexual relations with others outside their marriage. Not only this, but later after their divorce was finalized, I went on to "marry" her and we had a child together. Was that a valid marriage or not?

To make a long story short, I ended this "marriage" due to some abusive things going on that I was simply fed up with, and we both moved on to other relationships and so on. Again, obviously we were living in sin. However, one great day God opened my heart to accept what Jesus Christ did for me on the cross. I was born again. All my past sins had been forgiven me and according to Scripture were forgotten.

Now, I went on to meet another lady. We fell in love and I asked her to be my wife. We were married and we both made the commitment to make Jesus Christ the foundation of our lives and marriage. We have been tremendously blessed during our walk with the Lord, and we have also been blessed with a son together as well.

However, it seems by some of the things I'm reading in this thread, my current marriage isn't valid and I'm living in a sin of adultery. Apparently, according to some views, I should leave my wife, who apparently I'm not truly married to, and go back to the life and marriage I had before salvation.

My question is this, why am I not convicted about such a suggestion? Are some of you suggesting that I've simply hardened my heart to what God would truly have me do? Should I really just end the relationship I have now with my current wife and son and go back to the one I had before I was saved? Am I living in sin right now or have my past sins been forgotten and forgiven me?

premio53
May 16th 2007, 03:37 PM
"Questions for ministers in the Church of Christ

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1. Did Jesus say that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?

2. Did Jesus say "he that believeth not shall be damned?"

3. As ministers of the Church of Christ, do you damn everyone to hell that does not believe and is not baptized by you?"

1. Yes.

2. Yes. I think it's fair to say those who do not believe will also not be baptized. I don't know how Baptists get around the fact that scripture says baptism is necessary for salvation, nor do I understand why they like to argue the point.

3. I am not a minister, just grew up in the COC. But basically, COC believers believe they shall be the only ones in Heaven. At least that's the way I remember it.

I mainly wanted to answer question #2.
My friend let me say that I don't know why ANY Christian would not want to be baptized, although some are hyper-dispensationalists who believe baptism is not for this dispensation.

The thing I would like you to see is that Jesus did not say that anyone who is not baptized will be damned. You will find that nowhere in scripture. The apostle Paul defines the gospel in clear terms that no one can misunderstand.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Baptism is not part of the gospel and Paul settles that once and for all.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Baptism is totally separate from the gospel which is "...the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;" - Romans 1:16

Paul also warned about preaching another gospel which is what you are advocating when you start mixing baptism and church membership in with it.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul who was the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13) was very serious when it comes to maintaining the pure gospel not mixed with human merit.

It is legitimate to point out that those who never experience a change from a life of adultery, drunkenness, homosexuality etc. have not received the gospel in sincerity but the gospel itself must not be tampered with.

Even though baptism is not part of the gospel, Paul still practiced it according to the commands of our Lord in the Great Commission.

Redeemed by Grace
May 16th 2007, 03:37 PM
I'll go ahead and post about my situation as well. Before I was saved I got involved with a woman who was going through the process of a divorce. They weren't officially divorced, but they were just going through the legal proceedings. They were already living apart and I met her through my employer at the time. Now obviously I was living in sin. I was committing adultery for being with a woman that was married. In addition, the marriage she was in was ending due to sexual immorality on both her and her husbands part. They were both having sexual relations with others outside their marriage. Not only this, but later after their divorce was finalized, I went on to "marry" her and we had a child together. Was that a valid marriage or not?

To make a long story short, I ended this "marriage" due to some abusive things going on that I was simply fed up with, and we both moved on to other relationships and so on. Again, obviously we were living in sin. However, one great day God opened my heart to accept what Jesus Christ did for me on the cross. I was born again. All my past sins had been forgiven me and according to Scripture were forgotten.

Now, I went on to meet another lady. We fell in love and I asked her to be my wife. We were married and we both made the commitment to make Jesus Christ the foundation of our lives and marriage. We have been tremendously blessed during our walk with the Lord, and we have also been blessed with a son together as well.

However, it seems by some of the things I'm reading in this thread, my current marriage isn't valid and I'm living in a sin of adultery. Apparently, according to some views, I should leave my wife, who apparently I'm not truly married to, and go back to the life and marriage I had before salvation.

My question is this, why am I not convicted about such a suggestion? Are some of you suggesting that I've simply hardened my heart to what God would truly have me do? Should I really just end the relationship I have now with my current wife and son and go back to the one I had before I was saved? Am I living in sin right now or have my past sins been forgotten and forgiven me?


I see no problem with what you describe here in response to the Gospel in repentance and faith...

John 8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."


So praise God for His grace that you have described within your life....

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 03:58 PM
I see no problem with what you describe here in response to the Gospel in repentance and faith...

John 8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."


So praise God for His grace that you have described within your life....

While I agree with you, RbG, the point has been raised by others that continuing to stay in a marriage that was/is adulterous due to it being a second marriage is not repenting of the sin.

In other words, how does one "sin no more" when they are not willing to leave the marriage that is sinful?

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 04:05 PM
Let me see if I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that it is never acceptable to divorce even in the case of sexual immorality?

If you have read my lengthy (my apologies, it’s a topic difficult to express in few words) post #9 I hope you can see that I believe Christ is contrasting for us Jewish Law, and grace we find only in Him.

I don’t desire to cause undo anguish, so please bear in mind that I believe divorce and re-marriage, like all sin is forgiven when you are in Christ. That is not to say there will be no adverse consequences (consider David for example), however there is forgiveness in every sin when we are in Christ. Even Paul speaks of committing blaspheme, and yet this was forgiven him because he had done it in ignorance and unbelief (1Ti 1:13).

Divorce and re-marriage also are forgiven when we, like David come humbly and broken before our Lord in true repentance and faith.

Christ when speaking to the Pharisee’s tells them that divorce was to have been the only cause for putting away their wives under the Law. The Pharisee’s used the wording of the Law as excuse to put away their wives for any reason (De 24:1). They deemed ‘uncleanness’ as whatever suited them. The Pharisee’s know the Law, and they also know what uncleanness (fornication; adultery) the Law permitted for divorce. This is why they ask Christ, tempting Him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Christ says it is lawful under the Law of Moses to divorce your wives, but the only cause was fornication.

Why don’t we find the same exception clause in the teachings of Paul or the other two gospels? There is either contradiction in the Word of God, or the exception clause does not permit re-marriage after divorce.

1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

1Co 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Mr 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mr 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Christ is showing us a better way then the Law. The way of forgiveness and grace we find in Him. He is saying the Law permits divorce for fornication, but there is no freedom from the Law when you divorce, because if you remarry after divorce you are committing adultery UNDER THE MOSIAC LAW. The disciples understood very well what Christ was saying and this is why they say to Him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” Under the Law you would be required to become as an eunuch, never again having a sexual partnership of marriage.

But Christ says, I show you a better way, a way of forgiveness. Christ says that the Law of Moses says, “Thou shall not commit adultery”, but I say, “whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Mt 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Christ is here saying, keeping the Law will not make us clean in His sight. Even our thoughts condemn us. Christ is teaching us that through Him we are able to FORGIVE every sin against us, including the sin of adultery, because He has forgiven every sin we commit against Him. It is far better to go the way of Christ in love and forgiveness. When we love the Lord first, and seek first Him, then we can find forgiveness in an adulterous marriage.

If more Christians would preach and teach that in Christ we can forgive even the sin of adultery committed against us, and that if you hold to the Law of divorce for adultery, you are still bound by the Law, which brings greater bondage, not the freedom we seek. But in Christ (apart from the Mosaic Law) we are indwelt with the Power of the Holy Spirit, and if we desire to reconcile according to the Lord, then we can and will find joy, and peace with our marriage partners for life.

RW

Toolman
May 16th 2007, 04:06 PM
While I agree with you, RbG, the point has been raised by others that continuing to stay in a marriage that was/is adulterous due to it being a second marriage is not repenting of the sin.

In other words, how does one "sin no more" when they are not willing to leave the marriage that is sinful?

Well, a couple of points that should be made, at least in regards to VR's particular situation, is that:

1) He would have to divorce his current wife and leave her and their child. Are we willing to say this is God's will or that to do so is not sinful?

2) The man that VR was when in his first marriage is dead. That man no longer exists and he was crucified and died. I think that spiritual truth should be considered when pondering these type situations.

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 04:18 PM
There seems to be this thought among some that if you are divorced and re-married then the second marriage is not valid in the eyes of God. Where do you find this in Scripture?

Also so have said that if you have re-married then you should divorce your second wife and return to the first. This is unbiblical. Also where do we find Scripture telling us that a second marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of God?

Jer*3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

If you are in a second, third, or tenth marriage it is a legally binding contract not only in the eyes of God, but also according to the laws of our land. When we transgress the commands of the Lord, and after we realize we have done so, and humbly seek forgiveness and a restorative relationship with the Lord.....WE ARE FORGIVEN!!! There is NO SIN that is NOT forgiven us when we are in Christ! What if God really does not forgive our marital infidelities? Does this mean that David is not NOW in the presence of the Lord, and there is also no hope for us?

RW

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 04:20 PM
Well, a couple of points that should be made, at least in regards to VR's particular situation, is that:

1) He would have to divorce his current wife and leave her and their child. Are we willing to say this is God's will or that to do so is not sinful?

2) The man that VR was when in his first marriage is dead. That man no longer exists and he was crucified and died. I think that spiritual truth should be considered when pondering these type situations.

AMEN! Very well said.

RW

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 04:22 PM
When we transgress the commands of the Lord, and after we realize we have done so, and humbly seek forgiveness and a restorative relationship with the Lord.....WE ARE FORGIVEN!!! There is NO SIN that is NOT forgiven us when we are in Christ! What if God really does not forgive our marital infidelities? Does this mean that David is not NOW in the presence of the Lord, and there is also no hope for us?

RW

To be forgiven, musn't we also repent of the behavior?

If I engage in a homosexual relationship and then become born again while in this relationship, would you tell me to continue on in this sinful relationship?

Redeemed by Grace
May 16th 2007, 04:26 PM
While I agree with you, RbG, the point has been raised by others that continuing to stay in a marriage that was/is adulterous due to it being a second marriage is not repenting of the sin.

In other words, how does one "sin no more" when they are not willing to leave the marriage that is sinful?

They then should read the book of Ezra... God hates divorce, but desires repentance. Divorcing another to return to their previous marriage partner is still divorce none-the-less.... As you read through chapters 9 and 10, you should see the wrong council Ezra offers to 'right' the situation, just like many here may be saying.... but it's repentance of the heart and not of 'fixing' the sin that God wants, for again the 'fixing' would result in another sin.... 'go and sin no more' is the message of Ezra and of his situation as described.

For God's Glory...

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 04:37 PM
.... but it's repentance of the heart and not of 'fixing' the sin that God wants, for again the 'fixing' would result in another sin.... 'go and sin no more' is the message of Ezra and of his situation as described.

For God's Glory...

Others would say the divorce is not a sin because the marriage was never valid in God's eyes in the first place.

Or what about a separation without divorce? The sin is adultery, correct? In that scenario, there is no sin of divorce and the adultery part is taken care of.

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 04:41 PM
To be forgiven, musn't we also repent of the behavior?

If I engage in a homosexual relationship and then become born again while in this relationship, would you tell me to continue on in this sinful relationship?

There is no comparison. God instuited marriage between a man and a woman. Male & Female They two shall be one flesh, no longer two, but one flesh. How can man separate what God has joined? A homosexual relationship is an abomination in the sight of God. You are confusing unrepentant sin (continuing to live in a relationship God calls an abomination), to a sin forgiven in Christ, otherwise King David is also not forgiven. To continue in a relationship God has clearly defined as abominable, knowingly, shows one does not understand grace, and should question their own salvation.

Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Would the Lord really tell us we MUST break one law in order to fulfill another? The second marriage is just as binding as was the first.

RW

Toolman
May 16th 2007, 04:53 PM
Others would say the divorce is not a sin because the marriage was never valid in God's eyes in the first place.

Here is a hopefully thought provoking question.

What makes a marriage valid in God's eyes? When do 2 people become married in God's eyes?

When the Church performs the right (what about non-Christians/Jews)?
When the State authorizes it?
When two people have sex?

What makes a valid marriage?

*** this should be fun *** :lol:

Redeemed by Grace
May 16th 2007, 05:01 PM
Others would say the divorce is not a sin because the marriage was never valid in God's eyes in the first place.

Or what about a separation without divorce? The sin is adultery, correct? In that scenario, there is no sin of divorce and the adultery part is taken care of.


Hi WG,

Whether one is a Christian or not, God hates divorce. Relating back to VR's testimony, 1) he did not know the Lord as Savior when he divorced as he stated and 2) came to know the Lord after being divorced and then after --married a believer.... So was he married when he became a believer or was he single?


This is not a loop hole or a license to divorce and remarry at will, it's an understanding of sin, and repentance and walk with the Lord. To VR's position, he has shared with us his sin and his lack of salvation, and also shared knowing Christ as Savior later on after his divorce.

So then, is the position of a person who was divorced and then becomes a believer -- not to remarry? If so and he did, is then the position to go back and 'fix' this and divorce his now wife? I'd say scripture says ------ no.

God word shows us to stay... no divorce, for that's not God's will... again God hates divorce.... and if any are married.... STAY MARRIED! Even if there was divorce in your past....

Now there are reasons God 'allows' for divorce to occur, but my comments are towards VR's questions in support of his testimony and in some of his council was to divorce his current wife to be 'right'.... and I state that is not good biblical council.... God hates divorce...

Gotta jump on another call... :)

Sorry to post and run...............

VerticalReality
May 16th 2007, 05:17 PM
Also, just so we can clear the air here as well . . . there are many who would state that I am now a man of two wives and do not qualify to be an elder or lead a congregation of believers and so on. They use the following passage of Scripture to justify such a belief . . .



Titus 1:5-9
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.


They would say that since I am remarried that I'm no longer a husband of one wife but of two. They use this passage of Scripture to justify their reasoning that a man who is divorced cannot serve in such a role in the church.

So, am I a husband of one wife or two?

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 05:23 PM
There is no comparison. God instuited marriage between a man and a woman. Male & Female They two shall be one flesh, no longer two, but one flesh. How can man separate what God has joined?

(see bolded)

I think this is exactly the point people are trying to make. Is divorce of man or is it of God?

How can man separate what God has joined? If there is not a Biblically justifiable reason for divorce, how can man separate what God has not?

Just because I have a certificate that says I am divorced, am I divorced in God's eyes? (I'm not divorced....just going with the hypothetical).


A homosexual relationship is an abomination in the sight of God. You are confusing unrepentant sin (continuing to live in a relationship God calls an abomination), to a sin forgiven in Christ, otherwise King David is also not forgiven. To continue in a relationship God has clearly defined as abominable, knowingly, shows one does not understand grace, and should question their own salvation.

Are adulterous relationships not abominations to God?


Would the Lord really tell us we MUST break one law in order to fulfill another? The second marriage is just as binding as was the first.



Separation would not be breaking one law to fulfill another.

VerticalReality
May 16th 2007, 05:25 PM
Separation would not be breaking one law to fulfill another.

But where in Scripture would one find such direction?

Redeemed by Grace
May 16th 2007, 05:29 PM
Also, just so we can clear the air here as well . . . there are many who would state that I am now a man of two wives and do not qualify to be an elder or lead a congregation of believers and so on. They use the following passage of Scripture to justify such a belief . . .



They would say that since I am remarried that I'm no longer a husband of one wife but of two. They use this passage of Scripture to justify their reasoning that a man who is divorced cannot serve in such a role in the church.

So, am I a husband of one wife or two?

One.... Unless you have two wifes today???? :)

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 05:29 PM
But where in Scripture would one find such direction?

What is the sin in remarrying?

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 05:31 PM
One .

I'd agree in his case, because he came to faith after the first marriage.

But what about a Christian who divorces on non-biblical grounds and remarries? Who separated the first marriage, God or man?

VerticalReality
May 16th 2007, 05:38 PM
What is the sin in remarrying?

The sin is adultery. My question is how would separation solve that? Also, what other marriage orders would be broken by a person refusing to live with and be associated with his/her spouse. Remember, Paul said we are not our own, but we belong to the one we are married to.

BCF
May 16th 2007, 05:41 PM
Here is a hopefully thought provoking question.

What makes a marriage valid in God's eyes? When do 2 people become married in God's eyes?

When the Church performs the right (what about non-Christians/Jews)?
When the State authorizes it?
When two people have sex?

What makes a valid marriage?

*** this should be fun *** :lol:

Good question. I personally believe in the Spiritual Marriage myself. I believe that the scripture teaches that from the beginning and all through out. I would give more thought on this, but I am afraid I would open a can of worms that would not be welcome on this thread, since it really does not go with the main question of this thread, and I don't want to take this thread down another road. I myself have been told that I am living in sin also, and that my wife and I are not and will not be forgiven by God because we are divorced and remarried. Talk about being messed up and up side down teaching. But, what do I know.

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 06:01 PM
The sin is adultery. My question is how would separation solve that? Also, what other marriage orders would be broken by a person refusing to live with and be associated with his/her spouse. Remember, Paul said we are not our own, but we belong to the one we are married to.

One cannot commit adultery when separated.

But VR....I do believe your situation is different because you came to faith after your first marriage and before your second. I do believe you were given a clean slate when you were born again, as the old things passed away (I had your history confused in my mind in a post or two).

My concern is for professing Christians who divorce on non-biblical grounds and remarry, knowing the truth of what God's Word says. It's not a matter of old things passing away in this case. As professing Christians, they are bound to the truth of Scripture and God's commands. And the Bible clearly says they are committing adultery. So why don't we then tell them to stop committing adultery? That's what I don't get.

Saved7
May 16th 2007, 06:06 PM
Throughout Scripture we find teaching on forgiveness, especially through Christ. We're called to love even our enemies. We're told to forgive those who persecute, even kill us, why when it comes to divorce would Christ give us conflicting instructions? When it comes to our enemies, we are to forgive, but when it comes to how our spouse may transgress against us, now we are called to get rid of them, because they have sinned against God and us? That's very conflicting, and not at all of either Christ or Paul, neither of whom gives us (believers) grounds for divorcing our spouse. And since there are no grounds for divorce, very obviously there can be no re-marriage (except in death). The case with the unbelieving spouse wanting to separate from the believer, yes, Paul tells us to allow them their freedom, but Paul does not then contradict the teachings of Christ and say you are now free from the law and can therefore re-marry. Paul says we are free from the bonds of the marriage, but if he were saying we are then free to re-marry, he is very confused, because he also tells us that we are bound by the law until our spouse dies after telling us we are free from the bond of marriage.

1Co*7:39 ¶ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

RW

So have you ever been beaten on a daily basis by your spouse, and decided you would just continue to give them access to your life? Knowing that if you do, they will probably kill you for leaving, even though you just didn't want to be abused anymore?
There is a comment that Paul states, "if" we get a divorce from a believing spouse then we are not to remarry until that person dies. This tells me that I can get a divorce for abuse, if that's what it takes to protect myself or my children. BUT I am not allowed to remarry until that person dies.

VerticalReality
May 16th 2007, 06:16 PM
One cannot commit adultery when separated.

But VR....I do believe your situation is different because you came to faith after your first marriage and before your second. I do believe you were given a clean slate when you were born again, as the old things passed away (I had your history confused in my mind in a post or two).

My concern is for professing Christians who divorce on non-biblical grounds and remarry, knowing the truth of what God's Word says. It's not a matter of old things passing away in this case. As professing Christians, they are bound to the truth of Scripture and God's commands. And the Bible clearly says they are committing adultery. So why don't we then tell them to stop committing adultery? That's what I don't get.

I understand completely where you're coming from, and I agree. No Christian should knowingly divorce their spouse just because they feel like it or they just don't get along anymore. This happens a lot in the church and it should definitely not be condoned.

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 06:18 PM
The case with the unbelieving spouse wanting to separate from the believer, yes, Paul tells us to allow them their freedom, but Paul does not then contradict the teachings of Christ and say you are now free from the law and can therefore re-marry. Paul says we are free from the bonds of the marriage, but if he were saying we are then free to re-marry, he is very confused, because he also tells us that we are bound by the law until our spouse dies after telling us we are free from the bond of marriage.

1Co*7:39 ¶ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

RW

That's an interesting take on it. I'd never thought of that before.

I always assumed if my non-believing husband walked away, I was free to remarry (not that I would, necessarily....I think at this point, I'd just devote myself wholly to the Lord instead of taking on another spouse). But hopefully, I won't have to worry about it either way. My greatest hope is that my husband now will come to know the Lord and that our marriage will be fully restored.

BCF
May 16th 2007, 06:25 PM
So have you ever been beaten on a daily basis by your spouse, and decided you would just continue to give them access to your life? Knowing that if you do, they will probably kill you for leaving, even though you just didn't want to be abused anymore?
There is a comment that Paul states, "if" we get a divorce from a believing spouse then we are not to remarry until that person dies. This tells me that I can get a divorce for abuse, if that's what it takes to protect myself or my children. BUT I am not allowed to remarry until that person dies.

Question???????

How much of a believing spouse were they if they are beating on their mate??????

Can you tell me where the word LOVE is in that relationship, because without being able to tell me where that word LOVE is, you will not be able to tell me where God was in that relationship, and without God in that relatiponship, just like any thing else without GOD, it amounts to nothing.

Redeemed by Grace
May 16th 2007, 06:37 PM
One cannot commit adultery when separated.

But VR....I do believe your situation is different because you came to faith after your first marriage and before your second. I do believe you were given a clean slate when you were born again, as the old things passed away (I had your history confused in my mind in a post or two).

My concern is for professing Christians who divorce on non-biblical grounds and remarry, knowing the truth of what God's Word says. It's not a matter of old things passing away in this case. As professing Christians, they are bound to the truth of Scripture and God's commands. And the Bible clearly says they are committing adultery. John 8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."] That's what I don't get.

Willful sin... Then there needs to be confession and repentance if they are truly God's child.... God judges the heart...He knows.... My comment is that this person would exhibit worldly characteristics, for where is Christ's Spirit within them if they never see the sin? And how could they teach if they don't follow.... How would they have godly wisdom and discernment to be a leader of the faith or even a self-named Christian if they can't see the error?


And you are so right that we are to show them in love their sin...we are to tell them, we are to show them that they are at fault, and that they are outside of God's will.... and those who are of Christ will agree and repent.... hopefully before divorce... but even some after will they come to their sense.... and still some --- unfortunately -- will see nothing wrong at all, for how can something dead see that they were never alive...

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 06:49 PM
Also, just so we can clear the air here as well . . . there are many who would state that I am now a man of two wives and do not qualify to be an elder or lead a congregation of believers and so on. They use the following passage of Scripture to justify such a belief . . .

They would say that since I am remarried that I'm no longer a husband of one wife but of two. They use this passage of Scripture to justify their reasoning that a man who is divorced cannot serve in such a role in the church.

So, am I a husband of one wife or two?

It is my understanding not that you would have two wives, but that you would be living a life of adultery...UNDER THE MOSIAC LAW. But, Christ has come and fulilled ALL of the Law. We are not living under the Law, but under grace, through Christ. NOW, if we are in Christ there is to be NO DIVORCE for any cause. That is the whole point of Christ's teaching with the Pharisee's. If there is NO DIVORCE, then very clearly there is no second marriage. If we sinned in ignorance and unbelief by divorcing, and re-marrying, then we repent, turn away from the sin we committed in unbelief, and live NOW as Christ has called us to live in Him. That is to forgive, and to love, put our spouses needs above our own. We won't do it perfectly, there will always be a struggle between the lusts of our flesh, and the Spirit living in us. But, when we are truly in Christ, truly His, like someone has already said, we our dead to our old nature, we put on the new man, and become more and more like Christ. Christ did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, He told her to go and sin no more. We should follow the same advise.

Stop trying to find excuse to divorce our spouses, because it shows we are still committed to the Old Mosiac Law which is not freeing, but brings even greater bondage.

RW

VerticalReality
May 16th 2007, 07:05 PM
It is my understanding not that you would have two wives, but that you would be living a life of adultery...UNDER THE MOSIAC LAW. But, Christ has come and fulilled ALL of the Law. We are not living under the Law, but under grace, through Christ. NOW, if we are in Christ there is to be NO DIVORCE for any cause. That is the whole point of Christ's teaching with the Pharisee's. If there is NO DIVORCE, then very clearly there is no second marriage. If we sinned in ignorance and unbelief by divorcing, and re-marrying, then we repent, turn away from the sin we committed in unbelief, and live NOW as Christ has called us to live in Him. That is to forgive, and to love, put our spouses needs above our own. We won't do it perfectly, there will always be a struggle between the lusts of our flesh, and the Spirit living in us. But, when we are truly in Christ, truly His, like someone has already said, we our dead to our old nature, we put on the new man, and become more and more like Christ. Christ did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, He told her to go and sin no more. We should follow the same advise.

Stop trying to find excuse to divorce our spouses, because it shows we are still committed to the Old Mosiac Law which is not freeing, but brings even greater bondage.

RW

Let me clarify what you're saying here . . .

You are saying that now, since I'm a born-again believer, there is no such thing as divorce being that I'm under grace and not the law. Correct? Therefore, my current spouse and I have absolutely no grounds ever for divorce if we are truly under grace and not the law. I can see that.

However, how would I be living in adultery under the law right now? I mean both my ex-wife and myself went on to commit sexual immorality with others after we split up, so would that not be grounds under the law to divorce? I know that is water under the bridge being that I'm no longer under the law and a new creation in Christ Jesus. However, technically I'm not committing adultery under the law either it would seem to me.

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 07:08 PM
So have you ever been beaten on a daily basis by your spouse, and decided you would just continue to give them access to your life? Knowing that if you do, they will probably kill you for leaving, even though you just didn't want to be abused anymore?
There is a comment that Paul states, "if" we get a divorce from a believing spouse then we are not to remarry until that person dies. This tells me that I can get a divorce for abuse, if that's what it takes to protect myself or my children. BUT I am not allowed to remarry until that person dies.

I think Paul may be addressing issues such as this. Paul does not say abused spouses must stay and be someones punching bag. But, neither does he say we are to divorce. He tells us to depart if need be, but only with the understanding they must remain unmarried, or be reconciled.

1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Why is Paul so concerned about an unbelieving spouse in such circumstances? Paul states two reasons (1) the believing spouse sanctifies (hallows or makes holy) the unbelieving spouse and children. (2) the example of the Godly spouse may save (deliver; protect) the unbeliever, and turn them to the grace of our Lord.

1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

The question though begs to be asked; do we believe in the Sovereignty of God over every aspect of our lives? We worry about this life, forgetting that in death we go immediately into the presence of the Lord. I am not advising anyone to remain in a relationship where someone (wife/children) could potentially be killed. But, I am seeking to have you (a believer) realize that the Lord never leaves us nor forsakes us. Think not that God has looked away, that He does not know of the pain and heartache believers go through in such a marriage. We do what we can (use the laws of the land) to protect ourselves and our children in abusive relationships, but our goal is to reconcile, or remain unmarried for the rest of our lives, or until our abusive spouse dies. This may seem harsh, but look at the consquences that David suffered for his sin with Bathsheba, and murder. It should not surprise us that there might be negative consquences when we disobey God and become unequally yoked with an unbeliever in marriage.

RW

When I said use the laws of the land, I was not referring to our laws that allow anyone to divorce for any reason.

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 07:24 PM
Let me clarify what you're saying here . . .

You are saying that now, since I'm a born-again believer, there is no such thing as divorce being that I'm under grace and not the law. Correct? Therefore, my current spouse and I have absolutely no grounds ever for divorce if we are truly under grace and not the law. I can see that.

However, how would I be living in adultery under the law right now? I mean both my ex-wife and myself went on to commit sexual immorality with others after we split up, so would that not be grounds under the law to divorce? I know that is water under the bridge being that I'm no longer under the law and a new creation in Christ Jesus. However, technically I'm not committing adultery under the law either it would seem to me.

You are NOT living under the Law of Moses that calls you an adulterer or adulteress. Now it would be different if you were still in unrepentant sin. Not just adultery, but lying, stealing, murder etc. all sin, and if continuing in any unrepentant sin, then you should examine your heart to see if you are truly in Christ. Because he/she who is truly in Christ hates all of their sins. They are grieved horribly by them, and desire to put them all away. Since you are not living under the Law, but instead under grace, your marriage with your present wife is valid and binding in the eyes of the Lord, you are no more committing adultery, or called an adulterer than I am, and you have only one wife. She by the way is a gift through the providence of God. What a great God we serve!

You and she are committed to one another and to the Lord for life....there is to be no divorce for any cause. If we allow ourselves to be tormented by all of our past sins, can there be any true peace for any of us? Christ has forgiven you. You and your wife, through the grace the Lord has given you have taken something ugly and made it beautiful. Now love and cherish deeply what God has joined together, and never allow the word D.I.V.O.R.C.E. to enter your vocabulary again.

Many Blessings
RW

Whispering Grace
May 16th 2007, 07:33 PM
To clarify my situation......



It should not surprise us that there might be negative consquences when we disobey God and become unequally yoked with an unbeliever in marriage.



I came to faith in Christ after I was married.

There is no way, I mean NO WAY, I would marry a non-believer now that I know the Lord. But here I am, dealing with the negative consequences of being unequally yoked.

Redeemed by Grace
May 16th 2007, 07:56 PM
To clarify my situation......



I came to faith in Christ after I was married.

There is no way, I mean NO WAY, I would marry a non-believer now that I know the Lord. But here I am, dealing with the negative consequences of being unequally yoked.

WG,

Negative consequences??? How so... From what I remember you have loving husband and 4 beautiful children - and if a remember a post or two of yours, a few have professed some sort of understanding of sin and salvation in Christ, have they not...?

Personally, life has it's interesting twists and curves, and it's how we walk with the Lord through them that encourages our faith, both for ourselves in understanding, and for those He brings upon us.

Each person has a cross or two that [s]he must bear and as Chuck Swindell used to say, it's all about attitude. I'd say with little doubt that your salvation call was perfect... and so too will it be for your husband... having faith enough to trust God that it will be, and faith enough to know that His plan is perfect.

So be of good cheer, and know that you, me and others here are exactly where we ought to be for now, and that we are no where near were we need to be for tomorrow, until tomorrow is today.... oooo sounds kinda profound, don't it? :lol:

For God's Glory...

RogerW
May 16th 2007, 08:03 PM
To clarify my situation......

I came to faith in Christ after I was married.

There is no way, I mean NO WAY, I would marry a non-believer now that I know the Lord. But here I am, dealing with the negative consequences of being unequally yoked.

Forgive me if I offended you. I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else had married in unbelief while professing faith. The truth is that knowingly or unknowingly it is more likely than not to produce negative consequences when unequally yoked in marriage.

I too, like you have shared hope and pray that your husband will come to know the saving grace of our Lord through your faithful witness.

RW

uric3
May 16th 2007, 08:42 PM
My friend let me say that I don't know why ANY Christian would not want to be baptized, although some are hyper-dispensationalists who believe baptism is not for this dispensation.

The thing I would like you to see is that Jesus did not say that anyone who is not baptized will be damned. You will find that nowhere in scripture. The apostle Paul defines the gospel in clear terms that no one can misunderstand.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Baptism is not part of the gospel and Paul settles that once and for all.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Baptism is totally separate from the gospel which is "...the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;" - Romans 1:16

Paul also warned about preaching another gospel which is what you are advocating when you start mixing baptism and church membership in with it.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul who was the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13) was very serious when it comes to maintaining the pure gospel not mixed with human merit.

It is legitimate to point out that those who never experience a change from a life of adultery, drunkenness, homosexuality etc. have not received the gospel in sincerity but the gospel itself must not be tampered with.

Even though baptism is not part of the gospel, Paul still practiced it according to the commands of our Lord in the Great Commission.

I read your post and I have to disagree with it, because that would make the Bible contradict itself which isn't possible. What you mention for your grounds as to Baptism not being needed in 1st Cor 1:17-18 is being taken out of context.

What happened here if you read prior to that is people were starting to become divided look at verses 11-ff which states

"
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

They were making a big deal out of who baptized them or who they were in favor of and Paul is happy he didn't baptism that that someone else did in regards that someone might have tried to say they were baptized in the name of Paul... (vs15) Not that is wasn't necessary he was just saying that its not baptism itself that saves you but Christ people was putting certain things on a higher platform than they should have been.

However we are commanded to be baptized notice in Acts 10 we see Peter teaching to the 1st of the Gentiles and he commands them in verse 47-48 this is the inspired apostle commanding them to do so.

Also you mentioned Mark 16:16 I saw your logic on Christ didn't say if you believed and wasn't baptized you'd be lost... if you have ever had math or english you know and is a must or is an option. So if you are told to go get the paper and milk you do both you don't have a choice. Same here Christ stated believe AND is baptized shall be saved. We weren't give the option to not be baptized.



As mentioned before in my previous post in this thread there is not one example, command, or inference where no one under NT order was not baptized. Also something else you'll notice it was with an urgency its done right then or that hour, its not wait a while they do it asap in every case. Read my other post in this thread and let me know if you can come up with a person or event in the NT with someone who is under NT order that wasn't baptized for forgiveness of sins(Acts 22:16) and to do as Christ commanded. Also please explain 1st peter 3:20-21 which compares water baptism to salvation. It relates it to the water that saved Noah.

Harrison Potter
May 16th 2007, 09:49 PM
To clarify my situation......



I came to faith in Christ after I was married.

There is no way, I mean NO WAY, I would marry a non-believer now that I know the Lord. But here I am, dealing with the negative consequences of being unequally yoked.

I was married to a believer and our relationship was not good at all. At one point I went for several years being told she hated me and not once during that time heard the words "I love you". I made some mistakes after that which gave her grounds for divorce. We agreed to a divorce and my hope was that she would be able to start fresh with someone without the memories of the hurt, that she would be happy and become much more than she could have if she stayed with me. I feel that has happened for her. I don't love her any less than I did when we first married. In fact we are best friends now and it is good to feel that way about each other.

I came from a Baptist background, but not related to the Southern Baptists. When I moved to the south I joined a Baptist church, but eventually got fed up with them and sent them a letter telling them to burn my membership. All this happened while married to my first wife. I have since that time been without a church that I call home. It is enough that I belong to the one church believing in Jesus and I attend a church from time to time when I can.

I remarried 5 years ago and have since discovered that my current wife, raised Catholic, is not a Christian and to her the Bible is just a history book and she does not understand why I would want to read it. It is not the struggles that come from being uneaqually yoked that make things really hard on the believer, at least not in my case. What bothers me the most is that I know where she is headed. Her past marriage was a disaster and still sends a wave or two her way. I still love her no matter what, but I don't think she can understand that not being a believer.

napsnsnacks
May 22nd 2007, 02:23 PM
I'm sorry, but this is all one big confusing mess. In addition, much of what you posted here I can't find anywhere in Scripture. Where in Scripture does it say that the guilty party of a divorce that ended out of sexual immorality cannot remarry another?

It is quite plain that any man, according to Jesus, that divorces his wife for reasons OTHER than adultery, with adultery being the only legitimate cause for divorce in the NT, this man who does this causes her to be living in adultery if she remarries including HE WHO SHOULD MARRY THAT WOMAN.

MT 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: AND WHOSOEVER SHALL MARRY HER THAT IS DIVORCED (for reasons other than adultery) COMMITTETH ADULTERY.

That is why I said that the matter of this sin compounds upon remarraige of people who were divorced for reasons other than infidelity because if the man divcorces his wife for spending too much money and she remarries someone else she lives the sin of adultery with him in that marriage (Christian or not) AND they guy who marries her is living in the sin of adultery because in essence the former dicorce was illegitimate because of reasons other than infidelity were given as grounds for divorce therefore in Gods eyes this other guy has committed adultery because he married and is having sex with another mans wife.

Problem is, secular law in our society preempts the NT rules on marriage between Christians and totally removes all this sin between peoples who say they are pastors, teachers and Christians in general who have divorced each other for reasons other than one or both have committed adultery (adultery=sex outside of the current marriage).

BECAUSE, God decreed that when a child leaves mother and father they cleave to their spouses and in marriage this man and woman ARE 1 FLESH and through that God has put that together and has made it a sin and a command to not put that asunder/take it apart.

So that is why the former spouse is living in adultery with the other party AND that party with them because that female or guy in question is still 1 flesh with the person of the former marriage.

This is just a drop in the bucket of secular law in our society disposing of God's demands of the believer.

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 03:03 PM
It is quite plain that any man, according to Jesus, that divorces his wife for reasons OTHER than adultery, with adultery being the only legitimate cause for divorce in the NT, this man who does this causes her to be living in adultery if she remarries including HE WHO SHOULD MARRY THAT WOMAN.

MT 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: AND WHOSOEVER SHALL MARRY HER THAT IS DIVORCED (for reasons other than adultery) COMMITTETH ADULTERY.

That is why I said that the matter of this sin compounds upon remarraige of people who were divorced for reasons other than infidelity because if the man divcorces his wife for spending too much money and she remarries someone else she lives the sin of adultery with him in that marriage (Christian or not) AND they guy who marries her is living in the sin of adultery because in essence the former dicorce was illegitimate because of reasons other than infidelity were given as grounds for divorce therefore in Gods eyes this other guy has committed adultery because he married and is having sex with another mans wife.

Problem is, secular law in our society preempts the NT rules on marriage between Christians and totally removes all this sin between peoples who say they are pastors, teachers and Christians in general who have divorced each other for reasons other than one or both have committed adultery (adultery=sex outside of the current marriage).

BECAUSE, God decreed that when a child leaves mother and father they cleave to their spouses and in marriage this man and woman ARE 1 FLESH and through that God has put that together and has made it a sin and a command to not put that asunder/take it apart.

So that is why the former spouse is living in adultery with the other party AND that party with them because that female or guy in question is still 1 flesh with the person of the former marriage.

This is just a drop in the bucket of secular law in our society disposing of God's demands of the believer.

So, basically what you're telling us here is that every single person in the world at one time or another probably has grounds to get a divorce because Jesus Christ stated that whoever looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Therefore, every person that has looked upon another in lust has committed adultery against their spouse. This, according to your interpretation, would give the other spouse justifiable reason for divorce.

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 05:27 PM
So, basically what you're telling us here is that every single person in the world at one time or another probably has grounds to get a divorce because Jesus Christ stated that whoever looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Well, assuming we kind of assume that adultery in the heart is the same as adultery in the body.

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 05:36 PM
Well, assuming we kind of assume that adultery in the heart is the same as adultery in the body.

I would say that is what Jesus is saying.

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 05:45 PM
You think so? I've heard that one before-- 'my husband looked at another woman so I have biblical grounds for divorce'--and given how the disciples reacted so badly to Jesus' words, that only for adultery could one divorce, going so far as to say that if that was the case it was better not to marry, I have trouble seeing that as saying 'if they look at a woman, you can remarry.'

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 06:03 PM
You think so? I've heard that one before-- 'my husband looked at another woman so I have biblical grounds for divorce'--and given how the disciples reacted so badly to Jesus' words, that only for adultery could one divorce, going so far as to say that if that was the case it was better not to marry, I have trouble seeing that as saying 'if they look at a woman, you can remarry.'

Looking at a woman and lusting after her are two different things. However, I think the point is being argued in this thread by folks such as RogerW that Jesus is saying there is never grounds to get a divorce, including in the cases of sexual immorality, and that forgiveness is the true path Jesus is teaching. If I'm not mistaking what RogerW is saying, he's stating that divorce was only permitted under the old law simply out of the hardness of their hearts and that even then the only permissable reason was because of adultery. He is stating that now since we aren't under the old law, we should go by the law we are under which is grace. Therefore, sexual immorality is no longer grounds for a divorce under the new covenant, but rather forgiveness is the path to take.

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 06:12 PM
Looking at a woman and lusting after her are two different things. However, I think the point is being argued in this thread by folks such as RogerW that Jesus is saying there is never grounds to get a divorce, including in the cases of sexual immorality, and that forgiveness is the true path Jesus is teaching. If I'm not mistaking what RogerW is saying, he's stating that divorce was only permitted under the old law simply out of the hardness of their hearts and that even then the only permissable reason was because of adultery. He is stating that now since we aren't under the old law, we should go by the law we are under which is grace. Therefore, sexual immorality is no longer grounds for a divorce under the new covenant, but rather forgiveness is the path to take.
Well, I'm not exactly in love with Roger W's exegesis of Jesus' words...

Let's go to the scripture, shall we?

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So far it's looking good for RogerW; Jesus affirmed that God did not intend for divorce to ever happen. (we're told elsewhere He hates it)

7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Now, where did he toss that in? Up when He was talking about what Moses allowed? Or when He said 'I tell you.'

When Jesus said 'I tell you,' He often spoke straight to the point. "You've heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you..." He wasn't shy about overriding what it explicitly says in the Old Law. The Old Law says an Eye for an Eye; Jesus said 'but I say to you.'

The Old Law says you may give her a certificate of divorcement. Jesus says 'but I say to you, except for sexual immorality'....

I have a hard time stepping around Jesus' authoritative words.

However...


Therefore, sexual immorality is no longer grounds for a divorce under the new covenant, but rather forgiveness is the path to take.Forgiveness is certainly the better path to take.

But that's up to the betrayed party, not me.

That said...

I have a REALLY hard time with people saying 'that was before I was saved; now my sins are washed away.'

That may be so, but if my sins are washed away by my salvation, can I keep the car I stole last week?

And does that mean that marriages outside of the Church don't really count? If they're so easily dissolved by my salvation? Where do I get that guidance from scripture?

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 06:19 PM
Forgiveness is certainly the better path to take.

But that's up to the betrayed party, not me.

That said...

I have a REALLY hard time with people saying 'that was before I was saved; now my sins are washed away.'

That may be so, but if my sins are washed away by my salvation, can I keep the car I stole last week?

And does that mean that marriages outside of the Church don't really count? If they're so easily dissolved by my salvation? Where do I get that guidance from scripture?

So, it is your teaching here that I should divorce my current wife and abandon my son with her and return to the my ex-wife who I was married to before I got saved?

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 06:23 PM
I would also have to ask you to explain the following, Steve, in regards to your interpretation of what Jesus is saying . . .



Mark 11:25-26
“And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 06:25 PM
So, it is your teaching here that I should divorce my current wife and abandon my son with her and return to the my ex-wife who I was married to before I got saved?
I refuse to answer that question over the Internet. It is my teaching that there are situations that may be like yours that may require such drastic actions; but, of course, as this is only the Internet I don't know the whole story, do I?

Besides which there is another body of thought (again) which says that once adultery enters and a divorce occurs, both parties are free to remarry. I don't really hold with that either.

Oh, and you can't go back to your first wife either, according to the Old Law; so, yeah, harsh.

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 06:26 PM
I would also have to ask you to explain the following, Steve, in regards to your interpretation of what Jesus is saying . . .
I'm not at all sure what you mean about forgiveness here. Certainly I can forgive somebody for stealing from me; regardless, in that situation there remains something wrong that forgiveness alone doesn't solve.

My teaching is that some situations are inherently sinful. Not that some things can't be forgiven.

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 06:31 PM
I would also have to ask you to explain the following, Steve, in regards to your interpretation of what Jesus is saying . . .
Wait, I think I misinterpreted that last remark in my above post. Were you going back to this?


Forgiveness is certainly the better path to take.

And in the context that was in, about forgiving the adulterer or adulteress--does that mean every divorced person will now be without forgiveness from God? I certainly don't believe that. Do I believe that you really must forgive the person you want to divorce? Yeah, but forgiveness also doesn't mean not getting divorced.

Hypothetical scenario: I've just cheated on my hypothetical wife for the ninth time. She finds out and and confronts me, and I plead for forgiveness. She forgives me, as she has the last eight times, because the Bible says so. But does she have to continue to live like this? Does she have to continue to live with me? Despite Jesus saying 'except for sexual immorality...?'

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 06:32 PM
I'm not at all sure what you mean about forgiveness here. Certainly I can forgive somebody for stealing from me; regardless, in that situation there remains something wrong that forgiveness alone doesn't solve.

My teaching is that some situations are inherently sinful. Not that some things can't be forgiven.

I made that statement in regards to your following comment . . .



Forgiveness is certainly the better path to take.

But that's up to the betrayed party, not me.

According to Scripture, forgiveness is not just the "better path to take" . . . it is the required path to take in order to have your sins forgiven you. That is the reason the old law permitted divorce because the "betrayed party" had a hardened heart and was unable to forgive.

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 06:35 PM
I made that statement in regards to your following comment . . .




According to Scripture, forgiveness is not just the "better path to take" . . . it is the required path to take in order to have your sins forgiven you. That is the reason the old law permitted divorce because the "betrayed party" had a hardened heart and was unable to forgive.
See post 70, where my brain caught up with my mouth. :P

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 06:37 PM
See post 70, where my brain caught up with my mouth. :P

I read the response, but that still does not sound like true forgiveness. To me that's the same as me sinning tomorrow and the Lord telling me that He forgives me but I'm still going to hell. The reason someone would want a divorce is because they just couldn't bear in their heart to remain with the person who sinned against them. This is the exact hardness of heart that Jesus is talking about in Matthew.

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 06:40 PM
I refuse to answer that question over the Internet. It is my teaching that there are situations that may be like yours that may require such drastic actions; but, of course, as this is only the Internet I don't know the whole story, do I?

Yeah, you do know the whole story if you go back and read my post earlier in this thread.


Oh, and you can't go back to your first wife either, according to the Old Law; so, yeah, harsh.

So, at the very least you're telling me that I should abandon my current wife and son?

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 06:47 PM
I read the response, but that still does not sound like true forgiveness. To me that's the same as me sinning tomorrow and the Lord telling me that He forgives me but I'm still going to hell. The reason someone would want a divorce is because they just couldn't bear in their heart to remain with the person who sinned against them. This is the exact hardness of heart that Jesus is talking about in Matthew.

So you think that telling somebody they must not only forgive an adulterer in their heart but live with them, sleep with them, and raise their children with them is the more soft-hearted response here?

I reiterate; why would Jesus say 'except for fornication' if He intended we never use it? As part of an authoritative 'but I say unto you,' not as part of a 'Moses allowed' statement?


Yeah, you do know the whole story if you go back and read my post earlier in this thread.


I most certainly do not. I know only what you've told me. And I'm not Paul, to make a decision about something very important while not present there.

EDIT: I don't mean to imply that you've lied. I only mean that whole story is only known by God... and maybe by the individuals involved, assuming enough of the information was available to them.


So, at the very least you're telling me that I should abandon my current wife and son?Let me flip that around for you. Are you saying that a man who was divorced previously and is not single can come to Christ, admit his last divorce was on account of him being unfaithful--and marry somebody else now?

If so, why?

If not, what's the difference between that and the other example?

davidturtledove
May 22nd 2007, 06:50 PM
You think so? I've heard that one before-- 'my husband looked at another woman so I have biblical grounds for divorce'--and given how the disciples reacted so badly to Jesus' words, that only for adultery could one divorce, going so far as to say that if that was the case it was better not to marry, I have trouble seeing that as saying 'if they look at a woman, you can remarry.'

I agree! I would add to that by stating even though lustful thoughts are a sin it is not as great a sin as the actual physical act of adultery! this because the body is the temple of God and all other sins except sexual immorality occur outside the body! When you commit an adulterous act you bind yourself to another in an unclean act! The thought of adultery is a sin in its immature state, the maturity of this sin is committing the act of adultery. the latter being even more devastating to the spirit then the first! first corinthians chapter 6 speaks of this.

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 07:01 PM
So you think that telling somebody they must not only forgive an adulterer in their heart but live with them, sleep with them, and raise their children with them is the more soft-hearted response here?

Absolutely. Jesus forgave you didn't He? Aren't you His bride even though you have sinned against Him, which is spiritual adultery? Did He forgive you or divorce you?


I reiterate; why would Jesus say 'except for fornication' if He intended we never use it? As part of an authoritative 'but I say unto you,' not as part of a 'Moses allowed' statement?

As RogerW already posted, the Pharisees twisted the law to say that they could divorce their spouse for any reason, but Jesus said, "I say to you . . . if a man divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another he commits adultery."

Could it not be that Jesus was teaching them what the law truly meant instead of how their wicked hearts interpreted it?


I most certainly do not. I know only what you've told me.

What more do you need to know? You know that my first wife was married before me. You know that we eventually married and had a child. You know that we divorced. You know that I then got saved later on. You know that I met someone else that I married and had a child with. What more do you need to know?


Let me flip that around for you. Are you saying that a man who was divorced previously and is not single can come to Christ, admit his last divorce was on account of him being unfaithful--and marry somebody else now?

Why don't you answer my questions before you "flip it around"? I would like to understand what it is you're teaching here. If you don't feel comfortable teaching this, then you might want to refrain until you are confident in your bibilical understanding.

Theophilus
May 22nd 2007, 07:17 PM
...but remember, we're trying to come to understanding. We may not always agree with one another, but we must reflect Christ's love in all we say, think, and do.

I know we're wading into troublesome waters, but let's just catch our breath, count to 10, remember Who it is we represent...before we post again.

I have great respect for the people posting here...and I want the people posting here to have that same respect for one another.

Post on...with love. :)

napsnsnacks
May 22nd 2007, 07:20 PM
So, basically what you're telling us here is that every single person in the world at one time or another probably has grounds to get a divorce because Jesus Christ stated that whoever looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Therefore, every person that has looked upon another in lust has committed adultery against their spouse. This, according to your interpretation, would give the other spouse justifiable reason for divorce.

No. You need to discern that Jesus was speaking in relation to physical acts of sex and divorce instead of the wandering of the mind in lust. Both are adultery yes but Jesus context was the physical act as cause for divorce.

Even though both are adultery only the physical act is referred to as grounds for divorce.

Steve M
May 22nd 2007, 07:24 PM
Let me flip that around for you. Are you saying that a man who was divorced previously and is not single can come to Christ, admit his last divorce was on account of him being unfaithful--and marry somebody else now?
Why don't you answer my questions before you "flip it around"? I would like to understand what it is you're teaching here. If you don't feel comfortable teaching this, then you might want to refrain until you are confident in your bibilical understanding.

Because you're not asking for my teaching on the matter. You are asking me to stand as judge, arbitrer, and elder. I have an understanding of the scripture, one I am very comfortable teaching. But when you ask me to stand in that role for a specific case--for you--you step outside what I feel empowered to do and say.

And... I'll leave it at that, for today. I have to run away now and do real life things for a while. Hopefully I'll be back tomorrow.

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 07:36 PM
No. You need to discern that Jesus was speaking in relation to physical acts of sex and divorce instead of the wandering of the mind in lust. Both are adultery yes but Jesus context was the physical act as cause for divorce.

Even though both are adultery only the physical act is referred to as grounds for divorce.

Perhaps you can point out where in Scripture Jesus distinguishes between physical acts of sex and the lustful wandering mind.

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 07:40 PM
Because you're not asking for my teaching on the matter. You are asking me to stand as judge, arbitrer, and elder. I have an understanding of the scripture, one I am very comfortable teaching. But when you ask me to stand in that role for a specific case--for you--you step outside what I feel empowered to do and say.

And... I'll leave it at that, for today. I have to run away now and do real life things for a while. Hopefully I'll be back tomorrow.

So, if a person practicing homosexuality approached you today and asked for your biblical views on this subject, you would simply decline to give them what the bible says with the excuse that you would be judging them?

I'm sorry, but it just seems to me like this is taking an easy way out of something you view as uncomfortable. Telling someone what the bible says is not judging them.

napsnsnacks
May 22nd 2007, 07:57 PM
Perhaps you can point out where in Scripture Jesus distinguishes between physical acts of sex and the lustful wandering mind.

The scriptures themselves relating to this matter define themselves as speaking of the physical and emotional.

Divorce is to easy fabricated over the emotional adultery.

"Hi honey I'm home, I was lusting in my mind after that married girl friend of yours so we gotta get divorced."

or

"Are you really going to have me believe that you never thought about having sex with another since we been married?"

"Well, once or twice."

"OK, I want a divorce then."

One cannot just end a marriage so conveniently so the physical act is required for divorce. The emotional is just lust that can be brought under control.

Emotional adultery, repentance but no divorce, physical adultery, yes divorce if the offended party wants it or no divorce if they can forgive the matter.

VerticalReality
May 22nd 2007, 08:13 PM
The scriptures themselves relating to this matter define themselves as speaking of the physical and emotional.

Divorce is to easy fabricated over the emotional adultery.

"Hi honey I'm home, I was lusting in my mind after that married girl friend of yours so we gotta get divorced."

or

"Are you really going to have me believe that you never thought about having sex with another since we been married?"

"Well, once or twice."

"OK, I want a divorce then."

One cannot just end a marriage so conveniently so the physical act is required for divorce. The emotional is just lust that can be brought under control.

Emotional adultery, repentance but no divorce, physical adultery, yes divorce if the offended party wants it or no divorce if they can forgive the matter.

No offense, but I'm not asking for your opinion based upon human point of view. I'm asking for biblical reference here. When Jesus Christ taught about adultery, many of the Jews present were thinking in their minds . . . "adultery . . . well, that's when a person who is married has sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse."

However, Jesus Christ flipped their world upside down when he stated that adultery takes place long before the actual physical part takes place.

Now, again, I'm not asking for your opinion outside of Scripture. So, I ask you, where in Scripture does Jesus Christ distinguish between a physical act of sexual immorality and a lustful wandering mind?

napsnsnacks
May 23rd 2007, 03:15 AM
No offense, but I'm not asking for your opinion based upon human point of view. I'm asking for biblical reference here. When Jesus Christ taught about adultery, many of the Jews present were thinking in their minds . . . "adultery . . . well, that's when a person who is married has sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse."

However, Jesus Christ flipped their world upside down when he stated that adultery takes place long before the actual physical part takes place.

Now, again, I'm not asking for your opinion outside of Scripture. So, I ask you, where in Scripture does Jesus Christ distinguish between a physical act of sexual immorality and a lustful wandering mind?

You are already familiar with the scriptures that refer to adultery based on lust (the heart) and adultery based upon the physical act.

VerticalReality
May 23rd 2007, 03:29 AM
You are already familiar with the scriptures that refer to adultery based on lust (the heart) and adultery based upon the physical act.

They are one and the same. Jesus Christ made it clear that there was no difference. It is adultery when you look upon a woman with lust even before you commit a physical act. Adultery is adultery, and the Lord never distinguished between the two. Therefore, you are simply assuming that He is speaking of a physical act in Matthew 19.

napsnsnacks
May 23rd 2007, 04:27 AM
They are one and the same. Jesus Christ made it clear that there was no difference. It is adultery when you look upon a woman with lust even before you commit a physical act. Adultery is adultery, and the Lord never distinguished between the two. Therefore, you are simply assuming that He is speaking of a physical act in Matthew 19.

Then from your point of view marriage of so tightly making emotional adultery and physical adultery to be identical because of the word "adultery" marriage is no longer the making of one flesh of the two married, marraiage means nothing, never has, never will and all because of some errant wandering thought that all spouses are subject to at one time or another so theycan just conveniently confess and split up.

Both are adultery yes but scripture deal with TWO different circumstances surrounding the emotional and the physical as it relates to 1 "adultery."

Physical adultery is grounds for divorce if the offended person so wishes (or they can choose to forgive the matter).

Emotional adultery calls for:

2COR 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

The emotional adultery if not checked will lead to physical adultery.

VerticalReality
May 23rd 2007, 02:10 PM
Then from your point of view marriage of so tightly making emotional adultery and physical adultery to be identical because of the word "adultery" marriage is no longer the making of one flesh of the two married, marraiage means nothing, never has, never will and all because of some errant wandering thought that all spouses are subject to at one time or another so theycan just conveniently confess and split up.

Both are adultery yes but scripture deal with TWO different circumstances surrounding the emotional and the physical as it relates to 1 "adultery."

Physical adultery is grounds for divorce if the offended person so wishes (or they can choose to forgive the matter).

Emotional adultery calls for:

2COR 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

The emotional adultery if not checked will lead to physical adultery.

Again, though, you are distinguishing between different types of adultery when Scripture does not. You're simply adding your own opinion. There aren't different types of adultery. Adultery is adultery.

watchinginawe
May 23rd 2007, 02:32 PM
Again, though, you are distinguishing between different types of adultery when Scripture does not. You're simply adding your own opinion. There aren't different types of adultery. Adultery is adultery.:hmm: If you aren't married, then can you gaze lustfully towards women since it wouldn't be "adultery"?

VerticalReality
May 23rd 2007, 02:46 PM
:hmm: If you aren't married, then can you gaze lustfully towards women since it wouldn't be "adultery"?

Wouldn't the same concept also apply to the unmarried? I mean if a married person lusting after another is committing adultery, and hating your brother is same as committing murder, then wouldn't also an unmarried person lusting after another be considered sexual immorality?

watchinginawe
May 23rd 2007, 03:03 PM
Wouldn't the same concept also apply to the unmarried? I mean if a married person lusting after another is committing adultery, and hating your brother is same as committing murder, then wouldn't also an unmarried person lusting after another be considered sexual immorality?Not in the context of divorce, which is the point you seem to be trying to make. We could go as far as virginity as well and applying your standard, marriages to any woman who has lusted is a marriage to someone who isn't a virgin. Also, consider this. Adultery is committed by two parties. You can look up in the old testament how both would be stoned if you like. Adultery of the heart is different in that only one party participates in this sin.

So no, adultery of the heart (a lustful gaze) is not grounds for divorce on account of adultery. We could also go further and discuss the witnesses necessary to prove an account of adultery. The idea just doesn't work VR.

hillbilly dave
May 26th 2007, 11:49 PM
When was Jesus a deacon in a baptist church? :lol: jk What kind of comment is that? Is this the formal view of the Baptist Church? Maybe innocent is not a perfect word here but I don't understand the sentiment behind this comment. I know of many marriages where the desire to work in a marriage, reconcile a marrieage, etc. has been present only in one party. I know of marriages where one of the parties falls into a destructive habit destroying the entire family. Also, I know of some abusive marriages where one party physically harms or mentally abuses the other. In all of these cases, are you implying (or rather, is the Baptist Church implying) that one should feel responsible for their spouse's actions?

God Bless!
The view given to divorce was based on the fornication. My own feelings donot always represent The Baptist Church. My personal view of divorce is sometimes it is necessary to keep one from killing the other party. Some people in Baptist churchs look down on divorcees as in many other congregations of other denominations. Looking down at anyone for something is wrong and sinful as judgmental which none of us have a right to do. If all Christians spent more time looking up including myself we would have little time to look down on others. My comments if hurtful were intended for the case of fornication. The way I read and study my bible I am reminded of things done and creates a stronger appreciation and thankfulness for the things I have been forgiven of. Sometimes those words are difficult to swallow so is our pride as a bible believing Christian I can see the Grace and Mercy Almighty God has shown. Divorce as it is sometimes is to easyily gained though if life is endangered so be it. Divorce has struck my family to much for various reasons yet it is still wrong just as many other things done to get to this point. The good news and it seems that Gods grace and mercy covers all sins or wrong doings of mortal men except one.

I am responsible for my spouse and her actions and my wife for me. If either one of us has a question concerning each others actions we ask. If we smell alcohol we ask. For abusive relationships the one abused should leave and take the children as well.

Watchinginawe; My remarks do not always represent The Official view of the Baptist Church. My choice of words are not always the best yet neither is my grammer. Sorry it took me so long to respond have been extremly busy. God Bless and keep.

napsnsnacks
May 27th 2007, 12:45 AM
Again, though, you are distinguishing between different types of adultery when Scripture does not. You're simply adding your own opinion. There aren't different types of adultery. Adultery is adultery.

Let me put it this way:

The situation is similar to adult court and juvenile court.

The same crime was committed by both parties but the address of the situation is far different in the two courts.

That is the difference between emotional adultery and physical adultery. The former you cast down in your own mind and the latter is real world trouble. Mainly stemming from the fact that the address of the former was not obeyed so the thought becomes action.