SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Marriage/Divorce & Remarriage- What does God say about it?

Print Thread (PDF)

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









 Re:

The divorce/remarriage issue is one of the most argued topics today among christians.
Among the remarkably varied beliefs there are a great many variances even within a given doctrine. An example would be the ''fornication'' (greek "porneia" (strongs g4202) issue.

Here are a few of the differing ideas on what ''porneia/fornication'' is believed to be by those of the anti-remarriage camp(S)....

1) Some of the anti-remarriage doctrines teach that this ONLY applies to Jews, even today, and that divorce was never permitted among the gentiles.

2) Some state the same, that it was for the Jews alone, but now has evolved into a matter of unlawful PREmarital sex for all people, Jew or gentile.

3) Other believe it only applies to a person who is either divorced and remarried themselves or married to a divorced person, that they are in ''fornication'' by Jesus' words and putting away is permitted under these conditions.

4) Another group actually claims that ''fornication'' is ONLY incestuous marriages for which Jesus is giving permission to divorce. But that would mean that in Acts 15 that the Jerusalem council was ONLY prohibiting sex with ones blood relatives and omitting the multitude of other sexual sins possible (bestiality, prostitution, etc).

5) One of the newest additions to the list of ''fornicators'' is one I just found where ''fornication'' is said to be ''miscegenation", or the interbreeding of races (so now I guess God is sending folks to hell if one parent was Jewish and the other spanish (/sarcasm)

6) Even others admit that ''fornication'' in Matthew 5 an 19 is adultery, as we believe, but that Jesus isnt permitting remarriage under ANY circumstances..

I’m sure we can add to the list above, but you get my point.

 2006/5/8 12:38









 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:
Hello Madmatg,

Yes, I understand what you're saying and that particular interpretation is disputed between the differing divorce/remarriage camps. Some believe Deut. 24:1-2 is speaking about AFTER the marriage has been consummated. There is historical evidence, shown in the bible as well (Mt. 1:18-24), that if desired, giving a writ of divorcement was necessary in the case of unchastity before the marriage bed.


and there is evidence that there WERE remarried divorcees alive and well and in fellowship in the church, not having been condemned..

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/15.html


Quote:

A man couldn't just leave the woman, he has to divorce her. The marriage, though not yet consummated was a legal marriage in every other way.


absolutely.
which is why its preposterous to say that its 'hardheartedness' to put away a wife POST consummation, yet supposedly 'ok' to do it PRE consummation.....in BOTH cases a wife is a wife is a wife.
There is no difference....in BOTH instances she is a covenant WIFE !

Quote:

There's also another camp which believes the fornication (porneia) may have been speaking to incest---that being the only way a man could put away his wife----if it were found out that they were blood relations, a practice forbidden.


a preposterous assumption meant to perpetuate false doctrines.

If porneia isnt all inclusive of sexual immorality there are quite a few passages that dont make any sense....including the command to abstain from 'porneia' in Acts 15....I guess in the councils mind ALL sexual immorality would be fine except for 'incest', *IF* incest alone were the meaning of porneia...

Wrong...porneia is used to include ALL sexual sin, married or unmarried.


Quote:

In any case, how His disciples reacted to this only "allowance" shows they were shocked.


Thats right.
These jews had been permitted to divorce their wives for centuries for EVERY cause...and they did divorce for EVERY cause.

Now being told that they commit adultery now EXCEPT in a case of sexual sin when they divorce and remarry would have staggered any of them that were used to this frivolous divorce allowance for so long...no big surprise at all there.


Quote:
Jesus was teaching something very different, in my opinion, than what the 2 camps of that day were practicing: one, Hillel----divorce for ANY cause. Two, Shammai----divorce for adultery (which actually called for stoning according to the law). The disciples were well aware of both teachings/practices, yet they appeared to be taken aback by what Jesus taught----believing it better to never marry than taking a chance on transgressing His commands concerning marriage or being "stuck" for life with an undesireable spouse. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy :-)



What were the pharisees asking Jesus and what was His response?

Here is the account of Jesus speaking with the pharisees in Matthew.
This account is pretty much indentical to Mark 10, except that the words ''except for sexual immorality'' are in this account and apparently not in Marks account of this story.

Firstly lets read it thru, then we'll break it down and see what is being discussed.

=====
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 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.
(Mat 19:3-12 KJV)

======================================
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him,"

RESPONSE:
As they had been with John, the pharisees were trying anything they could to incite the masses against Jesus. They would ask Him questions hoping His answer would cause the mobs to turn against Him and preferably kill Him.

======================================
"and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

RESPONSE:
There are two main schools of thought on the passage in Deut 24:1-4.
Those of Shammai thought that it meant ONLY for an actual ''unclean'' act, and surely nothing less than an actual covenant breaking act committed by the wife gave a man the right to put her away.

Then there was the school of Hillel.
These believed that the man only needed to find some small imperfection in her..such as smelly breath or burning his breakfast.....''for any cause'' she could be put away.

What is VERY obvious here is that Jesus is being confronted by those of Hillel.... the pharisees of Shammai did not believe in divorce ''for EVERY cause'' only for legitimately breaking the marriage covenant, only those of Hillel would have asked our Lord this question in this manner.
Matthews account sheds much light on the entire conversation that Marks account neglects.

=======================================
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"


RESPONSE:
Jesus response shows absolutely here that we ARE discussing the covenant of marriage...not premarriage and not ''engagement'' as we have it today.
He is clearly discussing a union that GOD Himself has joined together... that is shown conclusively.

He states that this man and woman instead of being two, become ''one flesh'' (see 1 Corinth. 6:16 as well on this issue for more context). That God has joined them together in HIS union and let no man (or woman obviously) put asunder.... or ''separate''.

Jesus is discussing the UNION of marriage, that is a fact from the text given.

========================================
"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

RESPONSE:
The pharisees invoke the words of Moses Himself, most likely hoping to help incite the mob at this point.
They ask Him, can we divorce for any reason, a luxury the Jews had grown quite used to. Jesus response seems to be just what theyre looking for, something they can anger the mob with....so they say to Him ''hey, MOSES says we can do it''.... trying to show that He is defying the law of Moses.

My thoughts are that they already had heard something on His views on marriage and knew to try this against Him. But they must not have heard all the details on the matter or theyd have known He wasnt totally going against Moses in this matter, only greatly narrowing the intent.
At least, that is what I conclude based on the complete scriptural, cultural and historical study Ive done on this the last year.
========================================
"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"

RESPONSE:
Here is a key point that MANY abuse.
They try to make it like ALL divorce is because of hardheartedness, but Jesus never states that at all.
And a study of the history of the Jews and even this brief passage makes it clear.

Remember what the pharisees had just asked Jesus? ''can we put away a wife FOR EVERY CAUSE'' ?
THAT is the hardheartedness Jesus is talking about. He is speaking to men who were putting away their wives for any reason they could come up with....leaving her to be destitute, without means to support herself...just casting an innocent wife out for no reason...THAT is their 'treachery'...

What Moses had dealt with was worse, but the same hardheartedness fueled it before as well.
The reason Moses had permitted them to put away their wives without her breaking the covenant was because these horrible Jewish men would beat her or even kill her to be rid of her.
So even before Deut 24 was penned, men were unjustly, savagely ridding themselves of an unwanted wife.
for those who disbelieve me, please turn on your news or open a paper.... even today these brute beasts are tormenting thier innocent wives.

Jesus is right when He says it was because of hardness of heart that Moses had permitted them to just put her away.
Moses was trying to protect her from being hurt, abused or even killed at the hands of these monsterous men like we see even today and thus permitted them to put her away without just cause....then later REGULATED this allowance of easily putting her away by giving Deut 24:1-4 in a further attempt to protect her from him.

Jesus never states, nor implies, that ALL divorce by a man is over his hard heart.
He was asked a DIRECT question by men trying to set Him up....tempting Him....and He gave them a clear response....except for fornication...unless she ACTUALLY breaches the covenant you commit adultery when you cast her out and remarry another.

The man who has been cheated on for years and finally deserted, who treated his wife like a queen and is completely devastated by her leaving can merely end up filing divorce over broken heartedness instead when he realizes she isnt coming back or going to change her ways.
This is exactly how our God felt about Isreal and having to put a covenant away with her over her continued whoredoms.
=====================================
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

RESPONSE:
Jesus has explained that from the beginning what the pharisees were permitted to do was not the way God intended. From the beginning it was not so. From the beginning God intended the man to love and cherish his sweet Eve-like wife as a symbol of our union to Him and to Christ.

From the beginning a man could not just feel like he wanted to be rid of his wife for whatever cause and just cast her out. From the beginning marriage was for life.

Jesus says clearly ONLY for actually breaking the marriage covenant can she be put away now. There will be no more of this ''for any cause'' divorce. If she doesnt actually break the covenant by fornication, then to put her away and remarry is to commit adultery against her (see Mark 10 "against her'') . He ''causes her to commit adultery when she remarries as well as the covenant was not voided in Gods eyes since she had done nothing warranting being put away...but was put away ''for any cause''.

As we have seen already, Jesus IS discussing a MARRIAGE with the pharisees.
Not some fantasy engagement that as that would make the entire discussion void of all meaning altogether. ONLY if they are discussing a lawfully binding, permanent marriage does the passage even make any sense at all....especially considering the phariseees bringing up Moses words in Deut 24:1-4...the passage that speaks of a bill of DIVORCE.

======================================
"His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

RESPONSE:
Jesus disciples are Jews. The SAME Jews who knew that ''for any cause'' divorce was permitted.
They had grown just as used to the idea, being Jews, that they could end a marriage easily *IF* they found out that they didnt like a wife for whatever reason, as the rest of the Jews had done.

Jesus has just shown these men who had centuries of easy divorce that NO....you cannot do this now.
ONLY for actually breaking the covenant can she be put away.

Imagine today a man really is disgusted with his wife.
She doesnt cook like he wants her to and wont give him sex in the depraved manner he wants and shes put on a few pounds.
Under the Mosiac economy which permitted 'for any cause" divorce as interpreted by many, the man could just send her packing with her bill of divorce.
But Jesus says NO.... ONLY if she actually breaks the covenant by whoredom can you put her away.

His disciples were used to the idea of ''for any cause'', that way if she did start to become annoying to him he could be rid of her. But with Jesus words it wasnt that easy.
In truth, it IS better not to marry, as they said, rather than to end up stuck with a wife your miserable with (most likely over your hardheartedness to begin with)

======================================
"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 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.

RESPONSE:
Jesus' response shows that there arent many men who CAN go without marrying.
We see more men and woman who cannot stay celebate than those who can.
Even God Himself says to us, ''it is not good for man to be alone''

Jesus shows indeed, that *IF* one CAN accept it, it is MUCH better to be as a eunuch and never marry.
Some are this way by birth and some have decided to remain unmarried for the kingdoms work... but Jesus has shown that ''all men cannot'' recieve this saying that ''it is not good to marry''....only to whom it is given... those who have the ability. Most likely given by God Himself.

 2006/5/8 12:47









 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:
Quote:
Gentile Christians, at least, cannot remarry no matter what the circumstance right?



I believe scripture teaches that no Christian can remarry after a divorce without entering into adultery (mt. 5:32, mt. 19:9, Mk. 10:11-12, Lk. 16:16-18). The death of a spouse is the only thing which frees one from a marriage joined by God(Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). Blessings in Him, Cindy

Then you find yourself calling Jesus a deceiver.

You have already claimed you believe that the betrothed IS within a lawful marriage...

Quote:
lastblast:
"The marriage, though not yet consummated was a legal marriage in every other way. "



...so even if you say Jesus is only refering to the betrothed wife in Matt 5:32 and Matt 19, you are making the claim that it is still adultery to put this wife a away and remarry whom Jesus has made exception for.

Your doctrine seems very contradictory and makes Jesus seem as if He is confused or lying when He makes His exception.

 2006/5/8 13:04









 Re:

Quote:

PastorPancho wrote:
I am working with a brother who has been married 3 times now. The first divorce happened when his wife, who is a practicing witch, tried to kill him after he accepted Christ.

The second divorce happened when his next wife refused to comply or support his desire to quit working at P&G, making the big bucks, and go into ministry. This was also complicated/exasorbated by the fact that she didn't support this little guy as he tried to discipline her disrespectful, unwieldy 16 year-old, 300 lb. son. Through all this, he has unswervingly sought to serve the Lord in profound ways.

He is now married to a very godly woman who has spent the last 15 or so years pouring out her life for Jesus.

He is determined to become a full-time pastor. He is highly effective in most every way, leading many to salvation, discipling them, sending them out to serve others, etc.

What is your take on all this, having received a short, inadequate glimps of it?

Your servant,

PastorPancho


I think the qualifications for bishops would apply....'husband of ONE ("first") wife' (not unlawfully divorced/remarried while his former wife lived and also no practicing polygamist) .....for sure.

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/15.html

 2006/5/8 13:10









 Re:

Quote:
Second, the word fornication, which is used instead of adultery, means sexual acts outside of marriage


Absolutely incorrect.

Porneia is all inclusive of sexual immorality, both by the married and the unmarried. Its historical use by the early church fathers who themselves use the word 'fornication' to describe the adulteries of a wife....and also its clear use in the NT.....show absolutely that it is not restricted to sex by only unmarried folks.

Also, porneia CANNOT be restricted only to the Jews as it is used in Acts 15 in giving instruction, not to the Jews, but specifically for the gentile converts.

Heres a bit of my own studies on its use from Gods word...

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


Porneia...aka ‘’fornication’’

Some claim that fornication in Matthew is PRE marital sex alone and that divorce and remarriage for any other reason is not permissible.
But we see that conflicts with the use of the word throughout the NT.
Porneia is whoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.
This included every sexual sin of every nature.
Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.
This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.
When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.

Even the current english definition of ‘’fornication’’ is against these false doctrine as it says NOTHING about Unmarried people, but only that the two engaging in ‘’forication’’ are not married to each other.

Here is the current definition...

Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Notice not a single word about either person being ‘’unmarried’.
One or both could be married to someone else, they just arent marrried to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISNT your lawful spouse, whether youre married or not.
Here is the greek word rendered as ''fornication'' in your KJV bibles.

G4202
????????
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

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

Also....

In Acts 15 and 21, four items are given for gentiles to abstain from as presented in the following verses.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (G4202, same as the exception clause in Matthew).


1. Things offered to idols
2. blood
3. Things strangled
4. fornication (G4202 same as the exception clause).

I ask those who say fornication (porneia G4202) is premarital or betrothal sex only and not “adultery”, why is it that the writer ONLY used ''porneia'' in Acts 15 and 21 and didnt seem to think it necessary to mention ''adultery'' as something to abstain from as well?
Hes already on the topic of sexual sin here, why not mention the big one *IF* adultery is a separate sin?

The reason is "porneia'' covers ANY sexual sin. Paul knew that as did whoever rendered Jesus words in Matthew into greek.
When it was used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin. Just as Jesus meant all sexual sin in Matthew 19.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered. And neither was there any need for Jesus to use the word adultery, which would have left a hole or two in His teaching (see ''why didnt Jesus say ''except for adultery)
===============================================================================
1 Corinthians chapter 5

We see in the following passage that only the fornicator is mentioned..

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
(1Co 5:9-13 KJV)

Now, *IF* adultery isnt included in 'porneia' or 'fornication', why on earth didnt Paul mention not keeping company with the adultlerer ?
Was Paul stating to not keep company with the fornicator..but hey, its ok to hang out with adulterers ?

Hardly.
Paul used a word that covers all sexual sin.
He mentions a ''brother'' and isnt it odd that the word he chose rendered as 'fornicator' here is the masculine form of porneia ?

G4205
???????
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Paul was clearly stating to not keep company with any man called a brother who is out having illicit sex.....married or not.

Porneia and its forms are all inclusive of sexual sin of the married and the UNmarried.


===============================================================================
In Ephesians and Colossians both we see references to Fornication, but none about adultery.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(Eph 5:3-5 KJV)

(whoremonger being the masculine form ...pornos)

and

When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
(Col 3:4-6 KJV)


So if this porneia (fornication) does not include all sexual sin, then we would have to suppose that Paul is only directing these two churches to abstain from SOME sexual sins (incest, premarital sex, etc) , and surely not adultery (if it were the case that porneia is not all inclusive of sexual immorality)

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

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''porneia'' in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, He was saying the same thing ''Sexual Sin'' or whoredom. Jesus did not mean just PREmarital sex, and neither does the definition of ‘’fornication’’ present that idea either.
He used a word, the same as in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom....as ‘’fornication’’ clearly shows as well. ....porneia even covers the possiblity of bestiality if it has occured.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without committing adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin...EXCEPT that this person we marry has had sex with someone they arent married to.

That is what is clearly conveyed with ‘’porneia’’ and what is also presented with the REAL definition of ‘’forncation’’ (not the Unmarried nonsense that some pass off on us )

HOME
Quote:

 2006/5/8 13:17









 Re:

Fornication (porneia g4202) cannot mean illicit sexual activity only 'during Jewish betrothal" as some try to state.

The word porneia (rendered 'fornication) is directed SPECIFICALLY to GENTILE converts in Acts 15 to tell them to abstain from 'fornication' (porneia G4202).

===========================================================================
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:19-20)

fornication
G4202
????????
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
===========================================================================


Since betrothal is a Jewish custom, using this word 'porneia' to instruct the gentiles means that porneia cannot in any way specifically mean, and be limited to, sexual sin during the JEWISH betrothal period.

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/fornicationnotonlyduringbetrothal.html

 2006/5/8 17:50
JesusIsMyLrd
Member



Joined: 2005/10/28
Posts: 119
Iowa, USA

 Repentance from Sin

Dear Brothers,
This is a very contraversial issue!! i am amazed every time it comes up, how hurt some get, and how offended it makes people. So with my post here, i want to be as gentle as a dove, yet speaking the truth.

We can clearly see that in God's Word, remarriage is wrong. Divorce, in some cases, is acceptable under the Jewish betrothal and such. But remarriage is not.

As for the "repent of the sin of remarriage, and then keep living together", this is a grave error. i say grave, because the Bible says that God will judge the unrepentant (Paraphrase there ;-)). Repentance is not only haveing a change of mind, but of action too. To say that a drunkard can repent of being a drunkard, and keep drinking is not right, so why would we say it is alright for two to stay together, who are in adultary? So, we see that it is (As John Baptist said) not lawfull to have her...

So, there is my post. i pray that God will be glorified, and that He will guid us all as we seek Him. i know that if i am wrong on this, because i seek Him, He will bring me to the truth. And if we all seek Him, He will bring us into the unity of His Spirit. May our flesh and persons be put down, and CHRIST be lifted up. Amen.


_________________
Nathan

 2006/5/9 9:15Profile









 Re: Repentance from Sin

Quote:


We can clearly see that in God's Word, remarriage is wrong. Divorce, in some cases, is acceptable under the Jewish betrothal and such. But remarriage is not.


Divorce/remarriage is never in the 'plan', but I believe Ive refuted the absurdity that those who are remarried need to divorce or go to hell.

It has definitely been shown as errant this false doctrine that 'fornication' is only within Jewish betrothal...READERS see this link....
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/fornicationnotonlyduringbetrothal.html

It doesnt matter what 'tone' you use friend, the truth of Gods WHOLE council shows a clear picture.

He doesnt like divorce, but someone who IS divorce and remarried isnt going to hell if they dont divorce the second time.


Quote:
As for the "repent of the sin of remarriage, and then keep living together", this is a grave error.


Please.
My site shows conclusive PROOF that there were remarried divorcees in the church IN fellowship, not having been condemned.
Your doctrine stands refuted wholesale.
Calls to emotion are irrelevant...Gods TRUTH is all that matters here.



Quote:
i say grave, because the Bible says that God will judge the unrepentant (Paraphrase there ;-)). Repentance is not only haveing a change of mind, but of action too. To say that a drunkard can repent of being a drunkard, and keep drinking is not right, so why would we say it is alright for two to stay together, who are in adultary? So, we see that it is (As John Baptist said) not lawfull to have her...


READERS please see my page here concerning Herod and Herodias.
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/19.html
This couple is NOT evidence for this doctrine.
Please take the time to even the dialogue with cindy as well, it also sheds some light on certain points.




Quote:
So, there is my post. i pray that God will be glorified, and that He will guid us all as we seek Him. i know that if i am wrong on this, because i seek Him, He will bring me to the truth. And if we all seek Him, He will bring us into the unity of His Spirit. May our flesh and persons be put down, and CHRIST be lifted up. Amen.


So brother, did you have any refutation to offer from Gods whole word?
Im only asking because even satan appears as a angel of light...we know what smooth sounding words he used with Eve to take her from Gods will.
False doctrines usually do the same.

I dont need smooth words because I am presenting an unrefutable truth from the WHOLE of Gods word. I dont need to call to emotions because the WHOLE truth stands on its own.

READERS.
Here is my homepage.
http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/
Ive spent the last two years in hardcore study, devoting time each and every day trying to put this ALL into proper context...fitting even the smallest details into their proper perspective to find the whole truth in this matter.

when Jesus says 'except for fornication (whoredom)' you commit adultery if you divorce and remarry, that EXACTLY what He means.

Anyone that tells you that you committed adultery if you remarried after your ex cheated is simply telling you that your Lord either lied to you or is completely without knowledge Himself (Jesus) on the matter.

The Lords exception does NOT apply only to Jews or premarital sex....my site exposes this fabrication from the pits for all to see.

Those of you who HAVE remarried please dont fall for smooth words and calls to emotions....please read my site and add it up for yourselves.
If you do and still dont believe, then go in peace and ignore me and my words.
If you can easily add it all up, as most who do read my site usually do, then praise God and stop worrying about going to hell simply because there is a mistake in your past.
You are not condemned to celebacy simply because you were/are divorced.

God bless
wm

 2006/5/9 11:02









 Re:

There WERE remarried divorcees in fellowship in the church...

http://www.geocities.com/divorceandremarriage/15.html

 2006/5/9 12:16
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2850
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

FOC, you have posted much material here and I haven't had time to read it all but I do wish to comment on one thing that I read from your comments on the 1 Timothy 5:9 verse...

Quote:
Wife of one man This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem. There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts. This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee. It cannot be a remarried widow as no law forbad the widow to remarry. Paul even tells widows "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (1Co 7:8-9 KJV) Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry. Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...



Your argument here seems to be putting the ending of a marriage by divorce on the same grounds as the ending of a marriage by the death of one of the spouses. Your argument mixes the two and I'm not sure we should do that.

Paul wrote the following general rules about marriage...
[b]For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth[/b]; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
(Rom 7:2)

[b]The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth[/b]; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
(1Co 7:39)
Paul would not contradict the verses above by condemning a widow that had remarried at some point after her husbands death. Therefore, could it be possible that he is saying in the 1 Timothy verse that she should not be someone who had put away her husband and then married someone else at some point in her life? This was also condemned by Jesus in the following verse...
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [i]And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.[/i]
(Mar 10:11-12)
Also, it would seem from Scripture that the only exceptions to these rules of marriage are adultery (Matthew 19:9) and desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15).

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2006/5/9 13:09Profile





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