Remarriage: A Healing Gift of God?

[evangelist6589]

Ordered a copy of the book by this name on eBay and await to read it. But also came across another article.

A Statement on Divorce & Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church | Desiring God

The Guidelines
1. A believer and unbeliever should not marry (1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14-15).

2. Since death breaks the marriage bond (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39), remarriage is permissible without sin for a believing widow or widower, if the marriage is with another believer.

3. Divorce may be permitted when a spouse deserts the relationship, commits adultery, or is dangerously abusive (1 Cor. 7:15; Matthew 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:11). [7] We are not here dealing with remarriage (see #4 and #5). We simply acknowledge that there are times when the Bible permits separation.

So even Piper when he wrote this article in 1989 acknowledges that divorce can be permissible for abuse. This is CONTRARY to what most of you believe. So explain yourself. Why are you right and why is Piper and Larry Richards wrong?

 

[JonC]

Ordered a copy of the book by this name on eBay and await to read it. But also came across another article.

A Statement on Divorce & Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church | Desiring God

The Guidelines
1. A believer and unbeliever should not marry (1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14-15).

2. Since death breaks the marriage bond (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39), remarriage is permissible without sin for a believing widow or widower, if the marriage is with another believer.

3. Divorce may be permitted when a spouse deserts the relationship, commits adultery, or is dangerously abusive (1 Cor. 7:15; Matthew 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:11). [7] We are not here dealing with remarriage (see #4 and #5). We simply acknowledge that there are times when the Bible permits separation.

So even Piper when he wrote this article in 1989 acknowledges that divorce can be permissible for abuse. This is CONTRARY to what most of you believe. So explain yourself. Why are you right and why is Piper and Larry Richards wrong?

There are a couple of things I think need to be considered (just looking at the guidelines you have posted).

The first, of course, is obvious. We should not bond ourselves to an unbeliever in marriage. So often this seems to happen when two unbelievers marry and one later becomes a believer. This, of course, does not justify a divorce.

Death does break the marriage bond. I agree.

1 Cor 7:15 is part of a larger passage. Paul has just given instruction to the wife, that she is not to leave her husband. And then there is a second instruction should she leave. She is not enter again into a marriage except it be a reconciliation to her husband.

The man with an unbelieving wife must not divorce her.

And then Paul pauses to offer commentary, not command, on situations where the unbeliever leaves the believer.

What we come away with from 1 Corinthians 7 is that the believer cannot divorce, but if the unbeliever leaves the believer should remain "at peace" with the situation (the unbelieving partner leaving does not make the believer sin).

What 1 Corinthians 7 IS NOT stating is that divorce is permitted when the unbelieving spouse leaves, but that the believer should not act in strife to keep the unbeliever bound in marriage.

Matthew 19:9 states that whoever divorces his wife, except for πορνεία (fornication) AND marries commits adultery.


So yes, separation (and divorce) is permitted for certain situations. The only circumstance where it is permitted as an action on the part of the believer is fornication. But when the unbeleiver divorces the Christian, the believer is to be at peace.

And yes, you are right that remarriage is prohibited except in the case the wife or husband is no longer living as marriage constitutes a covenant relationship (Matthew 19:4-6).

 

[JonC]

So, based on the passages provided, what are the guidelines for a believer?

1. The believer cannot divorce his spouse except in the case of fornication.

2. The believer is not held responsible when an unbelieving spouse leaves.

3. The believer who is divorced cannot remarry except in the case of the death of a spouse.


The reason for the above is that marriage is a covenant relationship where by two flesh become one. Even when separated the covenant stands until one party dies (because it is a covenant). To illustrate - God’s covenant with Israel was not nullified because of Israel’s unfaithfulness (the covenant itself stood while Israel fell).

So to answer the OP - yes, remarriage within the bounds of God's Word can be a healing gift from God. I have a friend who remarried a few years after his first wife died and looking at the couple I think that this was God's gift to them both (she was also a widow).

 

[InTheLight]

Ordered a copy of the book by this name on eBay and await to read it. But also came across another article.

So even Piper when he wrote this article in 1989 acknowledges that divorce can be permissible for abuse. This is CONTRARY to what most of you believe. So explain yourself. Why are you right and why is Piper and Larry Richards wrong?

Here's the usual scenario. You have a questionable lifestyle situation or a questionable theological position. (Mike's Hard Lemonade, open air preaching, divorce for questionable reasons, using million dollar tracts, going to a different church than your wife, going to R-rated movies, spending money on electronic gadgets, etc. etc.)

You then seek out a book or an authority that will validate your opinion. Still unsure of your position you will post questions on BB. Learned and experienced pastors and counselors here like TCassidy, Revmitchell, Deacon, JonC, annsni, and others will give you a unified answer contrary to your position which you will promptly dismiss.

Why should they bother?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[blessedwife318]

Has anyone else noticed that evangelist keeps trying to up the ante on why he divorced his wife? First it was because she would not cleave to him, since she was close to her parents, than it was because she would not go to church with him, than it was emotional manipulation, and now he is implying she was dangerously abusive to him. Seems he is desperate to sooth his guilty conscience by changing the circumstances instead of repenting of his sins toward his wife.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[evangelist6589]

Here's the usual scenario. You have a questionable lifestyle situation or a questionable theological position. (Mike's Hard Lemonade, open air preaching, divorce for questionable reasons, using million dollar tracts, going to a different church than your wife, going to R-rated movies, spending money on electronic gadgets, etc. etc.)

You then seek out a book or an authority that will validate your opinion. Still unsure of your position you will post questions on BB. Learned and experienced pastors and counselors here like TCassidy, Revmitchell, Deacon, JonC, annsni, and others will give you a unified answer contrary to your position which you will promptly dismiss.

Why should they bother?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

My post asked for a defense or a rebuttal to what Piper said. Is this post your rebuttal?

 

[JonC]

I think this quote from your article (from Piper) would have been a great place to start the thread:

"What makes divorce and remarriage seem to be a special matter of concern in the church is that very seldom does someone affirm the rightness of lying, killing, and stealing. But people often affirm the rightness of divorce and remarriage."

The link is very interesting (and honest) because it expresses a difference of opinion and compromise within the statement itself. There are comments "some of us believe" and talk about which parts were the hardest "concessions to make". This is a church coming together to comprise how they will handle the situation in a unified manner.

And I agree with Piper on abuse. If there is physical abuse then using Scripture to keep the abused in that dangerous situation not only facilitates the abuse but there is a very real danger of death.

 

[InTheLight]

My post asked for a defense or a rebuttal to what Piper said. Is this post your rebuttal?

No. I'm not playing this game.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[JonC]

Ordered a copy of the book by this name on eBay and await to read it. But also came across another article.

A Statement on Divorce & Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church | Desiring God

The Guidelines
1. A believer and unbeliever should not marry (1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14-15).

2. Since death breaks the marriage bond (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39), remarriage is permissible without sin for a believing widow or widower, if the marriage is with another believer.

3. Divorce may be permitted when a spouse deserts the relationship, commits adultery, or is dangerously abusive (1 Cor. 7:15; Matthew 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:11). [7] We are not here dealing with remarriage (see #4 and #5). We simply acknowledge that there are times when the Bible permits separation.

So even Piper when he wrote this article in 1989 acknowledges that divorce can be permissible for abuse. This is CONTRARY to what most of you believe. So explain yourself. Why are you right and why is Piper and Larry Richards wrong?

Looking at this thread, perhaps we need to clarify the statement attached.

Piper is not saying that abusive relationships are justly terminated. He is not saying divorce is justified when one partner is abusive. There are three reasons Piper sees as divorce being permitted:

1. When a spouse deserts the relationship.

2. When a spouse commits adultery

3. When a spouse is dangerously abusive.

“The aggrieving partners (who were guilty of abandonment, adultery or abuse) should repent and be reconciled to God and to their spouses. If it is too late because their spouses have remarried, then they should remain single because they left their first marriage without Biblical warrant.”

The congregation was divided over the spouse that was wronged (by adultery, physical abuse, or abandonment). Some said the spouse could remarry while others thought he or she was bound by the first marriage.

In application, this would mean that at best your wife (who may have been verbally abusive, from your report, but was not physically abusive) may be free to marry a believer because you divorced her on unbiblical grounds. You, however, "should remain single because you left your marriage without biblical warrant."

I think that these are pretty good guidelines, and something that churches should work through so that they have a common ground for church discipline.

 

[evangelist6589]

I think this quote from your article (from Piper) would have been a great place to start the thread:

"What makes divorce and remarriage seem to be a special matter of concern in the church is that very seldom does someone affirm the rightness of lying, killing, and stealing. But people often affirm the rightness of divorce and remarriage."

The link is very interesting (and honest) because it expresses a difference of opinion and compromise within the statement itself. There are comments "some of us believe" and talk about which parts were the hardest "concessions to make". This is a church coming together to comprise how they will handle the situation in a unified manner.

And I agree with Piper on abuse. If there is physical abuse then using Scripture to keep the abused in that dangerous situation not only facilitates the abuse but there is a very real danger of death.

True. But it's also an exception for divorce.

 

[evangelist6589]

Looking at this thread, perhaps we need to clarify the statement attached.

Piper is not saying that abusive relationships are justly terminated. He is not saying divorce is justified when one partner is abusive. There are three reasons Piper sees as divorce being permitted:

1. When a spouse deserts the relationship.

2. When a spouse commits adultery

3. When a spouse is dangerously abusive.

“The aggrieving partners (who were guilty of abandonment, adultery or abuse) should repent and be reconciled to God and to their spouses. If it is too late because their spouses have remarried, then they should remain single because they left their first marriage without Biblical warrant.”

The congregation was divided over the spouse that was wronged (by adultery, physical abuse, or abandonment). Some said the spouse could remarry while others thought he or she was bound by the first marriage.

In application, this would mean that at best your wife (who may have been verbally abusive, from your report, but was not physically abusive) may be free to marry a believer because you divorced her on unbiblical grounds. You, however, "should remain single because you left your marriage without biblical warrant."

I think that these are pretty good guidelines, and something that churches should work through so that they have a common ground for church discipline.

I will look more at this post later. But right now I am going out witnessing and open air preaching.

 

[JonC]

True. But it's also an exception for divorce.

Yes, the specific abuse that Piper mentions can be viewed as a reason to leave a spouse. Dangerous abuse (physical abuse that is severe enough to be dangerous) is not something that we should take lightly.

Even here, Piper defines "divorce" as something that maintains a bond of possible reconciliation. But no spouse who is in danger of his or her life because of physical abuse should feel obligated to submit to being beaten on the account of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

I will look more at this post later. But right now I am going out witnessing and open air preaching.

You are going out open air preaching. I hope God will use your words for His purposes.

 

[Jerome]

Remarriage: A Healing Gift of God...Ordered a copy of the book by this name on eBay and await to read it.

Author Lawrence O. Richards' home church:

North Raleigh UMC - Pastors Duke Lackey and Ashley Will

 

[evangelist6589]

Author Lawrence O. Richards' home church:

North Raleigh UMC - Pastors Duke Lackey and Ashley Will

Not all of these churches are heretical and progressive and if this one is located in a conservative area it may not be. But even if they do hold to progressive theology it simply means the church is heretical on the essentials of the faith, but the author may be correct on his view on remarriage.

 

[InTheLight]

Not all of these churches are heretical and progressive and if this one is located in a conservative area it may not be. But even if they do hold to progressive theology it simply means the church is heretical on the essentials of the faith, but the author may be correct on his view on remarriage.

Ala carte theology.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[JonC]

Not all of these churches are heretical and progressive and if this one is located in a conservative area it may not be. But even if they do hold to progressive theology it simply means the church is heretical on the essentials of the faith, but the author may be correct on his view on remarriage.

Please be careful where you get your ideas from.

I have several books that I've thought about removing from my study. I have them because I wanted to know what these guys had to say, but I've always been concerned that someone would trust the material because it belonged to me and be influenced by the author's words.

 

[evangelist6589]

Ala carte theology.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

Explain..

 

[evangelist6589]

Please be careful where you get your ideas from.

I have several books that I've thought about removing from my study. I have them because I wanted to know what these guys had to say, but I've always been concerned that someone would trust the material because it belonged to me and be influenced by the author's words.

I sent the church an email to find out what they believe. It is possible they do not hold to progressive theology being located in a conservative state.

 

[evangelist6589]

Please be careful where you get your ideas from.

I have several books that I've thought about removing from my study. I have them because I wanted to know what these guys had to say, but I've always been concerned that someone would trust the material because it belonged to me and be influenced by the author's words.

No question progressive theology is heretical. Having dialogued with many pastors in the Denver area they are heretics. These guys deny the essentials of the historic christian faith and even teach that not all the Bible is inspired, just parts that they agree with. I see that the church affirms women pastors. This alone does not make them heretical but it may be a sign that they are.