RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

momfree -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/13/2006 10:54:07 AM)

Neuron, I personally think it doesn't really matter how others think or believe or interpret. The important thing is that you follow His lead, His counsel, His Word. We've seen constant twisting of scripture to justify what they anti-divorce anti-remarriage camp feels is the truth.

I may be over-stepping my boundaries here, as I've watched you and hunterjumper be blessed in your marriage, I've greatly rejoiced!! Congratulations and blessings and happiness I wish you both OH so much! (I know you will be). I just think it may be detrimental to both of you to have been faced with this not only during your engagement but now your new marriage. I think it may find a way to be harmful and create hostility or pain when it should be a time of happiness, blessing and praise to God for the wonderful marriage you entered. I say don't let the naysayers destroy or bring usunder your life and marriage.

We've established that there is twisting of scripture and false doctrine being touted as HIS truth, I say I won't give them the "room" or "extra reading" space to continue prophesing what is not HIS truth but their own understanding. It's like by feeding this debate continues to allow more untruths and false doctrine to be spread. And it's spreading like wildfire let me tell you.

If they want to believe me divorcing my abusive spouse is sin, let them, I really don't care. I know the truth GOD presented to ME, I know I was released from the marriage vows, and I know He has blessed that step and continues to bless me today. Just like you are being blessed Neuron....don' allow the enemy to put a dent or scratch in it even in ANY way, and I know you won't but I just feel it's a delicate time for you two. Rejoice in it!!!

Please let me know if I'm out of line.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/13/2006 11:26:46 AM)

momfree, you are not out of line and truthfully, I agree with your decision. Not only is there "let the unbeliever leave" but there is also "expel the immoral man from among you".

Like marriage, the family of believers can be polluted with evil and sin from the spread of false doctrine and false religion. It is because of these kinds of things we are warned about false teachers preaching a return to the Law and against teachers of false doctrines.

Lately one of my favorite verses from Scripture is Matthew 12:7

"If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

And no worries here, none of the circular arguments or contextual fallacies spread by the teachers of false doctrine (particularly divorce and remarriage prohibitionists) can ever displace what hunterjumper and I know to be God's will, which was given clearly and precisely to us directly from God to our hearts. We did not arrive at this condition from reading a web site or listening to a radio teacher or any books purported to be truth but are in fact often just opinions of men.

We know what God is doing in our life. We see the affirmations every day. God has richly blessed us. I suppose you could say God has taught me a lesson about divorce the hardest way, yet in God's wisdom, the only way I would understand it: by going through it. And what I have learned above all else is God is in control, even when there is divorce. And it hurts so much and can be so bad, that this man will do anything (that is not sin) to never go through divorce again.

So though you and I approached it from different angles, I didn't ask for it and you were essentially left with no choice, we both know that divorce "hoovers" in a major way. We also know that it is part of God's way of cutting off the part of our life that would lead us astray or destroy us spiritually. That is why I know what Paul meant when he said "if your hand causes you to sin, it is better to cut it off and enter heaven without it than to allow it to sin" (my paraphrase). Some parts of the body (marriage or even body of believers) have to be cut off so the rest of the body does not contract the disease and also die with it.

Yeah momfree, I think we both understand the real issues here. And that is why I think God, in His perfect timing, actually caused this debate to flare up precisely when it did. So get this boys and girls, the false teaching did not lead hunterjumper and I astray, instead it strengthened us because we were listening to God. That is precisely why I do what I do. I KNOW what is right and I KNOW what is wrong. And I KNOW that I was right to marry hunterjumper. God has blessed us and affirmed us.

So then, while terrible and not desired, God knew exactly what He was doing when my life took this terrible turn some time ago and I was faced with divorce unwillingly. For me, this is not a matter of hypothetical debate or academic exercises. It is faith born of life and reality and imbued with mercy and love from God.

Let those who have ears hear and those who have hearts for God believe.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/13/2006 11:38:51 AM)

If Jane was the one who divorced her lawful husband, then yes, she would have committed sin by so doing. If she receives understanding that it was sin for her to have done that, she can repent of that sin. She could try to alter the status of the divorce to a legal separation which would change her status of continually declaring God's word to be a lie by her signature on the divorce papers stating that she is no longer the wife of her husband. If she is unable to retract her signature declaring God' word to be a lie, the fact remains that it is a past sin from which she is forgiven after having come to understand that to divorce was in itself a sin.

If her husband divorced her, and she in faithfulness to God refused to sign papers declaring contradiction to God's word that the couple are one flesh until death, then she has not sinned and is not a sinner just because she is divorced.

The greater sin is the remarriage, which is a continual state of sinning because having sex on a regular or continual basis, as is what happens in marriage, with someone other than your lawful spouse, is adultery. And adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Informing someone of the truth, howsoever painful that truth may be, is an act of love.
At judgment, when many are cast out into outer darkness for having lived a life of adultery because of remarriage will wish that someone had forcibly locked them in a prison to have kept them away from remarriage rather than have to face eternity without God in the fire that is not quenched and where their worm dieth not.
Though such words are now hated, those who will be damned for adultery via remarriage will remember such words in their regret and horror at facing the words, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity".



momfree -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/13/2006 11:58:21 AM)

I'm deleting my own post lol, you're right fritz.



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/13/2006 12:07:35 PM)

ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

Further posts regarding remarriage after divorce will be deleted without warning and/or notice.

If you wish to engage in the topic of remarriage after divorce please direct your comments to the One Stop thread on that topic. Here are the portal links:

http://forums.crosswalk.com/fb.aspx?m=690665
http://fcnforums.christianity.com/fb.aspx?m=690665
http://ibelieve.com/fb.aspx?m=690665
http://faithcommunitynetwork.com/fb.aspx?m=690665

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/13/2006 1:40:03 PM)

1 Corinthians 4:3-6

3 But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God. 6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.


The Lord speaks daily to me in my life, concerning my divorce and my life thereafter...

I am confident in the path to which He has called me - the one that I walk daily.

I know the status of my salvation and from Whom it comes.

Romans 8:1-16; 29-39

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. 12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, Abba! Father! 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,


29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died and more than that, who was raised and who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written, 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You may still condemn me to the nether-regions if you like...

BUT be careful how you judge.

edited to add:

Romans 10:9-11

9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.



TimothyTwo226 -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/13/2006 5:36:36 PM)

What we need to do is to keep the scriptures concerning divorce in the context from whence they come.

I could justify a ton of things I've done in my life with scripture but it might not be talking apples w/apples, oranges w/oranges....

I cannot remember the scripture from where it comes, but didn't Jesus state that many would find my teachings very hard to comprehend.....[sm=shakinghead.gif]



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/14/2006 1:55:47 PM)

I think its hard to accept at times, but not always hard to comprehend. Consider Martha and Mary. There was a discussion about doing work or listening to Jesus teach. It was hard for the worker to accept what Jesus said, but it was easy to comprehend. Think also of the prodigal son. His brother who remained did not think it fair that the returning son be welcomed back so well. In other words, some people think they are more deserving because of their works.

For myself I found it difficult to accept (as a young man) that there was no marriage in heaven, I wanted to be with my wife in heaven in that relationship. Only later did I accept the truth. But it was hard to accept at the time. That was long ago.

I think the Scriptures have some tricky bits, but the redemptive story and the vast majority of scripture is quite straightforward to those who are seeking God and His kingdom. But to those who's eyes have not been opened and heart not transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit in them, they will not find the scriptures comprehensible, they will appear foolish.

1 Cor 2:14

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

I think it is clear and easy to comprehend that marriage after divorce is acceptable and approved by God under the conditions that the divorce followed the scripturally addressed circumstances, namely porneia and abandonment of the marriage covenant by a spouse.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 1:39:35 PM)

Please then Neuron, answer the question: If the wife does things far more hideous than merely committing adultery without committing adultery, the husband is not allowed to divorce her until she also commits adultery?
If your position is legit, then it should be able to withstand scrutiny.
The wife kills and eats her own children and then collaberates with terrorists that results in thousands of innocent children dying. She also worships the devil and sacrifices children to the devil but through all of these horrific sins she doesn't commit adultery.
By your allowance for divorce, are you saying that the husband can't divorce his wife even after all of these hideous acts are committed by her?

I believe your position to allow divorce (you claim only for adultery and abandonment) forces you to open the door to other reasons as would be expected from the effect of the initial leaven.
I think that in reality, the folks pushing for divorce for one or two reasons are forced to allow it for others or they will make themselves look unfair and make God look unfair.
Once it is projected that God's mind allows divorce under the NT, the supporters of that lie are committed to defend the principal of it to the point that they have to defend and excuse "God's will".

The stressing of the "If-Moses-said-it,-it-goes" position is also found to be wanting as there has been no answer to why what Moses said accommodating polygamy has been conveniently left out of these discussions.
There is a site where a surprising number of believers in Jesus are strongly supporting polygamy in Christianity. This is the result of the leaven of not having understanding that the NT did away with some allowed things under the OT.
Neuro needs to come clean and reveal to everyone where he stands in no uncertain terms concerning polygamy since he has stated that if Moses said it it stands now also.

What about the rebellious and gluttoness son who refuses to change his behaviour even after having been repeatedly chastised? Shouldn't Christians be allowed to stone their son as prescribed by Moses?
On what basis is polygamy or stoning a son no longer allowed?
Is it not on the fact that the NT has disallowed those things?
So the NT disallows some OT things but doesn't disallow divorce?

"Let not man put asunder" no longer means that if the allowance to divorce is directly dependant on whether the man so decides to divorce his wife.
They agree that it is up to the man whether or not he will divorce his wife after she has committed adultery. Then they say that it is true that what God has joined together, man may not put asunder!! The only way for this position to not conflict with itself is to make divorce mandatory in the case where the wife commits adultery whereby it can be said that it is not man putting it asunder but the commandment from God that the husband is commanded to divorce his wife for her adultery.
Any position allowing divorce for even 1 thing at the decision of the innocent party makes a lie out of "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" because the putting asunder in such a case is very much the doing of mankind.



hnt -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 6:19:05 PM)

quote:

The wife kills and eats her own children and then collaberates with terrorists that results in thousands of innocent children dying. She also worships the devil and sacrifices children to the devil but through all of these horrific sins she doesn't commit adultery.


I hope anyone that marries someone like you describe runs for their life in the opposite direction as fast as they can!



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 8:07:58 PM)

The point being made is that once someone has crossed over the line allowing divorce, even if it is for one thing, they have a messy situation to deal with such as the above scenario where they would have to agree that in such a case the man would not be able to divorce his wife. Once committed to allow divorce, speaking on God's behalf as if the NT allows divorce, they must follow through with the implications created and supply credible answers to possible situations.
So the man in the above situation would have to wait for his evil wife to commit adultery before he could divorce her, yet if another much more honourable almost perfect wife gets seduced in a vulnerable time and commits adultery, the man can divorce her with no problem. Once divorce is projected as permitted in God's scheme of things, reason has to follow through to show that it is fair and just. What kind of God would allow the divorce in the latter scenario yet refuse it for the former? The divorce promoters are forced to either make a list of other equally offensive behaviours qualifying as offensive enough for divorce or maintain the injustice of allowing for one but denying it for many things much more heinous than adultery.

Wisdom would have us rather to not cross that line allowing divorce and thereby not get ourselves in that big mess.
Marriage is patterned after the first marriage between Adam and Eve under which situation it was impossible for them to get out of being one flesh for as long as they both lived. It is not based on the many what-if's which enter the equation after the divorce line has been crossed, but on an unmoveable mandate that what God has joined together man may not put asunder.
No divorce.
No exceptions.
No confusion.
No compromise.
As per Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 1 Cor. 7:39,11 Rom. 7:2,3



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 9:42:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Please then Neuron, answer the question

etc., etc., etc.

is very much the doing of mankind.


Please do not misquote me in the future. Additionally, please do not purport to state my position when you do not know it or understand it. And clearly, what you exhibited as my position was so wrong as to be an affront to the senses.

So that no one mistakes what my position is again: God allows divorce, clearly and precisely, from the OT to the NT. The allowable (by Scriptures) grounds can be summed up as "porneia" and "abandonment", but in both cases the sin is the breaking of the marriage covenant and its vows. A man that abuses his wife has in effect broken the marriage covenant by "abandonment" of that covenant. A woman who withholds sex from her husband indefinitely simply to "punish" him is also guilty of the "abandonment" of the covenant. And as well, those that cannot control their lusts in their mind and body and engage in sexual activities outside their spouse are committing porneia.

Can a man divorce his wife because she burnt his dinner one too many times? No. Can a man divorce his wife because she is having sex with another man. Most definitely.

Can a woman divorce her husband because he likes to hunt a lot? No. Can a woman divorce her husband because he beats her? Most definitely.

There are reasons that God allows divorce. Some may not like to hear that, but it is simply the facts as presented in the Bible from OT to NT times. That is difficult to comprehend by false teachers that desire to earn their way to heaven by their works and harsh treatment of themselves. But it is a fact that God does allow for divorce. Moses said it. Christ said it. Paul said it. It is a fact.

But from the "look at my works" and the "I have a higher divine knowledge than thou" crowd, you get a different story. From these I hear "oh I suffer for Christ, I live in squalor with an abusive cheating spouse, but I do it for Christ" and "my spouse left me for someone else 10 years ago, I am waiting on them to return, but until then I suffer for the cause of Christ". And one of my favorite ones, "though I have no experience with divorce personally in my marriage, God told me that He doesn't allow it and you're going to Hell for it".

To them, grace and mercy are simply foreign concepts. How could God give mercy to someone who doesn't deserve it? How could God forgive those people of their sins. In other words, "they don't do what I do or say, they don't deserve it".

Away with the Pharisees. Bring on the Samaritans anyday if that is the attitude displayed.

I am not a legalist. I do not appeal to the Law or the nits and jots and tittles of words pulled out of context to create pseudo-justification for divorce. There is no need to. One need only look at the facts of life. Some times, the will of God is that obvious.

And finally, I will answer this question: "X happened in my marriage, can I divorce?"

The answer is straightforward. Seek first to reconcile and the repentance of the sinner through the church. Do not hold this in silence or secrecy, but expose the sins to the light of Christ and accountability within the church on both sides. If in the end, your spouse does not choose to reconcile, but remains hard hearted and bent on the destruction of the marriage, even if they are not the ones to file but are destroying the marriage with what they do, then the answer is yes, in grief and humility.

When a marriage is broken, it is as if someone has died, and indeed the union of the two, has died. And the grief is just like when someone close dies. Such is the grief. That is why there is no delight in divorce. That is why it should be taken seriously.



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 10:15:08 PM)

quote:

alaska



quote:

Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 1 Cor. 7:39,11 Rom. 7:2,3


Mk 10: 2-12


2Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: "Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife?"

3"What did Moses say about divorce?" Jesus asked them.

4"Well, he permitted it," they replied. "He said a man merely has to write his wife an official letter of divorce and send her away."

5But Jesus responded, "He wrote those instructions only as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness. 6But God's plan was seen from the beginning of creation, for `He made them male and female.' 7`This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, 8and the two are united into one.' Since they are no longer two but one, 9 let no one separate them, for God has joined them together."

10Later, when he was alone with his disciples in the house, they brought up the subject again. 11He told them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and remarries, she commits adultery."

quote:

He told them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery against her.


Divorcing for unjust reason - marrying someone else = adultery against the innocent spouse

quote:

And if a woman divorces her husband and remarries, she commits adultery.


Divorcing for unjust reason - marrying someone else = adultery against the innocent spouse

Jesus was using these verses in context to the "is it lawful to divorce for any reason" crowd.

Granted -Divorce is awful, damages those involved, and God hates it. I hated having to go through it... but I did and I do as God leads me and has led me and WILL lead me.

Luke 16:14-18
14The Pharisees, who dearly loved their money, naturally scoffed at all this. 15Then he said to them, "You like to look good in public, but God knows your evil hearts. What this world honors is an abomination in the sight of God.

16"Until John the Baptist began to preach, the laws of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and eager multitudes are forcing their way in. 17But that doesn't mean that the law has lost its force in even the smallest point. It is stronger and more permanent than heaven and earth.

18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

The question was in the purpose and effect of the law - the laws HAD been changed under the control of the Pharisees - the ones divorcing for any reason - frivolous ones were committing adultery - they were NOT the innocent spouse.

1 Corinthians 7: 1-24

Instruction on Marriage
1Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

3The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. 4The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband also gives authority over his body to his wife. 5So do not deprive each other of sexual relations. The only exception to this rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time, so they can give themselves more completely to prayer. Afterward they should come together again so that Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control. 6This is only my suggestion. It's not meant to be an absolute rule. 7I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do. But we are not all the same. God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others he gives the gift of singleness.

8Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows--it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust.

10Now, for those who are married I have a command that comes not from me, but from the Lord. A wife must not leave her husband. 11 But if she does leave him, let her remain single or else go back to him. And the husband must not leave his wife.

12Now, I will speak to the rest of you, though I do not have a direct command from the Lord. If a Christian man has a wife who is an unbeliever and she is willing to continue living with him, he must not leave her. 13And if a Christian woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to continue living with her, she must not leave him. 14For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not have a godly influence, but now they are set apart for him. 15(But if the husband or wife who isn't a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.) 16You wives must remember that your husbands might be converted because of you. And you husbands must remember that your wives might be converted because of you.

17You must accept whatever situation the Lord has put you in, and continue on as you were when God first called you. This is my rule for all the churches. 18For instance, a man who was circumcised before he became a believer should not try to reverse it. And the man who was uncircumcised when he became a believer should not be circumcised now. 19For it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised. The important thing is to keep God's commandments.

20You should continue on as you were when God called you. 21Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you--but if you get a chance to be free, take it. 22And remember, if you were a slave when the Lord called you, the Lord has now set you free from the awful power of sin. And if you were free when the Lord called you, you are now a slave of Christ. 23God purchased you at a high price. Don't be enslaved by the world. 24So, dear brothers and sisters, whatever situation you were in when you became a believer, stay there in your new relationship with God.

If the unbeliever leaves - let them go - very clear - you are NOT BOUND.

Matthew 5:31-32
Teaching about Divorce
31"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a letter of divorce.' 32But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

UNLESS SHE HAS BEEN UNFAITHFUL

frivolous divorce again is the problem, or if the wife has been unfaithful she is already guilty of adultery....

quote:

What about the rebellious and gluttoness son who refuses to change his behaviour even after having been repeatedly chastised? Shouldn't Christians be allowed to stone their son as prescribed by Moses?
On what basis is polygamy or stoning a son no longer allowed?
Is it not on the fact that the NT has disallowed those things?
So the NT disallows some OT things but doesn't disallow divorce?


1 Corinthians 10: 23-24
The Believer's Freedom
23"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

Somethings in the law were permissable, but not a good idea

NO WHERE in the law does it say that polygamy is a good idea - all examples of it were shown in a bad light...

Whereas is was permitted, because it was already commonplace, and it was useful in some situations, but in ALL cases where attention was drawn to it - it caused people to be drawn away from God.

Divorce should NOT be commonplace or for ANY reason, but it does happen and under what Jesus and Paul outlined - these cases are the exception.

But most of all, God wants us to seek HIS WILL and His face.

Some people are called to stand and wait for their marriages - because that is what God has called them to do.

Others must lose their marriage as a consequence of their hard-hearted actions, so that in the loss, they may be humbled, broken and brought to their knees so that they might submit to God.

As I pray for in the case of my XH, but he will not break without it happening....

In this case - God may call the innocent spouse to move on and remarry.

In all cases - ALL INDIVIDUALS SHOULD SEEK GOD'S WILL FOR THEIR LIVES!

We are not all living out the same story - God will not be glorified in the same way by all persons, but if we seek Him and seek His way - HE WILL BE GLORIFIED by our part of His story for us.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 12:19:55 PM)

quote:

Divorcing for unjust reason - marrying someone else = adultery against the innocent spouse


Notice the editing of the words of Jesus. "Whosoever" has been altered to conform to a different idea by using the replacement words "for unjust reason".
This leads to using the same addition to "let not man put asunder".
Why can't Jesus speak for himself? I believe he is insulted by those who take it upon themselves to make appology on his behalf as if to say, "I'm sorry everyone, Jesus really didn't mean that".
Is Jesus' personality such that he will not offend anyone? What about when he says in Luke that if someone isn't willing to pay the price, they shouldn't follow him. Some people he simply does not want. Or what about when he says he will spue the lukewarm out of his mouth?
Being sympathetic to the remarried to the extent of feeling sorry for their loneliness etc. at the expense of violating what Jesus taught is not being merciful to those who are suffering.
Mercy in knowledge would encourage them to endure hardness as good soldiers of the cross as they have found themselves in a situation where they can express their love to Jesus by being faithful to his word unto death.
If being faithful to Jesus finds them in prison for their faith, that is deemed honourable, but when the word brings the tribulation of having to be faithful to his word and not remarry, why cannot this also be deemed as honourable?
It is not as though those pushing for the unbreakableness of marriage are all secure in a fulfilling marriage situation. Many of them are suffering for the words sake, fearing God to not dare get involved in adultery via remarriage.
Yet they are being fought against by those thinking they do God service, when they deserve the respect as those who are persecuted and are in prison for their faith.
I believe Jesus' word and those standing for his word concerning "let not man put asunder" are being persecuted in a way by those who do not understand. They are spoken of as cruel when the real cruelty is committed by the doctrine securing thousands in hell by justifying what Jesus said is adultery.
Adulterers shall not inherit the Kingom of God. The love of God will inform people of this truth.



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 1:21:14 PM)

quote:

alaska
Notice the editing of the words of Jesus. "Whosoever" has been altered to conform to a different idea by using the replacement words "for unjust reason".
This leads to using the same addition to "let not man put asunder".
Why can't Jesus speak for himself? I believe he is insulted by those who take it upon themselves to make appology on his behalf as if to say, "I'm sorry everyone, Jesus really didn't mean that".


But you edit His words and interpret them yourself as shown in the dismissal of the exception for unfaithfulness. You also disregard the context in which the words were spoken and the audience to whom they were told.

Truth be told - you cannot know how God is directing the life of His servants. You may be told to stand for your marriage.

Others may have to endure the divorce imposed upon them, allowing the unrepentant spouse to lose the relationship so that the unrepentant spouse may be brought into a right relationship with God.

If it comes to the choice of preserving a marriage, or bringing an unrepentant unbeliever to a saving knowledge of Jesus through the loss of that marriage - I would rather give up the marriage to save the other.

Only I know if I am following the will of God - you cannot. I know that I am - because I am in a daily walk and communication with God. He guides and guards and changes my heart.

You can suppose, you can imagine, but you cannot know because you do not live my life.

Many seem to take glee in the trouncing of someone with a position different from their own... I would like to note that Jesus, as He debated those with differing views never took joy in the "I'm right - you're wrong" aspect. He had compassion on those around them and worked to meet their needs, thereby working also to change their hearts. Change in anyone's life is best met through edifying actions, not destructive ones.

Jesus met people at their deepest need - to prevent them from going to hell. (He NEVER said, "YOU SINNERS - You are all going to HELL!!) HE changed their lives through His life, death and resurrection.

No one that has survived a divorce encourages it or enjoyed it, sometimes it was a necessary tribulation that we endured so that God might be glorified through it.

God is glorified by my life and the path He has chosen for me - whether you agree with me or not.



flowerz -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 1:22:37 PM)

Most of this is very interesting, since we have been dealing with this issue in our church.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/19/2006 12:53:00 PM)

quote:

We are not all living out the same story


But we are all bound to the same moral obligation to the truth which is unmoveable.
The reasons making disobedience to Jesus' plain words for one person but not another makes God a respector of persons. I believe the refusal to accept suffering for the truth's sake is responsible for denying Jesus' words concerning the obligation to respect the marriage covenant as holy and binding till death when one of the parties goes astray.
"Let us break his bands asunder" is the song sung by those pushing for allowing the putting asunder what God has joined together.
The wife IS bound by the law to her husband for as long as he lives. Those who become offended at suffering resulting from a disobedient spouse are those included in the parable of the sower who were offended when tribulation or persecution arose because of the word.

Since Paul is writing conclusively, if the exception clause was intended to mean that divorce for adultery is OK then Paul would have needed to include that here in 1 Cor. 7:39. He could exclude the exception and not create confusion (as what he writes clearly indicates he is referring to all lawful wives and not only to those having faithful husbands) because the exception doesn't contradict the application of those words to all lawful wives because the exception was merely a reference to the premarital divorce they were all familiar with. Assuming the exception clause to mean divorce for adultery, the plain apparent meaning of 1 Cor. 7:39 must be edited to say (if he is a faithful husband) or (unless he commits adultery).
By ommitting such additions, the author is indicating that all wives are bound to their husbands, not just those with faithful husbands.
This does not disallow the woman in an abusive or otherwise situation from departing from her husband or being "not bound" to live with him as Paul referred to. But in the situation where she does depart, she is obligated by the truth to "remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband" because she is bound to him for as long as he lives.
So Jesus' words disallowing divorce in the first place (I include the whole phrase, I am not addressing remarriage), "whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" is in fact to whosoever and not only to those who have fathful wives. Divorce is not allowed to whosoever.
"and if a wife divorce her husband and marry another, she commits adultery" also is in reference to what ever woman divorces. This applies not only to the woman having a faithful husband.
Whosoever means whosoever.
No divorce
No exceptions



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/19/2006 1:14:43 PM)

1 Corinthians 7:12-16; 39-40

quote:

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?


quote:

39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.


Paul adressed this earlier in the text. He then goes into discussing that one should be content in the circumstance in which they find themselves. This would include finding contentment in their marriage - where God has placed them, or in any other situation.

Many divorces occur because of discontent - that is not what God intended marriage to be, but it does NOT disallow divorce.

Truth is God uses circumstances and people - according to HIS will.

Maybe I would understand you better if you would share how God is working in your life - working in you and in your trials and circumstance.

I would like to know your testimony.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/20/2006 12:13:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

quote:

We are not all living out the same story


But we are all bound to the same moral obligation to the truth which is unmoveable.
The reasons making disobedience to Jesus' plain words for one person but not another makes God a respector of persons. I believe the refusal to accept suffering for the truth's sake is responsible for denying Jesus' words concerning the obligation to respect the marriage covenant as holy and binding till death when one of the parties goes astray.

...

No divorce
No exceptions

We are bound by the same obligation to Christ and His truth which is consistent and unchanging from the beginning of creation. Your concept of morality is made from a dim image of that which God considers moral and perfect. We were given His word to help us along this path. We know perfection is a goal, an unattainable goal however, but one Christ lived.

However, you have interpreted the moral obligation from your own perspective and have removed some of the words of Christ. And now you desire that everyone else tell you that you are the one that God revealed His truth to and that only you and a hand full of others are right.

Christ said "except for unfaithfulness" and you are obligated and bound to that. Yet you refuse to accept Christ's exception and therefore Christ's words.

So tell me, which other words of Christ do you deem "moveable"?



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/20/2006 12:24:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

quote:

Divorcing for unjust reason - marrying someone else = adultery against the innocent spouse


Notice the editing of the words of Jesus. "Whosoever" has been altered to conform to a different idea by using the replacement words "for unjust reason".

There is no edit. It was read in context. Please look up the term "exegesis" and discover the world of contextual reading. When we read verses from the Bible, most are not complete thoughts, fully self contained and self-fulfilling. Words and sentences and therefore verses are spread out over thoughts. It can take just a few words for a complete thought, and sometimes many sentences and therefore many words and verses.

When one reads the Bible in context, one must understand who the audience is, what is the situation that is being addressed, who the speaker is, and various levels of context as we attempt to understand what was said. Ignoring this leads to error and the promotion of our own wills and ideas ahead of God's will. We must come to the scriptures to learn what it says, not seek support for our ideas.

You say no divorce ever. I say "Jesus wept". It is as contextually appropriate as the dismissal of the exception for divorce given in Matthew 19.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/21/2006 3:22:15 PM)

quote:

Christ said "except for unfaithfulness" and you are obligated and bound to that. Yet you refuse to accept Christ's exception and therefore Christ's words.


I think everyone sees that the exception clause is being interpreted two different ways.
You have claimed that the exception clause could not relate to the premarital divorce because Jesus is not directly addressing the premarital divorce. That claim has been discredited by my explanation and offer to provide an example of how an exception clause can relate to a closely associated aspect of the subject being directly addressed in order to emphasise prohibition of that which is being directly addressed.
You have shown no interest in a real life situation demonstating the use of language as I have explained.
I will ask the question again, Is it that the opponents of no divorce perceive the implications in the example I am offering and are threatened by the looming evidence revealing that exception clauses may in fact relate to a closely associated aspect of the subject being addressed and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed?

Yes, Jesus is directly addressing the post marital divorce as evidenced in Matt. 5:31, which is a reference to Deut. 24:1-4.
Are you sure you want to maintain that an exception clause inserted in the middle of a sentence cannot relate to a closely associated aspect of what is being directly addressed and at the same time refuse to see an example disproving what you maintain?
This is at least the 3rd time I am offering to show an example of how an exception clause can in very deed be inserted and yet not relate to what is being directly addressed in order to make a point.
There is also another very good argument concerning the exception clause that you and others believing in divorce have not presented.
The example I am offering concerning exception clauses will also be useful in showing how language works on a real life level to also answer that other argument.
By refusing to view and answer the example I offer may cause you to appear to be insincere as you are supposed to make full proof of your ministry.
Still not interested?



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/21/2006 3:48:32 PM)

Understanding the exception clause to refer to the premarital divorce, which position is accommodated for by the dual definitions of husband, wife, fornication and putting away as existed in the first century, allows those embracing that position to allow Jesus' and Paul's statements to stand unmoveable and to mean what they were apparently written to mean.
Those interpreting the exception clause to relate to allowing divorce for adultery are forced to edit Jesus' and Paul's words in various places in the NT. This makes Mark, Luke, and Paul a deceiver if what they wrote is left to mean what it appears to mean.
Numerous words have to be inserted into Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18 1 Cor. 7:39,11 in order to create consistency with the exception if it is interpreted to allow divorce for adultery.
No so with the understanding that the exception relates to the premarital divorce.
The above references are maintained to mean exactly as they appear to mean and so allowing Jesus and Paul to speak for themselves.

The ongoing editing we are seeing in these threads are as appologies on Jesus' behalf as if to say, "Sorry everyone, Jesus and Paul really didn't mean what it appears they meant".

They simply meant what they said.

If the no-divorce camp is asked, What did Jesus mean in Mark 10:11,12?, they can answer by simply reading word for word Mark 10:11,12. The same goes for Luke 16:18 and Paul in 1 Cor. 7:39,11.

The divorce camp cannot read, word for word, the words of Jesus and so allow Him to speak for himself from the above quotes. The same goes for the above quotes of Paul.

For someone whose name is The Word, are you sure you guys still want to maintain that you need to speak on His behalf as though his words are deceitful unless you intervene?



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/23/2006 11:06:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

quote:

Christ said "except for unfaithfulness" and you are obligated and bound to that. Yet you refuse to accept Christ's exception and therefore Christ's words.


I think everyone sees that the exception clause is being interpreted two different ways.

Apparently not everyone. You and some others. It would be interesting to know how many ways it is interpreted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

You have claimed that the exception clause could not relate to the premarital divorce because Jesus is not directly addressing the premarital divorce.

I did not make that claim. You misquoted me and twisted my words. I claim that exception is in place for all marital contracts from betrothal through consumated marriage. In the Jewish culture, the only difference was the state of the living situation, not the commitment or contract of marriage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

That claim has been discredited by my explanation and offer to provide an example of how an exception clause can relate to a closely associated aspect of the subject being directly addressed in order to emphasise prohibition of that which is being directly addressed.

You really do esteem your arguments much more highly than others might. No, you have not discredited anything. You have stated your opinion and shown the basis for your opinion. You have discredited nothing of others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

You have shown no interest in a real life situation demonstating the use of language as I have explained.

I have used real life situations in all my examples. I have had to modify them to conform to moderator's instructions not to include personal information. The use of language as you have explained is lacking in its contextual references. You have used words and structure in localized isolation and have not consider wider concepts of textual blocks and situations of the writer, speaker, and audience. Your world is a microcosm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

I will ask the question again, Is it that the opponents of no divorce perceive the implications in the example I am offering and are threatened by the looming evidence revealing that exception clauses may in fact relate to a closely associated aspect of the subject being addressed and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed?

Your question makes no sense to me, in my opinion, as you have no evidence. You have played some word games. I have mostly tried to stay out of your word games as they do not address Scripture but address trite examples of word use in localized contexts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Yes, Jesus is directly addressing the post marital divorce as evidenced in Matt. 5:31, which is a reference to Deut. 24:1-4.
Are you sure you want to maintain that an exception clause inserted in the middle of a sentence cannot relate to a closely associated aspect of what is being directly addressed and at the same time refuse to see an example disproving what you maintain?

So then are you saying that Matthew 5:31 and Matthew 5:32 are disconnected? That verse 31 is for the "fully married" and verse 32 is for the betrothed only? It seems like that has been your position. It doesn't make sense to me. When I read verse 32, it is clear that it is a clarification of verse 31. If verse 31 is for "marriage" (which is from betrothal through consumated marriage), then verse 32 is as well.

So let's look into this microcosm...

So then verse 32 reads in the NIV: "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Who is speaking? Jesus.
Who is He talking to? A mixed crowd of Jews and Gentiles that followed Him from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan (reference Mat 4:25).
What is He talking about? Divorce, via certificate of divorce.
Who is He speaking about? A man that divorces His wife.

So then in verse 32 there are 3 people involved: Jesus the speaker, the man, and the woman who is the man's wife. Who is the woman in the second half of the thought? She is the man's wife. What happened to her? She was divorced. Now directly from verse 32 you can read it out plainly: if a man divorces his wife for anything other than marital unfaithfulness then the man is at fault for causing her to be an adulteress and if she was guilty of marital unfaithfulness she IS an adulteress. In both these cases the woman's disposition is adulteress so therefore the completion of Jesus' thought is clear that if you marry this adulteress woman, you are therefore committing adultery.

Now then it is also clear that the opposite is therefore true. If the woman was divorced for marital unfaithfulness on the part of the husband, he is the adulterer and she is not the adulteress. While this may be a stretch for the pedantic types that want to get wrapped up in the precision of the gender references used, it is still clear given that we know Jesus through Paul obliterated such gender-specific legalism. So then the man or woman is divorced because of the marital unfaithfulness of their ex-spouse, is not in adultery and does not cause a future spouse to commit adultery.

In other words, the Scripture is clear, you only have to read it to see it. To put onerous demands of incomplete thoughts and exception clauses placed out of context and disconnected throughts of betrothal marriage and consumated marriage is playing word games with the Scriptures and is really on dangerous ground. Just read the verse. God says it clearly through the words there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

This is at least the 3rd time I am offering to show an example of how an exception clause can in very deed be inserted and yet not relate to what is being directly addressed in order to make a point.

That is probably the 4th time I have explained that verse here on Crosswalk. I personally know a multi-language Bible translator who has translated the Bible into multiple languages, including various South American indigenous. I had a discussion with him about similar constructs. Your assertion simply does not hold water or make sense if I interpret it correctly. You are saying a complete thought is presented, and an exception clause for a different thought is included in the middle of it. I think not. Others think not also.

While a thought that is juxtapositioned to one thought may be included in Scripture to illustrate differences, this is clearly not two complete thoughts presented in juxtaposition. It is one thought, given in clear words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

There is also another very good argument concerning the exception clause that you and others believing in divorce have not presented.
The example I am offering concerning exception clauses will also be useful in showing how language works on a real life level to also answer that other argument.
By refusing to view and answer the example I offer may cause you to appear to be insincere as you are supposed to make full proof of your ministry.
Still not interested?

By refusing to address my direct question, you have appeared likewise. However, I am not interested anymore in that same argument. Your argument that the exception clause is unrelated to marriage and does not absolve the divorced person from the adultery clause is preposterous. No I am not interested in that assertion at all. If that is all you base this opinion on, you have some shaky ground. Do you have anything other than "the exception clause does not apply to marriage"?



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/24/2006 2:05:37 PM)

quote:

Do you have anything other than "the exception clause does not apply to marriage"?


I have never said it doesn't relate to marriage. The fact that language works in such a way that an exception clause can be inserted that can relate to a closely associated aspect of what is being directly addressed and not to that aspect which is being directly addressed is a concept you appear unwilling to discuss sincerely. If you have nothing to fear, then a real life example should rather be an opportunity for you to discredit the assertion that an exception clause can indeed be used to relate to a closely associated aspect of what is being directly addressed and still make perfect sense as the readers can see the point being made when such an exception clause is thus employed.

Your quote from the NIV is in my opinion an expression of insincerety because we both know the NIV to be largely a paraphrase. The Greek language does possess the equivalency to the English "marital" and "unfaithfulness". Yet those two words are not employed in the Greek.
While you assert that the word porneia (fornication) has to relate to adultery in the context of Matt. 5 and 19, this is debateable because even the English word fornication can be used in a context where it does NOT mean adultery.
The fact that the words, wife, husband, and put away related to both the married and unmarried couple in the first century and well before, as proven by scripture, the context is in place to accommodate in Matt. 5 and 19 that particular exclusive definition of fornication meaning what is done before the marriage.

You are skirting the issue by saying my real life example cannot have any real bearing or proving power in this discussion. Jesus' dialogue is also isolated. So you don't want to see examples from isolated situations showing the potential of exception clauses?
If you hold the truth you will have the oportunity to show how true your position is. You will also learn about the other argument you haven't brought to bear in this discussion and also my answer to it showing again the use of language and the veracity of the truth that marriage is indeed unto death as those before us have placed that ancient landmark in the phrase:
"till death do us part"
Aren't you a little ashamed of removing that landmark?



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/24/2006 3:06:50 PM)

quote:

alaska
NIV to be largely a paraphrase.


Matthew 5:31-32 NKJV
5:31
"Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
5:32
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32 Young’s Literal Translation
5:31
`And it was said, That whoever may put away his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce;
5:32
but I -- I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.


Matthew 5:31-32 Latin Vulgate
5:31
dictum est autem quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam det illi libellum repudii
5:32
ego autem dico vobis quia omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam excepta fornicationis causa facit eam moechari et qui dimissam duxerit adulterat

Matthew 5:31-32 KJV
31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But 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 committeth adultery



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI