Can marriage ever be a sin if both are Christian

[ZephBonkerer]

Here is the test:
Have you ever taken the Lord's name in vain at any stage in your life?
Have you ever taken something that doesn't belong to you however small?
Have you ever been so angry at some you have felt you hated them?
Have you ever looked at someone with lust?

If you are honest, then you are like the rest of us:
A blaspheming, hateful thieving adulterer who, if having put our faith and trust in the finished work of Christ on the Cross, would be declared "not guilty" at the Judgment and would be in heaven with the Lord instead of in hell with the devil and his angels. John 1:8 says, "If we say we have no sin, we lie and the truth is not in us."

So now you're saying that I claim to be without sin. I made no such claim.

First you say we all lie, cheat, etc. Then when I dispute that claim, you support your words with "Have you ever... ?" See the difference? I'm not fooled that easily.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So now you're saying that I claim to be without sin. I made no such claim.

First you say we all lie, cheat, etc. Then when I dispute that claim, you support your words with "Have you ever... ?" See the difference? I'm not fooled that easily.

Well, I acknowledge that I am not born again better or worse than anyone else. As Charles Spurgeon said, "I'm just a poor sinner and nothing at all, but Jesus Christ is my all in all.

Ray Comfort in his conversations with the unconverted has a very useful way of showing people that they are not as good as they think they are. Viewing his Youtube videos may be instructive on that score.

 

[Lost Witness]

The truth is that the only ones who can exercise judgment on a divorced person are those who are totally sinless themselves. To my knowledge there is only one, the Person who was crucified for me. This means that those who imply condemnation on divorced people are trying to get a speck out of the divorced person's eye when they have a log of sin in their own. When one points the finger at another, there are three pointing back at themselves. For me, I would rather wait until the day of judgment when the sole person who has the right to judge is on the throne and will exercise fair judgment based on the facts.

Is it judgmental to admonish someone by reminding them what scripture says?
Please explain

 

[Grafted In]

There are no Scriptures that makes it OK to lie, blaspheme, steal, hate, have a riotous lifestyle, commit fornication and adultery. fail to love God with all our heart, yet, we all do these things one way or another. So what is the difference?

So, you are agreeing that divorce and remarriage is sin.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Is it judgmental to admonish someone by reminding them what scripture says?
Please explain

I can clarify these things.

Regarding sin in general, we are supposed to call out sin, especially when it threatens to undermine the well being of others. You cannot allow immorality to go unchecked - that sort of thing will severely undermine the quality of the overall environment.

But no "sin" should be called out that is not clearly sin based on an objective standard. When we condemn people for things like listening to secular music, wearing halter tops, etc - we end up looking like judgmental ding dongs. That sort of thing undermines our credibility and our effectiveness at reaching the lost.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can clarify these things.

Regarding sin in general, we are supposed to call out sin, especially when it threatens to undermine the well being of others. You cannot allow immorality to go unchecked - that sort of thing will severely undermine the quality of the overall environment.

But no "sin" should be called out that is not clearly sin based on an objective standard. When we condemn people for things like listening to secular music, wearing halter tops, etc - we end up looking like judgmental ding dongs. That sort of thing undermines our credibility and our effectiveness at reaching the lost.

While I grant you, that there's a time and a place, what is right and what is wrong is not judged on its effect, —"our effectiveness at reaching the lost"— but on the objective standard. You seem to be mixing the two.

Also, what undermines our credibility is not our judgement, but our hypocrisy.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

So, you are agreeing that divorce and remarriage is sin.

That is not correct. If it were a sin to divorce your spouse for serious reasons and later remarry, it would have never been allowed even under the Mosaic Law (Deut 24:1-4). The overall tone regarding marriage in the New Testament is that barring any material violation of the terms of the marital covenant, the marriage should last a lifetime. If it were legit to dump your spouse for any reason or no reason at all, then marriage as we know it might as well not exist.

Adultery is NOT the only material violation of the terms of the martial covenant. If it were, Deut 24 would have made that explicit.

What Jesus condemned in Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16:
Divorcing your spouse just so you can run off with some Instagram model.
Conspiring to break up a married couple so that you can have the newly released girlie.

What Jesus did NOT condemn in those verses:
Divorcing someone for abuse, drug use, gross misconduct, etc (serious and compelling reasons) and marrying a better person some time later.

In other words, it is NOT a sin to divorce an abusive spouse - and to marry someone who isn't abusive later. Anyone who tells you otherwise is preaching heresy and slandering God in the process.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

While I grant you, that there's a time and a place, what is right and what is wrong is not judged on its effect, —"our effectiveness at reaching the lost"— but on the objective standard. You seem to be mixing the two.

Also, what undermines our credibility is not our judgement, but our hypocrisy.

You're reading it wrong. I never said sin was defined based on its effect or what makes us look good to others. Sin does have a way of being destructive to relationships and other things. I know of no sin that isn't destructive in some way.

Hypocrisy certainly will undermine anyone's credibility. But so will legalism and making hasty, ill-informed judgments. Saying certain things are sin when they are not is just as dangerous as going the other way. (Isa 5:20)

A story: back in 2005 my roommates and I had company over on a Saturday night, which included some girls. Many of us attended the same church assembly at the time. We drank beer, played poker, goofed off, stuff like that. The next day some ill-informed individual who heard of this mentioned something about "the appearance of evil". I thought it was funny at the time, but my roommate was incensed. He was all "What appearance of evil are we talking about? Does she think we are having orgies or something!?"

A rule of thumb I use when considering 1 Thessalonians 5:22: if one has to guess what appearance of evil we are talking about, there probably isn't one.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Is it judgmental to admonish someone by reminding them what scripture says?
Please explain

Pass.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So, you are agreeing that divorce and remarriage is sin.

Not always. It depends on the reasons. The innocent party in the divorce hasn't sinned at all, and if reconciliation is impossible through no fault of their own, then remarriage is not a sin either.

I don't think that divorce in itself is a sin. It can be caused through other sins such as domestic violence, adultery, alcoholism, involvement in criminal activity, or gambling away the household money.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Not always. It depends on the reasons. The innocent party in the divorce hasn't sinned at all, and if reconciliation is impossible through no fault of their own, then remarriage is not a sin either.

I don't think that divorce in itself is a sin. It can be caused through other sins such as domestic violence, adultery, alcoholism, involvement in criminal activity, or gambling away the household money.

There's a lot of horrendously bad teaching going around with respect to divorce and remarriage. I've heard people claim that adultery is the only valid ground for divorce. Some will say abandonment, but only if the abandoning spouse is an unbeliever! I guess if you're abandoned by a spouse who claims to follow Jesus, then you are outta luck.

So by this reasoning:
Domestic violence is not a valid ground for divorce and remarriage
Refusing to get a job is not a valid ground for divorce and remarriage
Gambling away the next three mortgage payments is not a valid ground for divorce and remarriage
Abandonment is a valid ground for divorce (only if your spouse was an unbeliever), but not remarriage
Attempted murder is not a valid ground for divorce and remarriage

But adultery - and adultery alone - is the one and only valid ground for divorce and remarriage.

I hope this shows how brain-dead this teaching is.

Full disclosure: as you might have read on another thread, I moved to divorce my wife when she refused normal marital intimacy, and I got tired of excuses. In late Summer 2021 I was excommunicated from my church assembly for refusing to tolerate a sexless marriage. I was also judged and condemned for this by other people who seemed to think I was being unreasonable for expecting sex from my wife. I have had trust issues with other believers ever since.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There's a lot of horrendously bad teaching going around with respect to divorce and remarriage. I've heard people claim that adultery is the only valid ground for divorce. Some will say abandonment, but only if the abandoning spouse is an unbeliever! I guess if you're abandoned by a spouse who claims to follow Jesus, then you are outta luck.

So by this reasoning:
Domestic violence is not a valid ground for divorce and remarriage
Refusing to get a job is not a valid ground for divorce and remarriage
Gambling away the next three mortgage payments is not a valid ground for divorce and remarriage
Abandonment is a valid ground for divorce (only if your spouse was an unbeliever), but not remarriage
Attempted murder is not a valid ground for divorce and remarriage

But adultery - and adultery alone - is the one and only valid ground for divorce and remarriage.

I hope this shows how brain-dead this teaching is.

Full disclosure: as you might have read on another thread, I moved to divorce my wife when she refused normal marital intimacy, and I got tired of excuses. In late Summer 2021 I was excommunicated from my church assembly for refusing to tolerate a sexless marriage. I was also judged and condemned for this by other people who seemed to think I was being unreasonable for expecting sex from my wife. I have had trust issues with other believers ever since.

When we look at the context of Paul's teaching on divorce, we see that the reason why he brought it up as an issue was that Corinthian men were divorcing their wives because they believed they would be closer to God by being single.

Isn't it interesting that there is a lot of hoohah concerning Paul's views on divorce, but hardly anything is dealt with on the forums concerning all the other issues that Paul brought up.
Party spirit, God will forgive.
Denial of the resurrection, God will forgive.
A guy having nooky with his mother in law, God will forgive.
Gluttons eating up all the food and getting drunk on the wine during the Lord's meal, God will forgive,
Eating food dedicated to idols, God will forgive.

Divorce and remarriage: What is being taught? THEY HAVE COMMITTED THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN AND ARE CONDEMNED FOR ETERNITY. What this means is the Scripture has been altered to read, "All manner of sin and iniquity shall be forgiven, except divorce and remarriage." Somehow, my version of the Bible doesn't say that.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You're reading it wrong. I never said sin was defined based on its effect or what makes us look good to others. Sin does have a way of being destructive to relationships and other things. I know of no sin that isn't destructive in some way.

Hypocrisy certainly will undermine anyone's credibility. But so will legalism and making hasty, ill-informed judgments. Saying certain things are sin when they are not is just as dangerous as going the other way. (Isa 5:20)

A story: back in 2005 my roommates and I had company over on a Saturday night, which included some girls. Many of us attended the same church assembly at the time. We drank beer, played poker, goofed off, stuff like that. The next day some ill-informed individual who heard of this mentioned something about "the appearance of evil". I thought it was funny at the time, but my roommate was incensed. He was all "What appearance of evil are we talking about? Does she think we are having orgies or something!?"

A rule of thumb I use when considering 1 Thessalonians 5:22: if one has to guess what appearance of evil we are talking about, there probably isn't one.

Power and control freaks love using the abstaining from all appearance of evil thing to manipulate people into behaving how they think the people should behave. They make their own personal ideals objective for everyone and accuse anyone who steps out of it as showing the appearance of evil. I didn't read 13 Commandments in Deuteronomy with the last three: "Thou shalt not have female visitors to your room"; "Thou shalt not play poker"; and "Thou shalt not drink beer." But there are some religious churchianity groups who think there are more commandments than the original ten. The Jewish Pharisees added hundreds of commandments in their time that were never found anywhere in the list of instructions in Deuteronomy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I know of no sin that isn't destructive in some way.

Hypocrisy certainly will undermine anyone's credibility. But so will legalism and making hasty, ill-informed judgments. Saying certain things are sin when they are not is just as dangerous as going the other way. (Isa 5:20)

You got that right!

A rule of thumb I use when considering 1 Thessalonians 5:22: if one has to guess what appearance of evil we are talking about, there probably isn't one.

One thing I have noticed, an MK growing up around nothing but Christians at a foreign Bible College where my parents taught —sometimes it is the old folks, long-time believers, that stumble the quickest, or at least, that detect the appearance of evil the quickest.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Power and control freaks love using the abstaining from all appearance of evil thing to manipulate people into behaving how they think the people should behave. They make their own personal ideals objective for everyone and accuse anyone who steps out of it as showing the appearance of evil...

I think you nailed it here. In a few cases where I have encountered this, I have asked the person what appearance of evil they had in mind. If they seem unsure, then they're probably acting out of some personal bias and not any logical or biblical imperative.

I've seen people evade the question, even when pressed for an answer. An evasion to a simple question is something I would read as a tipoff that they are the controlling type.

An example: suppose a group of men and women in their 60s and 70s met on a Saturday afternoon for poker, card games, etc. Beer was served at this gathering. Would anybody cite the "appearance of evil" here?

Another example: Same facts as above but with these changes: the people that meet are singles in their 20s and the gathering happens on a Saturday night instead of the afternoon. Would that change the assessment regarding the "appearance of evil"?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think you nailed it here. In a few cases where I have encountered this, I have asked the person what appearance of evil they had in mind. If they seem unsure, then they're probably acting out of some personal bias and not any logical or biblical imperative.

I've seen people evade the question, even when pressed for an answer. An evasion to a simple question is something I would read as a tipoff that they are the controlling type.

An example: suppose a group of men and women in their 60s and 70s met on a Saturday afternoon for poker, card games, etc. Beer was served at this gathering. Would anybody cite the "appearance of evil" here?

Another example: Same facts as above but with these changes: the people that meet are singles in their 20s and the gathering happens on a Saturday night instead of the afternoon. Would that change the assessment regarding the "appearance of evil"?

The context of the quote about the "appearance of evil" in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 doesn't give us any clues about the definition of it. So I think every person must settle it in their own mind about getting themselves into a situation where there is the appearance of evil. If I as a mature male happened to walk in the red light district of Bangkok where other males are picking up women of the night, then that would fit the definition, even if I didn't do what other males did. Another one would be having a meal in a Buddhist temple, even if one wasn't there to worship. But having a gathering of friends in a private home would not in my view, and only a peeping tom (which is evil in itself) would have any knowledge of what was going on there.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

The context of the quote about the "appearance of evil" in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 doesn't give us any clues about the definition of it. So I think every person must settle it in their own mind about getting themselves into a situation where there is the appearance of evil. If I as a mature male happened to walk in the red light district of Bangkok where other males are picking up women of the night, then that would fit the definition, even if I didn't do what other males did. Another one would be having a meal in a Buddhist temple, even if one wasn't there to worship. But having a gathering of friends in a private home would not in my view, and only a peeping tom (which is evil in itself) would have any knowledge of what was going on there.

I often consider the appearance of evil in situations where neutrality and objectivity are critical.

If you were a judge, you would not want to have a situation where your impartiality or objectivity might be reasonably called into question. That would include things like forming a personal relationship with one of the litigants of a case you are presiding over.

If you were hired to audit the financial statements of a company, you would not have a direct financial interest in the company you are auditing. (There are professional standards in place to prohibit this sort of thing.)

If you were on the board of directors of a company, you would want to have certain procedures in place to deal with a potential conflict of interests when considering actions where you might benefit personally.

In these cases, allowing the appearance of evil to go unchecked would undermine the integrity of the entire process. A decent standard of living in a society is not possible if nobody trusts the judges, auditors, or others in authority to behave in an ethical and appropriate manner - and not abuse their positions to enrich themselves in inappropriate ways.

 

[linux.poet]

I'm not sure that "appearance of evil" is the best verse to apply when talking about marriage or intimate relationships in general. Those are very private relationships. If I allowed my husband to treat me in a certain manner (or not) it is between me and the husband and God and should not be opened to public scrutiny unless a church discipline process is being initiated against my husband or me for some egregious sin.

Right now my father doesn't want me to be married and disapproves of my boyfriend. In his eyes, me getting married is evil, even if my husband had the character of Christ Himself and made 200K a year. In his eyes, what I am doing will always be evil. If I were to "avoid the appearance of evil" with him I would never get married at all and subject myself to another 20 years of torture and loneliness.

The "avoid the appearance of evil" is better applied to areas of integrity such as @ZephBonkerer has described. The world doesn't care about whether you get married or not, and shall have no occasion to slander the name of Christ in either direction. In fact, the world happily lets divorcees remarry without penalty - it's Christians that slam them and refuse to let them off the hook.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

I'm not sure that "appearance of evil" is the best verse to apply when talking about marriage or intimate relationships in general. Those are very private relationships...
The world doesn't care about whether you get married or not, and shall have no occasion to slander the name of Christ in either direction. In fact, the world happily lets divorcees remarry without penalty - it's Christians that slam them and refuse to let them off the hook.

Very well said. People in Christendom who behave this way are discrediting the Faith as a whole. They are also making an idol out of marriage.

I know of people who avoid church assemblies in general because they see a bunch of judgmental people who love to get on their high horse and point the finger. That kind of behavior doesn't make us look welcoming to those who are unchurched and looking for answers.

Regarding divorce specifically, when I told my friends about the circumstances surrounding my excommunication, they were horrified that I would be treated that way solely because I had begun divorce proceedings on grounds they did not approve of. The word "cult" came up more than once in characterizing the kind of place that gave me the boot.

Condemning someone for getting a divorce on reasonable grounds will do far greater harm to the reputation of the Church assembly than the divorce itself. Tolerating abusive marriages will discredit the Faith in ways no divorce ever could.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

In fact, the world happily lets divorcees remarry without penalty - it's Christians that slam them and refuse to let them off the hook.

Not only that, they show a gross misunderstanding of the kind of behavior Jesus was condemning.

In Matthew 19:9 and similar verses, Jesus spoke of the kind of man who would dump his faithful wife just so he could get with some Instagram model. But these people take this verse and stretch it to claim Jesus condemned any and all remarriage after divorce as adultery. That's brain dead! It's akin to using Luke 18:22 to claim you cannot go to Heaven if you have a car or a bank account!