Divorce and Remarriage

[Daniel David]

hrhema, the confusion is not on my part. You are putting words in Christ's mouth.

HCL, just give me a little time. I will have them up soon.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

edited out personal facts pertaining to this issue.

[ December 11, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

[Daniel David]

Wisdomseeker, I will post more later, but the Scripture NEVER mentions the "innocent" party. Have you wondered why?

Do you know that a cathoic invented the idea because of the sacramental view they believe in regards to marriage?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Wisdomseeker, I will post more later, but the Scripture NEVER mentions the "innocent" party. Have you wondered why?

Probably because it is very clear from context that there indeed can be an innocent party ( when Jesus speaks of 'the one who divorces his wife because of adultery' and when Paul mentioned those who 'are not bound' to their former spouses anymore) and the biblical understanding that God does not hold people guilty for the sins of another.

 

[RodH]

Just out of curiosity, for those who believe that there are no exceptions, even adultery, what would you have those that are now remarried do? Is it enough in your opinion to ask for God's forgiveness and continue with their current spouse, or should they divorce again and seek reconciliation with their first spouse?

Rod

 

[RodH]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
PTW,
Can you post all of the Scriptures that deal with this? Thank you so much.

HCL

I am not PreachtheWord, but I think the scriptures referenced are:
Matthew 5:31-33
Matthew 19:1-10
Mark 10:1-12
Luke 16:18
1Corinthians 7:10-16

There may be more, but this is all I have found in the New Testament.

Rod

 

[hrhema]

I am glad I know that I put Jesus' own words in his mouth. I also am glad that I and millions of other Christians and preachers worldwide believes Jesus' words also.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Wisdomseeker, I will post more later, but the Scripture NEVER mentions the "innocent" party. Have you wondered why?

Do you know that a cathoic invented the idea because of the sacramental view they believe in regards to marriage?

I've read and re-read this, and I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Please explain. Thank you.

 

[AdoptedDaughter]

Well...PTW obviously did not see the seond post in this thread, for if he had, he would have no room to say that there are absolutely no grounds for divorce...it's right there in the scripture...black and white!

 

[Helen]

hrhema, BB, Lorelei, and others who have stood for what the Bible actually teaches, thank you. My husband is coming home tomorrow morning. He has not been able to get across the Pacific since last Easter when we both left for a speaking engagement in New Zealand. I have been so excited to see him again. The thought that anyone could consider me an adulteress when I have never been anything but faithful had me in tears. I really appreciate what you folks have said in response to that accusation here. God bless you.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
BB, I would also recommend: Divorce and Remarriage - 4 Christian Views by Intervarsity Press. Each view is presented and then interacted with the proponents of the other views.

I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip!

 

[Lorelei]

PTW,

You said you offer no words but those of Christ, Peter and Paul in your defense, and yet you have used NONE of thier words in your defense. You later send someone to read a book other than the Bible, whose words were not written by Christ, Peter and Paul. You keep saying scriptures are coming, but they don't. Do you have words by all three of these men in context to prove your point or not? Do you only stand by their word alone as you have stated, or also by the author of the book you recommended?

Someone else listed some passages for you and in response to those let me ask you this:

Has anyone here gauged out their eye, or cut off their hand yet? Surely you can't tell me that at one time or another one of those have not caused you to sin...EVER.

If you are going to take a blanket statement of Christ (out of context) and use it to make women cry by calling them adultresses, then maybe you should cut your tongue out instead.

Matthew Chapter 5 wasn't giving us a new law, it was revealing just how impossible it was for us to keep the law.

For those who say that Christ is calling us aldultresses in these instances, then apply these verses to your lives.

Matt 5:27-30

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
NIV

Matt 5:20
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
NIV

Matt 5:48
8 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect
NIV

Who can be perfect? Who can be so righteous? NNE! That is Christ's point.

In case you have forgotten we are no longer under the law.

You have also not commented why Paul tells me I am not in sin, but you say that I am.

Do you have any scripture for these accusations you so easily toss about?

~Lorelei

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Helen:
...who have stood for what the Bible actually teaches, thank you.

Enter the emotions...

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by baptistforever:
Well...PTW obviously did not see the seond post in this thread, for if he had, he would have no room to say that there are absolutely no grounds for divorce...it's right there in the scripture...black and white!

Obviously not baptistforever.

I am not content with twisting the words into something he did not say.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Helen:
It was the Bible that showed us differently.

It was your interpretation of the Bible that showed you differently.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Probably because it is very clear from context that there indeed can be an innocent party ( when Jesus speaks of 'the one who divorces his wife because of adultery' and when Paul mentioned those who 'are not bound' to their former spouses anymore) and the biblical understanding that God does not hold people guilty for the sins of another.

Actually, BB, no, it isn't clear. It is assumed. An argument for the "innocent" party is an argument from silence. We all know that is the weakest argument posible.

 

[Johnv]

PTW, just curious, aside from adultery, would you also not consider abuse as grounds for divorce, since it violates the marital covanent?

Not trying to start an arguement, just wondering what your thought was.

~Jv

 

[Johnv]

Certainly, in my case, where I not only caught my wife in the act, but she continued the act by moving in with the man while we were still married, that would completely fall within the biblical guidelines for an allowable divorce, wouldn't y'all agree??? I gave her two years to end it and return to her husband, and she failed to do so.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by rodh:
Is it enough in your opinion to ask for God's forgiveness and continue with their current spouse...

Rod, yes, I believe this is the revealed will of God. Trying to go back and tear things up again only makes things worse.

1 Corinthians 7:20
Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by rodh:
There may be more, but this is all I have found in the New Testament.

Yes, there are others.

Btw, kudos to Rod for letting us know he is from Arkansas . It takes a real man to reveal that sort of information.