Is divorce and remarriage permissible for Christians?

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "The bible clearly deliniates believers from non-believers, but you have said it is baptized christians. It is very possible to be baptized and not be a believer. What are we to do then."

I would argue that the New Testament, (esp. Paul) equates "one who is baptized" with "one who is a believer". If both are baptized, one or both don't have a living faith, and a marriage takes place, then it cannot be undone.

You wrote, "It is very clear from scripture that Christians are not to "send away" our wifes or husbands, on this we can agree. But if the non-believing member leaves, the believer is not "bound" anymore. Even if church tradition doesn't support this it doesn't change the fact that the scripture says it. The Catholic church and the protestant church have both had some issues in the past where they were wrong. Isn't it possible the Catholic church is still wrong here, as it was with other issues?"

Anything's possible Jason. Heck, Jesus may not be divine because the Church might be wrong on this issue. Even the Gospels may be fabrications of later Christian communities, and they might be wrong (e.g. the Jesus Seminar).

My assumption is based on faith: that the Scriptures are inerrant due to the fact that they're theopneustos, and you should address the Scriptural arguments I've made if you hold to this same belief in Holy Scripture, but you aren't dong this. Please, step up to the plate and address what I've presented on a point-by-point basis and stop quibbling.

You wrote, "You always talk of tradition, but tradition is wrought full of error. Why hold to tradition which obvsiously is in error? Is tradition infallible now as well?

You see, Jason, I believe that the Holy Spirit animates Tradition, protects the Magisterium, and inspires Scripture. Any credit given is due to the Holy Spirit.

How you can accept the canon of the New Testament and the full doctrine of the Trinity, yet make a statement such as, "tradition is wrought full of error" is beyond my understanding.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 19, 2002, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi wishtolearn,

You wrote, "He gave us life so that we may live it abundantly. Our Father wants us to be happy and the generations we create to be happy, not bound to some Scriptural interpretation of the Law as we think it is."

Again I would reiterate that, according to your reasoning, it would be better for a person not to be a Christian if he/she doesn't have to face martyrdom when asked by an authoritarian atheistic regime if they believe in the Lord Jesus.

Please, give me New Testament Scripture and respond to my exegesis of Scripture if you're a Christian. You are a Christian, aren't you? Christians follow "God's Word", and that's what we're trying to do here. His Word is the standard, not ours. As Christians, we don't create the terms of the New Covenant ... God does.

Scripture says that Jesus tells us, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Obviously the subjects in Jesus' hypothetical are "happy", and adultery can be seen as "abundant". So what?

God bless,

Carson

[ April 19, 2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "I have a feeling you won't accept it until you are spoon fed the response from Dr. Hahn (if that is the correct spelling)."

Should I really respond to this? Would Jesus want for me to respond to this?

You wrote, "I am not addressing the scripture, frankly, because you don't want to hear it.

I'm addressing the Scriptures even though I may think you don't want to hear it, and it isn't stopping me.

You're incorrect. I do want to hear it, and I want to test it. This is called disputation, and it's healthy. It's also what we've been engaging in with about 90% of these posts. There's nothing new under the sun, and I encourage you to join in.

You wrote, "Let me put only one example out there. Death penalty. Catholic church practiced this for hundreds of years. Now we are told the death penalty is a horrible, horrible idea (from John Paul 2). Well, which catholic churh was right? The old or the new?"

That's a good question; would you like to listen to a lecture on the subject or read an article? Or, are you simply throwing this out though you don't want to hear my answer?

The Christian tradition has recognized a government's right to protect its citizens by using the death penalty in some serious situations. However, the question today is whether capital punishment is still justifiable in the present circumstances in the United States.

You wrote, "How about the CC support of the Nazi's in WWII?"

*laughing* Perhaps, as well, you should be asking about the Catholic support of Nero during the Roman persecutions of the Church.

Again, I don't see any Scripture. Would you mind addressing my arguments? What's the point in posting if you won't dialogue? Why are you even here?

Jesus tells us, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Do you disagree with Jesus? Do you follow Jesus?

God bless,

Carson

[ April 20, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi wishtolearn,

You wrote, "I cannot quote Scripture as fluently as yourself and others on this board, however I do not think myself any less a Christian for not having this talent."

Thank you for your display of humility, and our "being Christian" isn't dependent upon our talent to exegete Scripture. This is why Jesus gave us a home, a Church (specifically, the Catholic Church), in which we can live, breath, and love without fear of having our ignorance injure our salvation.

You wrote, "Well, then I'll take being an adulteress over unhappiness any day of the week."

But, really? Would you?

You wrote, "Jesus died for our sins and I'm pretty sure he'll forgive me and understand my reasoning when I meet him again someday."

Paul tells us, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Those who remain enslaved to sin will not be saved, regardless of what they profess. Christianity isn't only a cognitive belief system, which it includes (because we believe what God has revealed); it's a life that involves the volitional will and the action of the Spirit. One who trusts in Jesus, yet "sins bravely" will not be saved. This is an emphatically clear message the New Testament uncompromisingly presents to us, and we aren't at liberty, as Christians, to ignore, defame, or water the Gospel message.

St. Paul says, "but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance." (Acts 26:20)

The Greek for "repent" is metanoeo, which comes from meta (after/against) + noeo (to think or perceive), and it means "to change one's mind, to heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins." If we've repented, we abohor adultery and turn from it. If we do not abhor sin and have turned from it, then we haven't repented and turned to God, and we do not have a faith that will save us.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 20, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Larry,

You wrote, "I ... am not totally convinced either way. I can see both sides of it" concerning divorce and remarriage. I then proceed with, "It's evident that you don't have a doctrine concerning "divorce and remarriage" after the marriage of two Christians, and that you're leaving the topic to further debate." And, you wrote, "No ... rather it is evident that you don't like it. That is far different."

Your reply, "No" gives a negative response to my statement, "you don't have a doctrine concerning "divorce and remarriage ... you're leaving the topic to further debate", which is a truthful and clear expression of your statement, "I ... am not totally convinced either way. I can see both sides of it." So, perhaps, "No," needs further explanation on your part.

You wrote, "It is a divorce by another name."

No, annulments are not "divorce by another name", and the Catholic doctrine concerning annulments is sound. As I've said, conditions exist in order for the sacrament to exist. If a pastor celebrates the liturgy with water and cheese, the consecration does not take place, and, consequently, there is no Eucharist. An analogy can be made with the administration of the sacrament of marriage.

This sacrament does not exist, also, if the condition of "two baptized Christians" is not met. Therefore, the Pauline privilege of divorce/remarriage after the divorce between a couple wherein one partner was not baptized can be applied.

You wrote, "What you appear not to realize is that there is evidence to refute your side."

Well, give it, and let's discuss this "evidence" that refutes the clear, Biblical command by Jesus, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

What do you think about this new argument? Does it make sense? Are there any holes in it? I'm still looking into it, and if you, from your viewpoint, see anything wrong with it, I would like to know.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 20, 2002, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi wishtolearn,

You wrote, "What I know in my heart and my relationship with Him is a definate and I do not need ... man's interpretations of Scripture to tell me where my Heavenly home will be."

I didn't have need to "interpret" the Scripture. I simply quoted it..

(A) "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." plus (B) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." equals (C)

This "faith alone" salvation that trashes the Moral Law is unScriptural and leads many Christians down the broad path, which is eternity spent outside the presence of God. My intention is to teach Scripture to those who are ignorant of its clear and profound import for the Christian life, which leads to our personal fulfillment and eternal Beatitude.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 20, 2002, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Jason,

In your previous post, you didn't address the issue at hand, you didn't present any Scripture, and you didn't criticize any of my arguments. If you won't step up to the plate and dialogue, then I'll stop responding to you. The thread is entitled, "Is divorce and remarriage permissible for Christians?"

You wrote, "It is about love and reverence. It is about repentance and hope. It is about a new life, one which we dedicate and give to our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. A life that we have only because of Him; He, Who is our one and only, our everything. Without him, we are dead, through Him, all things are possible."

Can I say.. Amen?

You wrote, "I guess the question is, do you follow Christ...or the Church?"

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Paul says in Phil 3:4-6 - Though I myself ... as to zeal a persecutor of the church

and he also says in Acts 22:7 - And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'

Would you pray for my apostolate this summer? It's described in this thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000838

God bless,

Carson

[ April 21, 2002, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "It's good to see that you changed your initial question in your first post tonight, Carson." and "Come to think of it, did you change the title as well?"

Yes, it's quite self-evident concerning that it shifted the links to each page number below the title, and I'm not "ashamed" of this change nor do I intend to "hide" it because I'm "changing my position" or performing some crafty & cunning "behind the scenes" maneuvering.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

I'm clarifying my question. My original question (which was identical with the title of the thread) intended to ask a much more specific question than how I originally stated the question. By making this change and greater clarification, I hope to dispell further confusion for those who are answering this post for the first time or those who haven't followed all of the posts in the thread.

To answer your final question, "Didn't it start out just Is divorce and remarriage permissible?", the answer is No.

It started out even simpler than that: "Is divorce permissible?"

God bless you,

Carson

[ April 21, 2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "Of course, I would pray for any pro-life movement."

Thank you.

Jesus says in Mark 10:9-12, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder ... Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Adultery is \e-del-t(e-)re\ n, pl -teries : sexual unfaithfulness of a married person adulterer \-ter-er\ n adulteress \-t(e-)res\ n adulterous \-t(e-)res\ adj

Jesus tells us that divorce followed by remarriage results in adultery. Why? How can the married couple still be married if they've undergone a legal divorce?

If two Christians are joined together in the Sacrament of Marriage, divorce will not sunder the marital bond, regardless of hope or desire. Let not man put asunder what God has joined.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 21, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]