Featured Question for Independent Fundamental Baptists

Don't let anyone tell you you are living in perpetual sin. That is utter nonsense.

 

What does the Bible Say?

I have not read the thread, so sorry if any of this is redundant.
Baptist churches vary and so folks from differing churches will give you different answers to your questions.

1) Many people who believe they were saved at a young age, because they professed faith in Christ, then fall away as a teenager, or young adult. Only God knows whether you were saved or were just another tare, like the Matthew 7 folks who said "Lord, Lord" but Jesus never knew them.

2) The Biblical basis of divorce is the marital unfaithfulness of the spouse. If your first husband failed that test, then many Baptist Churches, but not all, would accept that divorce as biblical.

3) Any born anew person can serve within the local body, but ladies are not, in my opinion, supposed to exercise spiritual authority over adult men. So you could be a leader of a women's group, or children's group.

4) Yes, the scriptural guidance as to the role you play in your Holy second marriage applies to you. Some say God is the God of second chances, but the way I see it, God is the God of the continuous chance. Each day we turn the page on our past sins, and strive in the new day to follow Christ on our path of righteousness.

 

This is very true that people from different churches will give different answers. In all reality only the person and God knows what their relationship is. If you have asked for forgiveness from God, then know that you are forgiven. Your relationship with the Lord, is your relationship with the Lord. Don't let anyone tell you any different. As far as if you can hold a position in the church, you should talk to your pastor and see what they feel about the subject. I had a pastor that would sit you down for almost any public sin, whereas I've had other pastor's who were a little more lenient.

 

I would still call myself IFB, though many of them would not agree .

I am a traditionalist on this topic, but the only positions I can see as precluded are pastor and deacon.

 

Van pointed out that infidelity constitutes legitimate divorce, but there is another reason:


1 Corinthians 7:13-15

King James Version (KJV)

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.


While it might be debates as to whether a supposed believing spouse departing would change the issue, I think that would be a futile debate. IT does not change the conditions Paul instructs us on, which is...if they want to depart, let them depart. God has called us to peace. The violation would be for the believing spouse to justify divorce because she wants to leave, whereas the unbelieving spouse does not want the divorce.

So in your situation, as you describe it, your husband made the decision, and you have been instructed to let him depart.

Now, just to add a little more to think about, we go back to the beginning of the chapter and understand Paul's teaching in regards to singleness and being married. Most people have a need for a mate, and the bottom line is this: when divorce does take place on Biblical grounds (infidelity or abandonment), we wouldn't conclude that the will of God would then be forgotten, or change...for the one divorced. In other words, if divorce occurs, that doesn't change Paul's previous principle of God's will spoken of:


1 Corinthians 7

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.


That's his first point: avoid fornication.

So for those that teach that it is a sin for remarriage under any circumstances (and there are those that teach that), they just haven't given this chapter too much thought. What they say is "The Lord doesn't want people to burn with lust, unless of course they get divorced, then...those people just have to suffer from how they were designed by God Himself."

Which is, for most of us...to have a spouse.

There are those that can live alone and "care for the things that belong to the Lord," but that is the exception to the general rule of how we were created, and what is the norm. It is a gift of God, in my view, and I know of only one person who has chosen that route for her own life. I can respect that, but she stands out as an exception.

The bottom line is that a conflict is created when one teaches remarriage is not acceptable on any grounds. We can't reconcile God having called us to peace with someone being forced to live in a condition where they burn with lust and are in danger of fornication.

It is just my opinion that the Lord is just fine with you remarrying.

But I do have to agree with the other member, I am a more traditional Independent Fundamental Christian, and do not see a role of leadership as a role intended for women. Doesn't mean I think they cannot serve, because honestly...women are the backbone of the Body. J. Vernon McGee once said, "Thank God for the 'Marthas,' nothing would ever get done in the Church if it wasn't for them," lol. I agree. But I see in Scripture a general principle that leadership has always been placed on men, not because women couldn't lead, but because men are given the responsibility for the women in their lives. We see Deborah as an exception to this rule, but when God established Israel and the Levitical Priesthood, we don't see women serving in that capacity. But, there is nothing wrong with certain ministries women perform, and all of us can, to some extent, be of service to God. I just don't see that Pastoring would be one of those ministries. I don't condemn those who are okay with it, and seen some convincing argument for it, but, nothing that has ever made me consider it as something that should be. Visited a Baptist Church once that had a female associate Pastor, and for those that attend there, well, that's their choice.


God bless.

 

Didn't realize this thread was as old as it was. Does this member still come here?


God bless.

 

Van, This is NOT "the biblical basis for divorce."

There is only ONE Scriptural basis for divorce. And that is as Paul states - one who becomes a believer while married to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever seeks a divorce.

However - that believer is to remain unmarried until the unbeliever dies.

THAT is the Biblical view of divorce. There is NO other.

What some contend about the unfaithfulness is found in the words of Christ which applies to the marriage arrangement of THAT culture and not our own.

In the JEWISH culture of the time, the marriage took place but was not consummated until the father of the groom approved the place the groom was building. At THAT time, the groom came and took the bride from her home and brought her to his home and the consummation took place.

It was during THAT period of time (after the marriage but before the consummation) that divorce was allowed by Christ for infidelity - remember Joseph was going to put away Mary privately (get a quite divorce) allowed because there was yet no consummation at that time?

There is NEVER a time in NT Scripture that a man or woman can divorce because of infidelity after consummation of the marriage.

If there were, then the picture would be marred of Christ and the church, or the OSAS group would have to state that salvation was earned and no longer guarantee.

BTW, because some reader may say, "well they broke their vows." Marriage is NOT a contract in which there is an escape clause. It is a matter of unconditional vows stated to God of what is given to the partner. It is NOT conditioned upon the response, richness, health, fidelity or any other problem that partner may bring along the way.

The vow is a one way street. It isn't even conditional upon the other person accepting the vow, much less keeping the vow as a sacred trust.

 

A few thoughts:

In many IFB and other circles, it is not at all uncommon to see debates much like unto those in a courtroom when one is offended, shunned, burned, or just does not like being corrected. It is suprising why more do not just go become a paralegal; they'd excell!
That pharisaical foolishness belongs not at all in Christ's body. Pentacosals and the "non-denom" crowds are rankly guilt too (15 years a charasmatic; five non-denom).
It's wrong. We ought to have charity for our brethren, even if they sinned. It is not like you had God himself say sin lieth at the door, then murdered your brother.

The apostle said, What saith the scripture?
If we confess our sins, he is faithful & just to forgive our sins, & cleanse us of all unrighteousness.

Anybody who has an issue with that needs to examine themselves to see if there're of the faith.
Some places will not allow you in the door, and some will socially ostracize. Frankly, for what reason would you go there? If the joint ain't building up people in Christ, it ain't workin'.

 

Certainly, the answer is found in response to the following questions.

Who was the audience that directly ask the question and to whom Jesus directly answered?

What was the marriage custom of that day?

In the custom of the Jews, was there a time when one was considered married and yet not "one flesh?"

Look at the statement by Christ:

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” ​

Some would take the statement of Christ, "I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” to be the "exception" to make divorce "legal."

Such thinking, in effect, states that something man does can undo that which God joined (Henry VIII thinking). However, there is no place in Scripture where such authority is given to human kind. God is never subjected to humans.

On a side, there is great information as to the thinking of Henry VIII: HERE

When is the ONLY time that one (in the Jewish culture of that time) was married but not "one flesh?" During the time we might call "engagement" although in the Jewish custom of the day, the marriage ceremony had already taken place, the bride was merely waiting with the bride maids on the groom's coming to take her away.

There is also that which Paul stated concerning those who became believers, yet the partner did not. If the partner divorced them, they were not to remarry.

"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."​

See, this is the Lord's instruction, not Paul's.

Paul is restating what the Lord taught.

Now just beyond is the condition if the unbeliever divorces in which Paul indicates this is his view and not a directive from Christ:
"...if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. ... Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace."

The "not under bondage" is not referring the person is free to marry another. Rather it is referring back to the earlier part of the discussion having to do with the physical body belonging to each other.

Hope this helps the readers understand.

I realize that this post is counter culture, and typical modern believers are not taught this standard, but given a "home free" as if marriage is merely a game in which someone can merely walk away. It is also NOT seeing the marriage as a covenant, but as that of one making a vow to God. Covenant marriages are conditional, but those based upon vows are not dependent upon the actions of the partner.