Divorce and Remarriage

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, scripture clearly does provide another way. When one's spouse dies then one is free to remarry.
It is interesting to know that all the comments surrounding divorce in the New Testament are about a man divorcing his wife. It gives no guidance when a wife walks out of the marriage for whatever reason. So, to put down hard and fast rules about divorce, then they are doing it on a very shaky background. Jesus was not giving instructions to believers because He was speaking to Old Covenant Jews to explain a standard that is higher than what Moses allowed. The purpose for that higher standard is to show people that the standard is well-nigh impossible to reach. This foreshadowed justification by faith and not by works. Paul gave instructions to the Corinthians about men putting away their wives because of the belief that the single life was more spiritual. So, in my case, my first wife walked out of the marriage and refused to be reconciled. She has since married another. That sets me free from any obligation to her. I married a widow, so my remarriage is that much further away from any scripture that would be applied to condemn me in any way.

However, no one seems to have the courage to answer my main question in the post.

The next question is, do the religious lawgivers say that divorced and remarried Christians are not actually saved?
 
  • Like
Reactions: actionsub
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
The next question is, do the religious lawgivers say that divorced and remarried Christians are not actually saved?
Who are the religious lawgivers?
What did you get from the pdf on the early church fathers? For me, what I got from it was a very sharp (actually shocking) message, and it was not until I saw that Scripture does line up with it, that I could fully accept it. Example Ignatius in his letter to the philippians saying that all who teach remarriage together with those who follow them certainly deserve to go into the lake of fire. Still, it is not canon scripture, but his stance is amazingly clear.

Maybe the problem is, that we have gotten used to a 'wholesale salvation', that once you prayed the sinners prayer, then you are good for eternity.

I think salvation is far more difficult. Jesus said, "follow me". And he did not promise salvation any other way. If you will not follow him, that is fair enough, but then salvation is not promised, actually based on Jesus words, I would fear that it is excluded. Then the question is, on which way do we go in order to follow him? I think I can tell by now: The way of the cross, the via dolorosa, the way of purposing to die for the gospel, that is the way. Good luck to all reading this, and my wishes that you and I will truly find Gods way.
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
So, what do you reckon? All divorced and remarried preachers, pastors, ministers and elders leave the work of the church and the ministry, put away their present wives and live celibate in order to gain forgiveness from God? Think of the distress and suffering to families and children! But, then, two wrongs don't make a right. Good luck on getting all the divorced and remarried people in your church and letting them know that because they are committing adultery, they remain unforgiven and in danger in losing their salvation unless they break up their present families and live celibate from now on.
Basically that is what I see here, yes. Adulterous relations must be broken up, or at least become un-adulterous by having the father and the mother (if there are children in the 2nd marriage) live separate. Celibacy if it is not possible to reunite with the spouse of covenant.

Since I caught the full scope of this, I am starting to see things in scripture that I did not take not of before. I might share later, but for now maybe you should just accomodate the shock that it might really be so blunt. I also still grope with it, as you will probably understand why, now that you know my history.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Who are the religious lawgivers?
What did you get from the pdf on the early church fathers? For me, what I got from it was a very sharp (actually shocking) message, and it was not until I saw that Scripture does line up with it, that I could fully accept it. Example Ignatius in his letter to the philippians saying that all who teach remarriage together with those who follow them certainly deserve to go into the lake of fire. Still, it is not canon scripture, but his stance is amazingly clear.

Maybe the problem is, that we have gotten used to a 'wholesale salvation', that once you prayed the sinners prayer, then you are good for eternity.

I think salvation is far more difficult. Jesus said, "follow me". And he did not promise salvation any other way. If you will not follow him, that is fair enough, but then salvation is not promised, actually based on Jesus words, I would fear that it is excluded. Then the question is, on which way do we go in order to follow him? I think I can tell by now: The way of the cross, the via dolorosa, the way of purposing to die for the gospel, that is the way. Good luck to all reading this, and my wishes that you and I will truly find Gods way.
My definition of religious law-givers is the action of those who impose any rule, regulation, or law upon anyone as a condition for salvation, and threatens loss of salvation if any part of their interpretation of the Law is broken. Paul called the ones who tried to do that to the Galatian (Gentile) churches, "false apostles", and implied that he meant those people when he referred to the "grievous wolves". Jesus said the way to salvation is narrow, because there is only one way to be saved, and that is to believe that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead. He also said that "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by me." In a world (then and now), people thought that there were many ways to achieve eternal life, but Jesus limited it to just the one way. That was what made it very narrow. To actually believe in Justification by faith in Christ alone is a very narrow way for some people. Paul inferred that those who found that professing believers who found it difficult to base their conduct on pure faith in Christ without complying with some aspect of Law, were weak believers and that stronger believers should have patience with them.

Jesus said, "All sin and iniquity shall be forgiven of people", and so divorce and remarriage are not the unforgiven sin. Also, God is a God of second chances in this day of grace. He is more understanding of human situations then we are. Man looks on the outward appearance but He looks on the heart. I believe that using the Bible as a rule of law is as bad as imposing the Law of Moses on people. It becomes the Law of one's interpretation of the Bible, and this makes the person's teaching just as false as the false apostles of Acts.

In my case, my first wife abandoned our marriage and went on to marry another. Seven years after the divorce, I met and married a widow; so I do not see any reason to break up my present marriage just because of a religious principle based on someone's interpretation of the Bible. It was the Lord who reminded me of this to show that I don't have to accept condemnation from anyone because I am remarried. Also, when I asked the Lord about the issue, He reminded me of all the scriptures that talked of forgiveness, cleansing, grace, living by faith, "Who shall lay any charge against God's elect?" and "There is no condemnation to those in Christ". The number of scriptures that came to mind was remarkable. It seemed that the Lord went to great lengths to reassure me, and to show that any sense of condemnation was an attack of the enemy and not anything from the Holy Spirit.

I thought about "What about the destruction of second marriages and families because of a rule of Law:" A scripture came right back at me: The devil has come to steal, kill and destroy, but Jesus has come to give us life. What this showed me that the destruction of second marriages with the accompanying grief and suffering with husbands, wives and children does not come from the Holy Spirit, but from the enemy whose mission is to shipwreck the faith of Christian believers, and to render them useless for ministry.

If a person is being attacked with condemnation about their shortcoming and failures, then he or she has to ask the reason why. It may be because that believer is becoming effective in some area of ministry and the enemy is being threatened and so has to attack that believer in what he considers might be a chink in his armour. As some have said on this forum, people can be easily deceived by the enemy, and we have to always be vigilant.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
My definition of religious law-givers is the action of those who impose any rule, regulation, or law upon anyone as a condition for salvation, and threatens loss of salvation if any part of their interpretation of the Law is broken. Paul called the ones who tried to do that to the Galatian (Gentile) churches, "false apostles", and implied that he meant those people when he referred to the "grievous wolves". Jesus said the way to salvation is narrow, because there is only one way to be saved, and that is to believe that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead. He also said that "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by me." In a world (then and now), people thought that there were many ways to achieve eternal life, but Jesus limited it to just the one way. That was what made it very narrow. To actually believe in Justification by faith in Christ alone is a very narrow way for some people. Paul inferred that those who found that professing believers who found it difficult to base their conduct on pure faith in Christ without complying with some aspect of Law, were weak believers and that stronger believers should have patience with them.

Jesus said, "All sin and iniquity shall be forgiven of people", and so divorce and remarriage are not the unforgiven sin. Also, God is a God of second chances in this day of grace. He is more understanding of human situations then we are. Man looks on the outward appearance but He looks on the heart. I believe that using the Bible as a rule of law is as bad as imposing the Law of Moses on people. It becomes the Law of one's interpretation of the Bible, and this makes the person's teaching just as false as the false apostles of Acts.

In my case, my first wife abandoned our marriage and went on to marry another. Seven years after the divorce, I met and married a widow; so I do not see any reason to break up my present marriage just because of a religious principle based on someone's interpretation of the Bible. It was the Lord who reminded me of this to show that I don't have to accept condemnation from anyone because I am remarried. Also, when I asked the Lord about the issue, He reminded me of all the scriptures that talked of forgiveness, cleansing, grace, living by faith, "Who shall lay any charge against God's elect?" and "There is no condemnation to those in Christ". The number of scriptures that came to mind was remarkable. It seemed that the Lord went to great lengths to reassure me, and to show that any sense of condemnation was an attack of the enemy and not anything from the Holy Spirit.

I thought about "What about the destruction of second marriages and families because of a rule of Law:" A scripture came right back at me: The devil has come to steal, kill and destroy, but Jesus has come to give us life. What this showed me that the destruction of second marriages with the accompanying grief and suffering with husbands, wives and children does not come from the Holy Spirit, but from the enemy whose mission is to shipwreck the faith of Christian believers, and to render them useless for ministry.

If a person is being attacked with condemnation about their shortcoming and failures, then he or she has to ask the reason why. It may be because that believer is becoming effective in some area of ministry and the enemy is being threatened and so has to attack that believer in what he considers might be a chink in his armour. As some have said on this forum, people can be easily deceived by the enemy, and we have to always be vigilant.

I find your post to be curious. First you define religious law-givers as being "false apostles" and then go on to define Jesus Christ as being a law-giver, in that He imposed rules for salvation (faith and being in the narrow path of salvation). I doubt you consider Jesus Christ to be a false apostle. Would it shock you if you discovered that He clearly taught that divorce and remarriage is a sin against a holy and righteous God?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Jesus said the way to salvation is narrow, because there is only one way to be saved, and that is to believe that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead. He also said that "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by me." In a world (then and now), people thought that there were many ways to achieve eternal life, but Jesus limited it to just the one way. That was what made it very narrow. To actually believe in Justification by faith in Christ alone is a very narrow way for some people.
I would say that belief in Jesus is necessary. But is it enough to "believe", or do you have to take up your cross and follow Jesus? He not only described the road as narrow, he also described it as hard, and stony, and few there are that find it. Also, from your posts I remember that you answered to me previously that repentance is the act of acknowledging that something is a sin, but not necessarily turning from it (am I right here?).

I can certainly understand your history and sympathize, for it is difficult to live alone. But, if really that is the way it has to be for a disciple of Jesus, would that be too hard? I believe that Jesus speaks in Matthew 19:10-12 about a special grace that will be given to disciples who for the sake of the kingdom refuse to be remarried.

But, if our center point in the faith becomes what is hard and not hard for men, has it not turned from a God-centered faith to a man-centered faith?

When you say that God is the God of 2nd chances (I heard that idea more than one time from remarried people), is there any place in the bible to support such a notion? Can you give one example of God saying to a divorced person, "it is ok I am the God of 2nd chances", in scripture?

However, as you are pointing out yourself, I might be a wolf, since I can not scan the depths of my own soul, and so you should consider all the evidence yourself. I do believe that a wolf is marked by having a lot of self-interest, pride, and such problems. And I admit that I have those things in my life, I believe.

Best regards, Peter
 
Upvote 0

Tull

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2016
2,191
917
63
Virginia
✟29,416.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think if most people realy thought about marriage in detail and in depth most would not do it.....and sex certainly doesn't make it worth it and even if it did statistics show that dwindles down to near zero over time,that is why it is given as a choice and not a command.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I would say that belief in Jesus is necessary. But is it enough to "believe", or do you have to take up your cross and follow Jesus? He not only described the road as narrow, he also described it as hard, and stony, and few there are that find it. Also, from your posts I remember that you answered to me previously that repentance is the act of acknowledging that something is a sin, but not necessarily turning from it (am I right here?).

I can certainly understand your history and sympathize, for it is difficult to live alone. But, if really that is the way it has to be for a disciple of Jesus, would that be too hard? I believe that Jesus speaks in Matthew 19:10-12 about a special grace that will be given to disciples who for the sake of the kingdom refuse to be remarried.

But, if our center point in the faith becomes what is hard and not hard for men, has it not turned from a God-centered faith to a man-centered faith?

When you say that God is the God of 2nd chances (I heard that idea more than one time from remarried people), is there any place in the bible to support such a notion? Can you give one example of God saying to a divorced person, "it is ok I am the God of 2nd chances", in scripture?

However, as you are pointing out yourself, I might be a wolf, since I can not scan the depths of my own soul, and so you should consider all the evidence yourself. I do believe that a wolf is marked by having a lot of self-interest, pride, and such problems. And I admit that I have those things in my life, I believe.

Best regards, Peter

When the controversy arose in the Galatian churches over apostles coming from Jerusalem teaching that believers needed to be circumcised and comply with the Law of Moses, Paul went to Jerusalem and conferred with the Apostles. After much discussion James got up and got an agreement by consensus that all that would be required of Gentile believers was that they abstain from fornication, eating things offered to idols, and consuming blood. They limited it to just those three things so as not to place an undue burden on Gentile believers. Divorce and remarriage was not mentioned, nor were the rules concerning them were imposed by the Apostles on the Gentile churches, and Paul agreed with them. Actually Paul broke the second rule when he wrote to the Corinthians saying that when a person bought food from the market and was not informed that it was food offered to idols, he could eat it with a clear conscience. So because I have a totally clear conscience over the issue of my divorce and remarriage, it is not sin for me. Also, I have totally fulfilled 1 John 1:9 and therefore have been cleansed from all unrighteousness in the areas where I did go wrong in trying to cope with my divorce during my "storm and stress" years between marriages. I believe God gave me another partner because He knew that I needed one, and that my present wife was not coping with the loneliness of being a widow. Bring he into my life gave her a life and a child that she might never have had. Also I had the experience of Job where he has everything he lost restore two-fold. But for another, as Paul said, it would be sin for them, so I would understand that and would not try and convince them otherwise.

I have said before that Paul gave the divorce and remarriage rule for those men who were divorcing their wives just because they wanted to be more spiritual and closer to God. Jesus mentioned the divorce laws to correct men who were just divorcing for any reason at all. There are no rules for women divorcing their husbands because in those days, wives were totally dependent on their husbands and could not leave them because they would be living in poverty because there was no welfare system. And there are no indicators for divorces that happen because of domestic violence and abandonment of the marriage through desertion.

By the way, I just thinking just this morning how that many fundamentalist groups are intolerant of divorce and remarriage from what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7, but refuse to believe Paul's teaching on spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. I find that interesting, because those people will not accept any interpretation that might explain why Paul mentioned divorce and remarriage to the Corinthians (and not to any other church), but will accept all sorts of stretched and crazy interpretations to say that spiritual gifts ceased after the Apostolic age. I think it comes from people treating the Bible as a hard and fast law-book instead of what it was designed for, instead of reading the Bible in tandem with the Holy Spirit. Paul says that people who go by just the letter of the Law ministers death because the letter kills but it is the Spirit who gives life.

I don't think that you are a wolf. I think that you are putting forward a sincere view based on what you believe and what you believe that the Holy Spirit has told you. But for me, the fiery darts of condemnation that come at me because of my divorce and remarriage are quenched by my shield of faith, and the Lord has given me loads of scriptures to strengthen that faith. Anyone can express a sincere view, but I am well out of range from anyone who tries to condemn me because I am dead anyway, and my life is hid in Christ. God has gone to great lengths to reassure me that He does not hold my past against me and He does not place any limits on me through the actions of another who put me in a position where I had no choice. I did not choose divorce, and I fought tooth and nail against it, but I had to go through it anyway. I am like Paul, I appealed to "Caesar". I went to God's throne of grace as instructed and I found help in my time of need.

I had another thought about the devil quoting Scripture. The examples we have are those where the devil quoted scripture at Jesus to try and get Him to discredit Himself so that He could not fulfill His mission. The devil never quotes scripture to strengthen a person's faith in Christ. That would be strengthening a believer's shield of faith against the very fiery darts he wants to fire at the believer! No. He quotes part-verses and scripture out of context to weaken a believer's faith in Christ and to bring condemnation, and to dislodge a believer's faith and try to get him to try and live by the Law, which actually brings a curse to a believer instead of blessing. For that reason, I believe that all the scriptures that have come to me, reassuring me of my standing with Christ have come from the Holy Spirit and nowhere else.
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Concerning those fiery darts of condemnation, how do you really know that it is not the Holy Spirit trying to speak to you? That goes as a general principle, that we should beware that we do not seek to quench the voice of God.

You have mentioned before that you see repentance as recognizing your sin before God, but without a need to turn away from / forsake that sin. I think that it is an understanding that I still sometimes have myself, but really I see mostly in scripture that repentance involves forsaking my sin.

And it comes down to also our view of salvation. What did Jesus come to save us from? Most people will instantly answer, "he saved us from helll". But really that is not the answer of the new testament ! If we look carefully we will realize in Matthew 1:21 that he shall save us from our sins. (and death and hell is a consequence of sin). If we understand this, we might get the idea that it is important to turn away from our sin. How can Jesus get us out of our sin if we willingly choose to remain in it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
The tense of the the verb dedoulotai (were not enslaved) in 7:15 is a past tense. So really it really might read,
"a brother or a sister were not enslaved in such".
Now you have to understand that this means that Paul is talking about a condition of marriage that was already before the situation with the unbeliever. It is often translated as "a brother or a sister is not enslaved in such cases", but changing the verb tense to present tense and making it talk about the case in point, really does not line up if you respect the past tense. Then the verb is probably saying something about the condition of marriage itself, that even if marriage is binding, it is not enslaving to such a degree that it overrules the principle of peace.
Does it mean that Paul here is saying, "Behold you thought that marriage was a binding thing, but right here I am revealing to you that you were never bound". Do you think that Paul is saying that? The past tense of the verb dedoulotai is a destroyer of that. Of course marriage was and is binding.

The sentence was not intended to be a loophole for remarriage.

Also there is some contextual evidence for this being the case
1) Paul opens this part of the letter by saying he has no command from the Lord (7:12). So that would mean that the case in point is not about remarriage, to which there certainly is the 7th commandment Do not commit adultery.
2) Afterwards Paul talks about that a believer should remain in whatever state he is. 7:17.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Concerning those fiery darts of condemnation, how do you really know that it is not the Holy Spirit trying to speak to you? That goes as a general principle, that we should beware that we do not seek to quench the voice of God.

The Holy Spirit never causes any sense of condemnation. How do you know that way that you are applying the scripture is not the enemy trying to bring condemnation to believers? In the same way, we should be careful not to quench God's voice of mercy and grace. "By grace are you saved, and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God." There is no grace when the scripture is applied as a Law to make people doubt their salvation.

You have mentioned before that you see repentance as recognizing your sin before God, but without a need to turn away from / forsake that sin. I think that it is an understanding that I still sometimes have myself, but really I see mostly in scripture that repentance involves forsaking my sin.

But I don't see my situation as sin. So those remarks are irrelevant to me. If you see remarriage as sin, then your conscience is weaker than mine and so if you remarried if you found yourself divorced then it would be sin for you.

]quote]And it comes down to also our view of salvation. What did Jesus come to save us from? Most people will instantly answer, "he saved us from hell". But really that is not the answer of the new testament ! If we look carefully we will realize in Matthew 1:21 that he shall save us from our sins. (and death and hell is a consequence of sin). If we understand this, we might get the idea that it is important to turn away from our sin. How can Jesus get us out of our sin if we willingly choose to remain in it?[/QUOTE]

So, you are saying that divorced and remarried folks are not saved? Your comments are irrelevant to me.

However, because no one is without sin and 95% of believers struggle with their failures and shortcomings and the other five percent are liars, wouldn't that mean that a person is lost every time they sin and are saved all over again when they confess? There is a difference between Justification and Sanctification. Justification is faith in the finished work of Christ. A person's sin is so totally wiped out, that God no longer sees them in terms of sin but through the righteousness of Christ which has been bestowed on them. As long as a believer trusts in Christ, then he remains Justified and therefore saved, even though his sanctification is not perfect. Sanctification is a developmental thing.

I strongly assert that using the Scripture to impose a set of laws on people is being a false teacher. Trying to keep the Law or any derivative of it brings a curse. The Spirit of life has set me free from the law of sin and death. I am totally set free by the finished work of Christ.

Also, Paul was giving personal advice and not saying a command of the Lord when he spoke about divorce to the Corinthians. Therefore, advice is not binding. A person deciding not to take Paul's advice in this instance is not sin because there is no command of God in it, just Paul's personal advice. He knew that the issues around divorce and remarriage a complex issue and so he said, "I, not the Lord." It is therefore dangerous to impose a rule on people based on someone's personal advice, even if it was the apostle Paul.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
the only thing that can break the one flesh union for a woman is death as our Lord said that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

That let's me off the hook because I married a widow.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Back to Oscarr's point.

How does this view jibe with what was written in the letter from the Apostles to the Gentiles? Are we saying that Paul went against the grain and started adding more rules and regulations?
He didn't. In the area of divorce he, in saying "I, not the Lord" meant that he was giving personal advice and not setting a rule from the Lord.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Big Drew
Upvote 0

Big Drew

Believer
Supporter
Nov 10, 2009
1,883
541
Alabama
✟74,961.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
He didn't. In the area of divorce he, in saying "I, not the Lord" meant that he was giving personal advice and not setting a rule from the Lord.
That's how I see it as well. Unfortunately, the legalists will say anything recorded in scripture is authoritative......
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I find your post to be curious. First you define religious law-givers as being "false apostles" and then go on to define Jesus Christ as being a law-giver, in that He imposed rules for salvation (faith and being in the narrow path of salvation). I doubt you consider Jesus Christ to be a false apostle. Would it shock you if you discovered that He clearly taught that divorce and remarriage is a sin against a holy and righteous God?
I did not say that Jesus was a law-giver. He spoke to folks still under the Law. The New Covenant did not start until the Day of Pentecost. As far as what He said about salvation, He merely stated the correct path for it. He gave a lot of teaching which set a much higher standard that should be reached than by keeping the Law of Moses. He demonstrated that no one can reach that standard. He used divorce and remarriage as an example of that in the same way that He used just looking at woman with lust in one's heart was also adultery. He demonstrated that no one was without sin when He challenged them over the woman caught in adultery to cast the first stone if they were without sin. Not one of them could say they were without sin and there could not cast the first stone.

No one is saved by keeping the Law or any derivative of it that some modern groups try to impose on folks. Trying to do that bring a curse and not a blessing. If we could keep all the elements of the Law, then Jesus would not have had to come and die for us on the Cross. Jesus is a perfect Saviour. If we could claim salvation by faith and then continue the live the Christian life by rule of Law then it means that Jesus is not a complete Saviour at all - that His work on the Cross was not a finished work.

Sin is sin. God makes no distinction between one sin and another. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, and in ourselves we still do. This is why we have the sentence of death in ourselves that we don't trust ourselves but in God who raises the dead. So for one sinner to impose rules on another sin is rank hypocrisy.

This means that to impose rules on divorced and remarried couples by those who are sinning in other ways, is hypocrisy. So taking home an office pen from work is just as much sin as murder or adultery. People who impose rules on others, even quoting scripture to back themselves up, is saying that believers have not been set free from the law of sin and death. They are saying that all the scriptures that deal with mercy, grace, no condemnation, are all wrong and that we must live by the rules and laws they impose on us.

Even the Apostles in Jerusalem decided on only three things Gentile Christians were not to do, and that was advisory only, and those did not include divorce and remarriage. Paul knew that he could not impose rules on divorced and remarried couples, and that is why he was clear that he was giving just personal advice to the Corinthians instead of laying down a rule about it. It is also significant he did not mention divorce and remarriage to any of the other churches, which suggests that there is a particular problem with men divorcing their wives in the Corinthian church that was different to divorces and remarriages that were obviously happening in other areas.,
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
That's how I see it as well. Unfortunately, the legalists will say anything recorded in scripture is authoritative......
Just for information, did you know that a little later in 1 Corinthians, Paul does give commands that he says are from the Lord. Look at these: "Let those who speak in tongues in the church speak two or three and let them interpret; all may prophesy, one by one; let your women keep silence in church; those who work for the Gospel should be paid" (see 1 Corinthians 9:14 and 14:37) I wonder how many church folk follow those commands?

Taking these examples, those churches that don't allow tongues messages and interpretations and prophecy are actually disobeying a command from the Lord. Those who allow women to speak in church are also disobeying a command from the Lord. And those churches that expect their full time workers to do it without a salary, but to live on "faith" are also disobeying a command from the Lord as well.

So it is interesting that some will impose rules on one group in the church on the basis of advisory statements, but will happily disobey actual commands which Paul says come from the Lord. That strike me as hypocrisy. And according to one guy on this thread, continuing in sin (hypocrisy) a person cannot be saved!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Big Drew
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
The tense of the the verb dedoulotai (were not enslaved) in 7:15 is a past tense. So really it really might read,
"a brother or a sister were not enslaved in such".
Now you have to understand that this means that Paul is talking about a condition of marriage that was already before the situation with the unbeliever. It is often translated as "a brother or a sister is not enslaved in such cases", but changing the verb tense to present tense and making it talk about the case in point, really does not line up if you respect the past tense. Then the verb is probably saying something about the condition of marriage itself, that even if marriage is binding, it is not enslaving to such a degree that it overrules the principle of peace.
Does it mean that Paul here is saying, "Behold you thought that marriage was a binding thing, but right here I am revealing to you that you were never bound". Do you think that Paul is saying that? The past tense of the verb dedoulotai is a destroyer of that. Of course marriage was and is binding.

The sentence was not intended to be a loophole for remarriage.

Also there is some contextual evidence for this being the case
1) Paul opens this part of the letter by saying he has no command from the Lord (7:12). So that would mean that the case in point is not about remarriage, to which there certainly is the 7th commandment Do not commit adultery.
2) Afterwards Paul talks about that a believer should remain in whatever state he is. 7:17.
The definition of adultery in the Ten Commandments is to have sex with someone else's wife. This is part of the Law that was fulfilled and set aside in Christ. So we cannot apply this as a rule of law for Christian believers. To impose a law on Christian believers is to deny Christ. Therefore legalists are the ones in danger of losing their salvation, that is, if they never came through the narrow gate in the first place, but over the wall of legalism.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Oscarr said in post #81:

This foreshadowed justification by faith and not by works.

Initial salvation is by grace through faith without any works at all on our part (Romans 4:1-5, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9). But note that other passages show that initially saved people must have both faith and continued works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law) if they are to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b). For believers must continue to do righteous deeds if they are to continue to be righteous (1 John 3:7, James 2:24,26). And there is no assurance that believers will choose to do that, instead of wrongly employing their free will to become utterly lazy without repentance, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a).

Oscarr said in post #81:

So, in my case, my first wife walked out of the marriage and refused to be reconciled. She has since married another. That sets me free from any obligation to her. I married a widow, so my remarriage is that much further away from any scripture that would be applied to condemn me in any way.

That's right.

But note that you (like the OP) are still married (in God's eyes) to two women at the same time. (If neither you nor your first wife had prior, valid spouses).

For see post #30 above.

*******

Oscarr said in post #84:

"There is no condemnation to those in Christ".

Romans 8:1 ¶There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Note that in the original Greek Textus Receptus and the KJV, the latter half of this verse states the condition for the first half. If the latter half is not done, then the first half does not apply, as other verses also make clear (e.g. Romans 8:13; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Hebrews 10:26-29).

*******

Oscarr said in post #88:

There are no rules for women divorcing their husbands . . .

Note that there are (Mark 10:12; 1 Corinthians 7:11).

*******

Oscarr said in post #92:

The Holy Spirit never causes any sense of condemnation.

Note that He does (John 16:8).

Oscarr said in post #92:

However, because no one is without sin and 95% of believers struggle with their failures and shortcomings and the other five percent are liars, wouldn't that mean that a person is lost every time they sin and are saved all over again when they confess?

No, for it is only if Christians continue in a sin without repentance, until death (1 John 5:16b) or Jesus' return (Luke 12:45-46), that they will ultimately lose their salvation due to unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Galatians 5:19-21).

*******

Oscarr said in post #96:

If we could claim salvation by faith and then continue the live the Christian life by rule of Law then it means that Jesus is not a complete Saviour at all - that His work on the Cross was not a finished work.

No, for only Jesus can save people (John 14:6, John 3:36), by his sacrifice (Romans 3:25), and the ability that he gives to saved people to continue in the faith (Hebrews 12:2), to continue to do good works (John 15:5), to continue to repent from any sin that they commit (John 8:34-36), and to overcome to the end (Revelation 12:11), by their own choice. All NOSAS does is admit that there is no assurance that every saved person will choose to continue to do all of these things to the end.

*******

Oscarr said in post #98:

Therefore legalists are the ones in danger of losing their salvation, that is, if they never came through the narrow gate in the first place, but over the wall of legalism.

Note that grace sets Christians free from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 6:14b, John 1:17, Romans 7:6), but not from Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 15:10; 1 Corinthians 9:21, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Matthew 26:28), the commandments of which (John 14:15) are those he gave, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of Paul the apostle (1 Corinthians 14:37). For while Christians are initially saved by grace, by faith only (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:1-5), and do not have to obey the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in order to obtain ultimate salvation (Galatians 2:16, Romans 7:6), they do have to obey Jesus' New Covenant commandments in order to obtain ultimate salvation (Hebrews 5:9, Matthew 7:21, Romans 2:6-8).

It is by Christians obeying Jesus' New Covenant commandments, whether obeying them currently (1 John 3:24) or during the future tribulation of Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 (Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 12:17b), that Christians can be sure that they are truly loving Jesus (John 14:21-24; 1 John 5:3), and remaining in his love (John 15:10, John 14:21b,23b, Jude 1:21). Christians must fear ultimately losing their salvation, ultimately being cut off the same as unbelievers, if they do not continue in his goodness (Romans 11:20-22, Luke 12:45-46).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Tull said in post #87:

I think if most people realy thought about marriage in detail and in depth most would not do it.....and sex certainly doesn't make it worth it and even if it did statistics show that dwindles down to near zero over time, that is why it is given as a choice and not a command.

This brought to mind Japan, where for the most part people no longer desire sex or children. Their civilization is dying, as it is not being replenished by new Japanese people. The Japanese civilization is now inexorably aging and dying, and not for any religious reason, but simply for practical reasons in the minds of those who are still able (but see no reason at all) to procreate.
 
Upvote 0