Forgiveness following divorce and remarriage

[Mountain_Girl406]

9

your first sentence is contradictory.
if someone is remarried but is repentant in that remarriage--recognizing it as adultery-- then they separate preferably, or else live as though they were not married.
otherwise they are knowingly living in rebellion against what God asks of them.

Christ did indeed come to forgive people for their sins. but He also expected them to live accordingly and not to treat that forgiveness lightly by continuing to persue knowingly what they now fully recognized as sin.

You'll find this exact mistreating of God's mercy spoken of in the Gospel of Jude verses 1-13.

If your original marriage had no children and your second one does, are you required to split up your family and leave your spouse? What if it is your spouses first marriage? Does this mean that the spouse must lose his wife and some custody of his children, and never marry again?

 

[Vicomte13]

It needs to be stated, though, in order to be forgiven, we must repent.

Jesus did not actually say that. He did say to repent. But he said that to be forgiven, you have to forgive. And in response to Peter's question about the brother who offends again and again after being forgiven, Jesus says to forgive him seventy times seven.

Masturbation is sexual immorality. The lustful thoughts that accompany it are adultery, or sodomy, or any number of other lewd things, even murder. And how many times does God forgive this unrepented sin? Well, if he doesn't cover it over through the forgiveness of the individual, then the whole world is sunk and we may as well just stop talking about religion at all, because we're all damned and doomed.

 

[hedrick]

But then, Instone-Brewer is not really "scripture only", but rather "scripture seen in the historical context".

But that's the only reasonable way to understand scripture only. Language isn't like math. It's not precise enough to define everything independent of context. You have to understand the way the writer and his intended readers would have understood the language.

If you don't do that, then unconsciously you're saying Scripture seen in a 21st Cent Western context. That's going to be even worse. You just can't take language without some context.

 

[hedrick]

I must say, I have come to think that he is too wide in his interpretations. A verse like Luke 16:18 dismisses adultery as a ground for freedom.

As I'm sure you know, there's a certain bias in modern interpretation based on experience with the traditional strict interpretations. Our ideal for what marriage should be has been getting higher over time. In the past Christians would have insisted that people accept abusive or loveless relationships. Today many of us would suggest that staying in certain kinds of marriages is wrong, particularly where there are children, as it risks exposing the next generation to a dysfunctional example, and teaching them that it's acceptable. Hence I have to admit that our exegesis may not be entirely unbiased here.

The majority of commentators I've read think the the original teaching was absolute, and that both Matthew and Paul have added exceptions. That's probably the safest view. On the other hand, the fact that both Matthew and Paul would both be willing to do this suggests that early Christians thought it was legitimate to adapt Jesus' teachings that way. Indeed Matthew sometimes states Jesus' teachings in a way that makes strict application virtually impossible (Mat 5). In my opinion the whole context of the family and relations between the genders was so different in the 1st Cent that rules that might have had the effect of protecting women and children then, could if applied strictly have the opposite effect now. Hence I might favor regarding Instone-Brewer as overly clever exegesis, and say simply that the mainline Church has, in accordance with Christ's grant of the power of the keys, determined that strict application of Mark 10:9 (likely the original form) today would not be in accordance with our responsibility as Christ's followers.

 

[hedrick]

This is not to say that all divorce is OK. I don't believe it is.

 

[Meowzltov]

9

If your original marriage had no children and your second one does, are you required to split up your family and leave your spouse? What if it is your spouses first marriage? Does this mean that the spouse must lose his wife and some custody of his children, and never marry again?

If you have children, you live as brother and sister. If one person is married and the other is not, it is still adultery is it not?

Ultimately, as Christians, we do bear responsibility for the consequences of our sin. If we disobey God and remarry after being married, it is our own fault that we run into problems. It makes no sense to blame those who point out the truth of our sin.

If you were not open to the possibility of having children in your first marriage, that is grounds for annulment, which would make your second marriage actually your first marriage.

 

[Meowzltov]

Jesus did not actually say that.

Peter said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of sins."

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

A couple cannot know for sure whether their marriage was valid or not until the completion of the annulment process. Therefore FULL KNOWLEDGE, and thus the mortal sin of fornication, is impossible until the completion of the annulment process.

What does "full knowledge" have to do with anything?

 

[actionsub]

I think it won't be long before Churches will be legally required to perform same sex weddings in order to be able to issue marriage licenses, etc.

The state issues the marriage license, not the church.

 

[Meowzltov]

What does "full knowledge" have to do with anything?

It has to do with responsibility. There are three criteria for a mortal sin:
1. It must be a grave matter
2. The sinner must have full knowledge that they are sinning
3. They must sin with full consent

 

[Meowzltov]

The state issues the marriage license, not the church.

I'm saying the time will come that Catholics will be sacramentally married, but it will not be licensed by the state, because the Catholic Church will refuse to perform gay marriages.

 

[RDKirk]

The following passages lead me to believe that one is to stay in that marriage they find themselves wrongfully in and live godly lives in the humility that knowledge of wrongfulness before God should bring about.
I Timothy 5:14-15:
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Actually that passage provides a good reason why young divorcees should remarry.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It has to do with responsibility. There are three criteria for a mortal sin:
1. It must be a grave matter
2. The sinner must have full knowledge that they are sinning
3. They must sin with full consent

Seems like a purely juridical conception of sin. In Orthodoxy we ask for forgiveness of sins both intentional and unintentional, both known and in ignorance.

 

[RDKirk]

It looks like the worst California bill, the one that was going to stop scholarship funding, got stalled. However, another one passed:

Senate Bill 1146, by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, would shrink the number of religious colleges that qualify for religious exemptions. Also under SB 1146, colleges that receive federal religious exemptions would be required to publicize that fact to prospective students. Another bill, Assembly Bill 1888, by Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, failed to move out of committee. That bill proposed that the state withhold Cal Grant funding eligibility for colleges that violate state nondiscrimination laws. https://edsource.org/2016/californi...-that-seek-to-bar-transgender-students/564869

Bill 1146--the only one that passed the California legislature--says:

Both the federal and state laws do not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.

It does say the institution must fully advise the prospective student of the religious exemptions. Okay. Why would they not be glad to do so?

 

[Meowzltov]

Seems like a purely juridical conception of sin. In Orthodoxy we ask for forgiveness of sins both intentional and unintentional, both known and in ignorance.

Sure. I think there are advantages to both ways of thinking. We can learn from each other -- a really, really good reason why reunification is so important.

 

[Meowzltov]

Bill 1146--the only one that passed the California legislature--says:



It does say the institution must fully advise the prospective student of the religious exemptions. Okay. Why would they not be glad to do so?

It's a hassle.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Sure. I think there are advantages to both ways of thinking. We can learn from each other -- a really, really good reason why reunification is so important.

Catholics are too fixated on plurality. For instance, Syro-Malabar Catholics commemorate Nestorius as a saint, and have a liturgy ascribed to him. The Vatican says this is okay because the only thing that really matters is acknowledging the Pope is boss, and they do that so they're Catholic. To us, what really matters is having a common faith, that is what holds us together, not one see in particular. So our reunification is impossible, the Orthodox and the Catholics have radically different conceptions of unity. The Catholics look at us and say, "We don't need the common faith, just agree the Pope is boss." And we look at the Catholics and say, "We don't need one see as boss, just agree to the common faith." The Catholics are unhesitatingly willing to sacrifice the common faith to achieve submission to the Pope, and the Orthodox of course are unhesitatingly willing to sacrifice the See of Rome to keep common faith. We would no sooner bridge with the RCC to form a plural-faith Frankenstein of a Church, than the See of Rome would bridge with us if it meant agreeing the Pope is no higher office than the bishop next door. That's what Catholics don't get, their entire Anglicanesque strategy of unity-over-doctrine, is exactly the opposite of the Orthodox understanding of unity from doctrine, unity by doctrine, and unity in doctrine. Concerning Uniates, those who claim to be "Orthodox" yet submit to the Pope, the massive incoherence of their faith is readily demonstrated in their commemoration of Saint Mark of Ephesus, a man whose sole claim to fame was that he prevented the Orthodox Church from submitting to the Pope.

My tradition posits our way of thinking as the Apostolic way of thinking. As you might imagine, we don't see any point to having another way of thinking in addition.

 

[Vicomte13]

Peter said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of sins."

Yes, Peter said that. Jesus also said to repent. But Jesus said that you will be forgiven your sins to the extent that you forgive others. To the extent you do not, neither will you be forgiven.

For the most part, we baptize babies, who have not sinned. The baptism is behind. Then come the sins of life. We must indeed repent our sins. But repentance isn't what gives forgiveness, forgiveness gives forgiveness, according to Jesus.

 

[Vicomte13]

I'm saying the time will come that Catholics will be sacramentally married, but it will not be licensed by the state, because the Catholic Church will refuse to perform gay marriages.

That will be inconvenient. Essentially that's the setup in France, where you get married, officially, at town hall, and then you go have your church wedding if you want it. Or vice-versa.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Yes, Peter said that. Jesus also said to repent. But Jesus said that you will be forgiven your sins to the extent that you forgive others. To the extent you do not, neither will you be forgiven.

For the most part, we baptize babies, who have not sinned. The baptism is behind. Then come the sins of life. We must indeed repent our sins. But repentance isn't what gives forgiveness, forgiveness gives forgiveness, according to Jesus.

I believe you are partially correct because both repentance and baptism bring repentance.
I John 1:8-10:
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
and...
Psalm 51:17:
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
We can repent for lack of forgiveness toward our brother as well, yet all efforts should be made for that alone would be a broken and contrite heart. We can also pray that the Lord smooth a path for us to lead us to full forgiveness of a brother...teach us why and how to forgive in difficult situations.