SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Does God Hate Divorce?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:
Quote:
I believe you rejected Gods word there as well.




Yes, William, YOU believe I reject God's Word because I do not agree with you.


Please, cindy, youve shown you believe the very same thing. *I* supposedly have rejected Gods word because *I* do not agree with YOUR interpretation of Matt 19, among others.
Lets make sure to keep the finger pointing in both directions where we BOTH are guilty, ok?

Quote:

I believe Peter spoke truth in regards to a marriage with one who does not OBEY the Word.


I believe in obeying ALL of the word, not picking and choosing to follow parts on marraige, while ignoring other parts that DO apply to ALL believers, married or not.
Matt 18 would be one of those.


Quote:
You choose to believe that the Mt. 18 process can be used to destroy a marriage.


I believe that ALL believers, the WHOLE church, is subject to our Lords clear, and UNconditional instruction there.

As I said sis, *IF* you say that a professing believer who is a spouse is EXEMPT from the Matt 18 process, put your money were your fingers are and PRESENT chaper and verse.

Jesus shows no exception whatsoever in Matt 18, does He....

Quote:

.......I do not see that as God's intention for the correction/restoration process.


Then you are erroneous.
The Matt 18 process is PRECISELY about restoration between two brethren....even those who are believers. Reconciliation is the entire point of the passage.
Rejecting this person after all attempts have failed is a LAST resort. And by that time this person has made it clear that they are no longer interested in Gods will.

You can run on about this all you want here...by all means present your 'interpretation' of Matt 18, but until you SHOW PROOF that two believing spouses are exempt from the process, all you are giving here us UNfounded opinion.



Quote:

In a marriage, believers who are married to those who do not "obey" the Word of God are not told to dispose of such, they are told to LIVE in CHRIST, so the spouse will be won.


Sorry sis, but you arent presenting the WHOLE of Gods truth in this matter (as Ive come to expect of you)..

Readers see this article.
[url=http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/divorceforabuse.html]Divorce for Abuse[/url]

Paul absolutely shows that there is condition to not putting away a spouse. Even if some reject that fact.


Quote:

We all can choose the path we will take in regards to those who offend us----I choose to follow the Words of Christ and what I understand the kingdom principles to mean in order that the offender be won to Christ.....I understand my role on this earth is to be His vessel. I am no longer my own-----


This is all fine and wonderful....Paul and Christ STILL BOTH presented a CONDITIONAL marriage covenant as presented above and in Jesus' own exception.


Quote:

When I fight for that which I think is mine/my rights, I am fighting for flesh to prevail over spirit..........


*I*, *ME*, *MINE*, *MY*....I have seen YOUR views presented here, but youve yet to provide a single verse from Gods word that actually REFUTES what Ive presented.

CHAPTER and VERSE please, that EXEMPTS a believing spouse from the process.
As soon as you provide it, then Ill concede this point.
Ill have no other choice, will I? :)

The difference between you and I, in my opinion, is I dont run to Peter or one other letter and adhere to that one item. We are to use the whole council of Gods word, in context and in harmony, not pick out 3 passages that we like and run with them while ignoring the whole.

 2006/12/6 14:31
lastblast
Member



Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan

 Re:

Quote:
You choose to believe that the Mt. 18 process can be used to destroy a marriage........I do not see that as God's intention for the correction/restoration process.



Foc,

If you are going to quote me, please don't do it in part and parcel--- making it appear I said something VERY different than I said. I said the above quote in regards to Mt. 18, which very clearly shows that I DO believe the Mt. 18 process IS for the purpose of ultimate restoration, not the destruction of Christian relationships. The very big diff between us is in the "time limits"...........You seem to think we can put a time limit on restoration. I believe the door should be left open for restoration to occur----until the death of one of the spouses, if Mt. 18 is used in a marriage.


_________________
Cindy

 2006/12/6 14:44Profile









 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:


In a marriage, believers who are married to those who do not "obey" the Word of God are not told to dispose of such, they are told to LIVE in CHRIST,[b] so the spouse will be won.[/b]


Again, you prove my points here, cindy.

SO THEY WILL BE WON...isnt that what you said?

Now, isnt this talking about a believing spouse with a NONBELIEVING spouse?

Did we not just show that Matt 18 and the process there is for a case where BOTH are BELIEVERS ?

Apples and oranges, cindy.
The rules are different with the church when we are dealing with a sinnng believer and a NONbeliever in the very same sin.

I did prove my case on that point already.

Edit....before we go there, heres what is said by scholars about 1 Peter 3:1


Quote:
[b]that if any obey not the word;[/b]
any husband who is an unbeliever, has no love for the Gospel, and gives no credit to it, but despises, disbelieves, and rejects it, the word of truth, of faith, of righteousness, reconciliation, and salvation.
-Gill

===================================
1Pe 3:1 - If any - He speaks tenderly. Won - [b]Gained over to Christ[/b].
-Wesley

===================================

1Pe 3:1 -
Ye wives, be in subjection - Consider that your husband is, by God’s appointment, the head and ruler of the house; do not, therefore, attempt to usurp his government; for even though he obey not the word - [b]is not a believer in the Christian doctrine[/b], his rule is not
-Clarke

===================================

1Pe 3:1 - Likewise, (1) ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; (2) that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

(1) In the third place he sets forth the wives' duties to their husbands, commanding them to be obedient. (2) [b]He speaks namely of those who had husbands who were not Christians[/b], who ought so much the more be subject to their husbands, that by their honest and chaste conversation, they may win them to the Lord.
-Geneva


These are wives UNEQUALLY yoked..not one whos husband IS a believer and knows the truth and what he is supposed to be as a husband by Gods word.

 2006/12/6 14:45









 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:
Foc,

If you are going to quote me, please don't do it in part and parcel--- making it appear I said something VERY different than I said. I said the above quote in regards to Mt. 18, which very clearly shows that I DO believe the Mt. 18 process IS for the purpose of ultimate restoration, not the destruction of Christian relationships.


And where you clearly fall away from the truth is your clear rejection of the final step in that process.
*IF* this professing believer decides to return to his own vomit and sin, then Christs words are clear enough and not amended anywhere in scripture that I have seen.

Quote:
The very big diff between us is in the "time limits"...........You seem to think we can put a time limit on restoration.


yes, Im well aware of your "infinity clause" (my term) that says a believer is to be in perpetual limbo awaiting a sign from the abusive unbeliever.

Gods word sets no time constraints...YOU do.
If Im erroneous in this, Im quite sure your next post will include chapter and verse to correct me :-)

Quote:


I believe the door should be left open for restoration to occur----until the death of one of the spouses, if Mt. 18 is used in a marriage.

Of course you do. ;-)
Of course, there are no such commandments given in His word.
*IF* both are believers, and using the WHOLE council of Gods word, there is no breach of covenant, then they are to reconcile or remain unmarried. Again, NO time constraints are mentioned.
And if they did end up remarrying NO Scripture anywhere tells them to now put this marriage away.
They made a mistake and need to repent and move on.

You also believe that if ones were to divorce for adultery that we must remain celebate or reconcile to this marital apostate, even tho nothing in Jesus exception says that either.

I believe your problem is that you believe that just because God created this 'law of the husband' to be until death, that you erroneously add the idea that it is also UNconditional.

Ive presented enough to show that that isnt the case already.

It is for life, and it ISNT UNconditional.
Apostate yourself from this covenant and your spouse has the right to end it with you.
Just as Jesus' own exception presents.

We could also touch on the fact that the believing spouse is not in bondage, thus FREE, in situations with a NONbelieving spouse where the marriage is ended.

Shall we? :-)

 2006/12/6 14:54









 Re: Does God hate divorce


Cindy quoted I Pet. 3:1

Quote:
Likewise ye wives, be in subjection to your husbands, that, if any obey not the Word, they also may without the word, be won by the conversation(behavior) of the wives..

If one is considered a "heathen", then the above scripture applies to the marriage partner.

Just to clarify, this applies when the UNbelieving partner has CHOSEN to stay with the believer. Correct?

1 Corinthians 7:13
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

 2006/12/6 14:56
lastblast
Member



Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan

 Re:

That's not the passage I was connecting it to. We were speaking about the Mt. 18 process and due to a professed believer not submitting to correction, them being treated as an infidel/tax collector. Some believe if there is a lack of repentance----quick enough----that frees them from the marriage bond. I disagree.........and I gave I Pet. 3 as a reference to that as to how a wife is to treat a person who is disobedient/unbelieving towards the Word of God.

I really would love for someone to address I Cor. 7:10-11. If a woman departs from her husband (Paul spoke this to believers) and they DON'T reconcile, doesn't that mean someone in the marriage is in sin? What then, apply Mt. 18 to the one who will not reconcile?

If that is the case, and many people say that they are free to label the disobedient spouse an unbeliever, then that frees them according to I Cor. 7:15---how do they reconcile Paul's(actually the LORD'S command) to remain unmarried or be reconciled?


_________________
Cindy

 2006/12/6 22:17Profile









 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:
That's not the passage I was connecting it to. We were speaking about the Mt. 18 process and due to a professed believer not submitting to correction, them being treated as an infidel/tax collector. Some believe if there is a lack of repentance----quick enough----that frees them from the marriage bond. I disagree.........and I gave I Pet. 3 as a reference to that as to how a wife is to treat a person who is disobedient/unbelieving towards the Word of God.


Cindy, all you are trying to do is create an infinite loop in this..nothing more.

She uses the process with her believing husband, he rejects the process AS A BELIEVER and as such is to be treated as a heathen, then you try to bring in a passage that ONLY APPLIES to one who was NEVER a believer to begin with.

Ive shown you about 25 times now, here and elsewhere, that the rules for a professing believer who turns to sin are NOT the same as one who was NEVER a believer to begin with.

Reject that fact all you wish in this, but Im certain that the readers can see for themselves what 1 Cor 5 presents.

Personally, Im even more convinced that youre going to distort what you need to to make your doctrine work

The passage in 1 Peter is NOT for a woman married to man who IS a christian...or WAS a christian (even worse) but is refering to a woman who is married to a man who has NOT YET come to Christ...and as such is NOT applicable to that situation no matter how much you try to make it so.

Quote:
I really would love for someone to address I Cor. 7:10-11.


Ive personally dealt with this passage with you, here and elsewhere, many times.
The Corithian church had a problem of frivolous divorce, even doing so simply because one had become christian and not the other.
7:10-11 is concerning two believers only....those who will BOTH actually obey Gods commandments.
This church had a problem understanding that marriage is for LIFE. This is made very clear by Pauls words to them and with any real study of the City of Corinth at the time.


Quote:
If a woman departs from her husband (Paul spoke this to believers) and they DON'T reconcile, doesn't that mean someone in the marriage is in sin?


ANYTIME there is a divorce at least ONE spouse is sinning....that is a given. The difference between us is I dont believe its automatically the person divorcing. God Himself gave Israel a bill of divorce, are you saying HE sinned against Israel?

Its not the divorce that is automatically the sin...it is the CAUSE of the divorce that is the sin.
If she commits whoredom, then THAT is the sin that causes the divorce. If a spouse divorces for no just cause, then like the Jews, it is 'hardheartedness' that is the sin causing the divorce.
Divorce is not sin by default...otherwise God Himself was sinning against Israel by threatening divorce and actually giving her a bill of divorce.

None of this is making sense, is it?

Divorce itself, is not 'hardhearted' by default, or again, we must say God is hardhearted when He gave Israel a bill of divorce (whether or not the covenant was ended then or not..the point is His word does show Him threatening divorce).

Jesus doesnt say that divorce is hardhearted. Jesus said that Moses suffered divorce BECAUSE of their hardheartedness.

[b]He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(Mat 19:8 KJV)
[/b]



We see that this divorce is 'for every cause' (ie. for 'some uncleaness') as proven in Matt 19 and NOT for a valid reason such as both God had and Joseph believed he had with Mary.

Divorce 'for every cause', frivolous divorce such as the Jews were used to for centuries *IS* hardhearted. And it was for hardhearted reasons that Moses originally had to allow these 'no fault' divorces to protect a wife.

Quote:

What then, apply Mt. 18 to the one who will not reconcile?


If the man is a believer who is breaking his marriage covenant and all avenues have been exahausted, yes...apply it.

Quote:
If that is the case, and many people say that they are free to label the disobedient spouse an unbeliever, then that frees them according to I Cor. 7:15---how do they reconcile Paul's(actually the LORD'S command) to remain unmarried or be reconciled?


Pauls command to remain UNmarried or reconcile was ONLY commanded to those EQUALLY yoked to a believer...this FACT is proven by the very next verse (1 Cor 7:12).

The believer who had run the process would not be bound to this person who supposedly was a believer but then rejected the faith by refusing to reconcile themselves thru the process...unrelated scriptures do not apply...

 2006/12/7 0:54









 Re: Does God hate divorce

EDIT: color added.

Cindy,

Even if another person (an elder or a spouse or both) will not forgive a person's sin - for instance, a believer whose spouse has cheated on him or her, thus [i]choosing[/i] [b]not[/b] to be reconciled as husband and wife - the 'sinner' (cheater) still has access to the throne of grace. God Himself can forgive them. And, the person cheated on is NOT sinning, for choosing to separate/divorce.

Also, there is no [i]obligation[/i] on a spouse to [u]become[/u] a Christian, no matter how much the believing spouse wishes or prays for it; furthermore, the Spirit is able to give to the believer how they should pray. Sometimes the Spirit does not endorse the prayers for conversion......! Shocking, isn't it?

In other words, if there is no scriptural compulsion on a believer who has been cheated against to receive back the cheater, there certainly is none on the believer to [i]keep[/i] the unbeliever. EDIT: (The unbeliever must choose to stay, and one assumes they would do so for [i]love[/i].) EDIT end.


As for the church thinking it has a right to compel a believer to reconcile where there has been no sexual infidelity, I think that is erroneous, too, because it fails to acknowledge the [i]meaning[/i] of intimacy within a marriage.

If two people no longer want to be intimate, surely that is their business and no-one else's?

Why should they go through some charade of pretending they are really as 'married' as they were once? How does this serve either their relationship with God, or their ability to function as individual Christians? Remember, Christ also said


Mark 10
28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

29 And Jesus answered and said, [color=000099]Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, [b]or wife, or children[/b], or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, [b]with persecutions[/b]; [u]and in the world to come eternal life[/u].

31 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first. [/color]


Matthew 19:12
[color=000099]For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]. [/color]


But, if you're talking about a partner in a marriage being dealt with through Matt 18 provisions, for something unrelated to their marital status, that I can go with - as long as it is not related to forcing a sexual relationship upon them, or, does not address their violence adequately, before insisting they be taken back into the relationship in which it occurred.

These things are NOT easy to deal with, and the victim(s) should not be put in a position where they are being asked to forgive an unrepentant sinner. Even God doesn't do that.


Another question......
Isn't it time 'the Church' accepted that Jesus gave options to people in certain well-defined circumstances, and stopped criticising those who take the most extreme course in His service?

 2006/12/7 5:47









 Re:

repetition deleted

 2006/12/7 12:01
lastblast
Member



Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan

 Re:

Quote:
Even if another person (an elder or a spouse or both) will not forgive a person's sin - for instance, a believer whose spouse has cheated on him or her, thus choosing not to be reconciled as husband and wife - the 'sinner' (cheater) still has access to the throne of grace. God Himself can forgive them. And, the person cheated on is NOT sinning, for choosing to separate/divorce.



Dorcas, you think it ok with the Lord if a person will not forgive another person who is repentant? I think Jesus had much to say which certainly is opposed to your position.


Quote:
Why should they go through some charade of pretending they are really as 'married' as they were once? How does this serve either their relationship with God, or their ability to function as individual Christians? Remember, Christ also said


Mark 10
28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

31 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first.



As was ascertained in the previous thread on this topic Dorcas, we are miles apart on our views of marriage. Paul very clearly taught that if one CHOSE to marry, it is serious business. One can always CHOSE to not marry and serve the Lord wholeheartedly, but if one CHOOSES to marry, they WILL have divided attentions----as it should be when the Lord makes 2 into one.

Quote:
Isn't it time 'the Church' accepted that Jesus gave options to people in certain well-defined circumstances, and stopped criticising those who take the most extreme course in His service?



No, I don't believe it's time to accept what many of us believe is sin.......a little leaven and we have what we now see in the "church"----a big mess which noone wants to touch.

As to the "well-defined" situations, we disagree on that as well, but even if we did agree, what about all the other divorces/remarriages that are CLEARLY adulterous according to Jesus' words on the issue? Do we accept them as well?


_________________
Cindy

 2006/12/8 1:45Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy