HYPO OP: "both parties were "backslidden""
Isn't that a Baptist term?
OSAS for believer.
Never saved for UN-believer.
For Israel slideth back as a backsliding heifer: now the LORD will feed them as a lamb in a large place.-- Hosea 4
Upvote
0
HYPO OP: "both parties were "backslidden""
Isn't that a Baptist term?
OSAS for believer.
Never saved for UN-believer.
Well whatever you call it, God's marriage law applies to all human on earth.
1 Cor 7:11 in the true grammar says (acknowledging the aorist tense)
"but if she HAS departed let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to HER HUSBAND"
So even if the divorce happened before the woman became a believer, she is still bound to the man she was divorced from. Sets some ideas straight. Coming to Christ does not give you a "new chance" in the area of marriage.
RDKirk said in post #128:
Then you're denying 2 Corinthians 5:17.
RDKirk said in post #128:
Why would divorce be any different from any other sin before being saved, such as murder?
While Christians are already new creatures spiritually (2 Corinthians 5:17), they are not yet new creatures physically. And so they still await the resurrection (if dead), or changing (if alive), of their mortal physical bodies (Romans 8:23-25) into immortal physical bodies, at Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming (1 Corinthians 15:22-23,51-58, Revelation 20:4-6), like the immortal physical body which Jesus Himself obtained on the third day after His death at His first coming (Luke 24:39-48, Philippians 3:21).
Because of the "one flesh" principle (Matthew 19:5-6).
That's why the apostle Paul says:
1 Corinthians 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
If a woman divorces a valid husband, she can be said to be "unmarried" (1 Corinthians 7:11), legally. But 1 Corinthians 7:11 does not say: "let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her non-husband", but to her "husband". For in God's eyes, her first, valid husband is still her husband. It is because of this that her only Christian choices are to remain unmarried legally, or to remarry her first, valid husband legally (1 Corinthians 7:11). If she marries another man legally while her first, valid husband is still alive, both she and that other man will be committing adultery against her first, valid husband (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b).
Because marriage is not a sin. So it is not washed away in the baptism.Then you're denying 2 Corinthians 5:17. Why would divorce be any different from any other sin before being saved, such as murder?
Because marriage is not a sin. So it is not washed away in the baptism.
If divorced and remarried.
Make a firm decision to stay with the one you are with and to love them forever.
I stand in 180 degree opposition to that statement. I mean no disrespect, but this is a debate forum. Let me give the reason for my opposition.
Luke 16:18 : " Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
Now some will say, OK, just ask forgiveness for the adultery and then move on. Believing that the adultery is a one time act. But the problem is that it is not. It is a perpetual condition.
This is seen when we go to the greek grammar of the verse, making room for the aorist tense (finished past tense) and the present tense (present continuous tense). The passage will be like this
Luke 16:18 : " Whosoever HAS PUT away his wife, and HAS MARRIED another, committeth PRESENT CONTINUAL adultery: and whosoever HAS MARRIED her that is put away from her husband committeth PRESENT CONTINUAL adultery."
Now add to that the understanding of what adultery is. Adultery is a sexual relation where one or both partners is married to someone else. That means, THE PREVIOUS MARRIAGE STILL STANDS !
So in conclusion the first marriage still stands, the second marriage is adultery, and most surely repentance from that would include forsaking of the sin, i.e. forsaking the adultery, and if possible reconciling with the spouse of first marriage.
That is what I call an ad-hominem argument. Give scripture to your position, and dont put things into my shoes which do not belong there.Would you wish to send half of those in church attendance to hell?
I guess?
There is a major church in the world who agree 95% with my position, namely the catholic church.
Where do you find in scripture the concept of "invalid marriages"? Christ could have easily described it as such and for Him to call it "marriage" when if you are right it is an "invalid marriage" would be misleading on Christ's part which I do not find any other time. Christ weighs each "word" perfectly.That is what I call an ad-hominem argument. Give scripture to your position, and dont put things into my shoes which do not belong there.
There is a major church in the world who agree 95% with my position, namely the catholic church. And by their own statement they hold to the tradition inherited from the first christians. In the field of marriage doctrine, I believe that they actually do follow the first christians, who were also unanimous against divorce and remarriage, and had the concept of invalid marriages.
BTW, I stated that this is a "debate" forum. I would correct myself. As a christian forum, it is a forum to care for the flock, and to discuss doctrine.