Titus 1:6-qualifications for clergy

[John Wells]

Larry, I think his agenda is to hang some scriptures on his twisted words and claim them to be backed by those scriptures. Everyone, of course, sees this except himself. Whenever you see someone saying "everyone else is wrong except me," it's time to leave them to their own devices. But God bless you brother for persevering!

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Larry. You said; "But the father no longer rules those who are not in his house, over whom he is not responsible." You are very wrong. The dad's "house" is not a piece of real estate as you keep insisting; it is his "family unit." 1 Tim. 3 says nothing about "responsible." It says the dad must have his children in "subjection" ("hupotage" - obedience) which is an entirely different thing - and in any event does not end when the child's marriage begins. A dad DOES rule well his own house (in part) when his children are obedient. Noah's authority with his sons did not end when the sons married (Gen. 6, 7, 8).

Children are REQUIRED to be in obedience to their parents at all times whether the child is married or not (Col. 3: 20). Such obedience is WELL pleasing to the LORD according to Col. 3: 20. The Godly child will always be obedient to their dad at every stage of life; unless the dad makes an absurdly unBiblical request of the child (1 Sam. 19: 1-2). Even then, the child will maintain the proper decorum and respect while patiently and lovingly explaining his differing point of view to the dad.

As a separate matter (but since you brought it up) a dad DOES continue to be responsible for his children's well being throughout their and his lives. Apostle Paul confirmed this truth (1 Tim. 5: 8). What you seem to suggest in your "dad standard" would be at variance with what Apostle Paul plainly taught in 1 Tim. 5: 8. Actually, your idea of "dad" seems to be a secular one (i.e. "once the kids move out my job is done.") The job of dad (and mom) is NEVER done. Parents WAKE UP if you think otherwise.

You said; " Witness the misuse yet again fo the above Scriptures.". Yes Larry, I have witnessed your misuse of the Bible. Try to do better next time.

You said; " You seem to think that only death ends a marriage..." Seem to think? It should be very clear to you that this is my position by your participation in this thread. The alternative to divorce is forgiveness. As Christ said; "until seventy times seven" - UNLIMITED.

You said; "That is clearly not so..." It is clearly so (as I have argued on this thread).

You said; "Divorce, for whatever reason, ends a marriage." In the secular and judicial world, yes. In GOD's eyes, NO. Let no man separate what GOD has joined together (Matt. 19: 5-6). This text alone is crystal clear that GOD does NOT recognize divorce by man as you see it. Only the death of a spouse can end a marriage (1 Cor. 7: 39, Rom. 7: 2). Human marriage mimics our marriage to Jesus Christ (Eph. 5). Husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5: 25). If human divorce were permitted in GOD's eyes as you see it, then Jesus could spiritually divorce us anytime that we sin and commit ethereal fornication (2 Chron. 21: 11) against him. Accordingly, our salvation would NOT be assured: an impossible concept (Rom. 8: 38-39). Thank you Larry. latterrain77

 

[latterrain77]

JohnWells. You said; " Larry, I think his agenda is to hang some scriptures on his twisted words and claim them to be backed by those scriptures. " That is your agenda, not mine. You are far better at making outrageous statements than you are in supporting your wrong doctrine. Perhaps that is why you lean on, and parrot upon others. You are more a cheerleader than a leader.

You said; " Everyone, of course, sees this except himself. I can see very clearly how wrong YOU are. You will NEVER see how wrong you are (2 Thess. 2: 11).

You said; "Whenever you see someone saying "everyone else is wrong except me," it's time to leave them to their own devices. " Can you back up that outrageous untrue quote that you just ascribed to me? You cannot because I have never said; "everyone else is wrong except me." Your untrue statement reveals your true nature.

The more recent popularity of your view has brought with it a FANTASTIC increase in divorce among Christian couples, such that the number of divorces among Christians now surpasses even that of secular society. The degree of misery that this has brought to the couple, their children, the church and society is immeasurable. That is the legacy that the wrong doctrine you hold has left upon the church. Thankfully, you don't agree with me JohnWells. If you did, then I would know that I was absolutely wrong. latterrain77

 

[John Wells]

Latterrain77,

Grow up!

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
You are far better at making outrageous statements than you are in supporting your wrong doctrine.

You're pretty good at both! You claim to have provided more scriptures, when in essence, all you have done is throw out lists of scriptures without expounding upon them and explaining the meanings of the words. We have explained the meanings of words, to which you disagree, but you do not offer effective arguments to counter the literal, cultural, contextual, and established Greek meanings behind the words which go against your interpretations.

Yes, divorce is sad and bad. Yes, it is a real problem within the body of Christ today, but excluding a man who made the mistake of divorce (or marrying the wrong person) many years ago, prior to his sanctification even, from the pulpit will not fix the problem and is not biblical, and you have failed to prove by scriptural text otherwise.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
You are very wrong. The dad's "house" is not a piece of real estate as you keep insisting; it is his "family unit."

And when a man and women get married they leave their father and mother and cleave to each other. "Leaving" meanst that they are no longer apart of that household. I can't believe this discussion is even taking place.

Children are REQUIRED to be in obedience to their parents at all times whether the child is married or not (Col. 3: 20).

Wives are to be subject to their husbands, not their fathers. Once again, the Bible shows you to be wrong.

What you seem to suggest in your "dad standard" would be at variance with what Apostle Paul plainly taught in 1 Tim. 5: 8.

1 Tim 5:8 doesn't even address that.

Yes Larry, I have witnessed your misuse of the Bible. Try to do better next time.

Then why haven't you taken the time to point it out? So far you have not shown even one place where I have misused Scripture.

The alternative to divorce is forgiveness.

I agree, but not everyone takes that alternative. Some people divorce.

You said; "That is clearly not so..." It is clearly so (as I have argued on this thread).

Your arguments have not been so clear. You seem confused in light of what Scripture says.

You said; "Divorce, for whatever reason, ends a marriage." In the secular and judicial world, yes. In GOD's eyes, NO. Let no man separate what GOD has joined together (Matt. 19: 5-6). This text alone is crystal clear that GOD does NOT recognize divorce by man as you see it. Only the death of a spouse can end a marriage (1 Cor. 7: 39, Rom. 7: 2).

God command was not to separate. Why would he give such a command if it was impossible to do such?? The very command itself presupposes the ability to separate it. Additionally, in Deut 22, you have certain situations in which people are absolutely forbidden from divorcing. This presupposes that divorce was possible. In Deut 24, you have an express prohibition against remarrying a spouse to which you were formerly married. In your view, that makes no sense because the divorce never ended the marriage. If they are still married, then how is remarriage prohibited?? How do you prohibit something that is impossible?? That is senseless and shows that contrary to your assertion, you have not studied the biblical passages or you would realize this.

If human divorce were permitted in GOD's eyes as you see it, then Jesus could spiritually divorce us anytime that we sin and commit ethereal fornication (2 Chron. 21: 11) against him.

No becuase Jesus is an ideal husband who always practices the ideal of forgiveness. Remember, divorce was a concession to men's hardness. Christ does not have that hardness.

 

[latterrain77]

Larry. You said; "And when a man and women get married they leave their father and mother and cleave to each other. "Leaving" meanst that they are no longer apart of that household. I can't believe this discussion is even taking place." You are wrong. You have also misused the Bible. The Bible does NOT say that a woman "leaves her father and mother" and cleaves to anyone as you suggest. This is said of the man only (Matt. 19: 5, Mark 10: 7). Secondly, you repeatedly make the same wrong assumption that a child who marries is no longer a part of the dad's family unit (house) and that the dad is somehow no longer authoritative. A dad's house is NOT real estate or a physical "household" as you now are calling it. His house is his family, regardless of where the members reside. Noah's sons were married and started their own house (family), yet they remained a part of their dad's family and continued to adhere to his authority (Gen. 6, 7, 8). Furthermore, there are plenty of married couples who still live in their parents physical house (household). Under your theory, who would be "authoritative" in that circumstance? The dad? The husband? Col. 3: 20 clearly shows that children must be in OBEDIENCE to their parents IN ALL THINGS whether they are married or not.

You said; " Wives are to be subject to their husbands, not their fathers. Once again, the Bible shows you to be wrong." How wrong you are again! The wife's relationship to her husband is specifically defined as similar to the church's relationship to Christ according to Eph. 5: 24. She is said to be subject to her husband in this regard in connection with Eph. 5: 24. Her role to her husband is a different role than the one she holds with her parents. Though married, the wife never ceases to be a daughter to her dad (and mom) and her relationship to her parents remains under the guidance of Col. 3: 20 (and others) with respect to them. Her relationship to her dad is an earthly picture of her relationship to GOD the Father, which is different than the earthly picture of her being subject to her husband "as the church is subject to Christ" (Eph. 5: 24). The Bible is crystal clear that Christ is our husband and GOD the Father is our "Dad" (Matt. 5: 16, Matt. 5: 45, Matt. 6: 9, Mark 14: 36). These are two different heavenly dynamics, and two different earthly dynamics; and ones that you show to have little understanding of.

You said; " 1 Tim 5:8 doesn't even address that." Yes it does. Plainly so. It says; "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

You said; " Then why haven't you taken the time to point it out? So far you have not shown even one place where I have misused Scripture." See above and your misuse of the Matt. 19: 5 and Mark 10: 7. Furthermore, our entire dialogue points it out. We are 100% opposite in our understanding of Scripture (on the subject of divorce and many other topics too). One of us (or both) is wrong. I think your wrong. You can think about me whatever you please. But we both can't be right. The grossly inflated divorce rate among Christian couples today is the child of the divorce theology now so common in the church. The proof is in the pudding (so to speak).

You said; " I agree, but not everyone takes that alternative. Some people divorce." And those that divorce violate the clear teaching of the Bible. They also ignore the teaching to "forgive" which is a very foundation of true faith. Fanciful teachings that feature easy (or easier) divorce and church remarriages are an affront to the clear teachings of the Bible. Such things were simply not the norm in the better days of the church. The high divorce rate of Christian's today is a testament to the horrific wind of change that has swept the church on the subject of divorce.

You said; " Your arguments have not been so clear. You seem confused in light of what Scripture says." Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you too.

You said; "The very command itself presupposes the ability to separate it." GOD flatly said; "LET NOT man seperate what GOD has joined together" (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9). It's a prohibition. Like; man shalt not commit adultery, man shalt not steal, man shall not kill, man shall not seperate what GOD has joined together - divorce (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9).

You said; Additionally, in Deut 22, you have certain situations in which people are absolutely forbidden from divorcing. This presupposes that divorce was possible. In Deut 24, you have an express prohibition against remarrying a spouse to which you were formerly married. In your view, that makes no sense because the divorce never ended the marriage. If they are still married, then how is remarriage prohibited?? How do you prohibit something that is impossible??..." Now you are very confused. The Bible allowed divorce in OT times (such as the examples you quoted). Jesus later told us that in reality this was NEVER SO and that Moses allowed it only as a result of the hardness of hearts (i.e. the unsaved condition) of those that practiced it (Matt. 19: 8). Jesus canceled the divorce "allowance" permanently.

You said; " No becuase Jesus is an ideal husband who always practices the ideal of forgiveness. Remember, divorce was a concession to men's hardness. Christ does not have that hardness." And that concession was rescinded by Christ two thousand years ago (Matt. 19: 3-8). You forget that "from the begining it was never so" (Matt. 19: 8). Human beings with "hardness of heart" are unsaved. Virtually EVERY example in the Bible of "hardness of heart" refers to an unsaved person or condition. The human marriage institution mimics the divine one between Christ and the church (Eph. 5). Husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5: 25). Can Christ ever divorce us? GOD FORBID! Since our human marriage institution mimics the marriage of Christ to his church (Eph. 5), then we TOO may NOT divorce our wives any sooner than Christ would divorce us: which is NEVER. If Christ could divorce us, then our salvation is not assured. Finally, there is no room in any of these commands (or elsewhere) for a man to divorce his wife and then claim that "his hardness of heart" (i.e. unsaved state) is only such because he cannot meet Christ's standard. Such a dynamic could be assigned to any sin with horrendous results (Rom. 6: 1-2). Thank you Larry. latterrain77

 

[Bro. Jeff]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but I thought I'd throw it in just in case.

You know God is divorced?

Jeremiah 3:8
"And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also."

You know He will also get remarried?

Revelation 19:7
"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Let's ignore the family issues because it is so patently absurd that it doesn't deserve the time to respond. Let's focus on some other things.

And those that divorce violate the clear teaching of the Bible. They also ignore the teaching to "forgive" which is a very foundation of true faith.

I agree ... but they still do it. That means that divorce is not impossible and that it does end a marriage. It is not ideal. It is not the best way. I am not condoning it. But it is the reality.

GOD flatly said; "LET NOT man seperate what GOD has joined together" (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9). It's a prohibition. Like; man shalt not commit adultery, man shalt not steal, man shall not kill, man shall not seperate what GOD has joined together - divorce (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9).

I agree, but you miss the obvious point. The prohibition assumes the ability to separate it. If divorce does not separate a marriage, then a prohibition means nothing. Just as a person can murder, steal, or commit adultery, they can also divorce. That is why the prohibition exists.

You keep telling us that divorce doesn't end a marriage. God clearly stated that it does.

Now you are very confused. The Bible allowed divorce in OT times (such as the examples you quoted). Jesus later told us that in reality this was NEVER SO and that Moses allowed it only as a result of the hardness of hearts (i.e. the unsaved condition) of those that practiced it (Matt. 19: 8). Jesus canceled the divorce "allowance" permanently.

I am not confused in the least. You didn't even follow the point I made becuase you did not read closely enough. The point I made was that Scripture clearly and unequivocally teaches that divorce ends a marriage. You deny that. Therefore, you deny the clear teaching of SCripture. Christ did not cancel the divorce provision. He allowed it as did Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit. The "fanciful reading of the text" is on your part.

And that concession was rescinded by Christ two thousand years ago (Matt. 19: 3-8). You forget that "from the begining it was never so" (Matt. 19: 8).

No I haven't forgotten that. I have affirmed it numerous times. But Christ himself gave an exception nad you do not have the authority to rescind that exception.

Human beings with "hardness of heart" are unsaved. Virtually EVERY example in the Bible of "hardness of heart" refers to an unsaved person or condition.

I agree but that is irrelevant.

The human marriage institution mimics the divine one between Christ and the church (Eph. 5).

Yes but we are fallible and Christ is not. Do you always love your wife as Christ loved the church?? Of course not. We are sinners. We fail. Our wives fail. The relationship is imperfect. It is, as you say, a mimicry of our relationship with Christ. It is not completely like it.

Finally, there is no room in any of these commands (or elsewhere) for a man to divorce his wife and then claim that "his hardness of heart" (i.e. unsaved state) is only such because he cannot meet Christ's standard. Such a dynamic could be assigned to any sin with horrendous results (Rom. 6: 1-2).

This makes no sense. People don't divorce and claim that their hearts were hard. They have more sophisticated explanations of it. In reality, every sin is because of the hardness of heart. That does not excuse it but it explains where it comes from. From the heart proceeds evil.

I say again, I am not recommending or condoning divorce. But the reality is that it happens. And when it does, it ends a marriage.

Let me ask you this: If a man and woman get divorced, can they spend the weekend together? Why or why not?

 

[John Wells]

latterrain77: And those that divorce violate the clear teaching of the Bible. They also ignore the teaching to "forgive" which is a very foundation of true faith.

Then you turn around and advocate that the scriptures teach that a divorced man cannot be forgiven? Guess that speaks to your foundation of true faith! What a hypocrite!

latterrain77: And that concession was rescinded by Christ two thousand years ago (Matt. 19: 3-8). You forget that "from the begining it was never so" (Matt. 19: 8).

You conveniently stopped one verse short (to protect your line of reasoning):

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt 19:9)

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15)

This is about the fourth time I have shown you these scriptures. Your response to them so far has been “silence.”

Now those are two “biblically allowable” reasons for divorce. But even if an aspiring pastor divorced unbiblically prior to regeneration and/or in his distant past, are you “pulling the plug” on your “forgive(ness) which is a very foundation of true faith?”

It all boils down to what Pastor Larry said, what seems like light years ago now: the point of 1 Tim 3 deals with blamelessness and a pastor/elder’s having demonstrated it unbroken over a reasonable period of time. The blood of Jesus Christ covers what happened in his life prior to that and especially prior to his regeneration. To not agree with this is to make divorce a “second unpardonable sin!”

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Larry. You said; " Let's ignore the family issues because it is so patently absurd that it doesn't deserve the time to respond. Let's focus on some other things. I disagree. But I'm pleased to focus on anything you would like to discuss.

You said; " I agree ... but they still do it. That means that divorce is not impossible and that it does end a marriage..." Divorce is possible in the secular and judicial world. But it is NOT so in GOD's eyes. Only the death of a spouse can end the marriage relationship (1 Cor. 7: 39, Rom. 7: 2-3). Mankind is not entitled to divorce (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9). The ending of a marriage is entirely GOD's business NOT man's.

You said; " You keep telling us that divorce doesn't end a marriage. God clearly stated that it does." Not so. The Bible says that a marriage can only righteously end when one of the spouses dies. Judicially, divorce can obviously occur. However, in GOD's eyes from the beginning it was NEVER SO (Matt. 19: 8).

You said; " The point I made was that Scripture clearly and unequivocally teaches that divorce ends a marriage. You deny that. Therefore, you deny the clear teaching of SCripture." The Bible does not teach what you say. Therefore, it is not I, but rather you who has denied the clear teaching of the Bible on this subject.

You said; "Christ did not cancel the divorce provision. He allowed it as did Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit..." You are wrong. Christ did NOT "allow" it. Moses allowed it and Christ refuted it saying it was NOT SO (Matt. 19: 8, Mark 10: 4-5).

"He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (allowed) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19: 8). ---- And they said, Moses suffered (allowed) to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he (Moses) wrote you this precept." (Mark 10: 4-5) (the parenthesis of the words "allowed" and "Moses" in the text are mine).

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11).

Christ said EVERY MAN (whosoever) that remarries after divorce commits adultery (Mark 10: 11). If GOD "recognized" mans divorce (as you insist he does) then the LORD would not have referred to the remarriage in Mark 10:11 as "adultery." If GOD recognized mans divorce (as you insist GOD does) then Jesus would have referred to the Mark 10:11 remarriage as a marriage. But Jesus didn't! He did the opposite. He referred to the marriage in Mark 10: 11 as adultery. This means, without question, that EVERY MAN (whosoever) that is divorced, is STILL married in GOD's eyes even though a divorce had been obtained. Accordingly, GOD does not recognize divorce.

You said; ".... But Christ himself gave an exception..." For the sake of our discussion, why don't you tell me about the "exception" as you see it? Please cite the chapter and verse in your explanation.

You said; " I agree but that is irrelevant." It is not irrelevant at all. It is the essence of every Christian divorce; which now surpasses even that of secular society. This was not true in years past when divorce was RARE among Christians.

You said; " Yes but we are fallible and Christ is not. Do you always love your wife as Christ loved the church??.." No man who has ever lived throughout history has loved his wife as Christ loved the church. There is NO standard of Christ that I or any one can measure up to. However, this does not give one license to sin or to flaunt our weaknesses with perpetual rebellion against plain Biblical truth. Such would only prove that we are hard of heart and unsaved - exactly as the Bible tells us and of this sin in particular.

Divorce is not a sin that occurs in a moment of weakness or thoughtlessness. It is a diabolical sin that THANKFULLY takes a long time to judicially accomplish. There are PLENTY of opportunities along the way for the couple to come to their senses and back out. There will be plenty of nights of crying children pleading; "no daddy don't go, please stay" or "please mommy don't get divorced I want you and daddy to stay together" along the way. Unfortunately, too many pastors provide counsel to these selfish parents with a damnable doctrine offering divorce as a viable option; which only serves to make the feuding couple all the more "justified" in seeing the divorce through.

You said; " This makes no sense. People don't divorce and claim that their hearts were hard." Actually, they do. It is a common statement of divorced Christian people to say; "well, I'm divorced but that was before I became saved." In other words; "I had a hard heart then, but not now. So, I can have my cake and eat it too."

You said; " I say again, I am not recommending or condoning divorce. But the reality is that it happens. And when it does, it ends a marriage." Judicially yes. Spiritually NO (see above).

You said; " Let me ask you this: If a man and woman get divorced, can they spend the weekend together? Why or why not?" I'm not sure what you mean by spending the weekend together. In any event, this would require prayer and much forethought on the part of the couple. However, if they are judicially divorced, and neither have remarried another AFTER divorce, then it would be a FANTASTIC BLESSING if the two become reconciled as your example suggests (1 Cor. 7: 11). However, in order to abide by the laws of the land, such that their reconciliation would be deemed a marriage under law, they should make the marriage judicially legal to "cancel out" the judicial divorce that they earlier sought and obtained. While GOD never recognized their divorce spiritually, the righteous laws of the land are provided by GOD for our benefit and we are to use them to glorify GOD and to be good citizens and neighbors in society. Divorce is not righteous. Marriage is. In America, marriage is generally conducted by either a civil ceremony or church service. Either would be just fine for this reconciled couple. Thank you Larry.

 

[latterrain77]

JohnWells. You said; "Then you turn around and advocate that the scriptures teach that a divorced man cannot be forgiven? Guess that speaks to your foundation of true faith!..." You sound more deluded now than before. I'm still waiting for your "proof" of the lie quote that you ascribed to me in a prior post. latterrain77

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
Divorce is possible in the secular and judicial world. But it is NOT so in GOD's eyes. Only the death of a spouse can end the marriage relationship (1 Cor. 7: 39, Rom. 7: 2-3). Mankind is not entitled to divorce (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9). The ending of a marriage is entirely GOD's business NOT man's.

I don't understand how you are missing what is so patently obvious. God allowed divorce and said that it ends a marriage. The divorced couple is not still married. In fact, they are in some cases, prohibited from remarrying, which is explicit proof that the marriage was over.

For the sake of our discussion, why don't you tell me about the "exception" as you see it? Please cite the chapter and verse in your explanation.

I already told you I have 7 single spaced pages about this very issue. That does not include the other divorce passages in Scripture. I cannot post it here. Suffice it to say that Matthew 18 very clear says "except" and that is the exception clause. It means what it says.

However, this does not give one license to sin or to flaunt our weaknesses with perpetual rebellion against plain Biblical truth.

I agree as I have said from the beginning. But the reality is that people still sin. And when a divorce happens the marriage is over.

Actually, they do. It is a common statement of divorced Christian people to say; "well, I'm divorced but that was before I became saved." In other words; "I had a hard heart then, but not now. So, I can have my cake and eat it too."

Notice how you changed the words of this couple, which points out exactly what I said from the beginning.

I'm not sure what you mean by spending the weekend together.

I have a feeling that you do and your long drawn out response that says nothing is an attempt to avoid answering the question. "Spending the weekend" means being involved in physical intimacy. So don't stall this time and beat around the bush. Is the appropriate or is it not??

Let's get to the Scripture. Somehow you keep managing to avoid that pesky little obstacle by these meanderings.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Larry. You said; " In fact, they are in some cases, prohibited from remarrying, which is explicit proof that the marriage was over." . You are wrong. They are prohibited from remarrying because they are still married in GOD's eyes. I pointed this out in my last post regarding Mark 10: 11 but you avoided responding to it. I'll repeat it again below so that maybe you will respond to it this time:

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11).

Christ said EVERY MAN (whosoever) that remarries after divorce commits adultery (Mark 10: 11). If GOD "recognized" mans divorce (as you insist he does) then the LORD would not have referred to the remarriage in Mark 10:11 as "adultery." If GOD recognized mans divorce (as you insist GOD does) then Jesus would have referred to the Mark 10:11 remarriage as a marriage. But Jesus didn't! He did the opposite. He referred to the marriage in Mark 10: 11 as adultery. This means, without question, that EVERY MAN (whosoever) that is divorced, is STILL married in GOD's eyes even though a divorce had been obtained. Accordingly, GOD does not recognize divorce. Please comment.

You said; " I cannot post it here. Suffice it to say that Matthew 18 very clear says "except" and that is the exception clause. It means what it says." So you want me to believe or understand your Biblical point of view without your making any Biblical commentary concerning it? You are surely joking. You want me to believe or understand your Biblical point of view simply because you said; "suffice it to say" that it's so? Now I KNOW you are kidding! In any event, I think you meant Matt. 19 not 18 right? Okay, I'll just ask you a few questions concerning it. You are saying that Matt 18 (or 19) offers some exception for divorce to a married couple. If a man cheats on his wife, can the wife divorce her husband by virtue of this "exception?" Chapter and verse please.

You said; " I have a feeling that you do and your long drawn out response that says nothing is an attempt to avoid answering the question." That feeling that you are feeling is incorrect. The "long drawn out" answer (as you call it) was one paragraph (9 sentences to be exact). Long and drawn out would be more like the 7 pages of your Matt. 18 (or 19) "exception" study.

You said; " So don't stall this time and beat around the bush. Is the appropriate or is it not??" Beat around the bush? Hardly! I have answered your question precisely. And by the way, your question was NOT implicit to me that you were talking about sexual union. It is now, but it was not when you asked it. I thought you were talking about the reconciliation of a divorced husband and wife. In fact, I re-read the post and I still read it that way. If you were talking about sexual union then why didn't you just say so? Why did you "beat around the bush?" Anyway, my answer stands. But since you haved added this extra dimension, I will add that since the world views them as being divorced (though GOD does not) they will need to judicially "undo" their divorce in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety to others (1 Thess. 5: 22). That done and in addition to my prior comments, I see nothing wrong in it.

You said; " Let's get to the Scripture. Somehow you keep managing to avoid that pesky little obstacle by these meanderings." That is exactly what I've been trying to get you to do! I have stayed strictly in the Bible with my comments - FAR more than you. I'm still waiting for your reply to my Mark 10: 11 comments (last post and above). So far - Nothing from you (now THAT'S pesky!). Also, I'm still waiting for your Biblical comments on YOUR "exception" idea. So far, nothing. If you have written a seven page treatise on divorce and the exception clause, you must be a real expert on the subject. Thanks! latterrain77

 

[John Wells]

Latterrain77,

Concerning my comment, “Whenever you see someone saying ‘everyone else is wrong except me,’" I quote you:

No one on this thread has shown me anything other than how right my position is.
You are wrong.
You are wrong again.
You are absolutely wrong again.
You are wrong.
Your non-answer is the best answer for your wrong position.
You are wrong again.
However, you are simply wrong.
When everyone agrees with you, it should be a warning sign for you to RECHECK what you think
While I recognize your view is a majority these days, that does not mean it is correct

While you didn’t use the exact words I ascribed to you (and I did not mean the quotation to be literal), I should have said “you as much as say . . . “ For that misrepresentation, I apologize. It still doesn’t diminish the intent of my accusation.

I honestly don’t sense that you have tried to objectively look at another point of view. You are so fiercely opinionated here that you refuse logic and reasoning. To wit - summary:

You say that God does not recognize divorce, that marriage is for life.
The Bible says:

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[1] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt 5:31-32)

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matt 19:9)

The “except” clause clearly permits divorce for reason of unfaithfulness, and absolves one of adultery (if you know how to restate an exception clause!).

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. (1 Cor 7:15)

Another case where the Bible “permits” divorce is where an unequally yoked unbeliever (I used a make believe story to illustrate this earlier) leaves, or walks out on the marriage. “Is not bound” means is free to remarry as I understand the plain and straightforward words.

You say 1 Tim 3 says a man must be married to qualify as a pastor.
Then Bible says: 1 Cor. 7:8 that Paul was single.

You say Paul was not a pastor.
The Bible teaches that Paul started churches and taught in them for two or more years straight in some cases. To claim that is not filling the roll of a pastor is absurd. Paul may have never referred to himself as a pastor, but then Jesus never referred to Himself as God either.

You say 1 Tim 3 says a man must be married only once to qualify as a pastor.
The Bible never says that. It says he must be “the husband of one wife.” The way the Greek translates the words used in the original manuscripts is “a one-man woman.” To twist this to mean “one wife ever” is taking unfounded liberty in exegegis.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
They are prohibited from remarrying because they are still married in GOD's eyes. I pointed this out in my last post regarding Mark 10: 11 but you avoided responding to it.

So let me get this straight. They cannot remarry because they are still married?? Not according to Deut 24. Read it and think and see how silly your answer sounds.

I didn't avoid responding to Mark 10:11. I have responded several times. As I said, I have 7 pages of discussion of this. This forum will not handle that amoutn of discussion.

Christ said EVERY MAN (whosoever) that remarries after divorce commits adultery (Mark 10: 11). If GOD "recognized" mans divorce (as you insist he does) then the LORD would not have referred to the remarriage in Mark 10:11 as "adultery." If GOD recognized mans divorce (as you insist GOD does) then Jesus would have referred to the Mark 10:11 remarriage as a marriage. But Jesus didn't! He did the opposite. He referred to the marriage in Mark 10: 11 as adultery. This means, without question, that EVERY MAN (whosoever) that is divorced, is STILL married in GOD's eyes even though a divorce had been obtained. Accordingly, GOD does not recognize divorce. Please comment.

I have ... Matthew 18 gives an exception. If you hold there is a contradiction, then you make Jesus a liar. If you hold they reconcile with each other, then you hold my position. It's that simple. Paul also gives an exception. It is explicit.

So you want me to believe or understand your Biblical point of view without your making any Biblical commentary concerning it?

No, I have made biblical commentary. EVerything I have said has been supported by Scripture. What else doo you want?? You want me to do your homework so you don't have to?? In church a while back, I dealt with this issue at length over a series of Sundays. I dealt with every single passage where divorce is mentioned.

And yes, I meant Matt 19.

If a man cheats on his wife, can the wife divorce her husband by virtue of this "exception?" Chapter and verse please.

Yes, same chapter and verse as well as 1 Cor 7. It is talking about the marital relationship. In the first century, males were typically the ones who initiated divorce. Therefore it is addressed to them.

And by the way, your question was NOT implicit to me that you were talking about sexual union. It is now, but it was not when you asked it. I thought you were talking about the reconciliation of a divorced husband and wife. In fact, I re-read the post and I still read it that way. If you were talking about sexual union then why didn't you just say so?

Because I was trying to be circumspect in this forum.

But since you haved added this extra dimension, I will add that since the world views them as being divorced (though GOD does not) they will need to judicially "undo" their divorce in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety to others (1 Thess. 5: 22). That done and in addition to my prior comments, I see nothing wrong in it.

Why?? If God doesn't view them as divorced, then it is not sin against God. There is no other reason for them to abstain. This shows the inconsistency of your position. You believe that married people aren't really married if they are divorced. That is the same thing I believe. But I don't have to be inconsistent to believe that.

I have stayed strictly in the Bible with my comments - FAR more than you.

You refuse to deal with Deut 22 and 24, Ezra, Matt 19, and 1 Cor 7. All of those are convenient for you to skip because they show your position to be wrong.

Also, I'm still waiting for your Biblical comments on YOUR "exception" idea. So far, nothing.

It is not "my" exception idea. It is the revelation of God, the direct words of Jesus Christ. The exception means that if a person commits adultery, the spouse is not bound to remain married. They may divorce and may remarry. In such a case, they have not committed adultery.How hard is that? Why do you need me to explain it?? It is right there in the text.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Familiar story of the woman at the well needs to be reiterated.

Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

The woman answered and said, I have no husband.

Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

Notice:
Woman didn't HAVE a husband; just shacked up with a guy.
Woman didn't HAVE five husbands; she HAD them. Those who would ignore the exception clause of Christ's teaching would have you believe she still was the wife of each man, in adultery.

She was divorced, NOT in adultery. Hey, don't come to me and whine. Jesus said it, not me.

 

[John Wells]

Oops, wrong thread!

 

[latterrain77]

Hi JohnWells. You said; " While you didn’t use the exact words I ascribed to you (and I did not mean the quotation to be literal), I should have said “you as much as say . . . “ For that misrepresentation, I apologize..." JohnWells, I knew in my heart all along that you were an alright guy!

You said; " I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matt 19:9)" By definition, a cheating partner in a marriage commits adultery ("moicheia") NOT fornication ("porneia"). Fornication "porneia" occurs when sexual relations occur PRIOR to marriage not after. Please explain this dilemna. Or, do you think it's possible that there might be another explanation to the verse?

You said; "The “except” clause clearly permits divorce for reason of unfaithfulness, and absolves one of adultery (if you know how to restate an exception clause!). How so? (see above). Also, can a woman divorce her husband by operation of this clause? If yes, please cite the verse in Matt. 19 that says so.

You said; " But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. (1 Cor 7:15)" This "leaving" does not release from the marriage bond (as the preceding verses, particularly v11, show). We commonly refer to this as a "seperation" which is not divorce. It releases from the marital obligations (1 Cor. 7: 5, 1 Cor. 7: 3, Matt. 19: 5) which are impossible to conduct if an unbelieving spouse abandons and moves out. However, this does not release from the marriage itself which is forever (as v11 clearly shows). In such cases, only reconciliation is possible as v11 shows. In addition, this verse does not apply to "Christian couples" because the Christian couple are NOT unbelievers; a standard required by 1 Cor. 7: 15.

The contrast of letting the person leave (being separated) but not divorced is clear. Verse 11 shows that the spouse is still tied to the other, and is not free to marry anybody else. This is due to the fact that they are still married in GOD's eyes (Mark 10: 11, Matt. 19: 6). In addition, as an interesting aside, the word "bondage" (douloo) in 1 Cor. 7: 15 is NOT the same word that is used for the marriage bond ("deo") in verses that refer to marriage (i.e. Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:29,39). Of the many number of times the word bondage ("douloo") is used in the New Testament, it does not refer to marriage. The word used for the marriage bond is "deo" (as in Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:29,39).

You said; " Another case where the Bible “permits” divorce is where an unequally yoked unbeliever (I used a make believe story to illustrate this earlier) leaves, or walks out on the marriage. Where does it say this in the Bible? Do you have a chapter and verse?

You said; ...“Is not bound” means is free to remarry as I understand the plain and straightforward words." Won't work. 1 Cor. 7: 27 won't allow it ("...Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.") Furthermore, Mark 10: 11, Matt. 19: 6, etc won't allow it either.

You said; " You say 1 Tim 3 says a man must be married to qualify as a pastor. Then Bible says: 1 Cor. 7:8 that Paul was single." As a former member of the Sanhedrin, there is little doubt that Paul was a married man at some time in his life. However, the point hardly matters because Paul was not a pastor. In addition, 1 Cor. 7: 8 does not show that Paul was always an unmarried man.

You said; The Bible teaches that Paul started churches and taught in them for two or more years straight in some cases. To claim that is not filling the roll of a pastor is absurd. Paul may have never referred to himself as a pastor, but then Jesus never referred to Himself as God either. Starting a church or teaching in it does not make one a pastor. Church history is replete with men who taught in the church and yet were not pastors of it. I'm sure their are teachers in your own church who are not the pastor of it. I know there are in mine. The previous church that I attended was started by a group of local Christian men, none of whom were ever it's pastor (they hired a pastor). That church was not unique in this regard. This is fairly common in many churches.

You said; " You say 1 Tim 3 says a man must be married only once to qualify as a pastor. The Bible never says that. It says he must be “the husband of one wife.” The way the Greek translates the words used in the original manuscripts is “a one-man woman.” To twist this to mean “one wife ever” is taking unfounded liberty in exegegis." The text is clear to me that it means a man with ONE wife (i.e. non-divorced). As far as it being "unfounded liberty in exegegis" you might want to take that up with guys like B.W. Johnson, E.W. Rogers, Robert J. Cameron, and many others who also believed that it meant ONE wife. I'm not alone. It was the prevailing view in the church for A LONG TIME (still is among many). Thank you JohnWells. latterrain77

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Larry. You said; " So let me get this straight. They cannot remarry because they are still married??" Yes. That's right. Mark 10: 11, Matt. 19: 8, etc, are very clear.

You said; " I didn't avoid responding to Mark 10:11. I have responded several times." No. You have not responded at all. I have posted my comments for your reply twice and you have not. I'll post it one more time below. Please comment on the paragraph following the quote of Mark 10: 11 below:

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10: 11)

Christ said EVERY MAN (whosoever) that remarries after divorce commits adultery (Mark 10: 11). If GOD "recognized" mans divorce (as you insist he does) then the LORD would not have referred to the remarriage in Mark 10:11 as "adultery." If GOD recognized mans divorce (as you insist GOD does) then Jesus would have referred to the Mark 10:11 remarriage as a marriage. But Jesus didn't! He did the opposite. He referred to the marriage in Mark 10: 11 as adultery. This means, without question, that EVERY MAN (whosoever) that is divorced, is STILL married in GOD's eyes even though a divorce had been obtained. Accordingly, GOD does not recognize divorce. Please comment.

You said; " I have ... Matthew 18 gives an exception. If you hold there is a contradiction, then you make Jesus a liar. " Again, I think you mean Matt. 19 right? You keep saying Matt. 18. Please tell me what you think the Matt. 19 "exception" refers to?

You said; " You want me to do your homework so you don't have to??" Not at all. I've already done my homework. I'm looking to hear your understanding of it - isn't that the purpose of the BB? Besides, I thought that "pastors" were required to be "apt to teach" (1 Tim. 3: 2). And don't forget 1 Peter 3: 15 either.

You said; " In church a while back, I dealt with this issue at length over a series of Sundays. I dealt with every single passage where divorce is mentioned." So why not deal with my comments on Mark 10: 11 (above and last two posts)? And once your finished with that, why don't you tell us what the "exception clause" means. Your whole divorce doctrine rests upon it. Tell us why?

In response to my question which was; If a man cheats on his wife, can the wife divorce her husband by virtue of this "exception?" Chapter and verse please. You said; "Yes, same chapter and verse as well as 1 Cor 7. " Which chapter and verse in Matt. 19 are you referring to? You never mentioned it in your prior posts nor in this one. Please cite the chapter (Matt. 18 or 19) and verse (?) where it says that a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of this exception.

You said; " Why?? If God doesn't view them as divorced, then it is not sin against God." That's what I said. Please re-read what I wrote.

You said; " You refuse to deal with Deut 22 and 24, Ezra, Matt 19, and 1 Cor 7. All of those are convenient for you to skip because they show your position to be wrong." Not at all. I have aleady discussed most of those and MANY more extensively (though not Ezra). What is your point about these verses? I'll be happy to respond. In the meantime, I've been repeatedly asking you to explain the "exception" clause and you keep telling me it would take 7 pages for you to do so - and then you don't say anything about it at all. See above.

You said; " It is not "my" exception idea. It is the revelation of God, the direct words of Jesus Christ." So what does it mean then? Let me here YOUR commentary on the exception idea. Thanks Larry. latterrain77