Questions about divorce

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Okay, I need to put this out as it seems because of my position that I am hateful or look down upon those who have been divorced.

This would be directly related to the comments you have made in this discussion.

In my understanding of the Scriptures:

Divorced men cannot:

1. Remarry
2. Be an elder
3. Be a deacon

Regarding point number one, until you can supply any Biblical support for this claim, it is Unscriptural.

Divorced men can:

1. Do everything else

Uh, yeah, okay................what?

It isn't about hate or any other smokescreen argument. It is about how I understand God's word. So far, no challenge has been made to that end.

This is patently hilarious. [Once again, you do not capitalize "Word."] It was YOU that said: "No divorce, no remarriage. Remarriage after divorce is adultery in every circumstance." This has already been proven to be Unscriptural, whether or not you acknowledge that fact.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by jshurley04:
To those of you who have been divorced my heart goes out to you. My family is currently under attack and my wife and I are fighting to keep ourselves right with God and right with each other so that we do not have to share in your pain.

This statement is rather unsettling. Please know that you and your family are in my thoughts and prayers.

 

[Frogman]

Dear Baptist in Richmond,
I am doing great today, thanks. I hope you are blessed in the Lord today as well.

I have gone back through all the posts in this topic. I cannot find this quote anywhere except in the post just above my own and in my post.

Nevertheless, it is something I 'think' I remember reading and is also a common plea by those on the other side of this issue.

So, my post reply stands. If you felt as if I was making a direct remark related to something you posted then please give me a link to that post because I cannot find it.

I just wanted to point out the implication according to that quote is that anyone believing as I have expressed and others to believe do not pretend to be in a position to deny eternal life from anyone with reason for hope and interest in the work of redemption fulfilled by Christ.

The difference of the issue lays not in the eternal position but in the service of the ministry, and as deacon especially as either of these I view as a position called to by the Holy Spirit. In my own understanding I make the implication to extend to lay teachers as well because they would also be recognized in scripture as having an unction from the same Spirit.

This, imho, makes the Word of God appear contradictory to itself. I am satisfied this is not so regardless of what man may attempt to bring to bear upon this subject from life experiences.

I have also said and humbly submit myself to the Sovereignty of God that were this situation be brought to my own home, I would follow my conscience as to the true teaching of scripture and remove myself from any form of teaching or preaching, be it as an ordained minister of the Word or as a lay member.

By Grace Alone,
bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
1. Regarding point number one, until you can supply any Biblical support for this claim, it is Unscriptural.

2. Uh, yeah, okay................what?

3. This is patently hilarious. [Once again, you do not capitalize "Word."]

4. It was YOU that said: "No divorce, no remarriage. Remarriage after divorce is adultery in every circumstance."

5. This has already been proven to be Unscriptural, whether or not you acknowledge that fact.

1. Actually every text on the issue supports my view. It is others that have to render clear statements meaningless by putting them in submission to other texts. I take them all at face value, not just two.

2. A divorced man can fulfill the function of preacher (just not pastor), missionary, administrator, S.S. teacher, trustee, etc.

Only pastor and deacon are restricted.

3. I know many divorced people. For you to imply that I hate them or look down upon them is mindless. You obviously don't have a clue about pastoral love toward others.

4. I stand by my statement.

5. Give me just one text that disproves my position.

 

[Jailminister]

B in R said:

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

First I do appreciate your prayers for my daughter. She is going thru a very hard time right now with the effects of the chemo.

Now as far as you disagreeing with me, remember the custom of the day when this was said. Marriages were pre-arranged and actually a couple was "married" during the engagement period. If the groom found out during this period or even after that period, that his bride had lost her virginity, then he could write a Bill of Divorcement for fornication. This was the only time. Remember, this is what Joseph was going to do with Mary, until the Lord told him not to do so.

I still do not understand why Bro. Bob, thinks this scriptural guidance is "sad". I guess that will just have to be a mystery to me. I see nothing "sad" about God's mercy. Thank God for it.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
1. Actually every text on the issue supports my view. It is others that have to render clear statements meaningless by putting them in submission to other texts. I take them all at face value, not just two.

Again, this is patently absurd. I couldn't help but notice that you still offer no Scripture.

2. A divorced man can fulfill the function of preacher (just not pastor), missionary, administrator, S.S. teacher, trustee, etc.

Only pastor and deacon are restricted.

Agreed.

3. I know many divorced people. For you to imply that I hate them or look down upon them is mindless. You obviously don't have a clue about pastoral love toward others.

This is pathetic. Your contumely stands on its own. Show me how your responses exhibit "pastoral love toward others."

4. I stand by my statement.

Again, I notice that you provide no Scripture to prove your statement.

5. Give me just one text that disproves my position.

I already have given you several, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Dear Baptist in Richmond,
I am doing great today, thanks. I hope you are blessed in the Lord today as well.

VERY glad to hear it: I am in Allentown, PA on business. Depending upon when you read this, I hope you rejoice with me in this day that the Lord has made!!!

I have gone back through all the posts in this topic. I cannot find this quote anywhere except in the post just above my own and in my post.

Nevertheless, it is something I 'think' I remember reading and is also a common plea by those on the other side of this issue.

So, my post reply stands. If you felt as if I was making a direct remark related to something you posted then please give me a link to that post because I cannot find it.

This quote is from my post submitted on March 13, 2004 @ 01:54 AM.

I just wanted to point out the implication according to that quote is that anyone believing as I have expressed and others to believe do not pretend to be in a position to deny eternal life from anyone with reason for hope and interest in the work of redemption fulfilled by Christ.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I made the statement you reproduced, and it was not in the context you imply.

The difference of the issue lays not in the eternal position but in the service of the ministry, and as deacon especially as either of these I view as a position called to by the Holy Spirit. In my own understanding I make the implication to extend to lay teachers as well because they would also be recognized in scripture as having an unction from the same Spirit.

This, imho, makes the Word of God appear contradictory to itself. I am satisfied this is not so regardless of what man may attempt to bring to bear upon this subject from life experiences.

I have also said and humbly submit myself to the Sovereignty of God that were this situation be brought to my own home, I would follow my conscience as to the true teaching of scripture and remove myself from any form of teaching or preaching, be it as an ordained minister of the Word or as a lay member.

By Grace Alone,
bro. Dallas Eaton

The only aspect of this discussion I tackled is the belief that divorce is never right under any circumstance. That has already been proven to be false.

Additionally, I disagree with the last statement. The Word does not mention a lay member, only pastor and deacon. The term “lay member” is very broad. Be very careful not to add to the Message.

 

[Frogman]

Dear Baptist In Richmond,
What did you mean by the use of the word "revoke"?

I have read your post, and will take your advice in consideration concerning the last statement about lay members. You are correct there is no plain statement to that effect nor to the effect implying that position.

But, I am honestly wondering what is meant by 'REVOKE'.

May God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
First I do appreciate your prayers for my daughter. She is going thru a very hard time right now with the effects of the chemo.

I am very saddened to hear this, and I cannot imagine how hard it is for you, as a father, to watch this. I hope you take some comfort in knowing that I love you very much, my brother, and I am praying for all of you. If you need to talk, vent, yell, or pray, please PM me.

Now as far as you disagreeing with me, remember the custom of the day when this was said. Marriages were pre-arranged and actually a couple was "married" during the engagement period. If the groom found out during this period or even after that period, that his bride had lost her virginity, then he could write a Bill of Divorcement for fornication. This was the only time. Remember, this is what Joseph was going to do with Mary, until the Lord told him not to do so.

Sure, but are you saying that divorce can be on the grounds of a past action, but not something that happens during the marriage? Remember: adultery is a form of fornication, as it involves sexual relations (copulation or otherwise) outside the bounds of marriage. Notice that Jesus specifically excluded fornication.

I still do not understand why Bro. Bob, thinks this scriptural guidance is "sad". I guess that will just have to be a mystery to me. I see nothing "sad" about God's mercy. Thank God for it.

I agree with you, and I can assure you that Dr. Bob is in agreement with us with respect to God's Mercy. Although I am not speaking for Dr. Bob, I simply do not understand how someone can divorce their wife on the grounds of a past action, but not on something done during the marriage.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Dear Baptist In Richmond,
What did you mean by the use of the word "revoke"?

I have read your post, and will take your advice in consideration concerning the last statement about lay members. You are correct there is no plain statement to that effect nor to the effect implying that position.

But, I am honestly wondering what is meant by 'REVOKE'.

May God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

<laughing>
Ah, you are online now! In that case, I hope all is well with you on this EVENING that the Lord has made!!!!

By "revoke," I am referring to the notion that a husband can divorce his bride for something that was done prior to the marital vows they have taken. I rejoice that God does not revoke the Grace that saves me based upon something I did prior to my own personal conversion. Someone made the statement that divorce can occur for past actions, but not present actions.

Hope this post finds you well!!

"Baptist on a business trip in Allentown, PA"

 

[jshurley04]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jshurley04:
To those of you who have been divorced my heart goes out to you. My family is currently under attack and my wife and I are fighting to keep ourselves right with God and right with each other so that we do not have to share in your pain.

This statement is rather unsettling. Please know that you and your family are in my thoughts and prayers. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank You very much.

All I can say is that it is a pending LEGAL matter involving our oldest son and alligations from the public school system. The state child welfare agency has already had their way with us (any less desirable immaiges implied) and slapped their seal of approval on our family saying we are not as bad as they thought and have since closed the case. Now the county prosecutor has filed felony charges that prevent me from being with ANY child under 17 and this naturally means I cannot be with my own children. Thanks for the prayers, some days we need it so bad it hurts. My wife and I talk on the phone all the time and date at every chance, which is extra fun because what we wanted to do 12 years ago when dating and could not, now we can.

 

[Frogman]

Dear Brother,
I will remember you in my prayers. May God Bless you.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Jailminister]

B in R said:

Sure, but are you saying that divorce can be on the grounds of a past action, but not something that happens during the marriage? Remember: adultery is a form of fornication, as it involves sexual relations (copulation or otherwise) outside the bounds of marriage. Notice that Jesus specifically excluded fornication

What Jesus said was the only reason for divorce is when the espoused husband finds out that his espoused wife had relations prior to there espousal. Fornication and adultery are 2 different things and the bible counts them as 2 different things. My whole point is that God desire for man and woman is 1 marriage for life between 1 one man and 1 woman. My point is that in reality, man has gotten away from what God intended due to our sin nature. It is God's mercy that allows us to make an error and confess it move on. God is merciful and loves us.

 

[jshurley04]

If it is one man for one woman for one lifetime, then did Israel have any moral kings?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by jshurley04:
If it is one man for one woman for one lifetime, then did Israel have any moral kings?

If I remember correctly, the kings of the Old Testament, as a rule, did not divorce their wives, but, ADDED to them. Moses had two wives, Solomon had 700 plus 300 concubines, David had at least three wives, and so on.

So, are we men of the New Testament now to add wives because the kings of the Old Testament did so ?

 

[texmedic]

Well les see here piny baptist, ahm from Oklahoma so you know we are a little slow ya know........... but maybe thats what the bible says........ ya'll can add wives if ya want..... but dis ignorant person will stick wif muh wife of 18 years thank ya. But in reality the truth is that the translation from Greek to our language is 'a one woman man'. By language i'm speaking of english not 'okie'. May His grace and peace be upon you. Tex

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by jshurley04:
If it is one man for one woman for one lifetime, then did Israel have any moral kings?

Let me ask this question:

Did God give Hagar to Abraham, or did Sarah?

Bro. Dallas

 

[Jailminister]

Actually jshurley04 and pinoybaptist, God never intended man to have more than on wife, but God was merciful in their lives also.
1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh

Get that the TWO shall be ONE

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
What Jesus said was the only reason for divorce is when the espoused husband finds out that his espoused wife had relations prior to there espousal.

We disagree on this. Besides, back then adultery carried a severe penalty that rendered divorce irrelevant. The exclusion is for fornication, which would include adultery.

Fornication and adultery are 2 different things and the bible counts them as 2 different things.

I disagree with this.

From onelook.com:
Fornication is defined as:
1. voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other
2. extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations

Also on onelook.com: Fornication refers disapprovingly to any sexual activity outside of the confines of marriage, including masturbation, pre-marital sex and adultery.

Now that adulterers are not punished by stoning, I think it is very clear that adultery, as a type of fornication, is grounds for divorce. How can a divorce be allowable for an act done prior to the marriage and not for an act done after the vows are exchanged before God?

My whole point is that God desire for man and woman is 1 marriage for life between 1 one man and 1 woman. My point is that in reality, man has gotten away from what God intended due to our sin nature. It is God's mercy that allows us to make an error and confess it move on. God is merciful and loves us.

If that were the case, and there is only one marriage for life, then why is there an exclusion for the death of a spouse? One marriage for life would include the surviving spouse.

I don't disagree with your belief; however, one cannot control the philandering of an unfaithful spouse.

Additionally, divorce does not mean that the other party is not forgiven. A very good friend of mine had a wife that was unfaithful, and he divorced her. He has forgiven her, and told her that "all is forgiven." But the bond of marriage was broken, one that cannot always be retrieved. That is a direct result of our sinful nature, and I believe that is why Jesus gave a specific exclusion for fornication. As adultery is indeed a form of fornication, it is allowable grounds for a divorce.

 

[Daniel David]

Okay, I have to spell it out for you. I can see you are very well learned on this subject.

You said or asked the following:

1. Again, this is patently absurd. I couldn't help but notice that you still offer no Scripture.

2. This is pathetic. Your contumely stands on its own. Show me how your responses exhibit "pastoral love toward others."

3. Again, I notice that you provide no Scripture to prove your statement.

4. I already have given you several, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it.
____

This is my response

1. Deut. 24, Matt. 5 & 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7, 1 Cor. 7, etc. Is that enough or do you require more?

2. I love the truth. The truth is the only thing that will change people's minds. As long as they conform their minds to sloppy emotionalism and worldly attitudes regarding marriage, they will be stuck in immaturity (at least on this issue).

Pastoral love is not warm fuzziness. Pastoral love includes rebuking, correcting, instructing, etc.

What do you know about pastoral love anyway? Are you one?

3. See no. 1.

4. You are obviously crying out for attention and help, so I will help you.

When someone asks a direct question, and you answer by saying you already said something, perhaps he wants you to specifically address the issue.

So, what text does my position violate. (hint - actually give a verse).