Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage

[Servant222]

Matthew 7:13-23 "ENTER THROUGH THE NARROW GATE; for the gate is WIDE and the way is BROAD that leads to DESTRUCTION, and there are MANY who enter through it. "For the gate is SMALL and the way is NARROW that leads to LIFE, and there are FEW who find it. "BEWARE of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "So then, you will know them by their fruits. "NOT EVERYONE WHO SAYS TO ME, 'LORD, LORD,' WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, but HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'[/COLhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/editor/menupop.gifOR]

According to Jesus, the fact that everyone agrees with you is a sign that you're on the wrong path. He says it is the few who come to know Him, while most professing Christians do not. That is why we are warned repeatedly not to be deceived by the precepts of men, but to make Him our Lord and trust in His Word instead of following the "many" who are headed for destruction.

SealedEternal

Why do you feel the need to resort to big, bold, red letters to make your point?

 

[HuntingMan]

Originally Posted by SealedEternal
There is no verse anywhere in the Bible that says it is lawful to divorce for adultery.

actually, by implication, there is.
When Jesus removes the crime of adultery upon remarriage where the former spouse was put away for harlotry, He shows quite conclusively that there is 'permission' that can be inferred from His words concerning divorce for adultery.

 

[SealedEternal]

Where did I say there was?

Perhaps I'm not understanding you. What are you claiming that Jesus is saying here? :

Luke 16:18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

SealedEternal

 

[sentipente]

In your quote that I posted:

Maybe you are reading too quickly. You are reading into my post what you have read elsewhere. I did not say that divorce is allowed for reasons of adultery. I said "
The only condition under which you would not be held responsible for the adultery committed by the spouse you put away is if adultery was the reason why you put him/her away. That is all Jesus was saying."
I hope you can see the difference.

 

[SealedEternal]

Why do you feel the need to resort to big, bold, red letters to make your point?

To highlight major points that people tend to gloss over and completely miss.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

Maybe you are reading too quickly. You are reading into my post what you have read elsewhere. I did not say that divorce is allowed for reasons of adultery. I said "
The only condition under which you would not be held responsible for the adultery committed by the spouse you put away is if adultery was the reason why you put him/her away. That is all Jesus was saying."
I hope you can see the difference.

What verse are you reading from?

SealedEternal

 

[sentipente]

Perhaps I'm not understanding you. What are you claiming that Jesus is saying here? :

Luke 16:18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

SealedEternal

He is saying that if you divorce your spouse you are still considered to be married before the Creator and any other marriage of the original spouses (spice LOL) is adultery.

Whether that kind of adultery is the unpardonable sin some try to make it out to be is another issue all together.

 

[porterross]

Not at all. It is Him who says that everyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery and that adulterers cannot inherit His Kingdom. Those are His words not mine. I'm only a messenger trying to warn people before it's too late to repent and come to Him.

SealedEternal

What would you have those divorced and remarried do, leave their current spouse (and likely entire family) and commit another sin in an attempt to correct the past? Is that your idea of repentance?

Talk about a skewed perspective of two wrongs making a right. You are limiting God's love and Christ's sacrifice for all our sins and such thinking should be rejected and rebuked whenever encountered.

You're wrong, Brother, as wrong as the Christian Jews who demanded that all Gentiles be circumcised in order to be legitimately adherent to Jewish law to be part of the church. You're stuck in limitations of legalistic thinking. There is no other way to say it.

 

[SealedEternal]

Whether that kind of adultery is the unpardonable sin some try to make it out to be is another issue all together.

Nobody says it's unpardonable, but you do have to stop committing the adultery; don't you?

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

Well, I thought Id share this with the readers during the fray here
Its concerning this claim that Jesus' exception appears in Matthew because it was for Jewish who understood betrothal while supposedly the gentiles did not.

As you will see, dear reader, it cannot be the case that our Lord, nor His disciples, would have robbed the gentiles who DID use and understand betrothal, of such a critical piece of doctrine.
They would have needed to know just as the Jews, that once covenanted in Marriage it was a serious business.
To say that the exception was given to the Jews for their betrothal custom is to say that biblical writers intentionally kept the gentiles in the dark concerning this very critical teaching that would have applied to their own promises of marriage.

Refuting the argument:
"The jews understood that Jesus meant only during the betrothal period"


Assertions/Conclusions of this article

That Matthew (to Jews) containing the exception clauses, while Mark (to gentiles) not having them has nothing to do with betrothal. There were gentile nations who used betrothal, including the Roman Empire, and so stating that Matthew contains the exceptions because Jews used betrothal is a moot/irrelevant point and argument entirely.


Supporting Evidence

Some say that Jesus' exception only appears in Matthew because it was intended for Jews who used betrothal and who would understand it. But this is a moot point because even Gentile nations used betrothal well before the time of Jesus' ministry who would have understood what betrothal was just as easily as any Hebrew would have.

In our studies we found that even the Romans used and understood betrothal of some sort. I'll add some items here for your inspection, and when you are finished reading, check out my facts and see if any, most or all can be shown as fact. Even a single Roman or gentile betrothal will show conclusively that there was no need whatsoever for allowance to be given to the Hebrews/Jews for betrothal while not giving the same to gentiles who also use arranged marriages and betrothal.

Here we see a Roman betrothal more than a century before Christ was born of Mary.

-In about 186 BC Tiberius was betrothed to a woman who died before the marriage could take place.

Also do a google search for “Matrimonium - Roman Marriage”.
The pages you will find will show conclusively that betrothal of whatever form WAS practiced and understood by the Romans, and also by many other gentile cultures, and so there was no need for Matthew to restrict divorce solely to Jews seeking to end a marriage during betrothal.

This was found in my research of Roman betrothal...

The Betrothal, Dowry, and Engagement Rings - Engagements and engagement parties were optional, but if an engagement were made and then backed out of, breach of contract would have had financial consequences. The bride's family would give the engagement party and formal betrothal (sponsalia) between the groom and the bride-to-be (who was now sponsa). Dowry, to be paid after the marriage, was decided on. The groom might give his fiancee an iron ring (anulus pronubis) or some money (arra).

One thing easily concluded is that the largest group of gentiles in or around Israel at the time of Christ would FULLY have comprehended what His intent would have been *IF* He were actually referring to betrothal in His exceptions. Thus it is quite illogical to conclude that He gave His exception to the Jews alone because they used betrothal.

*IF* fornication were actually about premarital sex, or illicit betrothal (ie “covenanted in marriage&#8221 sex, then there was no need whatsoever for Mark or Luke to have left it out of their writings because Gentiles would have understood the concept entirely.

The facts are that the word Jesus used is not restricted to premarital sex. Neither does the context of His exceptions show that He is restricting the definition of ‘fornication’ to such.

In Matt 5 Jesus is laying out HIS teachings for His followers.

Heres a clip....

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not kill" --and, "Whoever shall kill shall be liable to the judgment." But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to the judgment. (Mat 5:21)

And again...

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28)

In both of those Jesus shows what has been taught in Gods law, and He ADDS His own ‘law’ to these ancient precepts for His followers. It doesnt just take the physical ACT of killing or committing adultery now to be guilty of sin.

“This is what you have been told in the Law and this is what *I* say will be from this day forth”

When we get to His words on marriage, divorce and remarriage, it is quite the same...

“It was also said, Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. (Mat 5:31-32)

He does not say that this was only about Jewish betrothal. He states quite clearly that even though Moses had allowed divorce (for some “uncleaness” as presented in the texts), that He was not going to allow this sufferance any longer...that only if she broke the covenant would this act not be considered adultery.

Romans occupying Israel at that time would have completely understood Jesus' words about betrothal, *IF* it were the case that His exception were only applying to betrothal and as such there was NO cause to leave out the exceptions for the writings to the gentiles.
If anything this shows that they SHOULD have been shown that they also were being disallowed any permission to put away a wife during betrothal as well *IF* that were the case seeing that they practiced betrothal as well.

What these false doctrines are asking you to believe here is that the writers of the gospels would have told the Jews to stop putting away their wives during the betrothal year, while leaving the gentiles who DID practice betrothal completely oblivious to this new instruction.
Does that sound like our Lords way to you?

 

[sentipente]

Nobody says it's unpardonable, but you do have to stop committing the adultery; don't you?

SealedEternal

From a pastoral point of view here is the problem I have with this point of view. Murder is not the unpardonable sin and if you repent of murder you don't have to bring the person back to life. This point of view seems to suggest that someone who has put away his wife would be best advised to resort to murder. I hardly think Jesus would condone such an approach. We would do better to teach our people how to build strong lasting marriages instead of trying to place them on guilt trips.

 

[HuntingMan]

Why do you feel the need to resort to big, bold, red letters to make your point?

Nobody says it's unpardonable, but you do have to stop committing the adultery; don't you?

SealedEternal

Jesus' words never show an ongoing state, Im afraid.


“Committeth adultery” The Present Indicative deception

it is a single act at a specific point in time.
When we 'marry another' after having put away this former spouse for no just cause (some 'uncleaness' - 'for EVERY cause" ) Jesus has assigned the crime of adultery to that 'act'.
His word make no statement about any ongoing 'state' of adultery.
It was committed against that former spouse when we 'married another' and afterward that 'act' is in the past.

Now whether a man is sorry for that past act or not is another story.
If your view were true, SE, then we should somewhere see a NT repeat of Ezra 10 where these 'unlawful' wives were put away.

Oddly tho, the ONLY wives commanded to be put away in the NT are those two who WERE deeemed as 'unlawful' in Gods moral law.
One had his 'brothers wife' (unlawful)
The other had his 'fathers wife' (unlawful)

Not a single marriage is commanded to end other than those deemed as 'unlawful' in His law in the NT.
And we do see clear evidence of there being remarried divorcees in the church during Pauls lifetime, not having been expelled.

Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:

This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.

Supporting evidence:

1.1)

1Ti 5:9-14
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old,
having been the wife of one man, (10)
Well reported of for good works;
if she have brought up children,
if she have lodged strangers,
if she have washed the saints' feet,
if she have relieved the afflicted,
if she have diligently followed every good work.

(11) But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; (12) Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (13) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (14) I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

"Having been the 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 prohibited the widow from remarrying. 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...

“But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)

He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.

The only possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the only possibility from scripture as it is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.

and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.

Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.

The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.

1.2)

Titus 1:6 if anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having believing children, not accused of loose behavior, or disobedient.

Husband of one wife

We see here that these are requirements of those in higher positions in the church..folks who are to set the EXAMPLE for the rest to follow.
We will discuss the possible meanings here of ''husband of one wife''


It cannot refer to those who are widowed. as the remarried widow(er) was not prohibited or restricted in any manner I have seen, Paul even recommends that younger widows remarry. Paul would be purposefully making it impossible for a woman to later to be accepted to this list of widows for no good reason if he were speaking the remarried widow in 1 tim 5:9 above instead of a remarried divorcee.

To provide evidence from GODS word, lets see this..

"one ruling his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence;
for if one does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? "
(1Ti 3:4-5 EMTV)

This clearly shows that this man must be one who can maintain his own household, even the obedience of his children. A man whos been divorced and remarried MAY not be the best person for this job.

Paul would also be causing these men to be unable to qualify for positions in the church by telling them that if they burn that they should remarry.

“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)

No widow(er) is forbidden to remarry and it would be an absurdity to now punish these who do (when they follow Pauls own instruction) by unjustly restricting them for doing nothing against Gods law/instruction.

It is very unlikely that it ONLY speaks to polygamists as there is nothing in the NT that clearly condemns the act and Ive not found that the practice was as rampant as some try to assert...I suggest you do your own study to see if Im right or wrong.

We must see in scripture what meaning to put to this phrase 'husband of one wife'

Of all the possibilities, ONLY divorce and remarriage is corrected clearly in scripture. We can assume that frivolous divorce and remarriage would immediately bar one from the prominent position of bishop.
But Paul makes no distinction, so we must assume that he also means those who divorced an adulteress then remarried as well (just to be on the safe side). Showing that these, although not the most prominent persons, were indeed still in fellowship with the rest of our brethren.

Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''. The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.

Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.
The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it weren't, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.

It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.

Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.

 

[HuntingMan]

While Im waiting for a response, Ill be a bit intuitive here and assume that Roman 7 its about to rear is head.

heres the passage

Rom 7:1-4 KJVA Know 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? (2) For 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. (3) So 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.
(4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

First lets look at two highlighted points contained in those very verses that give away what Paul is actually presenting. He isnt laying the unabridged rules and regulations for marriage here at all.
He is using this aspect that this 'law of the husband' is a life covenant to explain our transition from the law to this new covenant as is clearly evidenced in the chapter itself.

Secondly we notice this.
*IF* Paul were actually laying out the rules for marriage, then we have a gaping hole in even Pauls understanding of the law, for in the law there is method to END that 'law of the husband' by divorcement WITHOUT the death of the husband as seen in Deut 24:1-4. (of course this is regulation to putting away already going on, but Moses does give instruction there concerning how this divorce is to occur and that she can definitely go and be another mans wife)

Deu 24:1-3 KJVA When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (2) And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. (3) And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

Now, some play a game that it isnt the same, but I ask you readers to discern the matter.
Does Deut 24.1-4 speak of a bill of DIVORCE or simply ending an engagement?

So if Paul were actually laying out anything regarding marriage itself there, in speaking about the law to those who knew the law it would only be logical to also present that his words to them were not taking into account Deut 24:1-4 that DID allow for the woman to REmarry without the death of her husband.

The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead

 

[porterross]

To highlight major points that people tend to gloss over and completely miss.

SealedEternal

Like this one?

Luke 18:9-14
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

or this one ?

Romans 6:9-11

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Christ came to free us from our sins, not condemn us for them. If one of us is unforgivable, we all are. It's as simple as that.

 

[4Christ2]

Christians have NO business taking one another to court. We are even given direct order not to do so.

I Cor 6:1 ¶ Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
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,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

In stead of espousing the evil of divorce for hurting marriages, why not exhort the process that the Lord has given us to resolve problems: Mat 18

15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

IMHO, Sherman is wrong. God is the authority over marriages. Always has been. Always will be.

As believers, we are members of the body of Christ. I believe our head, Jesus is able to heal, restore, call forth repentance, and reconciliate any true christian's marriage. But is our Lord truly given a chance to do so? I think not. We are quick to run to the world's way of handling our spiritual problems. Let's face it...divorce comes from sin. It is spiritual sickness that causes it.

What say you to this fellow believers? The Church solving it's own problems - not the world.

 

[SealedEternal]

From a pastoral point of view here is the problem I have with this point of view. Murder is not the unpardonable sin and if you repent of murder you don't have to bring the person back to life. This point of view seems to suggest that someone who has put away his wife would be best advised to resort to murder. I hardly think Jesus would condone such an approach. We would do better to teach our people how to build strong lasting marriages instead of trying to place them on guilt trips.

We do not have the ability to bring back the dead, but we do have the ability to stop committing adultery. To "repent" means to change your mind and turn away from your sin. To repent of a sin that God defines as adultery therefore would involve ending the adulterous relationship.

Where do you get the idea that God prefers murder to adultery? If one murders they are just as much a child of the devil as an adulterer, and if they have done so with the intent of remarrying they are essentially adulterers as well. Nobody is going to enter the Kingdom of God through murder and deceit. They certainly aren't going to sincerely repent if their whole intent was to outsmart God and enter on a technicality.

What it all boils down to is that God wants to change our hearts fundamentally by the regeneration of His Spirit. It's not a game of what sins can I get away with and He still has to save me. If you have been born of God you will neither desire to commit adultery or murder or any other sins which He forbids. You are a new creation in Him and want to keep all of His commandments, and if you discover that you are in an adulterous relationship you will desire to stop committing it.

You're looking at this from a fleshly human perspective and trying to conceive of ways to beat God's system rather than understanding that it doesn't work that way. Either we totally submit to Him as Lord of our lives, or we continue to be children of the devil bound for flames. That means we don't murder, commit adultery, or practice anything else which He forbids.

If anyone is in adulterous relationship right now, they should be put on a "guilt trip" and encouraged to repent of their sin and accept Christ as their Lord. They need to be born of God through the regeneration of His Spirit to be saved. That means that they first need to repent of their sin and walk by His Spirit, so that He will fundamentally change them from wickedness to righteousness. To encourage them to stay in their adulterous affair however is the most selfish and hateful thing a person can do, because unless they come to Christ they have no hope.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

Christ came to free us from our sins, not condemn us for them. If one of us is unforgivable, we all are. It's as simple as that.

Yes He came to free us FROM our sins. That's what you are denying. He frees us from our sins by fundamentally changing our hearts from lawlessness to righteousness. That means that those who are children of God no longer practice sins such as adultery. He frees us from our wicked hearts that caused us to sin in the first place.

I don't know what your scriptures have to do with the discussion at hand.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

Romans 6:9-11

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

That's actually 1 Cor. 6:9-11, but it does illustrate my point. Scripture says that these people had committed all sorts of abominable sins in the past, but that God's Spirit had sanctified them so that they no longer do. The text says "that is what some of you were" which means that they aren't doing so anymore since God has fundamentally changed them. That is what I've been saying all along. Christ saves us from our sin, He doesn't give us a license to continue in sin. If one is an adulterer, then when God saves them they won't be any longer. They will repent of their adultery and allow Christ to be their Lord.

SealedEternal

 

[porterross]

Yes He came to free us FROM our sins. That's what you are denying. He frees us from our sins by fundamentally changing our hearts from lawlessness to righteousness. That means that those who are children of God no longer practice sins such as adultery. He frees us from our wicked hearts that caused us to sin in the first place.

I don't know what your scriptures have to do with the discussion at hand.

SealedEternal

Again I ask you if you suggest that someone who is divorced and remarried leave their current marriage and remain alone once convicted by the Holy Spirit?

Of course you don't see the relevance of the Scripture I posted, because it would mean seeing all others as Christ sees them. Your attitude is like that of the Pharisee in Luke's parable and you're missing the whole point of Christ's paying the price of all our sins.
By implying that what is offered freely is conditional on one's past behavior because sin is measured in degrees is exactly what Christ came to counter. You're missing the whole point of salvation by grace. God does not look for loopholes in granting salvation. It is a gift that none of us could possibly earn.

 

[SealedEternal]

Again I ask you if you suggest that someone who is divorced and remarried leave their current marriage and remain alone once convicted by the Holy Spirit?

Since Jesus said that it is not a marriage but rather an adulterous affair, yes they should leave the adulterous affair. Adultery by definition is not marriage and vice versa. If God says a relationship is adultery it needs to be repented of.

Of course you don't see the relevance of the Scripture I posted, because it would mean seeing all others as Christ sees them. Your attitude is like that of the Pharisee in Luke's parable and you're missing the whole point of Christ's paying the price of all our sins.

I don't think you understand what the Pharisees were all about. Jesus didn't condemn them because they were too faithful to God's commandments and were exhorting others to do the same. He criticized them because they repeatedly violated his law while having a self righteous exterior. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping His commandments and exhorting others to do the same, and in fact this is what those of us who are born of God will do.

It is those who claim to be righteous while practicing lawlessness that are acting like the Pharisees. Jesus said that everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery but our modern day Pharisees do exactly that, yet walk around proudly proclaiming to be His children and claiming Him as their Lord. He however said that such people have never known Him and never been born of Him

By implying that what is offered freely is conditional on one's past behavior because sin is measured in degrees is exactly what Christ came to counter. You're missing the whole point of salvation by grace. God does not look for loopholes in granting salvation. It is a gift that none of us could possibly earn.

I've NEVER said that anyone is saved by their own righteousness. It is the righteousness of God that is bestowed upon us by His Spirit that saves us, and I have NEVER said otherwise. Please respond to what I say and do not create these straw men. Nobody can ever earn salvation through their works, but if God has done His work in someone they will practice righteousness because they have been born of Him. His seed abides in them and sanctifies them so that they are saved FROM their sin.

SealedEternal