Awesome.
"Jesus wouldn't want me to be in an emotionally abusive relationship."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How to be a spiritual leader of the home
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Awesome.
"Jesus wouldn't want me to be in an emotionally abusive relationship."
Was it a divorce allowed by Bible?
Is she still yet unmarried ? if yes, why not do the bible admonish to try to reconcileafte getting your spiritual act togethr my brother?
And wha advie has leadership at new churc given concerning your divorce an walk wit God?
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me where there is a "biblical divorce", I have looked and I think it may be in the fashion of a unicorn.
I'm assuming He means, "one that God is pleased with."
God hates divorce and isn't pleased with it, but has permitted it(because of the hardness of hearts).
I'm assuming that's what the poster meant.
Annsini and I have contended about this, before on other threads.
I consider such a view as hers, though popular and "preferred" to be wrong.
I really wish folks would grasp what constituted and exactly WHEN a divorce could take place in a believer's life.
It is ONLY allowed when adultery occurs BEFORE the wedding consummation and DURING the engagement period.
Anytime BEFORE and AFTER that length of time there is NO permission given for EVER agreeing to or about divorce involving two believers.
It is nothing but the foolishness of lazy accountability toward the Scriptures that one would "excuse" divorce on grounds of "adultery" after marriage consummation.
And I don't see this argument supported by Scripture at all.
I don't either.
Yes, also there would be supported the concept of pornia, which would be something affecting the person that causes them to divorce, which may very well be sexual sins such as adultery, pornography, alternate lifestyle choosing, basically something that attacks very core of a marriage!
The spouse engaging in those things are violating the oneness between them, and if unrepentant and ongoing, can cause abandonment!
Yes, that no 2 Christians should ever. be if one chooses to walk away and disobey God...
Whether one sees it or not, does not make it true.
Christ made it extremely clear what was God's design, but generally folks prefer the standard of Mosses even to this day.
There is not a get out of responsibility for a believer's vows made to God and before God, dispite the actions of others.
What another person does or doesn't do does not change the responsibility of performance of the one making the vow.
Even simple contract law agrees with me. The vows are not conditional nor conditioned upon the responce or lack thereof by some other party. They simply are not worded in such a way.
There is no, "I take you if and only if" part in the vows.
Well maybe they were in some on this board who just don't see it as truth. At least in the back of your mind, perhaps.
Christ made it extremely clear what was God's design, but generally folks prefer the standard of Mosses even to this day.
There is not a get out of responsibility for a believer's vows made to God and before God, dispite the actions of others.
What another person does or doesn't do does not change the responsibility of performance of the one making the vow.
Even simple contract law agrees with me. The vows are not conditional nor conditioned upon the responce or lack thereof by some other party. They simply are not worded in such a way.
There is no, "I take you if and only if" part in the vows.
Well maybe they were in some on this board who just don't see it as truth. At least in the back of your mind, perhaps.
See, when Jesus says "except", I kind of take that as condition.
I agree.
The question isn't the except it is the when the except can be applied.
The only time is when one who is supposedly committed (engaged) and they fail that commitment by ingaging in adultery. Just as Joseph thought Mary had and was going to divorce her (put her away) privately. That failure has cemented that person to someone else, so it is right and proper for a publication of the marriage being called off. in the time of Christ, an actual bill of divorce was given.
However,
After consummation, there is no exception. That is born out in how Christ states the plan of God and not allowing humans to render it void.
Christ ask, Did God allow, in His divine plan, for divorce, or was it Mosses allowing it because of the hardness of the people? What was Christ's answer?
The problem as I see it resolves to the core issues of:
1) the premium God places upon a vow.
2) the premium God places on the consummation making a single inseparable unit until death.
3) the desires of humankind to always have an escape plan to avoid responsibility for their own sin and sinful behaviors.
4) the lack of determined commitment to a situation despite it not being what one expects, considered, longs for, or any other parameters that can mar the perspective, including plain old lust and pride.
5) the picture God chooses to display to the heathens and to the believers, be it a prophet told to marry a harlot, to the shining example of Christ's enduring love for the believer.
To that end, in the face of bitter betrayal, rejection, stiff necked rebellion or any number of presentations believers will one day answer for, any amount of abuse or any other form of physical, mental, emotional exercise, are not just unaware circumstances to the King. He knows it all.
The believer is responsible to God for their attitude and behavior in spite of the traumas God allows and that believer is accountable to God, alone.
Is the pride of life so dear that one would cling to some escape rather than allowing Christ to shine through them? Is this not part of Paul's teaching especially about those unequally yoked? Not a single time did Paul give approval for the believers to initiate divorce. If they found their place was that of being divorced by an unbelieving partner, they were to remain single until death freed them of the obligations of their vows.
The love of one toward another is to be like that of Christ. Even if that love is not returned (see 13 Corinthians:4-8...)
The ultimate question is, when is it right to no longer love and be committed to one in which God has heard certain vows toward, irregardless of any circumstance?
Never
I think this may be based on a misunderstanding of the marriage ceremony common in Israel at the time of Christ.
Mary and Joseph were not engaged. They were married.
When a man married a women in that day, at the end of the wedding ceremony the groom would not take his bride on a honeymoon but would, instead, give her back to her father to live in his home while the bridegroom went to prepare a place for his bride. He would buy the land, build the house, build the furniture, plant the garden, etc.
Then, when everything was read he would return to his bride and receive her unto himself.
That is the whole point of Jesus' teaching in John 14.
So, if the woman was not yet the bride, but only engaged, then we are not saved in this life, only elect to be saved at some later time?
And look at the word "espoused" and note how it is used.
Luke 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
No additional ceremony was needed. They were married.
The only way to terminate that espousal was by divorce.
Even the English translation uses a verb form of "spouse."
I believe it is saying if the unbeliever abandons then let them and the believing spouse will not be accountable for any adultery the unbeliever commits. HOWEVER nowhere does it say the believer is to abandon the nonbelieving spouse. Gotta twist that one really hard to come up with that being a "biblical divorce". Which by the way there is no such thing.
I agree that the believe is not to abandon the unbelieving spouse. The verse speaks to the unbelieving spouse leaving the believer. And I disagree that there is not a biblical divorce because Jesus himself gave us the main reason that divorce is acceptable - although not mandatory.
I am very well aware of what you wrote.
I used the word engaged merely to illustrate that time pre-consummation knowing full well that in the Hebrew setting the word was weak at best.
However the principle remains as I stated.
It was during that period (prior to consummation), only, that divorce was permitted by God and at no other time.
It is complete error for folks to argue divorce is allowed after the consummation union.
It is most unfortunate that folk have bought into Scriptural error attempting to excuse what God does not.
Jesus did not say that there was a reason for divorce to be "acceptable". He did say that a believer would not be held responsible for the actions of the unbeliever. That is a far cry from saying that divorce is "acceptable". But, then some folks can always tell God that we corrected His mistakes.
Umm - what about the part that says "except for adultery"?