Pastor falling into sin

I have serious thoughts that they might not make it, but I am reluctant to go beyond that, knowing that the ultimate judgment is with God, who knows the heart of the soul before Him.

I do not...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

I would not want these people to have acted upon
my assessment of their marriage, but I will say
this: many marriages are started in deceit --
some out of ignorance and some knowingly.
I have seen it happen time and again, and my own
first marriage was begun in deceit -- mine, not
his. No, I did not know any better; I was a product
of my upbringing; but in my opinion, he should
have left me, and he would have been within his
rights. I thank my God that before the second
marriage, I had learned a lot.

 

I find it very harsh that you feel divorce due to prior deceit is justifiable. How many Godly married couples are able to be completely honest and transparent with each other? Let alone before the marriage covenent was entered into.

Most, if not all of us practice some form of deceit. (We are after all, still in the process of being moulded into Christ's likeness)

Say for example, I make extra effort to present myself and improve my appearance before going on dates with my fiancee. Thus giving her the impression that I'm neater/tidier than I really am, does not this constitute deceit? If so, is this a valid ground for divorce?

glad for you too. </font>[/QUOTE]I have to agree with this post. We must be very careful in saying that a marriage should be broken up because one side or the other isn't all we thought they were. Marriage is about acceptings eachother as we are and helping us to grow. It is about helping eachother and the children get together by growing in holiness. It is about helping eachother to overcome difficulties. It doesn't say "od hates divorce" ut it's okay if one or the other is not perfect. Got news for you, neither the husband or the wife are perfect.

Blessings

 

Wait-a-wait-a-wait-a-minute!!! Did I write that all
marriages begun in deceit should be dissolved?
NO!!! This is what I said:

I wrote that MY first marriage should have broken
up. Believe me, I am glad it did not until he was
killed, but he would have been far better off without
me. I married him to get out of my childhood home,
but after 7.5 years, I learned to love him. We also
had two wonderful chldren I am grateful I have, and
he is a 29-year-old grandpa whose eldest grand-
child is half his age.

Believe me, I am not one to condone divorce; I
believe in working at a marriage - working long,
working hard. My first one, in spite of me, lasted 8.5
years, I took a 10-year crash-course in life in
between (it took 10 years!!!), and my present
marriage has lasted well over 16 yars.

I intended that there are some people who will drag
a spouse down and bury him/her alive, whether or
not they intend to or even know they are doing it.
These spouses need a good, loud wake-up call. A
temporary separation may or may not work, or a
divorce may be the only recourse.

 

Carson Weber,

Read Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and explain how your following statement fits into that passage:

Also explain to me the Catholic practice of annulment - because it is possible for person with children to purchase an annulment!

 

Also explain to me the Catholic practice of annulment - because it is possible for person with children to purchase an annulment! </font>[/QUOTE]I was waiting for Carson to answer, but I think I will offer my two cents.

In regards to the Deuteronomy quote, compare that with what Jesus said about marriage in Matthew 19:1-9, especially verse 8 where Jesus says, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so," harking back to the real reason in verse 6, "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." (Catholic NAB)

The Old Testament laws are replaced by the new, the old covenant is fulfilled and the new covenant has taken place.

As for annnulment, if you read my coments near the beginning of this thread, I think I explain it adequately. In any case, an annulment is a declaration that a valid marriage never took place, therefore if there was no marriage, there can be no divorce - the marriage is simply null and void.

A valid marriage cannot be broken, not by a civil court (in the eyes of the Church) nor by the Church herself.

Only the death of one partner can dessolve a valid marriage.

Fionally, an annulment cannot be "purchased: as if money can automatically bring an annulment. There are expenses in the investigative process for determining the validity of a marriage, and even if a great effort is made to determine the status, even with a considerable amount of money paid to investigators, if the marriage is valid, an annulment cannot be granted regardless of the money spent in the process. On the other hand, a poor couple will often be spared the expense in the process, especially if the evidence in the case is cut and dry.

One of my daughter's sister-in-law was granted an annulment at no expense to her whatsoever, the case being one with an obvious impediment that rendered the marriage invalid.

Hope that explains things...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Hi Dan,

I haven't seen you before on this section.. Wow! 3,900 posts! I'm glad to have you post, and I must compliment you on a very cool picture.

To answer your question regarding anulments, please see my post on page 2 of this thread dated October 16, 2003 08:24 AM.

Throughout Deuteronomy (which means "second law" from deuteros [second] + nomos [law]), Moses gives concessionary laws to the Second Generation of Israelites (from the Great Exodus from Egypt), which followed various transgressions.

"Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions." (St. Paul, Galatians 3:19)

Other legal concessions included in Deuteronomy are polygamy, concubinage [foreign slave wives], slavery, usury, and herem warfare.

Specifically, this second law of Deuteronomy was given to the Second Generation because of the Baal-Peor worship, which this Generation fell into in Numbers 25 just as their parents had fallen in Exodus 32 with the Golden Calf.

Priests and Levites, however, were held to a much stricter morality. They were not permitted to mary nonvirgins or divorcees, nor was divorce and remarriage allowed.

Jesus Christ has come to abolish this national code of Israel, to deliver Israel from the curse of the law, and to instill the New Law (i.e., the life principle of the Holy Spirit) in the hearts of believers. He returns us to God's original plan for his People, which is to be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation (Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 9).

Not only does Jesus heal us from our transgressions and allow us to escape from the corruption of the world, but he elevates us to the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

Specifically, in marriage, he has elevated marriage as a share in his own love for his Bride, the New Covenant Kingdom - the Church (Cf. Ephesians 5:21-33).

No longer is Moses' concession, due to "the hardness of your hearts" applicable, for "whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another commits adultery" (Mt 19:8f).

And if there is any question as to the nature of Jesus' words, we have the response of his disciples:

"If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry"

.. a response that is followed with Jesus' exclamation that the ministers of his Kingdom will renounce marriage "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".

That is, Jesus will have clergy in his Church who will renounce marriage for the sake of Jesus' Bride, just as the eunuchs of old cared for the royal brides in the Davidic Kingdom.