Divorce and Remarriage: the real issue.

You are simply wrong here. Paul is not "qualifying" what he is saying, but is demonstrating that what he says has the same authority as the Lord, because he is an Apostle of Christ, with the authority of Christ. He is also under the inspiration of Holy Spirit.

Either you believe the scriptures are inspired or not. To suppose Paul "could be wrong" here means he "could be wrong" every other place he didn't specifically say "thus says the Lord, not I".

peace to youraying:

 

Pinoybaptist

I have ignored nothing. They were Christians. They deliberately ignored the advice of the Church and were divorced. They deliberately ignored the advice of the Church and were remarried. I agreed they never should have divorced. I agreed they never should have remarried. I agreed with your interpretation of the passge in Matt.

The senerio also said that one or both had repented before God and the church, after they had remarried.

Now the question in my mind is...Should fellowship be restored to a repentent believer. Scripture clearly says "yes". And yet, you would withhold fellowship, including the withholding of the Lord's Supper for the rest of these people's lives. That would cause them to sin against God by being disobedient to our Lord's command to take the bread and the wine.

peace to youraying:

 

IMHO, Paul did not 'qualify', but the Holy Spirit did inspire Paul to limit his wisdom in contrast with God's commandment.

Paul was an apostle - he was not a god (I am not sure if you wanted to imply mormon theology here). Paul clearly compared his human wisdom with the commandment of the Lord - he contrasted the commands.

Now I won't go so far as Pinoy. However, Paul does not claim to have the same authority as the Lord. Nor would it make since to claim that the Holy Spirity inspired him to write and then deny when the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that this was only his opinion and inspire Paul to contrast that with God's commandment.

 

Now who is allowing the world to define what is acceptable instead of God's Word?

Fidelity should be the norm for everyone at all times, believer or not. That is the biblical model ordained by God. How can your stated view possibly be reconciled with Paul's reference to "joining with a harlot" and I Cor. 6 and comparing that "joining" to the marriage of Adam and Eve in Gen? Clearly Paul considered even such a causal "joining" to be marriage in the eyes of God, and spoke of how that was distructive to the church.

There was no assumption of ignorance of the sinfulness of the act. It wouldn't matter if it was. Even willful sin can and should be forgiven if the person is repentent, and that is what the senerio stated.

peace to youraying:

 

Moses said this in Deut. 24. If you look at the beginning of this very long passage, these are the words given to Moses by God. God is speaking in a series of unbroken statements going way back to Deut. 10.11, as far as I can tell. I looked for a place where God has stopped speaking before Ch. 24 but couldn't find it. Let me know if you do.

In 12.1, God tells Moses these are the "statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe" and from there follows what God has directed Moses to say. This includes the thing about divorce in Deut. 24.

As for Jesus saying "Moses said," that just means Moses said it, but it still came from God, as we can clearly see when we go back to the passage in Deut. There are places where Jesus said, "As Isaiah said...." Does that mean Jesus doesn't think God spoke through Isaiah? Nope!

I had this explained to me that Paul said this because he was not quoting the OT. But these words are Paul speaking under the inspiration of the HS.

 

The context of I and 2 Cor. clearly shows Paul asserting his authority as the Apostle of Jesus Christ; who had his commission from Christ Himself, and who was indwelt by Holy Spirit. Paul's words have the same authority of Jesus Christ Himself, because, as His ambassador, they come from Christ.

That is His point. You don't have to accept it, but that is his point. He would not assert his authority as the Apostle of Christ, and then say, "oh, by the way, you really don't have to listen to this part of what I say because it is only my opinion." He is specifically saying they should accept what he is saying as if it was coming from Christ Himself, because it was.

I haven't implied Morman theology here, and for you to mention it as if I had is absurd.

peace to youraying:

 

I do not throw rocks. But you must be very, very, very sleepy. I am under the impression that today is Friday, but you think it is Saturday. Or could there be another explanation? Could it be you are a Seventh Day Adventist or a Catholic going to Saturday Mass?:tongue3:

Talk to you next time PinoyBaptist:sleeping_2:

peace to youraying:

 

I'm not the one that wanted it. I'm not the one that had the affair. I got reborn and I've repented of my past sins. If God forgives us of those...then how does this still get held against me?

 

Absolutely. But you're assuming that the repentant divorcee AND the repentant divorcee's former spouse are still single, neither has commited adultery, and both are Christians (remember, if the unbeliever left, then you are not bound in such a situation, but you may want to reconcile anyway).

If this is the case, then I agree that the only true repentance is to reconcile with your spouse. I don't think there IS another valid option at this point. Any other repentance would be fake, IMO.

I hear preachers all the time on Christian radio suggest that if your spouse commits adultery and repents, you should forgive him/her and try to reconcile. I think that's a reasonable option, but I also recall somewhere in scripture that God actually hates it if you go back to a spouse who has "been" with another person. I wish I could recall that scripture so I could remember how it fit into all this.

 

I think some of the difficulty in this thread is that there is not a break down between sin and consequence. It almost reads as if some equate consequence as sin and vice versa.

Status of a divorce is not the same as sin. And the breaking of the covenant - divorce - is a sin. But, the sin can be forgiven. However, there will be consequences from the broken covenant. (Cannot be lead pastor - IMHO - this would be one consequence).

I think we all make the divorce issue black, white, and grey without defining what we mean by it.

I have been told that if one divorces and then the spouse dies - one is now magically a widow and was never divorced. And I have been told that if the divorce was before I was saved it does not count.

 

npetreley try first or second hezekiah.

 

I know it got deflected before with the "rapture" accusation.. but just in case "someone" found some scripture to hold their position, I'm still interested.

 

I don't believe that was ever mentioned. Responsibility for the divorce is not the issue as far as I can see in the thread, but what is allowed by God or not allowed by God after a divorce.

As I can tell in Scripture just because a married couple has a piece of paper that says they are divorced does not make it so in the eyes of God. Those two people are still married.

So if your spouse filed for a divorce or whether you filed for divorce is irrelevant. In God's eyes there is no divorce, that's why if a person remarries they are now in the sin of adultery, because the first marriage is still intact.

Again I wasn't necessarily speaking to your personal situation as I'm not exactly sure what that is. But whether or not you are divorced prior to salvation or not is irrelevant again as far as I can tell.

And if a person has divorced and remarried unknowingly as to what Scripture teaches on the matter then after repentance and confession there comes forgiveness.

The sin doesn't get held against you. However, just because God can forgive man of a seeming divorce does not give man the right to go and compound the problem by remarrying, because now they are into another sin.

Hope that makes sense. We should teach Scripture for what Scripture says, but as John says we have an Advocate before the Father if we mess up. But just because we have an Advocate before the Father doesn't give us license to do whatever we want to, because at then end there is forgiveness.

 

True, but according to God's law, you would be free as soon as your ex-spouse commited adultery, because she (and I say "she" because that's how it's defined in the law - it doesn't speak of men doing the same thing) would be stoned to death. Once she is dead, the husband is free to remarry.

You run into big problems when you try to mix the three concepts. God's original intent, God's law, and current law.

God's original intent: One perfect union that is never broken

God's Mosaic law: Due to the hardness of hearts, men can write women a certificate of divorce, women cannot divorce and if they commit adultery, they are stoned to death, and the man is free to remarry.

Today's law: Almost anything goes, depending on the state where you live.

Sorry, but you can't just pick and choose from among the above one way or another. The fact that divorce is as easy as 1-2-3 in today's law doesn't make it right.

The fact that your spouse can commit adultery and not get stoned to death makes it silly to insist that you have to continue to apply the other half of the Mosaic law to men and say they cannot remarry. According to the law that you're applying to the man to restrict him from remarrying, the woman should be dead, and the man would be free to remarry. So if you want to apply the law to the man, you should get out there and advocate stoning the woman to death, too. They go together hand-in-hand.

The fact that God designed marriage to be the perfect union doesn't take into account that we're not Adam and Eve anymore. And so on...

I think it is highly appropriate to point out what Jesus said when they tried to stone a woman for commiting adultery. He said, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." That's how I feel about the people who insist on judging and condemning the man who remarries after his wife commits adultery and they get a divorce. Let him who is without sin continue to judge that man.

 

npetreley nowhere in Scripture does God tell us that we are free from the marriage just because our culture does not kill the offending party. God says marriage is for a lifetime, not until the culture changes.

We don't get to pick and choose what we do follow and what we don't based on culture. We follow God's Word. Am I going to advocate stoning offenders? No, because there is no way in the world that is going to be acceptable in this day and age, so there really is no point in it.

However, that doesn't give us the right to teach people that they can go and remarry, because their spouse was "supposed" to be dead. That just doesn't fly. If the spouse is a live then the marriage is intact. They can separate, but if the two are believers they should try to reconcile. If they can't then that is fine, but remarriage is still adultery even if the two are "divorced" by man's standards.

 

Yes, it is still technically adultery and reconciliation is always best if it's possible. However, I think I added this after you posted the reply.

I think it is highly appropriate to point out what Jesus said when they tried to stone a woman for commiting adultery. He said, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." That's how I feel about the people who insist on judging and condemning the man who remarries after his wife commits adultery and they get a divorce. Let him who is without sin continue to judge that man.

In addition (I wish I could recall the scripture) I think it is also scriptural that once the woman remarries, God forbids the man to go back to her, making reconciliation impossible.