Mike,

I didn't understand when you said:

_________________
Murray Beninger

Chris,

I cannot attempt a reconciliation, she is with another man.

Secondly, I don't believe God did join us together, because she is still bound to her first husband until he dies. I believe our marriage was adultery. God was continually leading me to that scripture about marrying a divorced woman causes you to commit adultery. I did not listen, I relied on my own wisdom.

Murray

_________________
Murray Beninger

You can [b]definitely[/b] remarry under certain circumstances, or else we aren't saved! Read Romans 7:1-4

1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; [b]that ye should be married to another[/b], even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

The death of the spouse legally frees a man or woman to remarry. In the case of adultery, the old covenant law required execution, thus an adulterer was as good as dead once the sin was discovered.

Though execution of adulterers is no longer practiced, this is how Calvin and Luther came to defend their position that if a man is betrayed by his spouse and chooses not to remain with her, he is free to marry another on account of her being "dead" according to the law.

My father was married until my mother committed adultery and divorced him. She committed adultery, and he waited several years, but eventually remarried, seeing she proved herself "dead in her sins" as an unbeliever.

He now has peace as a married man.

It appears that you, MurDog, are guilty of fornicating and adultery, but you have never been married in the sight of God. I have difficulty seeing how then you are not eligible for marriage when you have never been married?

God bless you, stand strong and seek His wisdom.

Michael,

In the scripture that you quoted, I believe that it is speaking of being married to Christ. Where it says "that ye should be married to another, even to HIM who is raised from the dead".

I believe the marriage I am in is classified as an adulterous marriage. The scripture says that "anyone who MARRYS a divorced woman, commits adultery". That is why I believe I am not free to remarry. Although the marriage was adulterous, it is still a marriage. And soon I will be considered a divorced man.

Murray

_________________
Murray Beninger

Murray,

You know what the Scriptures says about your situation so I would encourage you to remain faithful to it. I agree with you. The enemy will come along and make you question the rightness of your situation and in the process question the Biblical directives concerning divorce and remarriage. He will inform yu that you deserve to be married, you deserve to be happy, that you do not want to grow old alone, etc., etc., etc.

Now let me ask you a few questions: has God been with you so far? Have you endured? Now what makes you think He will not be there in the future and care for you? Brother, you live one day at a time, or moment by moment, if you will. Do not worry about tomorrow or the future, for that matter.

There is only one thing I would differ with you: if your first 'marriage' was adulterous then when you remove yourself from that union which was not a legitimate one anyways, this could free you to marry. But brother, if the LORD does not give you permission to go ahead with it, don't.

Murray, there are many people who will justify a remarriage after divorce with a former spouse living but you must remember they never died for your sins, they do not know what hell is like so do not listen to them!

Blessings and hoping you will remain faithfull,

ginnyrose

_________________
Sandra Miller

_________________
Mike Balog

_________________
Mike Balog

I have some questions

My father had married a divorced women. Now she lefted him for a other man.. He beleived that she was his wife and he would fight for her. For 5 years this man, loved this women whom had no love for him. He wrote her and called, he did everything he could.

I reminder hosa, how God had go and get his wife back. I guess my questions are is it right to say so fast that reconciliation can't be made. It seems hard thing to say. can we say that he is have reconciliation? This a hard thing.. Maybe it can't be reconciliation, but is it right not to try? what is there is Children?

brother I am praying for you. God alone put His word in our heart.. May he help in everyway..

in his love
charlene

_________________
charlene

In counseling a couple deep in the throes of the pain and grief that is adultery and resolutely headed for a divorce; I'm trying to help one repent from adultery and keep his life pure and they other to recover from the grief of a lost marriage and all of its inherent dreasm and needs, and move to a place where God's will is more important than hers...I was blessed to receive John Piper's recent sermons on marriage. [b][i]What Therefore God Has Joined Together, Let Not Man Separate [/i][/b] This and [url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/135/]his archives[/url] have helped me help them come to an understanding of God's will for their relationship and their lives.

John Piper has an astute way of looking at the scriptures...

[b]Are there no exceptions to the prohibition of remarriage while the spouse is living? [/b]
My answer is no. But I am very much in the minority of biblical students, and even among Bible-believing scholars and pastors. So let’s turn very briefly to Matthew 19 to see the main argument for the exception of adultery—that is, the argument that when there has been adultery against a spouse he or she is free to divorce and remarry. Matthew 19:3-12 is very much like the words of Jesus we saw last week in Mark 10:1-12. There are two main differences. The first one is in verse 9 where there is an exception clause: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Most scholars say that the words “except for sexual immorality” mean that if there has been adultery, the aggrieved spouse is free to divorce and remarry.


[b]Piper’s Position[/b]
I don’t think that is what Jesus meant. There is no time to give the fairly involved explanation why. For that I refer you to [url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper]Divorce and Remarriage[/url]: A Position Paper. In a few sentences, since Jesus does not use the word “adultery” here (when he says “except for sexual immorality”), which he uses elsewhere (15:9) in distinction to this word, but instead uses the word typically referring to “fornication” (see especially John 8:41), I think what Jesus is doing is warning his readers that this absolute prohibition against remarriage does not apply to the situation of betrothal, where fornication may have happened.

In the article -Position Paper- listed above Piper states and -IMHO- very scripturally supports his [b]Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage After Divorce Is Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive[/b]


and he concludes

In the New Testament the question about remarriage after divorce is not determined by:

-The guilt or innocence of either spouse,
Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or not,
-Nor by whether the divorce happened before or after either spouse's conversion,
-Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth,
-Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion involved,
-Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart,
-Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.

Rather it is determined by the fact that:

*Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
*Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
*God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
*The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
*Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30).


Those who are already remarried:

*Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness
*Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
*Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God's will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.



Please read the all the sermons and the accompaniing articles to get the compl;ete picture of his insight of God's desire for those in these situations.

_________________
bill schnippert

[i]Quest.[/i]V. May husband and wife part by mutual consent, if they find it be for the good of both?

[i]Answ.[/i] If you speak not of dissolving the bond of their relations, but withdrawing as to cohabitation, I answer, 1. it is not to be done upon passions and discontents, to feed and gratify each others vicious distempers or interest: for then both the consent and the separation are their sins: but if really such an uncurable unsuitableness be between them, as that their lives must needs be miserable by their cohabitation, I know not but they may live asunder; so be it, that (after all other means used in vain) they do it by deliberate, free consent. But if one of them should by craft or cruelty constrain the other to consent, it is unlawful to the constrainer. Nor must impatience make either of them ungroundedly despair of the cure of any unsuitableness which is really curable. But many sad instances might be given, in which cohabitation may be a constant calamity to both, and distance may be their relief, and further them both in God's service, and in their corporal concernments. Yet I say not that this is no sin; for their unsuitableness is their sin: and God still obligeth them to lay down that sin which make them unsuitable; and therefore doth not allow them to live asunder, it being still their duty to live together in love and peace; and saying they cannot, freeth them not from the duty. But yet that moral impotency may make such a seperation as foresaid, to be lesser sin than their unpeaceable cohabitation.

[i]Quest[/i].VI. May not the relation itself be dissolved by mutual, free consent, so that they may marry others?

[i]Answ.[/i] As to the relation, they will still be related as those that did not covenant to live in conjugal society, and are still allowed it and obliged to it, if the impediments were but removed; and it is but the exercise which is hindered. And they may not consent to marry others: 1. Because the contracted relation was for life, Rom vii.2, and God's law accordingly obligeth them. Marriages [i]pro tempore,[/i] dissoluble by consent, are not of God's institution, but contrary to it. 2. They know not but their impediments of cohabitation may be removed. 3. If he that marrieth an innocent divorced woman commit adultery, by parity of reason (with advantage) it will be so here. If you say, what if either of them cannot contain? I answer, he that will not take heed before, must be patient afterwards, and not make advantage of his own folly, to the fulfilling of his lusts. If he will do what he ought to do in the use of all means, he may live chastely. And, 4. The public interest must overrule the private, and that which would be unjust in private respects, may for public good become a duty: it seemeth unjust here with us, that the innocent country should repay every man his money, who between sun and sun is robbed on the road; and yet because it will engage the country to watchfulness, it is just, as for the common good: and he that consenteh to be a member of the commonwealth, doth thereby consent to submit his own right to the common interest. So here, if all should have leave to marry others when they consent to part, it would bring utter confusion, and it would encourage wicked men to abuse their wives, till they forced them to consent. Therefore some must bear the trouble which their folly hath brought on themselves, rather than the common order should be confounded.

[i]Quest.[/i] VII. Doth adultery dissolve the bond of marriage, or not? Amesius saith it doth: Mr. Whateley having said so, afterward recanted it by the persuasion of other divines.

[i]Answ.[/i] The difference is only about the name, and not the matter itself. The reason which moved Dr. Ames is, because the injured person is free; therefore not bound: therefore the bond is dissolved. The reason which Mr. Whateley could not answer is, because it is not fornication, but lawful, if they continue their conjugal familiarity after adultery: therefore that bond is not dissolved. In all which is easy to perceive, that one of them taketh the word [i]vinculum[/i] or bond in one sense, that is "for their covenant obligation to continue their relation and mutual duties." And the other taketh it in another sense, that is, "for the relation itself as by it they are allowed conjugal familiarity, if the injured person will continue it." The first [i]vinculum[/i] or bond is dissolved, the second is not. In the matter we are agreed, that the injured man may put away an adulterous wife (in a regular way) if he please; but withal that he may continue the relation if he please. So that his continued consent shall suffice to continue it a lawful relation and exercise; and his will, on the contrary, shall suffice to dissolve the relation, and disoblige him. (Saving the public order.)

[i]Quest.[/i] VIII. But is not the injured party at all obliged to separate, but left free?

[i]Answ.[/i] Considering the thing simply in itself, he is wholly free to do as he please. But for all that accidents or circumstances may make it one man's duty to divorce, and another's duty to continue the relation; according as it is like to do more good or hurt. Sometimes it may be a duty to expose the sin to public shame, for the prevention of it in others; and also to deliver oneself from calamity. And sometimes there may be so great repentance, and hope of better effects by forgiving, that it may be a duty to forgive: and prudence must lay one thing with another, to discern on which side the duty lieth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Continued ...

_________________
Mike Balog