Questions about divorce

[dianetavegia]

I have to step in here and defend Johnv. You all know I don't believe in divorce and believe we are to forgive and forget. However, Johnv has told us several times that he physically caught his wife in adultery and offered to work it out. YEARS.... he offered. She desserted him and refused reconciliation. What was he to do? Johnv is a perfect example of the very few allowances given us in scripture. Adultery without repentence. She left him. He forgave her and offered to take her back with open arms. There is nothing else he could do.

1 Corinthians 7: 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

I believe Johnv can remarry with God's blessing.

Diane

 

[Elijah]

Originally posted by ruthigirl:
1. Who instituted the divorce doesn't matter. It still doesn't free the other party.

2. Try a serious argument and not one that is clearly a rationalization of sin.

3. Perhaps a definition of moral is in order.

4. If you fit the qualifications to be married. You don't. You can't wrench that verse out to mean whatever you want.

5. Then continue to adhere to the command. It isn't temporary.

6. That would be adultery.

7. That is why you take a wife. You have taken two. How many do you need before you are no longer alone?

8. No such thing as an innocent party. I realize your position must invent such a concept, but truth does not agree. [/QB]

Your ignorance is only outweighed by your arrogance.

 

[Jailminister]

After reading all the comments, I can honestly say That I Thank God for His Mercy. I am glad that my sin(all my sins) are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Matthew 5 does not allow for divorce due to adultery(sex with someone else after marriage), it is only allowed if the man finds out his wife had committed fornication(sex before marriage) before they were married.

Greetings, Jailminister: I trust that all is going well with you and your family.

I totally disagree with your statement here. Why would something that happened prior to marriage be grounds for divorce while something that happened during the marriage be excluded? That makes no sense.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Oops, I guess I outsmarted the flood protection again......

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
I must add that it is such a great testimony about the forgiveness Christ has given us that we go and divorce our spouse or some other hard-hearted action.

..............not unlike the contempt you seem to possess for divorced Believers.

 

[Daniel David]

It is hardly contemt when I desire others to obey the word of God. Stop using your sloppy emotionalism as the basis for your arguments. That reveals you have nothing but smoke.

Stick with the word, it is more effective when you desire truth.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Elijah:
Your ignorance is only outweighed by your arrogance.

1. You countered nothing I said.
2. You offered no substance.
3. You attacked with typical ad hominem comments.
4. You appeal to emotionalism.

Who is the ignorant and arrogant now?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Elijah said:

Your ignorance is only outweighed by your arrogance.

Really. Things have got to change around here. Insults and sarcasm, aspersions to one's character and intelligence.

Gosh, I got sternly reprimanded for using profanity at no one in particular, and here
we have this kind of remark about a sister in Christ ?

Is this okay, moderators ?

 

[dianetavegia]

If all sin is the same, then hateful attacks and name calling is just as serious a sin as divorce.


Diane

 

[LadyEagle]

Amen, Diane.

Is this how people act with their fellow church members?

Wow. Nice churches represented here. Come to our church so we can attack you and call you names & place a big Scarlet Letter on your brow, you miserable failure as a human being, you divorcee! These are Baptists???

 

[KimS]

Oh dear. I do not wish to wear a scarlet letter on my brow.

But most of these posts did help clarify the verses I posted and led me to some others.

Thanks all.

Kim

 

[Dr. Bob]

It is "sad" when a simple truth given directly from the lips of Jesus is twisted to beat people down into the dirt.

Jesus allowed divorce. Did not like it or want it, but gave 100% "exception".

And, if folks would just read the verse, the "exception" relates to both clauses. Basic English 101 that seems overlooked.

Divorce = exception only for immorality
Remarriage = exception only for immorality

There really is no "wiggle room" here. Jesus said it and it's about time we got off our "adding to scripture" mentality and quit saying you CAN'T divorce or if you are, you CAN'T remarry.

Tiresome to see folks holding such a harsh, non-biblical view and then lambasting folks who hold the balanced view that Jesus stated (simple but very limited exceptions) and beating down fellow believers.

I used the word "sad". And mean it.

 

[Daniel David]

Sheeagle, divorcees do not have a scarlet letter in my book. That actually has nothing to do with the issue though. Stop loitering.

Dr. Bob, as much as I like you, you are way off the mark on this one. I am merely reiterating the view of the early church for the first 4 centuries of its existence. In fact, your view is traced all the way back to that humanist, lost, catholic, Scripture-rewritting fool, Erasmus.

Now why would a catholic need to introduce this idea? Oh yeah, because marriage is a means of attaining grace in their pathetic system of religion.

There is NO text I ignore, NO text I twist, AND I take into account all other issues such as forgiveness, revenge, kindness, the picture of Christ and the church, and on and on.

No, it is not I who twists the words of Christ.

The english 101 has nothing to do with the greek clause.

 

[Kathy]

The SCRIPTURES are inerrant...not our understanding or interpretation thereof.

Kathy
<><

 

[LadyEagle]

What I have seen in my life:

People who beat their chests and said there should never be any divorces for any reason, it is not Scriptural, not even in the case of adultery, forgiveness and reconciliation should always prevail.

No divorce...murder maybe (always said with a chuckle), but not divorce.

Baptist pastors who have said: "I will never marry a couple where one or both of them have been divorced."

People who looked down their noses at other people's kids who had gone through divorce and whispered "things" behind their backs.

People who said no "divorced" person could ever hold any position of authority, such as teaching Sunday School, etc. in the church.

Pastors who have counseled men to pray and stay in a marriage, whose wives slept with everything that walked, would be gone for days at a time on drug binge parties, leaving the small children & husband to fend for themselves (and he had a job to go to and no babysitter) and who ended up getting sexually transmitted disease from that unfaithful spouse. The current threat of AIDS makes it a death sentence.

Pastors who have counseled women to stay with husbands who physically, emotionally, and financially abused them and their children, even to the point of routinely putting them in the hospital with broken bones, etc. Or pointing shotguns at them, holding them hostage in their own home for hours.

Praise God, Jesus had more sense than some of these Baptist pastors!

Marriage is a covenant. And Jesus gave the innocent spouse freedom, not being bound to that covenant any longer.

Funny thing what I've seen....some of the very same people who were so down and "righteous" at innocent victims of divorce - guess what? Some of these same people ended up.....

GETTING DIVORCED THEMSELVES because their spouse was "unfaithful." And guess what? They lost their kids to the unfaithful spouse!

Don't ever think it can't happen to you or someone you know. Pride goes before a fall.

 

[Daniel David]

Good thing your personal experience means nothing for the cause of truth.

When possible, I recommend using Scripture to make a point. Maybe that is just me.

 

[Elijah]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elijah:
Your ignorance is only outweighed by your arrogance.

1. You countered nothing I said.
2. You offered no substance.
3. You attacked with typical ad hominem comments.
4. You appeal to emotionalism.

Who is the ignorant and arrogant now? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but I wasnt talking to you in the first place. You and I are so opposite in our opinions, debate would be fruitless.

 

[Daniel David]

No, you were talking to my wife. If you can't handle a debate...

 

[Frogman]

Brethren,
I am not inerrant, the word of God is inerrant. If I doubt this, I have reason to doubt all that is written in there and all that I do accept as truth.

The word of God does not say anything about one wife at a time. It says the husband of one wife.

The word of God does say this about pastors and deacons. Further, because part of the service of these is to teach I then agree that this can be extended to teachers in Sunday School, and especially since there is no mention of graded divisions in the NT. Teaching yes, divisions, no.

I have been one who has opposed this (divorced men teaching in Sunday School).

Where this may be visited upon my own door, then I will hold myself accountable to the word of God as well and step down from any position of supposed authority in the church. Because the word of God and my conscience will then demand this of me.

Truth is not relative, it is not on a sliding continuum running parallel to life in which it becomes subjected to my relative position in time or experience. Truth remains constant.

Bro. Dallas