Divorce and Remarriage

But, Tatertot, read that story again. Who did David divorce ? No one.
What he did was adultery and murder.
If I remember David's story correctly, he had multiple wives which was a cultural thing with Israel at that point of her history.
Michal, his first wife, was taken by another man.
Yet, even his sin with Bathsheba had its consequences for him, he lost their first son.
And then, even his amorous tendencies had its consequences as well.
Because he had sired sons and daughters by women other than Michal which was his first wife, he had children who were stepbrothers and stepsisters and whose love for each other were not as full siblings would have.
As a result (and continuing consequence) of his sin with Bathsheba, Tara was raped by one of his stepsons (her stepbrother) who was in turn murdered by Absalom, who led a coup d'etat against David.

 

This works both ways, you know. How many gazillion Christians say that it is a sin to smoke because "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" (and then go out and get a bacon cheeseburger with fries afterward)? That passage is strictly about joining your body (which is a temple of the Holy Spirit) with a prostitute. It is about sexual immorality. It isn't about your diet, whether or not you smoke, or anything else.

I'm not encouraging people to eat poor diets or to smoke. It just makes sense to take care of yourself. (Although I believe that if you can receive a bacon cheeseburger with thanksgiving and faith, it is a good thing, but that's a 'nother story.)

But please don't twist scripture in order to justify what you disapprove. IMO it is just as wrong as twisting scripture in order to justify what you approve.

​

 

I wasn't talking about styles of divorces, El Guerro. I was talking about when they were divorced.
As already implied, and I agreed with, by the other posters, it would be legalistic and unfair not to admit a couple desirous of membership in a church simply because they are divorced.
However, there is no legalism in removing from membership a couple who proceeds with a divorce, for whatever reason, after much counselling (which includes opening the scriptures) had been made with them, and attempts of reconciliation for them have been made by the church.
This is now a doctrinal issue.
However, if after the divorce, they would like to continue attending the church as non-members, they are welcome, even with their new spouses, but they cannot seek membership.

 

So you believe in sinless perfectionism?

Why don't you make a list of those sins over which people should leave the church as opposed to those sins which aren'tb ad enough for them to depart?

 

Where is the scripture passage that teaches this?

 

Just in case anyone wants to get overly holier-than-thou about the issue of divorce, let's recall this passage in Genesis 38.

This is precisely what God's people are NOT supposed to do - join their bodies with a prostitute. Does anyone think Judah's blessings were revoked because he did this? Does anyone think Judah is now in hell because he did this? How about Tamar? What happened to her?

Tamar will be forever remembered as being part of the lineage of our Lord and Savior.

Am I saying prostitution is okay? God forbid! But obviously the world didn't come to an end because this happened. In fact, one might suggest that if it didn't happen, the world would have come to an end, because the lineage of Christ would have been broken. (just a joke, folks)

Compare the above to the current trend in many churches to treat divorce - even what I consider to be Biblically based divorce - to be the unforgivable sin. Personally, I think their priorities are just as screwed up as those of the Pharisees.

​

 

Where in my post is the Scripture I quoted and twisted to justify what I disapprove of ?

Are you saying that sin is not in itself spiritual adultery ?

But to satisfy you, here are some Scriptures among many I am now quoting in support of my contention that every sin is spiritual adultery and if adultery is a ground for divorce, then we, redeemed as we are, who are prone to sin, have no security at all, since we have been unfaithful, and God ought to have divorced us already, were it not for Christ who shields us.

 

It's not just a matter of sinless perfectionism. It's a matter of unforgiveness even if the people repent. And, as I pointed out elsewhere, there are situations where people who repent must do so without the possibility of being reconciled to their spouse. They have no choice because their former spouse has remarried or slept with another person.

Does anyone know of any other sin where, if the person repents, that person is still unforgiven and not allowed in the church? There are many sins where the consequences cannot be undone (murder, for example). Do the same churches that disallow membership based on divorce also disallow membership if someone commits murder, repents of it, serves his time, and wants to rejoin the church?

 

First, I was not accusing you of anything. I was just pointing out that it works both ways. People twist scripture to justify what they disapprove just as much as they twist scripture to justify what they approve.

Second, Paul is using an illustration from the law to show that death releases us from the law, so his readers who knew the law would understand the parallel that we are dead to the law. If anything, this should prove that his point is NOT to re-establish this particular aspect of the law concerning divorce, otherwise we'd still be alive to the law.

Furthermore, I don't know if this is your intent, but if you are going to insist that Paul was teaching that we should obey the Mosaic law concerning death and divorce, then you're going to have to re-establish the WHOLE law of Moses concerning divorce, and let people write their wives a certificate of divorce. That was part of it, too. I've seen countless people misapply this passage to how we should handle divorce today. It is a blatant misapplication of an illustration to make a point totally unrelated to divorce. This, IMO, is a classic example of someone twisting scripture to justify what they disapprove.

As for sin being spiritual adultery, of course I agree with you.

 

According to Old Testament law, if someone commits adultery, they were stoned to death and the innocent party is widowed (and free to remarry).

In the same way, Jesus' teaching about divorce (Matthew 19:9) seems to recognize this reality.

While reconciliation is a worthy goal that should be considered and pursued, often the guilty party does not want to be reconciled and the innocent party must move on with their life.

As for my situation, I pursued reconciliation for nearly two years with nothing but resistance, rejection, verbal abuse, and extreme financial distress. And one day when I was at work, she took off with almost all the money in the bank (over $13,000) and left me with more than $10,000 of credit card debt that she had secretly racked up over the previous few months. She left me with only $200 in the checking account to pay rent (would only cover half the rent that was due in three days) and all of our bills for the next two weeks. I barely ate anything for a month because I had so little cash.

One of the primary reasons I filed for divorce was to avoid getting into any more debt than I was already in because my wife was spending at a breakneck pace, and I was responsible for her debt (since Texas is a community property state). In a large part, my filing for divorce was an effort to protect others (lenders).

After the divorce (my wife did not appear in court and I paid for an attorney to represent both of our interests), I did not hear from my ex again and I have no idea if she is dead or alive, married or unmarried.

It's impossible to reconcile with someone who breaks off all contact and lets you know that they have no intention of reconciling.

 

Matthew 19:9: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

I had someone the other night tell me there was no excuse to get a divorce and quoted Mark 10:11 to me, implying by divorcing my ex-wife, my new life was adulterous.

Well, over 14-15 years ago, my ex-wife was having affairs (yep, plural.) After multiple forgiveness, and many times of showing up to Christian counseling where she would never come, I finally threw in the towel.

Well, 13 years ago I started dating my current wife, and married her 12 years ago. All has been great as we keep Christ in our marriage.

I am a firm beleiver though that adultery is the only reason for a man to divorce his wife. Anything else, in my opinion, is invalid.

 

Being married 29 years with no divorce and really hope to never get one, I really have no personal issue in this thread. Pinyobaptist, your remarks are harsh, and angers my insides when I read your posts.

Yes, God hates divorce, yes it was meant one person for life. What does that have to do with possible second marriages, starting other families, or for the life of me, what does it have to do with church membership.

If you want to be Billy Perfect Baptist and condem those who have divorced to a life of singleness and celibacy, go ahead. It has nothing to do with Scripture, and nothing to do with Christ changing lives. Your ideas accomplish nothing, but produce hate.

If it is a sin to remarry in adultry, how many times have you committed adultry in your heart by looking at another woman? Why dont you get a divorce for your unfaithfulness and join a group of monks?

No doubt you believe in closed communion.

 

On the other hand, I think Christians today have taken on the attitude of the world toward divorce, and are much too lenient about it. Their divorce rate reflects that.

I'd like to see someone use scripture to show it's okay after divorce to get remarried. I'm not saying it's there or not - I've seen both sides. But so far, no one has used scripture to support the view that remarriage after divorce is okay.

 

I will go this far for it how far our church and Association goes and I agree but if there is Scripture that goes farther I wish someone would tell me. I think for the cause of fornication you are free. I know some will say it doesn't say to marry again but it does say if not for this reason and if you marry again it is adultery so I would assume if its for this cause then you would not be committing adultery. I will admit to this that I stretch the envelope as far as I can and still feel right about it but it is the hardest thing I have had to deal with as a Pastor.

Matthew, chapter 5

"32": But 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.

BTW; I have been married to one woman for 45 years this Oct. 10

 

I offer no apologies. There are no rules that say one's remarks must not be harsh. And if they anger you, perhaps it is because you read but do not comprehend.

Ah. The old "yes, buts". Yes, God is sovereign, but.... Yes, the Holy Spirit regenerates, but....Yes, God hates divorce, but.....Yes, Jesus saves, but...

What it has to do with church membership is church purity, planetman. We are all fallen sinners, true, yet the Bible itself is full of instructions, if you will look for them, that in so many words say we are to live what we preach.

I suppose your church wouldn't feel uncomfortable finding out, for example, that a church member moved in with his/her boyfriend/girlfriend without the benefit of marriage, and that people around you who are not members of your church may come to your church because, hey, "they're good people who don't mind live-in, out-of-wedlock arrangements ?

I suppose your church wouldn't bat an eyelash if one of its members is found out to be a practicing homo or lesbo and people around you consider you a church conformed to overlooking "sexual preferences" ?

Ohhhh, wherever in these posts here was there a mention about one assuming a life of singleness and celibacy ? Now you're guilty of false accusations, planetman.

In as much as me condemning those who assume lives of singleness and celibacy is a charge you concocted, planetman, my answer is : I do not know what you are talking about.

IF ? IF ? Goodness gracious, now I'm beginning to wonder if you even read your Bible ! IF it is a sin to remarry in adultry ?

Oh, indeed, many times, sir, many, many times. American women like to walk around practically nude (blame the weather, and all that jazz), and I don't happen to have a lifeless thing, uh, I suppose you know what I mean, on me.
And many times I have committed murder in my heart and mind.
And many times I have lied, and many times I have been unfaithful to God in my life.

And that is why, sir, if you will read and comprehend my post, instead of being angry because it was posted by pinoybaptist (whose doctrines you do not agree with and therefore must be wrong), I argue that if adultery were a valid reason for divorce, none of us would stand before God because many times we have committed spiritual adultery by sinning against Him, and had it not been for Christ our cleft in the Rock, we would all fall before His judgment.

Comprende ?

And why don't you go get a rock and bash your head with it and see if there's something called a brain inside it ?

I believe in close, not closed, communion.

 

I have got to wonder if you have ever read a Bible. Quote, you said "if adultry were a valid reason for divorce..." Matt 5:32 says it is. Or do you not believe that part of the Bible.

As far as the purity of your church membership roll, I am going to guess that is quite a percentage of that roll that hasnt darkened the door of your church in years. Yes, quite a pure roll, great witness.

Perhaps the reason I think your comments are harsh is because they are. There is nothing to comprehend in irrationality.

No, unlike your church, my church would not condone a homosexual or lesbian relationship. What does that have to do with divorce and remarriage?

Dont call me planetman again, freak.

 

Just a little off topic, but a preacher has to have occasional one-line jokes:

"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out."

Kinda sounds like a divorce "he said she said." Too bad the Word doesn't say anything ... Tho't Marcia might like that.

 

Got scripture? :smilewinkgrin:

 

What, have you got me blocked out or something?

 

Well, now, sir, I do believe there really is something wrong with your head, if not your eyes. What I said is very different from what you said, to wit:

"if it is a sin to remarry in adultry"

which I take it means to say you are asking if it is a sin to remarry while practicing adultery or engaged in adultery.
Now, either you meant that to be your question, or you were so angry at pinoybaptist, which is a personal anger contrary to what you are making us believe here, that short of apoplexy killing you, you just didn't know how to phrase your questions and your apopletick anger makes your finger miss the right keys.

On the contrary, planetman, the church I attended were made up of people who knew who they were before God in Christ, and who they would be out of Christ, and are ever conscious of their sinful standing and therefore ever grateful for the undeserved grace and mercy accorded to them, and we do not look down our noses at sinners because we know we are as much sinners as they are, but neither do we put our arms around their shoulders and walk in merry steps with them before the world, because to do so would be to give occassion for Gentiles to blaspheme the Name of God.

AGain, I offer you no apologies. You can seethe in anger for all I care.

Never so truly spoken. I find it hard to comprehend your irrationality.

And what exactly do you know about my church ? You know absolutely nothing about our church, and your ignorance shows very clearly.

Like I said, try bashing your head open and see if there's something called a brain inside.

Then change your handle, circus sideshow.