Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage

[ShermanN]

The doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (MDR) is a mammoth discussion, an elephant of an issue. Even the history of the traditional doctrine is a huge study in and of itself. For example, did you know that the Puritans rejected most of the traditional doctrine of MDR and relegated Jesus' difficult statements to hyperbole/over-statement!

Of course, the critical issue, the crux of the matter, concerns the meaning of Jesus' difficult statements in Matthew 5:31-32, 19:8-9, Mark 10:10-12, and Luke 16:18. I call them Jesus' difficult statements because without understanding their cultural, historical, literary, and authorial context they are difficult, if not impossible, to interpret to correctly convey the meaning of the author, Jesus.

You've likely heard before, "A text without a context is a pretext, an assumed meaning that often misses the author's intent." I believe that's what has happened to Jesus' difficult passages concerning divorce. The texts were and are read without understanding their context and were and are understood and interpreted to say something that Jesus never intended.

And even though these passages share a common historical, cultural, and authorial context, each differs significantly in its literary context. Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are the primary passages due to their immediate literary contexts telling of the event in which Jesus' difficult statements on divorce were conveyed; and yet even Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are significantly different and actually convey very different intended messages. For this thread let's start with Matthew 19. We can examine Mark 10 later.

Also, let's keep in mind how doctrine is formed; "Rules for life and ministry" are based on "Principles" which are based upon "Interpretations of Scripture" which are based upon "Scripture, our Core Values, and Core Beliefs".

Our Core Values and Beliefs play a very big role in how we interpret scripture. For example, on a recent thread in another forum, a brother and I came to an impasse concerning reaching agreement on the interpretation of scripture because of differing core values and beliefs. He believed that the only biblical interpretation to study or base beliefs on was the KJV. He did not value or respect other versions or even studying the original languages, much less commentaries. His interpretation of scripture was based strictly upon the exact wording of the KJV. Furthermore, he did not value or respect any information concerning the historical and cultural context of the Bible that was not in the Bible, extra-biblical resources like the writings of Josephus, Talmud, or Mishnah.

On the other hand, I value all of these just mentioned and much more. I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I have studied Greek and know how to use many of the wonderful tools available to us today to study the Word in the original languages. I also value and respect the writings of all believers (commentaries, books, etc.), trying to glean as much from them as I can. When studying an issue, I collect as much information as I can from as wide a denominational range as possible. I especially read and study those who disagree with what I'm predisposed to believe. I do my best to study them with an open mind and heart, and am of course diligent to verify what is true.

Because of these differing foundational core beliefs and core values, this brother and I quickly reached an impasse in our discussions. As we get into this discussion, I encourage each of us to be aware of our differing core beliefs and core values and do our best to respect each other.

If you will, please share in your initial post, why you're interested in this topic, and any core beliefs or core values that you have that might be applicable to this discussion (for example if you're KJV only). In the title please put "Personal Introduction".

I'll answer these in my next post. I look forward to discussing this with you.

Blessings,
Sherman

The following is an index of Topical Posts that I've written on this thread. I'll add to it as we go along.
1, Thread Introduction
2, Personal Introduction
7, Traditional Doctrine of MDR defined
26, MDR is under Civil Authority, not the Church’s
35, Marriage Defined
38, Fornication, sex outside of marriage
40, Mt.19.1-3 Any Matter Divorce
49, Mt.19.1-3 Any Matter Divorce B
50, Divorce – a type of lingering death
51, The Pharisees
58, The Pharisees, a little more
59, Marriage, Indissoluble or Breakable
106, Mt.19.1-3 Review Key Points
114, Mt.19.4-6 Jesus’ desire for us – heaven on earth
148, Mt.4-6 One Flesh
153, One Flesh, brokenness to wholeness
159, True Love vs. Romantic Love
172, “two” – Jesus Affirmed Monogamy
176, Authorial Context, Jesus and Moses, Jesus’ Attitude towards the Mosaic Law
178, Authorial Context – Jesus and Civil Authority
195, Sexual intimacy, does it create an unbreakable bond?
207, Mt.19.7 Why did Moses legislate the bill of divorce?
217, Mt.19.9 Multiple variations in early Greek texts
218, Mt.19.8-9 Meanings of apoluo, de, and inappropriate contentiah
220, Mt.19.8-9 Interpreted
221, Post Review
229, The Bottom Line, Principles of MDR that I believe are Biblical
236, Jesus Radically Challenges the Jewish Embedded theology that All should Procreate.
237, Mt.19.4-6 The Vision
239, Mt.5.31-32 The Sermon on the Mount
240, The House
244, Lk.16.18 Divorce in the Context of the Parental Love of God
257, Mk10.1-12 Jesus calls for a radical purity of heart
258, 1 Cor.7.1 Is it best to not be sexually intimate?
259, 1 Cor.7.11-12 Paul quotes Jesus on divorce.
260, 1 Cor.7.15 Meaning of “under bondage”
261, 1 Cor.7.27-28a If you are divorced and you marry, you do NOT sin!
269, King Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon
328, Covenant – Biblical meaning
340, Explanation of Embedded Theology, and a brief Review
377, 1 Cor.7.10-11 Paul addresses Married Men
407, A vision of a bucket
649, The Kabluck – a Parable
711, Civil Law Designed by God, part A
799, Civil Law Designed by God, part B
811, Is Marriage a Sacrament?
828, Roots Are Important, part A
829, Roots Are Important, part B
858, Does God Hate Divorce?

 

[ShermanN]

I am Sherman Nobles. My wife and I have four children ages 17, 14, 6, & 2 (3 boys and 1 girl). We’ve been happily married 18 years, neither one of us having ever been divorced, but both my wife and I come from broken homes and dysfunctional families.

A few years ago I came across some information that revolutionized my understanding of what Jesus said concerning divorce. I decided to write an article but soon found that an article would not suffice, in fact a series of articles wouldn’t do the job; it required a book.

I began a detailed study of the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage; and I found that many of the things that I had been taught since childhood just did not hold up under a thorough exegesis of scripture. What I found and recorded was so non-traditional that it scared me; so long before I even submitted my book to a publisher I submitted the initial manuscript to many ministers and theologians from a wide range of denominations, non-denominations, and interdenominational churches including Baptist, Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Assembly of God, Church of God, etc. and even Pentecostal Holiness.

I was greatly encouraged when almost all endorsed it. I ended up titling the book “God Is A Divorcé Too! A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness.” As you can imagine from its title, it's very non-traditional, though very scriptural, imo.

We'll cover much of the information in this thread and of course you're welcome to do a search on the book and read much of it on other sites. (I don't think I'm suppose to put any other specific site on this forum, if I understand the rules correctly.)

In my studies, one of the books that I came across and highly recommend is Dr. David Instone-Brewer's book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible; The Social and Literary Context." It's a very good book, and though I don't agree with all of Dr. Instone-Brewer's conclusions, I admire his scholarship and thorough study of the cultural context of the OT and NT.

Based upon what I've studied thus far, I believe that the principles of the traditional doctrine of MDR is based upon errant assumptions and multiple misinterpretations of scripture. The bottom line is, I believe:

1. Marriage is honorable, of tremendous value, the foundation of our social order, and should be considered "sacred" to the Christian!

2. Marriage is a human covenant and thus is only as strong as the character of the covenantors.

3. One aspect of the covenant is the contractual legal dimension of marriage that is governed by civil authority. MDR is primarily under personal/domestic authority but is also under limited civil oversight, biblically speaking.

4. Marriage is meant to be for life, but God recognizes and allows divorce because of the hardness of heart, however that is expressed.

5. Marriage is not "indissoluble" or unbreakable, but is very breakable (though it shouldn't be broken). Which does one treat with more respect and care, a cast-iron pot or a priceless China vase? The China vase of course! Why, because it is both priceless and fragile. In the same way, a healthy married couple recognizes both the value and the fragility of their marriage and do all they can to nurish and protect their relationship.

6. There are moral reasons for divorce, though Christians should strive as much as possible for their marriage to last.

7. However, divorce does happen and when divorce happens, the marriage is over.

8. Remarriage is a viable option for divorce'es and is not contingent upon the reason for the previous divorce, whether the previous divorce(s) was/were based upon morally acceptable reasons or morally non-acceptable reasons for divorce.

I shared these points upfront to let you know the "bottom-line" of what I believe, the practical "principles" that are the result of how I understand scripture. However, I'd prefer not to get into arguing over these "principles" and look at understanding scripture together; because, we can argue all day over such "principles" and get no-where as long as we understand scripture differently. Thus my next few posts will be dealing with how I understand Mt. 19. I look forward to the wrestling over the scripture together.

Blessings,
Sherman
The biggest looser is the biggest winner!

 

[Chie]

The doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (MDR) is a mammoth discussion, an elephant of an issue. Even the history of the traditional doctrine is a huge study in and of itself. For example, did you know that the Puritans rejected most of the traditional doctrine of MDR and relegated Jesus' difficult statements to hyperbole/over-statement!

Of course, the critical issue, the crux of the matter, concerns the meaning of Jesus' difficult statements in Matthew 5:31-32, 19:8-9, Mark 10:10-12, and Luke 16:18. I call them Jesus' difficult statements because without understanding their cultural, historical, literary, and authorial context they are difficult, if not impossible, to interpret to correctly convey the meaning of the author, Jesus.

You've likely heard before, "A text without a context is a pretext, an assumed meaning that often misses the author's intent." I believe that's what has happened to Jesus' difficult passages concerning divorce. The texts were and are read without understanding their context and were and are understood and interpreted to say something that Jesus never intended.

And even though these passages share a common historical, cultural, and authorial context, each differs significantly in its literary context. Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are the primary passages due to their immediate literary contexts telling of the event in which Jesus' difficult statements on divorce were conveyed; and yet even Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are significantly different and actually convey very different intended messages. For this thread let's start with Matthew 19. We can examine Mark 10 later.

Also, let's keep in mind how doctrine is formed; "Rules for life and ministry" are based on "Principles" which are based upon "Interpretations of Scripture" which are based upon "Scripture, our Core Values, and Core Beliefs".

Our Core Values and Beliefs play a very big role in how we interpret scripture. For example, on a recent thread in another forum, a brother and I came to an impasse concerning reaching agreement on the interpretation of scripture because of differing core values and beliefs. He believed that the only biblical interpretation to study or base beliefs on was the KJV. He did not value or respect other versions or even studying the original languages, much less commentaries. His interpretation of scripture was based strictly upon the exact wording of the KJV. Furthermore, he did not value or respect any information concerning the historical and cultural context of the Bible that was not in the Bible, extra-biblical resources like the writings of Josephus, Talmud, or Mishnah.

On the other hand, I value all of these just mentioned and much more. I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I have studied Greek and know how to use many of the wonderful tools available to us today to study the Word in the original languages. I also value and respect the writings of all believers (commentaries, books, etc.), trying to glean as much from them as I can. When studying an issue, I collect as much information as I can from as wide a denominational range as possible. I especially read and study those who disagree with what I'm predisposed to believe. I do my best to study them with an open mind and heart, and am of course diligent to verify what is true.

Because of these differing foundational core beliefs and core values, this brother and I quickly reached an impasse in our discussions. As we get into this discussion, I encourage each of us to be aware of our differing core beliefs and core values and do our best to respect each other.

If you will, please share in your initial post, why you're interested in this topic, and any core beliefs or core values that you have that might be applicable to this discussion (for example if you're KJV only). In the title please put "Personal Introduction".

I'll answer these in my next post. I look forward to discussing this with you.

Blessings,
Sherman

I am interested in this topic because I have been married, divorced and am remarried. My concerns is what God has to say in his word, not so much the personal opinions , I already know by the standards and beleifs of some doctrines I am hell bound.

 

[ShermanN]

I am interested in this topic because I have been married, divorced and am remarried. My concerns is what God has to say in his word, not so much the personal opinions , I already know by the standards and beleifs of some doctrines I am hell bound.

Chie, do you mean that you believe you're hell-bound, or that doctrines that you don't believe would say you're hell-bound?

 

[Chie]

Chie, do you mean that you believe you're hell-bound, or that doctrines that you don't believe would say you're hell-bound?

in my heart I don't believe it. I trust God to show me if I am wrong so I guess you can see I do think on this often.

 

[ShermanN]

in my heart I don't believe it. I trust God to show me if I am wrong so I guess you can see I do think on this often.

Well, I pray and trust that some things will be cleared up for you through this discussion. And I thank God that salvation is not dependent in any way upon how good I am, but upon how good, merciful, and forgiving that He is! Hallelujah!

 

[ShermanN]

Before we get into discussing Mt.19, I'd like to define what I mean by the "Traditional Doctrine of MDR". The traditional doctrine basically says that:

Marriage is a sacrament, under ecclesial (church) authority, and indissoluble until death. It is believed that Jesus disagreed with Moses instituting the bill of divorce, and in repudiated the bill of divorce making marriage indissoluble. Though a couple gets a civil divorce, they are still married in God's eyes and any subsequent marriages to others are questionable (at best) and likely considered adulterous relationships, not fully legitimate marriages. Christians should not divorce; and if they do divorce they must remain unmarried.


Church Fathers Tertullian and Ambrose both expressed that they preferred the extinction of the human race, to its continuance through procreation. Tertullian even claimed that marriage and adultery were not intrinsically different, but only in the degree of their illegitimacy. Saint Augustine believed that the sexual act in marriage was not sinful, but the passion that accompanies it is; thus continence in marriage was preferred. Origenhad himself castrated before being ordained. Gregory the Great believed that whenever a married couple engaged in sexual intercourse for pleasure, their pleasure polluted their sexual act.

Throughout the Middle “Dark” Ages, sexual intercourse was commonly thought to be evil, in and of itself, and did not cease being so just because of marriage. Of course, this was and is a completely unbiblical concept. How could the Church Fathers come to have such a negative attitude towards marriage—the first institution created by God? Why would they oppose sexual intercourse to such extremes? It was the result of a combination of several pagan and anti-Semitic influences within the early church.

The rejection of Christianity’s Hebraic roots, subsequent errant interpretations of the writings of the New Testament, and an embracing of the predominant Greco-Roman philosophy of life, all combined to create an atmosphere of negativity towards sexual intercourse, marriage, and family.
It is amazing and tragic how quickly the early church rejected and renounced most of Christianity’s Hebraic heritage. This happened even though the first century church was so Jewish that throughout the Roman Empire, Christianity was considered a Jewish sect. Jesus and the Apostles, including the Apostle Paul, were Jews and lived in obedience to the Mosaic Law, including the sacrifices, dietary laws, circumcision, and the feasts. Furthermore, up until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the leadership of the church was firmly in the hands of the Apostles, the leadership Council in Jerusalem, and other Jewish disciples and family members of Jesus.

Shortly after the birth of the church, there was a great awakening and tremendous outpouring of the Holy Spirit among the Gentiles. Sadly, further growth in the Jewish communities seemed to be very limited and difficult after the first great outpouring of the Spirit. The Gentile branch of the church experienced expolosive growth. In short, over the next few hundred years, because of being persecuted by the Romans for being Jews and by the Jews for being Christians, the Jewish branch of the Church virtually died out. Whereas, the Gentile branch of the Church experienced explosive growth as it increasingly disassociated itself from it's Jewish roots.

In the void created by rejecting the church’s Jewish heritage, the non-Jew’s Greco-Roman pagan heritage, philosophy, and religions significantly influenced the early Roman Church. Plato, 427 – 347 BC, a philosopher and educator of ancient Greece, is often considered the father of modern logic. He certainly is one of the most respected and important thinkers in Western culture. He so influenced early Christianity that it is widely accepted that “Plato dominated Christian philosophy during the early Middle Ages through the writings of such philosophers as Boethius and Saint Augustine.” Of course, the doctrine of Saint Augustine was the basis for much of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

The church was also significantly influenced by the philosophies of the Stoics and Epicureans, and by their false religions especially Gnosticism and Manichaeism.

Manichaeism was a religion of ultimate dualism; everything spiritual was good, and everything material was evil with certain objects and activities being more evil than others were. For example, to be good, one must abstain from meat, wine, and sexual intercourse. Manichaeism promoted the concept that sexual desire and intercourse were evil, in and of themselves, even within marriage. Procreation was particularly evil because, through procreation, particles of light (spiritual essence) was enslaved and shrouded in physical matter. Thus, that which is evil captivates that which is good. Of course, this is completely unbiblical and non-Jewish. God created the world, looked at it, and said that it was good, not evil, commanding man to procreate, filling the earth (Genesis 1).

How does this relate to marriage, divorce, and remarriage? These unbiblical demonic influences in the early church resulted in an increasingly predominant belief that sexual intercourse was evil, in and of itself, even within marriage. They promoted an attitude of dishonor towards marriage and an undue exaltation of celibacy among the Church Fathers.

Tertullian and Ambrose both expressed that they preferred the extinction of the human race, to its continuance through procreation. Tertullian even claimed that marriage and adultery were not intrinsically different, but only in the degree of their illegitimacy. Saint Augustine believed that the sexual act in marriage was not sinful, but the passion that accompanies it is. Thus continence in marriage was preferred. Saint Augustine was obviously influenced by being a Manichaen before his conversion to Christianity. Because the church had rejected its Jewish heritage, Manichaeism and Platonic thought both significantly influenced Augustine’s beliefs even after conversion.

Albertus and Aquinas believed that sexual intercourse subordinated reason to passion, thus revealing their underlying assumption that passion is evil and sexual intercourse should thus be abstained from. Origen had himself castrated before being ordained, taking Matthew 19:12 literally, that “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (NKJV). He did this even though Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the Lord” (NKJV), obviously not taking into consideration Christianity’s Jewish heritage.

Gregory the Great believed that whenever a married couple engages in sexual intercourse for pleasure, their pleasure pollutes their sexual act. These false beliefs and errant attitudes, coupled with a tragic misunderstanding of Jesus’ words concerning the bill of divorce and His and Paul’s affirmation of celibacy, were the foundation of an unbiblical and unhealthy worldview that gave rise to the traditional doctrine of divorce.

The foundational concepts of the traditional doctrine of marriage and divorce were clearly expressed in the sixteenth century at the Counsel of Trent (AD 1546–1565). At that time marriage was affirmed to be a sacrament, under the auspices (authority and control) of the Church, and, once solemnized (performed with formal religious rites) indissoluble until death. This affirmation has a nice ring of “truth” to it, but poses three false concepts; that marriage is a sacrament, under ecclesiastical authority, and indissoluble. If these three elements of the traditional doctrine of marriage and divorce are false, then all of the teaching and biblical interpretation based on them has a high probability of containing significant error also. In subsequent posts, we will closely examine each of these premises. Before we do though, let's look at Mt.19.

 

[MezzaMorta]

I am interested in this topic because I have been married, divorced and am remarried. My concerns is what God has to say in his word, not so much the personal opinions , I already know by the standards and beleifs of some doctrines I am hell bound.

That is incorrect, you can not be divorced and remarried. Maybe according to civil institutions that is your status, but according to God you are married to the first man you gave vows too and still are. The divorce is not recognized and both you and your new “husband” are committing adultery.

Unless the marriage is nullified by the Catholic Church it is still valid.




We can’t say that you are hellbound, but you are living in a relationship that can only be defined as adultery, something that historically God has not looked kindly upon.

 

[Servant222]

First, can you spell out the essence of what you wish comments to be focussed on- a nice, succinct summary of your intitial post would be nice; like, what is it you're asking? Reminds me of driving by a church that had a sign advertising that "Christ Is The Answer", to which a secular friend asked "But what is the question?"

Second, when friends confront me with the question "Do you believe in evolution?", I always ask them first to define what they mean by "evolution". Same here, we have to make sure we're talking about the same thing. So, some basic definitions are needed:

1. What does the Bible say a marriage is; that is, what does a couple need to do before they are considered married in God's eyes? Whenever possible, the Bible should be quoted when making a point here.

2. When does the Bible consider a couple to be divorced? That is, what do they have to do before they are divorced in God's eyes? Again, please provide quotes from Scripture.

3. What is repentance in this context, and what restrictions does the Bible place on what a repentant sinner can do after he/she divorces? Taken literally, the Bible suggests that anyone who divorces, other than because of marriage infidelity, cannot marry again and might as well join a convent or a monastery.

Matthew 5:

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

4. Finally, what Bible are we going to rely on? The KJV is NOT based on the earliest manuscripts, and therefore from a scholarly point of view, is not the best. Also, a newer translation like the New International Version is not only based on the most up to date manuscripts, but has also had a huge amount of scholarly input, which means that matters of interpretation have been much better studied than they were in the 17th century when the KJV was first produced. The scholarly debates today are also far more universal, involve many more people, and (thanks to the Internet and email) are much more efficient than they were in the time of James the First, when the only way to circulate a manuscript was by sailing ship or on horseback.

There is a lot more to discuss, but I'll stop here for now.

One of my main interests in all this is how to reduce the overall divorce rate- both by making more effort to ensure that a couple will be happy and compatible before they ever marry, or before they even start dating; and second, to see what can be done to bring about reconciliation when a marriage breaks down.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Wouldn't put too much stake in this post Chie.

This opinion/judgment coming from one who believes that God endorses a premarital sex fest, and that women are for him to "test drive" (in his own words) should give you an indication of how much weight this opinion holds.

That is incorrect, you can not be divorced and remarried. Maybe according to civil institutions that is your status, but according to God you are married to the first man you gave vows too and still are. The divorce is not recognized and both you and your new “husband” are committing adultery.

Unless the marriage is nullified by the Catholic Church it is still valid.




We can’t say that you are hellbound, but you are living in a relationship that can only be defined as adultery, something that historically God has not looked kindly upon.

 

[MezzaMorta]

This opinion/judgment coming from one who believes that God endorses a premarital sex fest

Where have I ever said that? I simply said the bible never specifically forbids consensual relations between a man and women.

The case of divorce there is no room for interpretation, Jesus spoke clearly on the issue:


But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Mat 5:32)


I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Mat 19:9)


"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel (Malachi 2:16)

 

[ralangley]

I'm very interested in what you have to say.

When I was 21, I married a man that was as equally unprepared emotionally for commitment as I. He had numerous affairs, we frequently separated, and during one of our separations, I had an affair as well. Eventually, after 12 years of marriage, I realized that I could never trust him and could never raise children with him, so I asked for a divorce. I've since remarried and have two beautiful children.

A year and a half ago, I became a Christian. I repented of all my sins, including the affair I had. I feel forgiven, and yet, inside of me lurks a nagging doubt. When I read Matthew, I feel somewhat vindicated because my ex had numerous affairs, but then again, I wonder....Could God view my first marriage as still valid? Should I have remained single? What can I do to completely remove my doubts?

Any feedback you can give would be very appreciated. Thanks!

 

[mcart909]

When I read Matthew, I feel somewhat vindicated because my ex had numerous affairs,

My sympathies, but there is no Biblical grounds for divorce. The "exit clause" ("except for the reason of fornication") was forged. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain this clause.

 

[IamRedeemed]

All of these come from the IS Sex Before Marriage Permissible thread <-this is a link

As for the virgin remark, I hate to be cliché but you ever heard the statement &#8220;would you buy a car without test driving it first?&#8221;

Do you view all woman as being sexual objects, there to be tested like a new or, as I suspect in your case, used car?

I much rather have that used car that knows how to handle a corner than some stiff new car that you have to spend a bunch of time working in.

I said in one sentance that sex OUTSIDE of mariage is nasty.

I like nasty.

Lust is "unrestrained sexual craving" ie: Rape or Sexual assault.

You honestly think God hates me because I bring a couple girls home from the clubs each week that want to come back to my house?

Jesus stopped the prostitute from being stoned, and "prostitution" would seem far more sexually immoral than consensual sex.

Will this suffice? Or should I post more of the same that you have said?

Where have I ever said that? I simply said the bible never specifically forbids consensual relations between a man and women.

The case of divorce there is no room for interpretation, Jesus spoke clearly on the issue:


But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Mat 5:32)


I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Mat 19:9)


"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel (Malachi 2:16)

 

[MezzaMorta]

Your posts are completely erroneous, relying on some emotional appeal to try and discredit what I say. Unless you have a quote in which I said God promotes pre-marital sex, per your claim. your quotes are totally off topic.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Are you denying that you said those things? I believe your own words deny
you credibility for your moral testimony and knowledge of the Bible and
Biblical moral standards.

Your posts are completely erroneous, relying on some emotional appeal to try and discredit what I say. Unless you have a quote in which I said God promotes pre-marital sex, per your claim. your quotes are totally off topic.

 

[MezzaMorta]

Are you denying that you said those things? I believe your own words deny
you credibility for your moral testimony and knowledge of the Bible and
Biblical moral standards.

Like I said, my assertion and belief is that the bible does not once speficily state in any words that pre-marital consensual intercourse between two unmarried individuals is wrong. God does not promote it, but he never condemns it either.

What that has to do with this thread is beyond me, I&#8217;ll leave that up to you to explain.

 

[Chie]

That is incorrect, you can not be divorced and remarried. Maybe according to civil institutions that is your status, but according to God you are married to the first man you gave vows too and still are. The divorce is not recognized and both you and your new “husband” are committing adultery.

Unless the marriage is nullified by the Catholic Church it is still valid.




We can’t say that you are hellbound, but you are living in a relationship that can only be defined as adultery, something that historically God has not looked kindly upon.

I am not catholic and I rather not seek religion but God on this matter. I must say you have the biggest gonads I have seen saying this to me when you have promoted what the catholic church would frown upon. You surprise me with this.

 

[Servant222]

This could be a really worthwhile and edifying thread.

I would suggest that those who feel the same do two things:

Pray for this thread- right now; just stop for a second and pray.

Then send a PM to one of the moderators asking them to help ensure that this forum, and this thread, remains an example to all those in the world who are here to see what the Christian faith has to offer.

 

[Servant222]

Christian Forums Prayer Thread