RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 12:59:14 AM)

Being 'the husband of one wife" could not have meant that polygamy was recognised as legitimate but that in order to hold office in the church you could only have one.
By the enlightenment Jesus brought, the first century Christians could not in any way have recognised polygamy as legitimate.

Seeing that Jesus made it very plain that remarriage is in fact an ongoing state of committing adultery, being the "husband of one wife" could not have meant that remarriage was recognised as legitimate but in order to hold office in the church you could not be remarried with a former lawful wife yet living.

Being the husband of one wife must have simply meant that the brother holding office should be without any posssible hangups in having had a former wife but who is now legally married after the NT law. It would have been better that the brother holding office had more of a empty slate; that his present wife was his first one after the pattern of Adam and Eve; those holding office would have been married without having been married before, even though it is completely lawful by the NT to marry after the former spouse is dead.

"Paul said, art thou loosed from a wife?.....but and if thou marry thou hast not sinned".
Seeing he is speaking to those who had been taught soundly through the apostles, his hearers would not at all have even considered that the marrying after being loosed from a wife could relate to remarriage while the first and lawful wife is still alive. That is because everyone knew from Jesus and the apostles that that kind of remarriage is adultery.

There are 3 ways that a man could be "loosed" from a wife and yet remarry lawfully.
1) If the wife had died.
2) If the wife he had gotten married to had been divorced from a lawful marriage and therefore his marriage was in itself a sin and adultery by Jesus definition and he had done the right thing and had gotten loosed from that sinful situation of remarriage, since that wife really wasn't his wife but the wife of the husband who had divorced her to whom she is still bound by God's law as revealed by Jesus and Paul.
3) If a man had divorced his engaged "wife" as she was called under their culture where a man could divorce or "put away" a woman who was called his wife (wife-to-be) before he married her on account of her fornication. We see Joseph about to do this to Mary which is exclusively the meaning of what the exception clause relates to.

Perhaps all three of the situations could have rendered the candidate for office in the church as unqualified. It could have been preferred that a only a man who had not been emotionally effected by any type of loosing from a wife should hold office.

It appears also that the church was being scrutinised by those without, and a completely untainted or unaccusable marriage situation was required in order to hold office.

But a brother who has been divorced from a lawful wife and she is still alive and he is remarried and he seeks office?
How blind can modern so called Christianity become? That man needs to be strongly exhorted to get out of that adulterous situation in order to save himself from the damantion that that adulterous situation will bring down upon him at judgment.
That kind of urgency is how we will witness the love of God being manifested in those who know him and his word.

He really does mean what he says. Remarriage is adultery and adulterers and adulteresses shall not inherit the kingdom of God.



demolitionman -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 2:33:13 AM)

quote:

How blind can modern so called Christianity become? That man needs to be strongly exhorted to get out of that adulterous situation in order to save himself from the damantion


Can you explain your conclusion in light of what transpired between David and Bathsheba? It would seem by your remark that David was damned.



demolitionman -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 3:09:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

He really does mean what he says. Remarriage is adultery and adulterers and adulteresses shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ok, show me the portion of scripture where Jesus is instructing someone to carry out the highlighted section below
quote:

2) If the wife he had gotten married to had been divorced from a lawful marriage and therefore his marriage was in itself a sin and adultery by Jesus definition and he had done the right thing and had gotten loosed from that sinful situation of remarriage, since that wife really wasn't his wife but the wife of the husband who had divorced her to whom she is still bound by God's law as revealed by Jesus and Paul


Once again, explain in light of the story of David and Bathsheba.



demolitionman -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 3:53:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

"Paul said, art thou loosed from a wife?.....but and if thou marry thou hast not sinned".
Seeing he is speaking to those who had been taught soundly through the apostles, his hearers would not at all have even considered that the marrying after being loosed from a wife could relate to remarriage while the first and lawful wife is still alive. That is because everyone knew from Jesus and the apostles that that kind of remarriage is adultery.

Here the problem, what if the first wife has committed adultry, left the man and he files for divorce. And if he remarries, he's in Adultry by your reasoning.
quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska
There are 3 ways that a man could be "loosed" from a wife and yet remarry lawfully.
1) If the wife had died.
2) If the wife he had gotten married to had been divorced from a lawful marriage and therefore his marriage was in itself a sin and adultery by Jesus definition and he had done the right thing and had gotten loosed from that sinful situation of remarriage, since that wife really wasn't his wife but the wife of the husband who had divorced her to whom she is still bound by God's law as revealed by Jesus and Paul.
3) If a man had divorced his engaged "wife" as she was called under their culture where a man could divorce or "put away" a woman who was called his wife (wife-to-be) before he married her on account of her fornication. We see Joseph about to do this to Mary which is exclusively the meaning of what the exception clause relates to.



Where is a clause about allowing an unbeliever to leave ?



cadz -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 7:43:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

He really does mean what he says. Remarriage is adultery and adulterers and adulteresses shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Hi Alaska,
I agree with your statement. This debate has already been debated in the Remarriage thread. http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_690665/mpage_2/tm.htm
The Mods will probably say something if everyone starts debating remarriage on this thread.
Most of these arguments have already been covered.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 8:20:36 AM)

[8|] Not again. [8|]



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 8:35:07 AM)

Now to get back onto the subject of Paul, I was also reading some more commentary on Paul. It is conjectured that when he went under the teaching of Gameliel he was very young and certainly too young to be married. And it was conjectured that by the time Paul started his crusade against the Christians, he was possibly only about 17 or 18 by then. And because of his zeal in rising in the established order, he would at that time still have remained single as there are no references to him having a wife.

While it is possible that he could have been part of an arranged marriage and thus did take a wife, there is a tremendous lack of evidence to support that position. There is nothing in scripture to affirm he ever was married. The only clues that he could have been married were from the traditions of the Sanhedrin requiring marriage, and arguably to be a father. Yet even that is only barely enough given that Paul is not specifically shown to be part of the Sanhedrin, only advancing in Judaism, but not actually part of the assembly of elders.

I think that I have not seen enough evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that I could ever hold the view that Paul was married. I cannot produce evidence to prove he was not ever married either. But I think I will go with the Occam's Razor on this one. The simplest argument, and therefore least prone to error, is that Paul was never married.



Consecrated2God -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 8:50:11 AM)

The subject isn't Paul, actually. The subject is Divorce.

We have a One-Stop thread for the re-marriage issue. Whether or not Paul was married is another issue, and a new thread should be started.

This thread is about Divorce.

Please stay on topic.

If you have questions or comments, please e-mail community@salemwebnetwork.com. Do not reply to this message in a PM or in the community.

Sincerely,
Lisa Luper
Moderator



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 1:01:11 PM)

Well, it was somewhat on topic as the OP did ask the question "Does divorce make a person ineligible for ministry?" and it was asserted by some posters that divorce indeed did make a person ineligible for ministry. Then we followed a side trail as to Paul's marital status and how it related to what Paul had to say on the subject. However, I can see that everyone is tired of this side trail and I think the point is exhausted anyway.

But back to the question of "Does divorce make a person ineligible for ministry?", Paul said only that the elder/deacon have one wife. We have discussed at length if this meant there is a requirement for an elder to be married before being considered as an elder or deacon. I think most of us have well formed opinions on that in various regards.

So to return to the OP and the specific question pertaining to ministry, I find no scriptural evidence to support that a person's past, whether they had committed sins to lead to divorce or they were the victim of another's sins in a divorce, is to be held against a person who has repented and is forgiven. This has been stated many times before by many posters. And in my opinion, stands as the most consistent view of the word of God.

So then, yes a divorced person is eligible for ministry of various capacities including elder, deacon, pastor, lay speaker, lay leader, and various other facets of ministry. I hold this position because no where do I find that God condemns a person for sins that have been forgiven.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 3:31:18 PM)

Unrepented of sin is not something that can be forgiven unless there is acknowledgment of that sin and repentance. At least let's get some acknowledgment that the remarriage is adultery. If that is acknowledged, then the next step is to agree that adultery like any other damning sin will result in damation unless turned from.

Can a thief acknowledge his thievery as wrong yet continue in thieving because he has acknowledged thieving to be wrong? Well, no.
Then why on earth is adultery being allowed to be continued in simply because someone admits that it is wrong? They say they are forgiven for their remarriage which they agree Jesus says is adultery therefore they can continue in that. Yet they will not grant that liberty to a thief.
Instability at its worst.
Has the Gospel now been leavened away to mean that any sin can be 'forgiven" (being given a license to be continued in) simply by acknowledging it to be wrong?
Someone please explain to me the difference between allowing a thief to continue thieving for acknowledging thievery to be wrong and the adulterous by remarriage to be allowed to continue to commit adultery simply by acknowledging it to be wrong.
Satan has swallowed up modern so called Christianity.



cadz -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 3:44:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Unrepented of sin is not something that can be forgiven unless there is acknowledgment of that sin and repentance. At least let's get some acknowledgment that the remarriage is adultery. If that is acknowledged, then the next step is to agree that adultery like any other damning sin will result in damation unless turned from.

Can a thief acknowledge his thievery as wrong yet continue in thieving because he has acknowledged thieving to be wrong? Well, no.
Then why on earth is adultery being allowed to be continued in simply because someone admits that it is wrong? They say they are forgiven for their remarriage which they agree Jesus says is adultery therefore they can continue in that. Yet they will not grant that liberty to a thief.
Instability at its worst.
Has the Gospel now been leavened away to mean that any sin can be 'forgiven" (being given a license to be continued in) simply by acknowledging it to be wrong?
Someone please explain to me the difference between allowing a thief to continue thieving for acknowledging thievery to be wrong and the adulterous by remarriage to be allowed to continue to commit adultery simply by acknowledging it to be wrong.
Satan has swallowed up modern so called Christianity.


Alaska, You really should take this debate to this thread
http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_690665/mpage_2/tm.htm
This link above is the remarriage discussion thread. The Mods want discussions to be in the appropriate threads.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 3:50:00 PM)

quote:

Where is a clause about allowing an unbeliever to leave ?


By taking this out of context and supposing that Paul was giving the liberty to the separated to remarry, causes Paul to contradict himself in the same chapter where it is very clearly worded that the woman IS bound by the law to her husband for as long as he lives. If she remarries while he is alive that is adultery as it is also for him if he were to remarry while his wife is alive.
The context reveals that the liberty being referred to in the earlier part of the chapter is not a liberty to remarry but rather simply a liberty to live separately from the unbeliever for the sake of peace in a situation where the unbeliever departs.
Let's say the woman is a believer and she heeds Pauls counsel to stay with her husband in hopes that he will be converted by her chaste conversation. But he will have none of it and his heart is hardened to the point where he can't stand dwelling with a mate having the fear of God and constantly manifesting that. He departs.
While as she is free to not have to follow him and dwell with him in an unpeaceful situation, she is simultaneously NOT free to remarry, for that would be adultery. This goes along with what Paul said earlier in the case of the woman leaving the man: "let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband". And this would also be contradicted by its author if "a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases" is interpreted to mean the granting of the liberty to remarry. That is a granting the liberty to commit adultery, which neither Jesus nor Paul nor anyone else in the NT endorses. That endorsement comes I believe from him who comes to steal and to kill and to destroy.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 3:53:44 PM)

OK Cheryl, I got it. Will do.



Keabird -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 3:53:47 PM)

Hi Alaska, as someone else said, the points you raise have already been debated very thoroughly in another thread - I think it was the remarriage - divorce thread? I think it would be beneficial if you were to read that thread through, and then add to it if you feel you have more to add - so far what you have said has been said already by a couple of others there. But you'll find that not everyone agrees and has Scripture to support their views also. This thread is supposed to be about divorce, not remarriage. I can see how easily they can cross over though!

God bless,
Sherri



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/12/2005 11:32:55 PM)

quote:

So then, yes a divorced person is eligible for ministry of various capacities including elder,


Since this thread has split off the remarriage issue from the divorce itself, then we should understand that all statements as the one above pertain to the situation of a divorced man who had not been remarried. The question of whether or not the divorced man who had remarried should hold office in the church should then be reserved for discussion on the other thread.
But I suspect that the author of the above quote was including the remarried divorced person also in his designation of the divorced.
So to uphold the separateness of the divorce and the remarriage in their respective threads, the writers should be clear as to what they mean. Since a separate thread for each has been opened, should we understand that on this thread, when referring to the divorced, that the writer is referring to the divorced who is not remarried?
If that is not what a writer means here then they should specify that.
Since leadership was to be the husband of one wife, and the person making the above quote says a divorced man can have office, it seems clear he is taking for granted that that divorced man is remarried and thereby believing that the man is the husband of one wife when in reality he is the husband of two since his divorce from the lawful spouse is not dissolved by that divorce.
OK, I've gone to the other thread.
There is a clear designation between the divorce and the remarriage following the divorce. Two separate acts as was the initial lawful marriage is another distinct and separate act than the other two. The remarriage is what constitutes adultery. Though the divorce itself is a sin which opens the door for adultery via remarriage, it is in itself not adultery.
Of these three events: the initial lawful marriage, the divorce, and the remarriage, the one event that is not a sin and cannot be repented of is the initial lawful marriage.
If that be true, then why do we see so called Christian leaders lumping the initial lawful marriage into the pile with the divorce and the remarriage as if it is also a sin? All of a sudden it is a sin? If it is a sin then it was always a sin and should have been repented of immediately after the wedding. And then when the person gets remarried, it is upholden as sacred while as the first lawful marriage is designated as that which could be repented of which respects the divorce above the initial lawful marriage!!
This whim to turn marriages off, as it were, is very similar to the catholic types who userp authority over God's word and suppose they have authority to annul that which Jesus says God has joined together.
Like a bunch of self appointed little P's. ( I dare not use the 4 letter P word used to describe the leader of the catholics)



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/13/2005 1:04:20 AM)

[8D]



lilkitties -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/14/2005 1:25:24 PM)

Sorry, I haven't had time to read all of the posts but I must say I love the way neruonstatic addressed these issues. Here's my 2 shekels [;)] :

When is divorce an acceptable option?

When one's spouse wants to live only for themselves in a way that is sinful and blatantly and consistently disregards God's commands and their spouse's God-given rights as both a spouse and a child of God.

What does God think about divorce?

I think it makes God very sad and upset, and I know that Scripture says he hates it (because he knows how it tears people apart from the inside out) but that doesn't mean he hates those who divorce.

Is divorce a sin?

It depends. If one is divorcing merely for convenience (just not feeling like being married, for instance), then I think it is a sin. If there has been abuse of any kind (emotional, physical, psychological), adultery or abandonment then I think that it is acceptable. Why abuse? Because in many cases that means that the abuser has left the marriage (inside) long ago. I know many will disagree with this but I maintain my stance on this, being in an abusive marriage myself.

Does divorce make a person ineligible for ministry?

Nope. Only if the person has divorced for trivial reasons or is an unrepentant adulterer.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (12/16/2005 1:56:57 AM)

I would agree with the above post if Jesus said things that agreed with that.
It is simply a war of words.
Jesus' words are being warred against by those effected by the very effective humanist philosophy pumped down everyones throat by way of the media and education institutions.
God's ways are not the ways of the flesh. Our human nature sense of justice is just not necessarily what Jesus teaches.
Take for example, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that exemplifies our sense of justice and what we feel we should be allowed to do. It is in the same chapter where Jesus addresses divorce that he addresses an eye for an eye. Contrary to the way of the flesh, Jesus lays down a total prohibition to those things that they would have accepted as facts of life. The profoundness of his truth as he addresses these things reminds me of what is written in Job; the heavens tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Mankind did not devise the institution of marriage. If He did then we could speculate about the innocent party and whether or not one of the parties has a right to divorce the other and for what causes etc. But since God has introduced the institution of marriage He is the one that has the say.

Jesus, being the express image of His person, when asked about divorce responded with a question: "Have ye not read?"
They are not asking whether or not Eve could have divorced Adam or vise versa. They are asking about their present day marriages and marraiges in general which would include marriages today. Yet he answers them with: "have ye not read?"
It's like he is saying; don't you know? He takes them back to the foundation of marriage in Adam and Eve and answers their question concerning all marriages following Adam and Eves with the conclusion that what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder based on the historical basis of marriage that they are no longer two but one flesh. He was answering a question concerning divorce in general yet he bases his answer on what was said in regard to Adam and Eve's marriage.
Was He wrong?
Are we greater than He?
Does our reasoning and logic stand above His?


Divorce in itself is a sin regardless of the reason for the person who is divorcing the other from a lawful marriage. That is because by the very definition of divorce, the husband and wife are thereafter no longer husband and wife.
But according to Jesus the divorced couple are just as much husband and wife as the day after the wedding. That is why it is adultery to marry the divorced woman as Jesus said it is and that is why it is adultery for the woman to remarry after divorcing her husband as Jesus said it is.
Therefore, because divorce means the husband and wife are no longer husband and wife, signing papers agreeing with that is the same as spitting in Jesus' face and saying to him, "your word is not true, you say we are one flesh and let not man put asunder, but I have just signed papers saying we are no longer one fesh as husband and wife".
That is called turning the truth of God into a lie.

[Separation on the other hand is not necessarily a sin. Paul's words would accommodate an acceptable separation by his words, "but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband". Separation is one thing but signing papers agreeing to the lie that the lawfully married couple are no longer married is something very different. It is a grievous sin.]

The multitude of pastors are in serious need of repentance for defending, not the institution of marriage as we see Jesus doing, but rather the individuals involved in divorcing from that institution placing their feelings and choices of lifestyle above the words of He who made them and instituted marriage after the pattern of Adam and Eve.



God_Bless -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/11/2006 3:46:28 AM)

This was my previous question, would like more opinions if possible...

The bible states that adultery is a permissable reason for divorce.
The bible states that lust is adultery of the heart (example, porn).

So if someone's spouse is addicted to porn, will not stop, is this not grounds by the Lord's definition of adultery for divorce? (ps, I am single, but did go through this in a previous marriage. I just actually was wondering this reading some of the marriage threads)..



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/12/2006 12:57:52 AM)

g_angelzz, the exception clause given by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-8 was for "porneia". While some traditions hold that this meant "adultery", there is definitely no consensus by any theologians today as to the precise meaning of what porneia entailed.

The most liberal view is the narrowest definition in that porneia is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married.

The most conservative view is the broadest definition in that porneia is defined as any sexual immorality.

Clearly when Jesus spoke, he consistently clarified what the Jews believed at the time. And in the case of adultery, he expanded the definition of pornea to include those matters of the heart.

So then, I cannot help but personally believe that Jesus intended a broad definition of porneia and that addiction to porn could be grounds for divorce. I take the conservative view.

However, remember, any porneia is not a requirement for divorce, but merely the justifiable basis for one after all other avenues of attempted reconciliation have been exhausted.

So to answer your question, unrepentant porn addiction is porneia. It is therefore justifiable grounds for divorce by the teachings of Jesus. At least, this is my opinion.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/12/2006 1:58:58 AM)

Seeing that the lawfully married have been pronounced as that which God has joined together that man may not put asunder it is reasonable to believe that there does not exist ANY grounds for divorcing from the lawful spouse.
The fact that Jesus said that the remarried commit adultery by remarrying reinforces the permanency of marriage seeing that the divorce does not dissolve it. If divorce dissolved the marriage, then it wouldn't be adultery to marry the divorced party.

The real conservative view of the exception clause would maintain that the exception cannot alter the total prohibition of divorce and remarriage we see emphasised in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18. The assumption that the exception clause must be an allowance to divorce for adultery is discredited by the fact that exception clauses can relate to a closely associated aspect of a subject being addressed. The reference to the premarital divorce in that culture where the words wife and husband were given to the engaged was incorporated into Jesus' expounding on the permancy of marriage in the form of an exception clause, not as an allowance to put asunder that which God joined together, which Jesus plainly said is NOT to be done, but rather to emphasise prohibition of divorce by inferring that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if he does so before he marries her as was possible in that culture and their uses of words.
I believe the assumption that Jesus allows divorce for adultery makes Jesus to contradict himself, creates confusion of his clear wording in Mark and Luke and is the worse heresy prevalent in modern Christianity.
I further believe that ALL pastors who endorse the allowance for divorce for anything will answer to a jealous God who has said that man is not to put asunder what He has joined together in his natural plan that men and women would join together in marriage.
Jesus does not address the innocent party issues. His expounding is rather to "whosoever" is lawfully married.
I believe that the endorsing of divorce for adultery is a doctrine of devils as described by Paul in Tim. as it fits the criteria of speaking lies in hypocracy after the subtil skill of he who comes to kill and destroy.
I believe that while it appears to stand for the rights of the innocent party, it is by so doing causing that person to become guilty by encouraging that it is right to put asunder what God has joined together. By the same token, it looks upon those prohibiting divorce as cruel when the hypocracy of it all is those permitting divorce are the cruel ones who are ignorant to the fact that the remarried are committing adultery and will be damned unless they stop.
Since the divorce opens the door for the remarriage which is adultery and damnable, attacking the permission to divorce cannot be easily separated from the resultant adultery of remarriage which the divorce has opened the window to.
Though this thread is on divorce, the main reason for withstanding divorce is to save folks from the damnation of remarriage which the divorce by mans law and opinion have provided for.
Since the NT has changed the permissiveness for divorce that existed under the OT, any maintaining of the allowance of divorce using either the laws of men or the obsolete allowance that existed under the OT falls in the same category of the opinions of men that are contrary to God's will as revealed through Jesus.



bikerdad -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/12/2006 4:34:27 PM)

When is divorce an acceptable option? When one is involved in an illegitimate marriage. Examples include bigamy, polygamy, and remarriage when one's original spouse is still living.

Momfree raises the matter of the "exception clause" in Matthew, accusing Northstar of tossing it out. This, of course, begs the question of how those who hew to the "exception clause" giving cover for divorce justify tossing out the very clear and specific instructions Christ gives in Mark and Luke? How are we to harmonize these two apparently contrary teachings of Christ?

1) Pick the side you like, ignore the one you don't. Not exactly "harmonizing", and also intellectually dishonest.

2) Consider the audience to whom Christ was speaking, consider the audience to whom the Gospel in question is directed, and consider the original meanings of the word used.

3) Consider the whole cloth of Scripture and the nature of God.

A exhaustive, long study of #2 and #3 has led me to my conclusions.

What does God think about divorce? I won't speculate about the totality of God's thoughts on divorce, simply reiterate what He specifically and deliberately chose to share with us. "I hate divorce" - God

Those of you who point to God's divorce of Israel as legitimizing divorce should really take a closer look at God's behavior. He subsequently called Israel back, referring to himself as "husband." Not "ex-husband"

Finally, nowhere in Scripture does God grant permission to his people to do anything else that he hates.

Is divorce a sin? If the marriage is legitimate, then yes, divorce is a sin. For purposes of the following, "Dick" will refer to the individual who chooses divorce. Divorce is either a public declaration that Dick is an oathbreaker who places their own selfish desires above all else, or a public declaration that whatever Jane has done, Dick will not forgive her. Both attitudes and actions are sinful.

Does divorce make a person ineligible for ministry? Depends. Was the divorce Dick's choice, or Jane's? If it was the Dick's choice, then no, divorce does not make a Jane's ineligible for ministry. Jane's other sins of the spouse innocent of the divorce may make the her ineligble, but that is not the question at hand. For Dick, who pursued the divorce, yes, he is ineligible for ministry as long as he clings to the divorce.

Grace and peace, BD



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/12/2006 5:31:29 PM)

I will re-ask a question I have asked many times and has been ignored many times.

Other than Jesus Christ's own purpose in coming as man to die for our sins, where is there evidence in scripture to support the position that an innocent person is required to pay for another person's sins?

In other words, if Dick sins and divorces Jane (who is presumably innocent in this example), what command from scripture requires Jane to be punished for Dick's sins?

And yet that is what a few here are saying. They are saying that Jane is a partaker of Dick's sin even though she had nothing to do with it. But the mere fact of divorce by Dick causes her to be a sinner. Note this is not about remarriage, divorce only. And just a few posts back, this scenario is exactly what was being promulgated by another person.

So then, for argument's sake let's say Jane had no sin in the divorce. Dick sins and divorces her, then he leaves town, never to be heard from again. What of Jane? Is she a sinner for being divorced?



lastblast -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/12/2006 10:37:46 PM)

quote:

So then, for argument's sake let's say Jane had no sin in the divorce. Dick sins and divorces her, then he leaves town, never to be heard from again. What of Jane? Is she a sinner for being divorced?


No, but just because Dick sinned does not give Jane the right to sin in God's sight. She should remain faithful to the Lord-----following Him as He has directed, even to the crucifying of her own life's desires. In Him, Cindy



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/13/2006 12:38:43 AM)

Anyone else want to chime in? It was just posted a few posts ago by someone else that "divorce in itself is a sin regardless of the reason for the person who is divorcing the other from a lawful marriage". By that line of thinking, Jane would be a guilty sinner by the mere fact that she is divorced.

Is this what others think?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI