Is it okay to date another Christian whose been divorced?

[PollyJetix]

Sure. If you love your neighbor, are you going to steal from him, kill him, commit adultery with their spouse, covet everything, dishonor your parents? It would never occur to you to do so, why do we need a law to tell us NOT to do something you are not even thinking of?

Exactly. Those who are full of Jesus, live lives of love, which means they fulfill THE MORAL CODE OF MOSES! The righteousness of THE LAW is fulfilled in us.

See? Same law. Not done away. Only fulfilled.
Not only in Christ, but also in US who are in Him.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Exactly. Those who are full of Jesus, live lives of love, which means they fulfill THE MORAL CODE OF MOSES! The righteousness of THE LAW is fulfilled in us.

See? Same law. Not done away. Only fulfilled.
Not only in Christ, but also in US who are in Him.

But, if you don't see that the Ten Commandments was the First Covenant, and the sign of that covenant, the Sabbath, was done away, you are going to have confused believers trying to keep the Sabbath, making whole denominations who believe any non-Sabbath keeper is damned, that Sunday is the mark of the beast, and all sorts of heresies, when it doesn't exist. Jesus does! You don't even have to believe that Saturday is the Sabbath. How many Protestant denominations, and maybe the Catholics who believe that Sunday is now the Sabbath and all the same rules apply? No! We need to teach TRUTH.

Remember my background...as yours was Mennonite, mine was Seventh-day Adventist. Both Christian denominations, but arrogant and elitists, at least mine was.

 

[1stcenturylady]

But, if you don't see that the Ten Commandments was the First Covenant, and the sign of that covenant, the Sabbath, was done away, you are going to have confused believers trying to keep the Sabbath, making whole denominations who believe any non-Sabbath keeper is damned, that Sunday is the mark of the beast, and all sorts of heresies, when it doesn't exist. Jesus does! You don't even have to believe that Saturday is the Sabbath. How many Protestant denominations, and maybe the Catholics who believe that Sunday is now the Sabbath and all the same rules apply? No! We need to teach TRUTH.

Remember my background...as yours was Mennonite, mine was Seventh-day Adventist. Both Christian denominations, but arrogant and elitists, at least mine was.

2 Corinthians 3:
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

 

[PollyJetix]

I don't think the Mennonites are arrogant. They major on humility and forgiveness... but elitists, yes.
Hebrews says this about the first covenant:
Hebrews 9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

The moral code of right and wrong was not "meats and drinks, divers washings, and carnal ordinances."
Those were the ceremonies. The types and shadows that pointed forward to Christ Himself.
THOSE were the things that were done away, in Christ.

But the moral code cannot change. It stands forever.
What was once holy, will forever be holy to God.
What was once evil, will forever remain evil to God.

Otherwise, God Himself would have had to change in moral character.

That's why the moral code about divorce and remarriage still stands.

 

[PollyJetix]

2 Corinthians 3:
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

What was passing away was the glory of the old covenant. The ministration of death--which was the condemnation that still comes upon those who disobey. But for us who are in Christ, condemnation is lifted. The glory of the old is surpassed by the glory of Christ Himself, who is the perfect fulfillment of the righteousness encoded in ALL of the Law. Which means, He Himself agrees with the moral code of the Old Testament.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I don't think the Mennonites are arrogant. They major on humility and forgiveness... but elitists, yes.
Hebrews says this about the first covenant:
Hebrews 9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

The moral code of right and wrong was not "meats and drinks, divers washings, and carnal ordinances."
Those were the ceremonies. The types and shadows that pointed forward to Christ Himself.
THOSE were the things that were done away, in Christ.

But the moral code cannot change. It stands forever.
What was once holy, will forever be holy to God.
What was once evil, will forever remain evil to God.

Otherwise, God Himself would have had to change in moral character.

That's why the moral code about divorce and remarriage still stands.

The emphasis of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit. That is the biggest difference. If you walk in the Spirit, you will NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh.

Polly, the eternal law of God is forever. That is the only moral code we need. Can you tell me what that law says? I've repeated it enough. It's your turn. LOL

 

[1stcenturylady]

The emphasis of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit. That is the biggest difference. If you walk in the Spirit, you will NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh.

Polly, the eternal law of God is forever, whereas the Ten Commandments was passing away. That is the only moral code we need. Can you tell me what that law says? I've repeated it enough. It's your turn. LOL

 

[1stcenturylady]

Exactly. Those who are full of Jesus, live lives of love, which means they fulfill THE MORAL CODE OF MOSES! The righteousness of THE LAW is fulfilled in us.

See? Same law. Not done away. Only fulfilled.
Not only in Christ, but also in US who are in Him.

The Ten Commandments are not called the laws of Moses.

 

[PollyJetix]

The Ten Commandments are not called the laws of Moses.

I think your upbringing among the false teachings of the SDA's is coloring the way you see the Law.
Since you were so heavily taught that the Sabbath is the key to the entire Old Covenant, you may feel you need to find a way that the entire thing is gone--including God's moral code, revealed in the Law.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I think your upbringing among the false teachings of the SDA's is coloring the way you see the Law.
Since you were so heavily taught that the Sabbath is the key to the entire Old Covenant, you may feel you need to find a way that the entire thing is gone--including God's moral code, revealed in the Law.

You may not have come to my post asking you to recite the eternal law of God. I really want to wait until you do before I respond.

 

[PollyJetix]

The emphasis of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit. That is the biggest difference. If you walk in the Spirit, you will NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh.

Polly, the eternal law of God is forever. That is the only moral code we need. Can you tell me what that law says? I've repeated it enough. It's your turn. LOL

But the law of love is not enough.
The world--and modern Christianity today--says that if we love each other, there is no right or wrong anymore. But even you, I am sure, will point to certain parts of the Old Testament, to show what God considers right and wrong.

For instance, pacifism. Is national defense right, in God's eyes? Is there any New Testament verse you can point to, to say that? Is it right or wrong, for God's people to take part in war?

What about marrying your close relative, such as your sister?
What about men wearing clothing designed for women?
There are no injunctions in the NT against these things.
But they are still wrong, for society.

As Paul said...

1Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Pretty simple.
It still stands, as God's perfect standard of right and wrong.

 

[PollyJetix]

Now, I am sick. I need to go to bed. It is after 10 p.m. here, and I feel like I am coming down with the flu. My neck is so stiff and painful that I cannot turn my head.
Goodnight. God bless you.

 

[1stcenturylady]

But the law of love is not enough.
The world--and modern Christianity today--says that if we love each other, there is no right or wrong anymore. But even you, I am sure, will point to certain parts of the Old Testament, to show what God considers right and wrong.

For instance, pacifism. Is national defense right, in God's eyes? Is there any New Testament verse you can point to, to say that? Is it right or wrong, for God's people to take part in war?

What about marrying your close relative, such as your sister?
What about men wearing clothing designed for women?
There are no injunctions in the NT against these things.
But they are still wrong, for society.

As Paul said...

Pretty simple.
It still stands, as God's perfect standard of right and wrong.

None of those things are in the Ten Commandments. It is they that is the Covenant and what was passing away. But, yes, if you are not walking in the Spirit, you put yourself right back UNDER the law.

I refer to the law as it was a schoolmaster, telling us what God expects. But we are not under the law if you keep the law. And how do we keep the law? By the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now do you or do you not believe we have to keep the Sabbath? You said, no, that Jesus is the fulfillment of that law. What about the sacrifices and feast days and circumcision? We aren't under any of them either.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I think your upbringing among the false teachings of the SDA's is coloring the way you see the Law.
Since you were so heavily taught that the Sabbath is the key to the entire Old Covenant, you may feel you need to find a way that the entire thing is gone--including God's moral code, revealed in the Law.

No, but it did make me do an extensive study on it. In fact, I had to do that study over and over, every time the Sabbath issue came up in my mind. I found that our New Covenant is amazing.

These are the commandments of Jesus. They are the same as the Ten Commandments, but they show the fulfillment in Jesus.

1 John 3:23 "23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

Commandments 1-4 are believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ. 5-10 are love one another.

Is that moral enough for ya! LOL Hope you are feeling better than tonight. Wonder if you caught what I had. hehehehe

 

[1stcenturylady]

What was passing away was the glory of the old covenant. The ministration of death--which was the condemnation that still comes upon those who disobey. But for us who are in Christ, condemnation is lifted. The glory of the old is surpassed by the glory of Christ Himself, who is the perfect fulfillment of the righteousness encoded in ALL of the Law. Which means, He Himself agrees with the moral code of the Old Testament.

Expand on your statement: "who are in Christ, condemnation is lifted." Quote the scripture. I want to see if we are on the same page.

 

[PeterDona]

While I want to follow that interesting interaction between 1stcenturylady and pollyjetix, let me just tell what my sleep has brought me, or rather what the debate yesterday brought me

1) I would not (if I became a minister) advocate that a divorced woman has to be open at all times to take her unbelieving husband back. This is a difficult one, because really how far does the principle of peace extend? and when is it right to call a person an unbeliever?
2) Point taken, it can not be proven from the immediate context without the shadow of doubt that the "unmarried" in 7:9 does not include divorced people.
3) however, I do not take the 4-division of chapter 7 proposed. If it were a right understanding, then category 3 could not be "the rest". Then Paul would have had to line up like this: (1) the virgins (2) the unmarried and widows (3) the married (4) the rest. So I stick to my understanding that the discussion of the virgins in 7:25-39 does not refer back to the first part of chapter 7.

 

[PollyJetix]

Expand on your statement: "who are in Christ, condemnation is lifted." Quote the scripture. I want to see if we are on the same page.

There are several Scriptures telling us that those who are in Christ are not under condemnation of the Law. I can think of these right off the top of my head:
Romans 8:1-4, Romans 5:16-18, 2 Corinthians 3:9

And the reason we are not condemned by the law, is not because the law itself has been done away (it hasn't) but because as we are in Christ, we fulfill the Law, through HIM!

The law, as a moral standard, still stands for those who are lawless and disobedient, etc. It is NOT done away for them, because they are not in Christ. The Law still stands to bring them to Christ.

The way this works, for instance in the Law concerning divorce and remarriage, is that IF we walk after the Spirit, we will operate in love, and we will not want to hurt, betray, stop providing for, those of our own household.

But if any Christian refuses to walk in the Spirit, and becomes selfish, and does NOT act in love, then he will not provide love and care for those of his household. It may go so far as to betray his spouse, via adultery and divorce.

And in that state, he is NO LONGER in Christ, and is again under the condemnation of the Law! He has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel!

This thinking that the moral code of the Law is completely done away, so that we can do anything we wish (as long as we feel like we love them) and no longer have to remember the lessons taught us by our former schoolmaster, the Law, turns modern Christians into "worse than infidels".

It is true, that those who live in the Spirit, and walk no longer after the flesh, are above the Law. They don't have to have rules telling them not to divorce their spouses. But for those who walk after the flesh, they need the rules!

And the rules telling us what is godly have not changed.

All of the Law is contained in this: Love God above all, and love others as you love yourself.
If selfish humans instinctively could know what that looks like, they wouldn't need the moral code contained in the Law. I am not talking about those things contained in ceremonies, washings, clean and unclean, sacrifices... all of that, Christ has BECOME to us. Those who disobey the moral social code, aren't in Christ. They are outside the veil. They are not part of Israel.

But we who are now the true spiritual Israel (I speak only in the sense of Romans 9:6, and 1 Corinthians 10:18) walk after the perfect law of liberty IN CHRIST. Because IN HIM, ALL that which has to do with ceremonial laws and days, feasts, etc, are FULFILLED. We do not need to try to add to His perfect work there.

But in us, who are IN CHRIST, the righteousness which is contained in the Law, is lived out.
By love.

That's why true Christians don't divorce.

As you yourself said, what happens before one is born again, is washed away. He gets a clean slate. This only happens because the New Testament doesn't establish a new code of behavior. IF, however, the NT created a new set of rules, then ALL the old Testament is out the window.

In that case, all who are divorced and remarried would have to go find their first spouse, and return to them, even if they were living in the world at the time. NO remarriages would be valid, because Jesus said WHOSOEVER marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery!

If you try to understand what Jesus taught, outside of the context of the Old Testament moral code, you end up with a much heavier burden of law than what God ever gave Moses.

 

[PollyJetix]

While I want to follow that interesting interaction between 1stcenturylady and pollyjetix, let me just tell what my sleep has brought me, or rather what the debate yesterday brought me

1) I would not (if I became a minister) advocate that a divorced woman has to be open at all times to take her unbelieving husband back. This is a difficult one, because really how far does the principle of peace extend? and when is it right to call a person an unbeliever?
2) Point taken, it can not be proven from the immediate context without the shadow of doubt that the "unmarried" in 7:9 does not include divorced people.
3) however, I do not take the 4-division of chapter 7 proposed. If it were a right understanding, then category 3 could not be "the rest". Then Paul would have had to line up like this: (1) the virgins (2) the unmarried and widows (3) the married (4) the rest. So I stick to my understanding that the discussion of the virgins in 7:25-39 does not refer back to the first part of chapter 7.

1) when is it right to call a person an unbeliever? I refer to our Lord in Matthew 7:16 and Matthew 7:21. Someone can say all day long that they believe in Christ, but if their works don't line up, they aren't believers.
2)Not only that, but think about the reasoning... God recognizes that some simply need marriage in order to keep from sin. How could it be, that he would recognize this weakness only in virgins, but not in a man whose wife ran off with another man?
3)You still have "the rest" separate from "the married". Which means that the things spoken to "the married" do not apply to "the rest." Which lifts a very heavy burden off the shoulders of many Christians. And you still have to deal with how verses 27 and 28 read, in the Greek. The first clause of verse 28 obviously belongs to the end of verse 27. And the Greek word translated as "loosed" in verse 27 is NOT the same Greek word that refers to loosing in death. It means "loosed" by divorce. (Compare the Greek word translated "loosed" in Romans 7:2)

You're on your way. Keep plugging.

 

[BukiRob]

OK, let me guide you through this, do you recall what you asked me to prove? And if so, what was it?

Also, do you think one can commit adultery as in the adultery Christ was talking about by remarrying after divorce, (accept for the fornication) and still go to heaven?

So you are trying to say that salvation is gained by works? Because that is exactly what your question is implying.

The bottom line is that marriage and remarriage is a complex issue while some try and paint as a cut and dry issue (its NOT)

Most of you aren't even looking at what was going on at the time Yeshua said what he said.

This is really no different than the young wealth man asking Messiah what he had to do to gain eternal life. Young man said I have kept all the commandments...Yeshua said you still lack one thing.... sell all you have, give it to the poor and follow me.

Using YOUR literal translation unless you sell all your possessions, give it to the poor and live a live of poverty focused only on the church and evangelism you wont have eternal life

 

[BukiRob]

I really would like to read what you guys are referring to, but Kenny didn't give us your whole quote to back-track (I wish he would stop doing that!). Could you give me the # of the post he was responding to?

lol at this point I don't even recall. You'll have to scroll back, sorry