SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Hal Lindsey's on wife #4

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1855
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

To those who hold the view that divorce and remarriage are not allowed under any circumstances, I offer my sincere apologies for stating that that view is extreme and way beyond Scripture. I understand that this topic is debatable among solid believers. I realize I would not want certain of my views on non-essentials to be characterized as extreme and way beyond Scripture.


_________________
Oracio Sandoval

 2014/11/24 18:38Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1855
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Regarding Hal Lindsey, personally I think it would have been better if more information was available. For all we know his previous wives could have committed adultery and he may have kept quiet about it and simply divorced them and remarried.

But with John Hagee it seems very clear that he committed adultery and should not have any platform in ministry.

Edit added: Regardless, I'm not fond of either one of their ministries and would not recommend them.


_________________
Oracio Sandoval

 2014/11/24 19:02Profile
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3106
Texas

 Re:

I wanted to ask this again because some come here with a determined opinion and never even read some of the other posts.

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."-Matthew 19:9

My question seems pretty plain and simple and to the point. If I divorce my wife because she was unfaithful,and marry another it's ok? and if someone has not been married, they can marry her without committing adultery?.

This is the way I am reading the scripture above, if someone wants to explain to me this is not what it's saying, please do.


_________________
Mr. Bill

 2014/11/24 19:16Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1256


 Re:

It is amazing to me how some on hear can be so legalistic!

They would have David in hell for his adultery! We know that Jesus is the son of David according to the scriptures!

We also know that Solomon built a house for the Lord under the guidance of the Lord himself. Solomon is also the son of Bathsheba (the wife of David in whom he committed adultery with and also had her husband killed before he married her).

We all know that what David did displeased the Lord and also brought a sword against his house, for God punished him.

We also know that David was under the Law (where the crime for adultery was being stoned to death) but God had mercy upon him. God even blessed the union of him and his wife of adultery with a child named Solomon.

We also know that David was a man after God's own heart and was completely restored back to God. For God had said that he would never take his mercy away from David.

We are blessed by God's grace and mercy today under the new covenant. Thank God there is no sin that the blood of Christ cannot cover and cleanse us of completely.

The accuser of the brethren is Satan and those who he uses. We must not be guilty of bringing up sins of the past that the blood has covered. We will all be judged according to how we have judged others.

James 2:12-13 (KJV)
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

 2014/11/24 20:13Profile
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3106
Texas

 Re:

Great Post Brother Banks. I only know of one Jesus, the "perfect one". I know as Christians we are to be like Jesus, but God knows being like Jesus he did not mean literally. Just like folks could try and be like Bill, but they could never be Bill. Being exactly like Jesus, you would have to become perfect, and look like him, that's being like Jesus. Some kids say I want to be like my Dad or Mom, it's impossible to be like them, you can own the exact house or car or have the same job, but your still not like them, you never will be and never can be. There are no two people alike, God made us all different, even Jesus.


_________________
Mr. Bill

 2014/11/24 20:51Profile
Sree
Member



Joined: 2011/8/20
Posts: 1589


 Re:

Brothers, this is not a thread to discuss about whether divorce is scriptural. The person in question here was in relationship with a younger women in his congregation for years before marrying her.

Like i said before Divorce is a very sensitive term. We cannot just prove someone is wrong by using one interpretation; we need to look case by case.

Now I want to answer this question about Luke 16;9 in which Jesus has clearly said Divorcee and remarriage is sin.

Now let us see how he contradicts himself in MATT19;9. We all know scripture cannot contradict itself. Neither did Jesus miss a particular condition in Luke 16 as some here think. Let me give you a clear logical explanation. I am sure though my logic is right no one who supports divorce will change their opinion. I am giving the right interpretation to prove that scripture cannot contradict.

Jesus clearly said in starting of Matthew 19 that he does not permit divorce.
3 Some Pharisees came to [b]Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [c]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So till here it is new covenant. That Jesus gave. He does not permit divorce. It is inline with Luke 16. SO no contradiction. Now the pharisees understood what Jesus meant here much clearly than we Christians and asked him.

“Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?'

Now Jesus's answer is very clear. He is only answering to the question. Why did MOSES permit but YOU did not permit in new covenant.

8 He *said to them, “Because of your HARDNESS of HEART Moses permitted you to [d]divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever [e]divorces his wife, except for [f]immorality, and marries another woman [g]commits adultery[h].”

Moses permitted Divorce because in Old Covenant men had a hard heart that had no compassion. So he gave them permission to divorce. But even in that case of heard heart, it should be coupled with adultery to divorce legally. NOW it is clear that Matthew 19;8 is only an explanation given for why Moses permitted divorce. We cannot separate a piece of scripture and make a rule. IT IS WORK OF DEVIL TO READ OR TAKE SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT. LIKE HOW HE DID TO TEMPT JESUS;

Now the question, why did Jesus not permit Divorce in NEW covenant? Answer is in New Covenant we have a heart of flesh. There is no unforgiving heart like Old Covenant where a person had no mercy. Now we have tasted the mercy of Jesus to show mercy to our partner.

Now you may question me like what in the case of physical abuse, the answer is we need to see everything case by case.


_________________
Sreeram

 2014/11/24 21:43Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1855
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

If a minister commits adultery there must be church discipline applied. If the person is repentant they can go through a process of restoration. If they are unrepentant they must be excommunicated and handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and salvation of the soul per 1Cor.5.

Regarding the issue of divorce and remarriage, I can see how it can get touchy among believers. Like I said, there are solid believers and Bible teachers/preachers on both sides and both sides point to certain scriptures to support their view.

A sad thing to see would be for this difference to become cause for strife and division among believers. By the tone of some who have posted in this thread and other threads in the past concerning this issue, it seems that some may feel so strongly about it that they would divide from other believers over this difference. I hope I am wrong about that impression I got.


_________________
Oracio Sandoval

 2014/11/24 22:10Profile
Sree
Member



Joined: 2011/8/20
Posts: 1589


 Re:

Quote:
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."-Matthew 19:9

My question seems pretty plain and simple and to the point. If I divorce my wife because she was unfaithful,and marry another it's ok? and if someone has not been married, they can marry her without committing adultery?.



I believe I have given an answer to all your questions clearly both scriptural and logical in my previous post. You can either skip my clear explanation and continue in your understanding of taking a scripture out of context. If you do so you are only proving that you are one of the following people who you rightly called with determined mind,

Quote:
some come here with a determined opinion and never even read some of the other posts.




_________________
Sreeram

 2014/11/24 23:11Profile
dfella
Member



Joined: 2010/7/9
Posts: 286
Canton, Michigan

 Re:

I would like to address all the questions that have been raised and remind everyone we are on the same side if we truly desire to follow Him and His will for our lives.

So I am going to work backwards from the most recent post.

rbanks has made a statement about being legalistic. Obedience to God and His word is in no way being legalistic and Gods grace was never meant to cover one's sin. All that you stated regarding David is absolutely true however if David's response to Nathan was not one of brokenness and contriteness God would not have pardoned him. David clearly repented.

As a result, David penned Psalm 51 a Psalm of repentance. If David would have tried to excuse and justify his sin or if we try to excuse and justify our own sin, or the sin of others, there simply is no mercy or grace.

Brother Bill, I was told once by a beloved brother when studying scripture to make the plain verses the main verses. Once that is prayerfully done and we look to God for true understanding with no preconceived notion and ask God for wisdom concerning the unclear verses God will not withhold.

When I was going through my trial in my own marriage I mentioned it took 3 years before God spoke very clearly His will. What I did not share was that during that time especially in the beginning I was DEEPLY wounded and hurt. I have never in all my life felt pain like that. This pain was also coupled with tremendous anger.

In the beginning I poured over the scriptures, not looking for a way of restoration, but for a way OUT of my marriage. The very verse you mentioned was one I labored over nearly to the end, before the Lord spoke His will to me. My confusion and misery was due to the fact that when I would think this verse and a couple others were my ticket out of my marriage, God would say that, these particular verses were not saying what I thought. This made me miserable.

But by the grace of God the fear of the Lord kept me from taking one step forward, backward, left or right. In my heart I knew there was something wrong with my approach as sister Sandra stated earlier, the Holy Spirit had convicted me, yet I did not know why. I wanted scripture to provide me with a way out of my marriage, when I could not reconcile the few remaining verses that appeared the way out, my prayer changed from, God get me out of this marriage so I can be with this Christian woman. My prayer had now become, Lord please show me YOUR will, not my own.

Many people think God wants us to be happy, no, God wants us to be holy. You ask about Matthew 19:9 and the exception clause. Let's look at a couple other verses first that do not contain the exception clause.

Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (12) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: (11) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

In these 3 portions of scripture they clearly stand in contradiction to Matthew 19:9. One could say the majority rules, but more importantly, why would God allow such a contradiction? I was hung up on this verse for so long, I cried over this verse for a very long time but God kept saying, No, this is not what this verse is saying.

In my situation I was being told my wife was fornicating and that was my way out. It made sense to me because my flesh wanted to have the other woman. The problem is in this very verse God uses two words to denote fornication and adultery. Fornication in the Greek is porneia, and the Greek word for adultery is moichao. Most teach that the word fornication also includes adultery but I could not get past the fact if this were true why would not Jesus use just the one word for fornication if it also includes adultery?

Why don't Mark and Luke have the exception clause? Once God finally revealed His will for my marriage I was set free from the confusion and misery and I was so happy because loving my wife was what I really wanted deep down inside and knowing THAT was Gods will was like being set free from prison. However once I was set free it seemed like nothing else should matter as I knew, that I knew, that I knew God had finally spoken.

But my curiosity got the better of me and I asked God about this exception clause and God took me to the beginning of the same Gospel and I read the story of the birth of Jesus.

Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was ESPOUSED to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (19) Then Joseph her HUSBAND, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example (stoning), was minded to put her away (divorce) privily. (20) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy WIFE: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (22) Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, (23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (24) Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his WIFE: (25) And knew her not (did not consummate) till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

When Mary was espoused to Joseph this portion of scripture calls them husband and wife even though they had not had the marriage ceremony yet nor had they consummated their relationship until AFTER the birth of Jesus.

So basically they were just engaged and then Joseph finds out Mary was pregnant and it says in verse 19, then Joseph her husband sought to divorce her secretly because he did not want Mary to be stoned to death. Why?

What was Joseph thinking Mary had done? He knows he did not lay with her. So what was the only conclusion Joseph could have come to prior to the Angel of the Lord speaking to him?

That Mary had committed fornication, sex outside of marriage, not adultery but fornication. At the time the Lord was sharing these things I was confused until he later sent men to me to better understand this portion of scripture.

Matthew is a Gospel written to the Jewish people and in Jewish custom once a man and woman are espoused/engaged, at that very moment they are called husband and wife. Typically their engagement would last about a year in order for the man to set up their home and for the woman's family to get her dowry together.

During this time and even on the night of the marriage if the husband were to find out the woman was not a virgin he could give her a bill of divorcement because she had committed fornication.

This I believe is the reason the exception clauses are in Matthew and not in Mark or Luke. If this is the case, all the Gospels are in harmony. Apart from this explanation to conclude that Matthew 19:9 somehow trumps or negates the clear statements of Jesus in Mark and Luke is a grand leap of faith.

Oracio brings up the same question concerning Matthew 19:9 saying that God would allow divorce in the case of sexual immorality. I do not believe that Jesus meant sexual immorality when He uses the word porneia which could include all modes of sexual sin including adultery, if so, he would have only used moichao to describe both fornication and adultery.

No where else will you find the Greek word porneia as a stand alone word describing all sexual sin.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,...

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

If we look solely at Mark and Lukes accounts on the subject of remarriage after a divorce it is clearly forbidden.

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

First question regarding this verse is where in scripture does the word of God refer to a marriage as bondage? Marriage is not bondage.

In my own case, when my wife wanted to leave, I had to let her leave and I was not under bondage of trying to keep my wife against her own will because God had called me to peace. For one to try and keep their mate when they want to leave is the bondage Paul is speaking of, not bondage to the marriage God instituted in the Garden. No where in scripture will you find covenant marriage being equated to bondage.

Oracio also said,

If Christ allows for a divorce in the case of adultery, by definition that implies remarriage is also allowed because a "divinely permissible" divorce dissolves the marriage covenant. Once the marriage covenant is broken there is no more binding to it, you are free from it.

I have not found one verse that says a covenant can be broken. A covenant can be violated but not broken. Jesus NEVER allows for remarriage after a divorce He actually says the opposite. God never intended for a covenant marriage to end in divorce nor did God ever give an allowance for divorce. Moses did, but not God.

Matthew 19:4-8 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) 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? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (8) 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.

Jesus says Moses, NOT God, allowed for divorcement because of their hard hearts, He said from the beginning divorce was never intended.

Like Oracio and Sree have both said this is a touchy subject, nevertheless, it is a reality in the body of Christ. To not be able to discuss the issue is not the answer. If we turn a blind eye to this won't make it go away. My heart is also not to see strife and division but that would God speak to each and every person His will.

I know many dear friends and family that are in adulterous situations. I am not their judge, thank God. I pray that God would open their heart to the truth.

Yes I will admit I am dogmatic on the subject, just like I am dogmatic on many other things in scripture. But as I stated earlier those who oppose the truth of scripture their battle is not with me, but the word of God.

May God bless and help us all, to know and do of His good pleasure.















_________________
David Fella

 2014/11/24 23:18Profile
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 1855
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Brethren, I could come on SI and get pretty dogmatic about certain other doctrines such as pertaining to end times, Calvinism vs Arminianism, spiritual gifts, etc. I think we should try to discuss such issues with respect toward one another and not in a condescending way, like I did in stating that a certain view was extreme and way beyond Scripture, for which I sincerely apologized.

But come to think of it, I guess there may not be an easy way around the fact that some believe a remarriage is adultery no matter the circumstance. When one believer says that another believer is living in adultery simply because they remarried, things can get, well, more than just touchy. It can be taken as quite an offense by the remarried believer.

So I guess we may just have to live with the reality of this strong disagreement among believers after all. Tough issue.


_________________
Oracio Sandoval

 2014/11/24 23:40Profile





©2002-2018 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy