SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Is Remarriage Adulterous?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
hredii
Member



Joined: 2004/8/1
Posts: 218
Fresno CA

 Re:

Quote:

brentw wrote:

This doesnt set right with me either...
Would God break up a family?? Or would He destroy a family??
I can hear the mom saying "sorry kids, I was a sinner, and now I got saved, and I now have to leave you!" God have mercy on someone to tell a family they have to break up!!



Ezra10:10-12
10And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel.

11Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

12Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.

Nehemiah 13:23,24
23In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab:

24And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.


Yes God does break up families even with children involved when the marriages break God's commands.


This was the beginning of the thread and this will be good to look at with this perspective.
Quote:
Awhile back I read something a homsexual wrote to a Christian. He said how is it that the Church condemns homosexuality but it condones re-marriage for those who are divorced?


If a homosexual couple was married and had children and one of them came to Jesus Christ. Would not they have to break up the family to truly bring forth works meet for repentance that brings salvation?

If Jesus calls remarriage adulterous should not those who are remarried bring forth works meet for repentance also. It does not matter if a person was remarried before they came to Christ, they need to repent.


_________________
Adam Fell

 2006/8/9 22:14Profile
hredii
Member



Joined: 2004/8/1
Posts: 218
Fresno CA

 Re:

Mark 6:18
For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife

John would not say now come to Christ and all will be well.

John preached repentance.

That is why John was put in prison.
Mark 6:17
For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.


_________________
Adam Fell

 2006/8/9 22:20Profile
ThatIBeOfUse
Member



Joined: 2006/7/28
Posts: 2
Midwest

 Re:

Really well written! Its not too often that I come across articles that point out how in some cases, after such a long time and so much abuse that its OK to sever the marriage covenant. It's not much a covenant when one party has completly disregarded the promises made. Well done. :-)


_________________
Ash

 2006/8/10 1:17Profile









 Re: Is Remarriage Adulterous?

Quote:
Really well written! Its not too often that I come across articles that point out how in some cases, after such a long time and so much abuse that its OK to sever the marriage covenant. It's not much a covenant when one party has completly disregarded the promises made. Well done. :-)

Sorry ThatIBeOfUse, I'm not sure which articles you're referring to here?

 2006/8/10 5:36









 Re: Is Remarriage Adulterous?

MSeaman asked (end of p2):

Quote:
So in this scenario, where would she be?

I don't think you have enough information here to have any idea what transactions have gone on between either the two people in the first marriage, or either of them and God.

I agree that marriage is an extremely serious commitment, but it is supposed to be a health-giving, [i]nurturing[/i] arrangement under GOD's order, between a man and a woman, which depends at its deepest level on mutual fidelity.

Imho, only the two people in the marriage are able to work out whether one of them is unable to continue the commitment on the terms it was originally made, and whether the other person is able to live with whatever changes are proposed.

It is completely clear from scripture that the person who leaves the marriage by committing adultery, is voting with their feet, and if the faithful spouse does not want to take the adulterer back, he or she doesn't have to AND is free to remarry.

It is also clear from the gospel, that adultery can be forgiven by God, and in real terms, that also makes the one-time adulterer completely clean in His sight, and free to remarry, if he or she was married and is now divorced from the spouse against whom adultery was committed. Obviously, a [i]single[/i] person who commits adultery with another person's spouse, doesn't have the 'adulterous remarriage' question to deal with...... do they?

It is primarily because of this, and because God is [i]not[/i] stupid, AND because He created us in His own image and knows what we need (for instance, the sexual freedom imposed by marriage - not to commit fornication within marriage either), that I find the continual suggestion He is going to judge [i]repentant, forgiven,[/i] adulterers later [i]guilty, after[/i] a fidelitous remarriage, wildly confusing.

Either the forgiveness of God means something in eternity, or, it is a figment of imaginations. The forgiveness He's given me is not a figment of my imagination, but I can only speak for myself.

Those of you who have not been in abusive marriages (or 'married', even), or are not survivors of domestic abuse yourselves, need to get out more and meet the people at your local battered wives' (or mens') shelter. Then come back here and justify how you can harbour the remotest thoughts of confining a survivor of such circumstances, (whose spouses manifestly did not comply with Paul's exhortations about loving one's spouse as one's own body), to just one marriage in a lifetime.... please? I'm not being theoretical here. Also, I realise that God can save people in these circumstances and they can change. Also, battered wives can change and live in an abusive marriage if they believe God wants them to do so.

However, scripture does not support [i][b]forcing[/i][/b] a spouse to live in an abusive marriage, as the template for marriage given in scripture, nowhere includes permission for one spouse to abuse the other [u]in any way at all[/u]. Key words are 'love', 'cherish' and 'nourish', 'honourable' and 'undefiled'.

I realise that the teaching of the Catholic church on divorce runs deeply within evangelical mindsets, but it also runs counter to scripture, and both aspects need to be resisted, in that there IS no formula for dealing with failed marriages EXCEPT scripture.

And, each individual spouse has to be in an honest relationship with God, and take the risks they do when they remarry, if they remarry without being [u]completely clear in their own hearts[/u] about the standing with God of the relationship into which they enter.

Remember, many faithfully married people will be in hell, because they refused to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.

 2006/8/10 6:07
brentw
Member



Joined: 2005/12/14
Posts: 440
Ohio

 Re:











I'm not talking about a homosexual marriage because they dont even exist...not real.

You need to do some more research on the culture back in the old test. there anyway. I can pull scriptures to defend myself as well. You need to study the culture of those times.

Plus I'm talking about a sinner coming to Jesus and who was married before, but they didnt know Jesus until after they were remarried. And had kids as well together.

I refuse to argue with a legalist any how.


Quote:
If a homosexual couple was married and had children and one of them came to Jesus Christ. Would not they have to break up the family to truly bring forth works meet for repentance that brings salvation?


_________________
Brent

 2006/8/10 12:23Profile









 Re:

Quote:

If a homosexual couple was married and had children and one of them came to Jesus Christ.


Contrary to uncommon belief...there is no such thing as a gay marriage.
I defy you to find a single reference from scripture that this abomination can ever be seen as anything other than sin.

On the other hand, we have a wonderful story about a woman who saved the Hebrew people from extinction....a woman married to a divorcee...a woman GOD used to protect Israel.

For a God who hates divorce, He managed to use even that.

We also have clear evidence that there were indeed remarried divorcees in the church and in fellowship, not being told to divorce and not being cast out of the church.
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/evidences.html

Quote:
If Jesus calls remarriage adulterous should not those who are remarried bring forth works meet for repentance also. It does not matter if a person was remarried before they came to Christ, they need to repent.


YOU show us chapter and verse where Christ or Paul told those remarried Jewish divorcees coming into the church to divorce.

Paul says remain UNmarried or reconcile...NOWHERE does he say "DIVORCE and reconcile".

And contrary to your errant view, Jesus DOESNT call all remarriages adultery. Where fornication (whoredom) is present in the marriage put away, NO adultery is committed upon marrying another by His own exception.

You should spend some time here....
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/

 2006/8/14 8:49









 Re:

Quote:

hredii wrote:
Mark 6:18
For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife


John accused Herod with the Mosiac law as when John started going against him Jesus had not even yet been baptised and even began to preach His teaching on marriage.

Mosaic law FORBADE the taking of the wife of a brother UNLESS the brother died childless. Philip was alive and kicking still and DID have a daughter with Herdodias (Salome)

How much time have you spent on studying this issue out?

Additionally, NEITHER man could lawfully have Herodias as she was the daughter of their own brother. BOTH marriages were unlawful from the start.

Quote:

John would not say now come to Christ and all will be well.


Not to this incestuous marriage, no he would not.

Quote:

That is why John was put in prison.
Mark 6:17
For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.

your point being?

Even *IF* Philip were dead, Herod could NEVER lawfully take Herodias for his wife because it was not LAWFUL to marry ones brothers wife UNLESS he died without child.

Herod and Herodias, whether you like it or not, arent even the slightest bit of evidence for your errant views
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/herodherodias.html

.

 2006/8/14 8:57









 Re:

Quote:

hredii wrote:

Ezra10:10-12
10And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel.

11Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

12Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.

Nehemiah 13:23,24
23In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab:

24And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.



Methinks you either forgot, or intentionally left out, a frivolous divorce and a REmarriage that God used to save Israel from destruction.

Why is it that we never see those of your doctrinal views presenting much about Esther?

That passage you speak of was about a situation like Herod and Herodias where it wives were taken that were UNLAWFUL to be taken from the start.

Esther provides a refutation to your errant belief that divorce automatically makes remarriage null and void.

In the times of Ezra Deut 24:1-4 was in place, had these simply been wives 'put away/divorced' taking them would have been permitted by that law....this was not the case.
the Israelites had taken FORBIDDEN, UNLAWFUL wives, not mere divorcees....and just as Herod with Herodias, were not permitted to have them at all.

Ezra is also not any sort of evidence for your docrtrinal error

 2006/8/14 9:00









 Re:

Quote:

MSeaman wrote:
I have a question then. This is a real situation. A man and woman were married. the wife is a Christian, the husband is not. they were married over twenty years. there was adultery in the marriage as well as emotional abuse, on the part of the husband for sure. the wife may or may not have committed adultery. The wife left the husband and filed for divorce. She is remarried now to a Christian and is still serving God now.

So in this scenario, where would she be?



A woman who is not the 'wife of one man' but a remarried divorcee...who would be most likely denied the list of eligible widows when she turned 60 but still in fellowship, neither being condemned or commanded to divorce in scripture, but being of a second marriage being told by Christ to 'go and sin no more'...she needs to be the best christian wife she can to her current husband...

 2006/8/14 10:19





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy