# Divorce



## Huntinfool

Continuing on the marriage train...and per bullethead's request...


From your perspective, when is divorce "allowed"?  In other words, what constitutes a valid reason for divorce?

I word it like that due to the forum this is in.  If you are an athiest or agnostic, give me your perspective.  I assume you guys don't just think it's ok to divorce for any old reason whatsoever...but then again...

If you're a Christian, give me your perspective.  But please, for the love of Pete...justify your position biblically.

If your "other"...well let's have it.


----------



## Bama4me

Marriage, according to Romans 7:1-2, should be for life.  However, I don't believe the New Testament gives every reason why divorce can legitimately take place.  We read in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 that divorce can occur if "faith" is the issue.  What does "nonbelief" entail though?  I'd venture it includes situations of neglect/abuse/etc.  I'll will say, though, that's my opinion about the passage.

The question you ask, though, has a natural follow-up.  Just because divorce is granted, there is not always the possibility of remarriage to another.


----------



## Huntinfool

...that's a good follow-up.


_To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
	To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

(1 Corinthians 7:10-16 ESV)_

Here's what I believe about this passage based on my study.

Roman law permitted either a husband or a wife to initiate divorce for any reason or for no reason at all.  In 10 & 11, Paul speaks to believers and tells them that they are to follow the command of the Lord...



> the wife should not separate from her husband, and the husband should not divorce his wife.



What he is speaking to the married believers is, then "I know what man's law that you live under permits.  But I tell you that the Lord does not want you to divorce."  

Then he turns and speaks to believers who are (for lack of a better term) unequally yoked...or in a situation where one spouse is a believer and one isn't.  

Through vs 14, he gives the Lord's command, "You are not to divorce."...but leaves room to understand that if the un-believing partner desires it, legally, there is nothing the believing spouse can do to save the legal marriage...it will be dissolved.

Vs 15-16, then speak to what to do if the unbelieving partner decides to leave (i.e. abandonment without the consent of the believing spouse).  This is where there might be some disagreement.  I read this part and understand it to mean the the believing spouse is not to manipulate the situation and to allow the unbelieving spouse to leave if he/she chooses to do so.

Many believe, however, that this part of it (particularly the "not enslaved" part) means that it is ok to encourage the divorce or initiate it if the unbelieving spouse leaves.  I simply do not agree with that.

There are too many passages that tell me that a wife is bound to her husband until death (and vice versa).


----------



## grouper throat

Matthew 19:8  Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for *sexual immorality*, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 

I believe that is the only reason to divorce.


----------



## Huntinfool

But that passage is about re-marriage and adultery.  It addresses re-marriage after divorce.  Does it really permit divorce?  It's talking about re-marriage and saying that re-marriage is adultery unless adultery was the reason for divorce.  The passages, like the one above, that say "do not divorce" are pretty clear to me.  They lay out a case when a believer may be divorced (because the other spouse leaves..and they are to accept it).  But there is never an instance given when the believer is to initiate a divorce as far as I can tell.

If adultery is a valid reason for divorce, then can't we properly say that ALL Christian marriages could validly be ended given this...



> “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
> (Matthew 5:27 ESV)



...follow me?  It doesn't make sense that Jesus would say that we have all committed adultery (come on men...you know it's true) and then give permission for divorce based on adultery.

There are also contextual issues when you go back to the Deut passage that Jesus is referring to in which Moses was talking about divorce.

...and yes...I realize I'll be in the minority on this.  But I will say that I have put a lot of time and prayer into studying this particular issue.


----------



## Huntinfool

What about the non-Christians?  What are your thoughts on when you should and should not seek divorce?


----------



## rjcruiser

I'm not sure there is really ever a Biblical reason for divorce....I guess the only way would be if the spouse continues down a path of continued adultery and or continued abuse.


I guess I look at the prophet Hosea and his relationship with Gomer.


----------



## Bama4me

God desires that people get back to His original intent for mankind in marriage... that's why Jesus restated ideas found in Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:4-6.  That principle is simply "one man for one woman for life."

1 Corinthians 7 clearly indicates that a marriage can end (separate) with God's approval.  I don't believe we can find any clearcut requirements regarding which one will actually begin the process though.  In Matthew's account of the marriage/divorce/remarriage discussion, it was written from the standpoint of a man... probably due to the fact the account was primarily intended for Jews (rights of women were very few).  In Mark's account, it was written from the standpoint of a woman... probably because Mark was written for a Roman audience (had many more freedoms for women).

One of the most difficult things about 1 Corinthians 7 is to know the actual question the brethren had posed to Paul (see verse 1).  In Jesus' case, we know questions came from the Pharisees... and their exact nature.  I'm under the impression Paul was speaking to a specific situation where people were asking "what if I obey the gospel and my marriage partner doesn't... does that mean I must terminate the relationship?"  However, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Bottle Hunter

Bama4me said:


> Marriage, according to Romans 7:1-2, should be for life.  However, I don't believe the New Testament gives every reason why divorce can legitimately take place.  We read in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 that divorce can occur if "faith" is the issue.  What does "nonbelief" entail though?  I'd venture it includes situations of neglect/abuse/etc.  I'll will say, though, that's my opinion about the passage.
> 
> The question you ask, though, has a natural follow-up.  Just because divorce is granted, there is not always the possibility of remarriage to another.



 That thing about married for life.........it was written when one was married at 14 or younger and an 'old man at 40'.

 A marriage should be a 7 year contract. I've tried it....

#1 She was a drunk who could not keep here drawers on.
       Lasted 7 years.  
 Still see her often and we get along great. In fact had dinner w/ her the other week. #5 Has no problems w/ her calling or coming over.

#2 I could not keep my drawers on. 
      Lasted 5 years.
       Again see her often and call her every month or so to see how she is. We have known each other since the early 70s. We get along great. She hates #5 though.

 #3  Lack of affection. Look but don't touch. High high maintenance. What a looker she was.
        Lasted 2 years. We speak if we run into each other.

 #4 Psycho-mean-knife fighter- gambling addict.
        Lasted one year.......to the day. We get along as long as I can keep an eye on her, and she's 300 miles away.
       Boy could she cook though 

 #5 Catholic/Democrat w/ a Law Degree
        Don't get no better that this. A little to liberal for me,but......she does not gripe,complain,shout,raise her voice. I can do what ever I want.  Perfection. I guess it was worth going through all the others to get to this one.

   Going on 12 years now and not one argument.

 Some times a divorce is a good thing.


----------



## hummdaddy

Huntinfool said:


> What about the non-Christians?  What are your thoughts on when you should and should not seek divorce?



that's up to each couple . not my decision to tell someone what is right or wrong for them .


----------



## JB0704

Just for clarification from the Christians:

When y'all say no reason for divorce, does that mean if a spouse leaves and files for divorce you never consider yourself divorced regardless of whether or not the spouse gets remarried?  This is my original situation.

I agree with HD, we can't know what it is like inside another person's home, or what the whole truth is.  It is better to worry about our own marriage and work there, and it looks as if the "right" answer varies depending on who you ask.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Huntinfool said:


> If you are an athiest or agnostic, give me your perspective.  I assume you guys don't just think it's ok to divorce for any old reason whatsoever...but then again...



When both parties agree to a divorce, then it's okay.


----------



## GAGE

When a marriage has run it course and he,she, or both  wants out.  


Question for  the real bible scholars,   regardless of what the book says,  just your with pride, emotion, feelings and what not,  what do you feel it would take for you to opt for a  divorce?


----------



## polkhunt

in the case of adultery I think it is OK. I think what Jesus said was pretty clear even though if you are able to reconcile and move on I think that is OK too.


----------



## Huntinfool

GAGE said:


> When a marriage has run it course and he,she, or both  wants out.
> 
> 
> Question for  the real bible scholars,   regardless of what the book says,  just your with pride, emotion, feelings and what not,  what do you feel it would take for you to opt for a  divorce?



I don't think real Bible scholars will give you any answer that is contrary to what the book says...


----------



## Huntinfool

> 1 Corinthians 7 clearly indicates that a marriage can end (separate) with God's approval.



From a believer's perspective though, do you think a believer is ever allowed to initiate the divorce?


----------



## Ronnie T

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Matt 5: (Jesus said):  31 “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 

Matt 19: (Jesus said):  3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 

*It is God's ideal that none of His people ever divorce.  It is God's expectation that "His people" would live holy, married lives.
*It is the ideal.
But what if you wife or husband cheats on you once, then again, and then again?  You'll take advantage of the scripture and you'll divorce him/her.

I knew a dear Christian lady who spend her life with an abusive, drunken fool because she didn't think God would be happy with her if she divorced him.  So he mistreated her for over 50 years and tortured the two children they had.  Both of them are a mess now.

If you're living in the "ideal" marriage now, like I happen to be, you're attitude will be much different than one who's living Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- on earth.

It's a tough subject.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> From a believer's perspective though, do you think a believer is ever allowed to initiate the divorce?



Yes... I believe Matthew 19:9 clearly indicates that a Christian can initiate a divorce.


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> I knew a dear Christian lady who spend her life with an abusive, drunken fool because she didn't think God would be happy with her if she divorced him.  So he mistreated her for over 50 years and tortured the two children they had.  Both of them are a mess now.



Ronnie, I often wonder how some Christians can look at an individual in such a situation and tell them they can't do anything about it.  I have seen similar things happen.  From what I read (and I know I typically get clobbered over my interpretations) Jesus seemed to recognize the humanity of a situation.  For instance, my favorite story, the adulteress woman.  The law said she should be stoned, and Jesus turned it around on the accusers.  What is pertinent to me in that situation is that Jesus was sinless, but he still didn't follow the law.  He chose compassion.  Can we follow that template?


----------



## Ronnie T

JB0704 said:


> Ronnie, I often wonder how some Christians can look at an individual in such a situation and tell them they can't do anything about it.  I have seen similar things happen.  From what I read (and I know I typically get clobbered over my interpretations) Jesus seemed to recognize the humanity of a situation.  For instance, my favorite story, the adulteress woman.  The law said she should be stoned, and Jesus turned it around on the accusers.  What is pertinent to me in that situation is that Jesus was sinless, but he still didn't follow the law.  He chose compassion.  Can we follow that template?



Well, we all have to develop convictions.  And we need to be convicted to the things of God's holy scripture.  The adultrous woman story doesn't tell me that Jesus will forgive me if I commit adultery....... but it teaches me a lot about what I should consider before I pick up a handful of rock.
I have a tendency to want to throw the rocks.

All pastors who've never divorced believe a divorced person can never be a pastor.
All pastors who have divorced believe the other.

To not divorce is not the high mark we all should attain.
Living in a fruitful, Godly marriage is the mark.

Statistic say that a Christian is more likely than an unbeliever to seek a divorce after adultery.  Kinda odd.


----------



## mtnwoman

Huntinfool said:


> From a believer's perspective though, do you think a believer is ever allowed to initiate the divorce?




Possibly...well actually I think so.
My first husband was in viet nam...an alcoholic and a cheater. He was only with me because I loved him so much, not that he loved me, that I could enable him. I didn't drink or anything...clueless.

My 2nd husband (this ain't lookin' good is it..lol) was a rock musician who was faithful and fun to be married to, live with, travel with, get high with it. When he started selling coke about 10 yrs in the relation ship, I had to go...he cheated with coke ho ho ho's and put my kid and I in a bad situation.

Am I justified? If i'm not am I forgiven? Yes! It all leads back to the cross.

I still ask Why Lord Why?


----------



## GAGE

mtnwoman said:


> Possibly...well actually I think so.
> My first husband was in viet nam...an alcoholic and a cheater. He was only with me because I loved him so much, not that he loved me, that I could enable him. I didn't drink or anything...clueless.
> 
> My 2nd husband (this ain't lookin' good is it..lol) was a rock musician who was faithful and fun to be married to, live with, travel with, get high with it. When he started selling coke about 10 yrs in the relation ship, I had to go...he cheated with coke ho ho ho's and put my kid and I in a bad situation.
> 
> Am I justified? If i'm not am I forgiven? Yes! It all leads back to the cross.
> 
> I still ask Why Lord Why?



Regardless of what the bible says, I think you did the right thing.
But a question for the scholars,   according to the bible,  was Mtn Women justified in getting a divorce?


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> The adultrous woman story doesn't tell me that Jesus will forgive me if I commit adultery....... but it teaches me a lot about what I should consider before I pick up a handful of rock.



Right, but Jesus did not obey the law either.  The "law" said the woman should be stoned.  Jesus seemed to recognize a "grey" area, and opted for a compassionate approach as opposed to a legalistic "by the letter" approach.  See, Jesus was without sin, and he didn't throw the first stone either.


----------



## vowell462

That should be up to each couple and each situation. The bible would play absolutley no roll in it if it were me.


----------



## Michael F. Gray

The problem with the question is you are trying to make Biblical truth fit your personal situation. I observed a sign in front of a Church this week that read, "We don't change the Bible, but the Bible will change you." One aspect that has been omited from the discussion is Biblical history and Hebrew customs. While it is true, and recorded that Moses commanded to give a writing of divorcement,it is also true the husband of that woman was expected to support her and any children she bore him in the same fashion for the remainder of their lives as if the divorce had not occured. In fact, in the Hebrew culture we are told he that looks not out for his own is worse than an infidel. How many men do you know who do this in todays culture? I am aware some pay court ordered child support. I submit that is not the same thing. I can however, give you a good definition of real LOVE. Perhaps the most abused word in our language. In the Greek at least seven words define differing aspects of "love", but in English there is but one word. The definition, .."One man and one woman together for life until parted by death."


----------



## Bama4me

GAGE said:


> Regardless of what the bible says, I think you did the right thing.
> But a question for the scholars,   according to the bible,  was Mtn Women justified in getting a divorce?


 
Personally, I'm not going to comment on her situation... because she has not asked anyone to do so.  She stated her situation in order to answer a question someone had posed.  IMO, it would be poor taste.


----------



## GAGE

Bama4me said:


> Personally, I'm not going to comment on her situation... because she has not asked anyone to do so.  She stated her situation in order to answer a question someone had posed.  IMO, it would be poor taste.



While I completely agree, there may be others (based on biblical writings and beliefs) who do not,  and I wanted to hear their thoughts. 
  Hypothetically of course,  take her name from the situation,  while using  the same circumstances,  according to the bible,  would a divorce be accepted? 


Thank you mtnwoman for sharing your experience.


----------



## christianhunter

Well I guess I'm a Christian living in permenant sin!
I'm divorced from my first wife,after two attempts.I also waited and tried to reconcile after those two attemts,for 15 years.I dated and fornicated,when the lonliness got to be overbaring.It is easily said,if you are a "true" believer you can live in abstinance,until reconciled or remarried,well I could not.I waited 15 years,would date,be guilt ridden,and then not date and be lonely.It became apparent that my first wife was never going to take me back.

I have been happily married to my second wife 11 years.I wasn't married to my first wife 4 years,and that was with two attempts.I dare any self-righteous person to tell me,THE LORD does not condone my marriage.Or try to show me Scripture where I might be wrong,and yes she committed adultry on me the first time around.Before I remarried I talked to several pastors,as I did when I fornicated during the single years.I'm a Baptist,not a Catholic,but I had to confess the burden of guilt to someone,along with THE LORD.Now you know the rest of my story!!!


----------



## Ronnie T

GAGE said:


> While I completely agree, there may be others (based on biblical writings and beliefs) who do not,  and I wanted to hear their thoughts.
> Hypothetically of course,  take her name from the situation,  while using  the same circumstances,  according to the bible,  would a divorce be accepted?
> 
> 
> Thank you mtnwoman for sharing your experience.



No matter how you look at it, you're gonna make this personal.
I'll say this.  There's nothing in anyone's past that God will not forgive.


----------



## Huntinfool

mtnwoman said:


> Am I justified? If i'm not am I forgiven? Yes! It all leads back to the cross.



Annie....I'm adjusting this post.  If you read it and read condemnation...I apologize.  It was not intended.

I was simply trying to answer your questions from a biblical perspective.  

Indeed, you are forgiven.  Grace covers all.


----------



## Huntinfool

christianhunter said:


> I dare any self-righteous person to tell me,THE LORD does not condone my marriage.Or try to show me Scripture where I might be wrong,and yes she committed adultry on me the first time around.



I think you know my heart well enough to know that I dont' condemn you.  What a tough situation to live through.  I won't even pretend I can understand how hard that was.

But...you also know my position on the issue.  The first part of your post said something like "well I guess I'm living in permanent sin".  That's, of course, not true.  We live under grace.  Divorce is no worse a sin than anything I've ever done...and I'm forgiven...and so are you buddy.

I just happen to believe, after a long time studying the issue, that there is no biblical justification for divorce.  I do understand the difficulties in life that it implies.  But I can't understand the realities of how difficult that is.

I do understand that I'm in the minority on that especially when it comes to adultery.  

I wouldn't tell you that the Lord doesn't condone your current marriage.


----------



## Milkman

JB0704 said:


> Just for clarification from the Christians:
> 
> When y'all say no reason for divorce, does that mean if a spouse leaves and files for divorce you never consider yourself divorced regardless of whether or not the spouse gets remarried?  This is my original situation.
> 
> I agree with HD, we can't know what it is like inside another person's home, or what the whole truth is.  It is better to worry about our own marriage and work there, and it looks as if the "right" answer varies depending on who you ask.



Maybe I missed it but did anyone who claims to not believe in divorce ever respond to this?    If your spouse leaves are you going to remain alone, celibate, and consider yourself still married to someone who is gone............. Be honest and remember God is reading what you type too.


----------



## bullethead

I asked a priest once how does the church view divorce? He gave me all the text book responses. Then I asked him about annulment and got the " only in Very Special cases and rarely does the church in the eyes of God allow for such things to happen" he went on to explain the process. I asked the priest about having children out of wedlock..."oh that is strictly frowned up by the church and god"

I then said well maybe could explain this scenario to me a little clearer. There was a man and a woman, married in church that got a divorce years later. The man finds another woman he wants to marry but to marry her in the church he must have never been married before in the eyes of God. So through that lengthy (ahem....quick exchange of 2 grand for an annulment within a week) annulment process he and his new bride are fine to be married according to the laws of god and the church. The man is now a church going choir member that attends every week and is well respected within his church. The Priest is nodding his head in agreement and seemingly happy to hear the happy ending about such an outstanding member of a congregation.... I asked him about the first woman though....I said how is she viewed now, what is her stance? He said she is considered never to have been married in the eyes of the church and God, a clean slate. I asked well what happens if the man has children with a woman other than his current wife? The Priest shook his head in disappointment saying that is not at all Okay..cutting him off  I asked if those children are a member of the church then too....he said absolutely not and as far as the church is concerned they do not exist like the first marriage never existed and could join a church with the mother. I said well then MAYBE you can explain ME and my SISTER and how we stack up in the eyes of the church and God. How can I stand here before you and not exist in your eyes? 

His reply: "You obviously do not want to convert"


----------



## Huntinfool

> Maybe I missed it but did anyone who claims to not believe in divorce ever respond to this? If your spouse leaves are you going to remain alone, celibate, and consider yourself still married to someone who is gone............. Be honest and remember God is reading what you type too.



I think I'm the only permanence guy here so far.

My view is that there is never a case in which God approves a believer initiating a divorce.  In the case of one spouse leaving the other and "forcing" the divorce legally speaking, we are not to fight that process and are to live in peace from that point.  

In my view, we can accept divorce.  But we are not to initiate it....ever.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I think I'm the only permanence guy here so far.
> 
> My view is that there is never a case in which God approves a believer initiating a divorce.  In the case of one spouse leaving the other and "forcing" the divorce legally speaking, we are not to fight that process and are to live in peace from that point.
> 
> In my view, we can accept divorce.  But we are not to initiate it....ever.




But what about post-divorce?  Is the one who is left supposed to remain unmarried?  I'm going to be honest with you HF, I never asked forgiveness for my first marriage ending.  One day I came home from a hunting trip and her stuff was gone.  What was I supposed to do, sit around and cry about my loss and feel bad for a "sin" I didn't commit?


----------



## bullethead

It's all about you can't do this and you can't do that and the Bible says this is a sin and if you do that it is also a sin......but you will be forgiven in the end. So why worry?


----------



## Huntinfool

That's why I said "In my view, we can accept divorce..."

We can only control ourselves and the government can force divorce on us.  There is nothing we can do in that regard.  If one spouse leaves, we are not to press the issue. 

That's this part of the 1 Cor passage:



> But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.



If the unbelieving spouse leaves, let it be so.  You are not enslaved.  But it says nothing about a believer seperating.  I think that's where most folks miss it.  The believer is never given cause or excuse to leave.

If your unbelieving spouse left, you are free from that marriage as far as I can tell.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> If your unbelieving spouse left, you are free from that marriage as far as I can tell.



And I thank God for that.


----------



## WTM45

Why can't one simply believe their creator gave them a brain and expects them to use it?

If it ain't working, for whatever reasons, make the changes necessary and go on with your life.  It's really that simple.


----------



## Huntinfool

One can....but they cannot be a follower of Christ.

If you are a follower of Christ and believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God revealed to us, then you must follow what it says...and it does not say "if it ain't working, for whatever reasons, make the changes necessary and go on with your life."

Well, now that I think of it...it actually does.  But it does not say, "if it ain't working, get a divorce."  

There are very clear relational principles in the Bible that tell us what changes are necessary that will heal marriages.  Those are the necessary changes.  Difficult?  Yep.  Amazing in their results?  You got it.


----------



## WTM45

If one believes in and expects miracles, then yes.
But it's a fact there are some things that simply will not change for the positive without "divine intervention."  Not using one's better judgement by failing to take action is akin to a starving man waiting for their Lord to provide falling manna from heaven.
It might not happen.
But I can concede it might.  It's just not very probable or worth betting on.


----------



## Huntinfool

I have seen too many marriages that were on the brink of destruction (or already "destroyed") be recovered, restored and enjoyed in much greater fashion than ever before to believe what you just posted.

Those experiences coupled with the fact that the Bible tells me clearly that relationships can and will be restored if we are willing to do the hard stuff, tell me that what you posted is what you believe....but it is not necessarily the truth.

A divorce is a way out of what is currently a bad situation.  It says nothing of the possibility of change for the positive.  That will never be known in any divorce.


----------



## JB0704

As I pointed out in previous comments in this thread, I believe there is a lot more "grey" areas than you give credit for HF.  Some folks should never get married to start with.  I think there is plenty of scripture to back up a belief that God wants us to live in peace.  Staying married for no other reason than to "glorify God" might actually accomplish the opposite.


----------



## bullethead

WTM45 said:


> Why can't one simply believe their creator gave them a brain and expects them to use it?
> 
> If it ain't working, for whatever reasons, make the changes necessary and go on with your life.  It's really that simple.



Because the Bible is full of ancient Jewish laws that people today think are God's commands. They refuse to separate the two despite one totally being the work of ancient man in ancient times trying to use religion to rule/guide the people.
The same people that adhere strongly to those words totally dismiss other commands in the Bible, saying they are outdated. It always boils down to a matter of picking and choosing what fits each individual and that individual trying to justify it through scripture to judge others. No one here uses all the words, commands, and laws in the Bible exactly as it is written to cover every situation. Only the ones that fit their individual tastes.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> A divorce is a way out of what is currently a bad situation.  It says nothing of the possibility of change for the positive.  That will never be known in any divorce.



And how long do they have to wait?  And if help never comes, do they live in misery?

I am sure you have heard the story about a man in a flood stranded on a roof constantly turning boats away claiming "God will save me," only to realize that the boat was God's assistance.  Maybe divorce is God's assistance to those who are suffering.


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> As I pointed out in previous comments in this thread, I believe there is a lot more "grey" areas than you give credit for HF.  Some folks should never get married to start with.  I think there is plenty of scripture to back up a belief that God wants us to live in peace.  Staying married for no other reason than to "glorify God" might actually accomplish the opposite.



JB, there is no option BUT a positive outcome if you "just glorify God".  You posted that as if glorifying God might be drudgery and not fulfilling ultimately.


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> And how long do they have to wait?  And if help never comes, do they live in misery?
> 
> I am sure you have heard the story about a man in a flood stranded on a roof constantly turning boats away claiming "God will save me," only to realize that the boat was God's assistance.  Maybe divorce is God's assistance to those who are suffering.



Maybe....but can you show me whether that thought holds water scripturally?  Can you show me where God presents divorce as "the boat"?  That is the ultimate litmus test for it.  It doesn't matter what we want the truth to be.  If it's biblical, then we can trust it.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> JB, there is no option BUT a positive outcome if you "just glorify God".  You posted that as if glorifying God might be drudgery and not fulfilling ultimately.



Tell that to Job's first set of kids.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Maybe....but can you show me whether that thought holds water scripturally?  Can you show me where God presents divorce as "the boat"?  That is the ultimate litmus test for it.  It doesn't matter what we want the truth to be.  If it's biblical, then we can trust it.



Romans 12:18.

Until you have literally plucked your eyes out for offending you, I think you may want to consider that there is a little grey in there.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> I have seen too many marriages that were on the brink of destruction (or already "destroyed") be recovered, restored and enjoyed in much greater fashion than ever before to believe what you just posted.
> 
> Those experiences coupled with the fact that the Bible tells me clearly that relationships can and will be restored if we are willing to do the hard stuff, tell me that what you posted is what you believe....but it is not necessarily the truth.
> 
> A divorce is a way out of what is currently a bad situation.  It says nothing of the possibility of change for the positive.  That will never be known in any divorce.



Knowing the commonly accepted research provides the data to prove the odds are much greater AGAINST reconciliation, divorces themselves prove to be the "good" outcome in the greater percentage.
It ain't what I believe, it is documented factual evidence gathered by widely accepted authorities. 

It's quite alright for one to stick to their religious influences, as they have that individual right.  I think it is prudent to defer to the subject matter experts and legal authorities after attempts at secular or spiritual counseling fail.


----------



## Huntinfool

So you believe what?  That there are times when glorifying God is not a good thing, or does not turn out well for the believer?


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> Romans 12:18.
> 
> Until you have literally plucked your eyes out for offending you, I think you may want to consider that there is a little grey in there.



Not sure I understand the pluck your eyes out thing...

But 12:18 says live at peace with everyone if it's possible.  How, exactly, are you ending up with "Get a divorce...it's my lifeline that I've provided you."?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> So you believe what?  That there are times when glorifying God is not a good thing, or does not turn out well for the believer?



I am saying that what glorifies God might not be what HF says it is.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Not sure I understand the pluck your eyes out thing...
> 
> But 12:18 says live at peace with everyone if it's possible.  How, exactly, are you ending up with "Get a divorce...it's my lifeline that I've provided you."?



The pluck the eyes out thing: Jesus says to pluck them out if they offend you.  He clearly was not meaning literally, or surely you would have done so.

Sometimes it is only possible to live at peace if you get a divorce.  My first marriage is a primary example.  I am very happy and at peace now because that woman left.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> Knowing the commonly accepted research provides the data to prove the odds are much greater AGAINST reconciliation, divorces themselves prove to be the "good" outcome in the greater percentage.
> It ain't what I believe, it is documented factual evidence gathered by widely accepted authorities.
> 
> It's quite alright for one to stick to their religious influences, as they have that individual right.  I think it is prudent to defer to the subject matter experts and legal authorities after attempts at secular or spiritual counseling fail.



You're right....there are MOUNDS of evidence that show that single parent homes are great for kids and their success.  There are TONS of studies that show that kids who grow up without a dad end up being the most well-adjusted and successful children.  There are LOTS of studies that show that the emotional scarring from a divorce doesn't affect most people later in life.  There are TONS of studies that show that second, third fourth marriages end up with success ratios higher than first marriages.....right?

There are greater odds against reconciliation statiscally speaking.  But it is not because reconcilliation is not possible in most cases.  It is because, most of the time, there is no effort made to reconcile.  Life got tough?  Quit!  It's the American way.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> So you believe what?  That there are times when glorifying God is not a good thing, or does not turn out well for the believer?



That is so subjective and open to interpretation it can not possibly be commonly agreed upon.  Continuance of a broken relationship without true love and dedication simply for the sake of "appearances" or to "abide" could be a BIG NEGATIVE in how their children are influenced in their formative years of learning to develop and maintain proper relationships.
Many cases are generational in nature.

Please note I did not supress or minimalize the important first steps of counseling.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> You're right....there are MOUNDS of evidence that show that single parent homes are great for kids and their success.  There are TONS of studies that show that kids who grow up without a dad end up being the most well-adjusted and successful children.



My kid spent many years without a mom.  He was better off for it.  Any parent is not always better than no parent.  It varies with the situation.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Sometimes it is only possible to live at peace if you get a divorce. My first marriage is a primary example. I am very happy and at peace now because that woman left.



I will take your word for it.

I don't agree with your statement that, in some cases, it is only possible to live at peace with someone if you get a divorce.  I know that is how you feel and I won't try to tell you how to feel.

I fear, though, that we too often try to make scripture fit our life experiences so that we (and I do mean we....me included) feel no conviction over our past.


----------



## Huntinfool

> That is so subjective and open to interpretation it can not possibly be commonly agreed upon. Continuance of a broken relationship without true love and dedication simply for the sake of "appearances" or to "abide" could be a BIG NEGATIVE in how their children are influenced in their formative years of learning to develop and maintain proper relationships.
> Many cases are generational in nature.



There are very clear relational priciples in the Bible.  Can every marriage be saved?  I don't know.

What I do know is that in the many many instances in which I've seen both parties admit fault and then apply those principles, every single marriage has been saved.

Yes, absolutely, it requires both parties participate.  I suppose my point is that scriptures simply tells us to wait until the other party is ready.  Married believers are clearly told to stay in marriage when the spouse is not a believer.  The spouse is made holy by being in the marriage with the believer as are the kids.  

Eventually, you can only deal with "your stuff".  But when you apply biblical principles for relationships, the other party is always positively affected.  Whether the marriage can be save, I don't know.


----------



## Huntinfool

> My kid spent many years without a mom. He was better off for it. Any parent is not always better than no parent. It varies with the situation.



Again...I'm glad your situation is working out well.  


I wish you wouldn't take everything I say so personally.  I am not condemning you or your family.


----------



## JB0704

Well, at least we are ending this one amicably.  I don't feel conviction over this area of my past.  I know the effort I put into it, and I know sometimes you just have to trust God is more reasonable than man's interpretations can be, which is why I mentioned the eyes thing.  I think God never intended for people to live in horrible marriages, or to subject their children to such, just like he didn't literally mean for us to pull out our eyes.


----------



## WTM45

HF, you have a job security that is second only to the undertaker.
I wish you continued success and hope you find great fulfillment in your calling and work.  I know it is quite demanding and can be emotionally draining.  I just can't see 100% continued success, as it goes against the established factual results.
If so, you have to write a book and hit the lecture circuit!  You have found something that will change the entire world!


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I wish you wouldn't take everything I say so personally.



My persective and experience are the only one's I have.


----------



## Huntinfool

> You have found something that will change the entire world!



Amen my friend....amen.


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> I am saying that what glorifies God might not be what HF says it is.



That's probably more true than you know!  Apparently I mess stuff up all the time.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> I think I'm the only permanence guy here so far.
> 
> My view is that there is never a case in which God approves a believer initiating a divorce.  In the case of one spouse leaving the other and "forcing" the divorce legally speaking, we are not to fight that process and are to live in peace from that point.
> 
> In my view, we can accept divorce.  But we are not to initiate it....ever.



Then you are not a Bible studier and believer in the Bible!
The Bible says there is only one reason that a Christian can divorce a mate and then remarry.  That reason is adultery.  Sinning against the marriage.
If a wife cheats on her husband, that person is permitted to divorce them, and that person is permitted to remarry.

All under the approval of God!
Maybe not under the approval of all men, but surely God.


----------



## bullethead

What are the woman's rights to a divorce according to the Bible?


----------



## rjcruiser

Huntinfool said:


> In my view, we can accept divorce.  But we are not to initiate it....ever.



I'd agree up to a point.  If a person is in harms way, then initation might be the only option.



Huntinfool said:


> I fear, though, that we too often try to make scripture fit our life experiences so that we (and I do mean we....me included) feel no conviction over our past.



Too true.



Ronnie T said:


> Then you are not a Bible studier and believer!
> The Bible says there is only one reason that a Christian can divorce a mate and then remarry.  That reason is adultery.  Sinning against the marriage.
> If a wife cheats on her husband, that person is permitted to divorce them, and that person is permitted to remarry.
> 
> All under the approval of God!
> Maybe not under the approval of all men, but surely God.



Not sure about that.  Aren't we to forgive?  So, if a person commits adultery, then repents, should they not be forgiven?  

Now, if it is a lifestyle and no change is shown, I agree with your stance above.

Also, I think divorce is shown as a negative when you look at the requirements of elders/pastors as well.  Husband of one wife etc etc.

This is a dificult issue, not one that has a cut & dry one size fits all answer.  Like HF pointed out above, we try and justify our own experiences and apply them to everyone else.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> What are the woman's rights to a divorce according to the Bible?



Same as a man's.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Same as a man's.



Verses?


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Verses?



Read through this thread....there are plenty already posted above.

Or...continue trolling with your agenda.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> From my view...oh nevermind...I've already said it.
> 
> I'm not a bible believer anymore.  You don't want to know what I think.



I wouldn't have asked if I did not want to know. I had a hard time finding verses that dealt specifically with a woman's side of divorce. I have not looked in many years though so I am wondering if the writings were geared towards Man/Men.


----------



## Ronnie T

Someone needs to quote some scriptures.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Read through this thread....there are plenty already posted above.
> 
> Or...continue trolling with your agenda.



RJ, I did read through them, didn't see anything that is specific to a woman. Don't troll with your agenda if you don't want others to troll with theirs.
Flat out, Divorce is geared towards the Man in the Bible.


----------



## Huntinfool

bullethead said:


> I wouldn't have asked if I did not want to know. I had a hard time finding verses that dealt specifically with a woman's side of divorce. I have not looked in many years though so I am wondering if the writings were geared towards Man/Men.



RJ's point (I think) was that there is no specification between men and women in the NT especially.

The passages that address divorce speak of believer and non-believer.  So there is no special right given to men or women in divorce.

We are told how believers are to deal with the issue....and many of those verses have been posted in the thread.  Do you see something that shows different?


----------



## bullethead

I found this online, thoughts?

http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/index.php?file=article&name=News&sid=121


----------



## Huntinfool

> I'd agree up to a point. If a person is in harms way, then initation might be the only option.



I suppose my response to this would be, though....there is nothing that says you have to physically reside under the same roof to remain married, right?

Physically or emotionally dangerous situations should be reacted to.  No doubt.  Removal from the environment is an option, no?


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> RJ, I did read through them, didn't see anything that is specific to a woman. Don't troll with your agenda if you don't want others to troll with theirs.
> Flat out, Divorce is geared towards the Man in the Bible.



Boy...you showed your hand pretty quickly.  

You don't play much poker...do you?


My answer was short and to the point, but it didn't line up with your agenda....trying to show that Christianity is anti-woman and sexist.  

That just isn't there....as much as you'd like it to be, it just isn't there.


----------



## Huntinfool

> I found this online, thoughts?
> 
> http://www.christianmarriage.com/hom...e=News&sid=121



I'll have to read the whole thing.  But it's interesting that the entire argument is based on Exodus and Leviticus....and then there's a Matthew reference thrown in as a footnote essentially.

I think he's misunderstanding what he thinks he understands.  Many who read this thread will say the same of me though.






....oh....and what RJ just said too.  I knew the "the Bible is sexist" thing was coming.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Boy...you showed your hand pretty quickly.
> 
> You don't play much poker...do you?
> 
> 
> My answer was short and to the point, but it didn't line up with your agenda....trying to show that Christianity is anti-woman and sexist.
> 
> That just isn't there....as much as you'd like it to be, it just isn't there.



I just want to point out what the Bible does and does not say.

Time to lay your cards(verses) down and show us what you got. According to you I'm "All In".


----------



## Huntinfool

> Wow.
> 
> HF, watch out for the curveball on the outside corner of the plate. It always follows a fastball under the chin.




I know.  I've got an extra ear guard on my helmet and a Barry Bonds like forearm guard.  No worries.

If only the steroids helped me hit homers.


----------



## Huntinfool

rjcruiser said:


> HF....you need to ask Jesus into your heart....walk the aisle, sign the card...get on the church roll.
> 
> Then you'll be a Bible studier and a believer.



I did all that when I was a kid....






...then I had an experience with God many years later...on a bathroom floor....and it was WAY better than the alter in that old Methodist church way back when.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> I just want to point out what the Bible does and does not say.
> 
> Time to lay your cards(verses) down and show us what you got. According to you I'm "All In".





Within the first 5 posts in this thread.



Bama4me said:


> Marriage, according to Romans 7:1-2, should be for life.  However, I don't believe the New Testament gives every reason why divorce can legitimately take place.  We read in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 that divorce can occur if "faith" is the issue.  What does "nonbelief" entail though?  I'd venture it includes situations of neglect/abuse/etc.  I'll will say, though, that's my opinion about the passage.





Huntinfool said:


> ...that's a good follow-up.
> 
> 
> _To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
> To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
> 
> (1 Corinthians 7:10-16 ESV)_





grouper throat said:


> Matthew 19:8  Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for *sexual immorality*, and marries another woman commits adultery.”




I'd say that is 4 of a kind....Ace high.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> If only the steroids helped me hit homers.





I've heard they do help with "bearing a cross" but both the cross itself and the steroids have some serious side effects!


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> I think I'm the only permanence guy here so far.
> 
> My view is that there is never a case in which God approves a believer initiating a divorce.  In the case of one spouse leaving the other and "forcing" the divorce legally speaking, we are not to fight that process and are to live in peace from that point.
> 
> In my view, we can accept divorce.  But we are not to initiate it....ever.



Nope... I'm all for people marrying one another with the condition of "till death do us part."  In Matthew 19:9, is Jesus not saying that whoever divorces his wife for the act of adultery is justified in marrying another?  If two believers are in a marriage and one commits adultery, is not the other allowed to divorce?  If this isn't what you get from the passage, I'm not sure how you're arriving at another conclusion.


----------



## Huntinfool

Actually that middle passage shows very clearly that women and men had the power to initiate divorce at the time.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Within the first 5 posts in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that is 4 of a kind....Ace high.



Still waiting to see it says what reasons a wife can divorce her husband. You gave great examples geared towards why a man can. Check to you Mr. Brunson.


----------



## Huntinfool

Bama4me said:


> Nope... I'm all for people marrying one another with the condition of "till death do us part."  In Matthew 19:9, is Jesus not saying that whoever divorces his wife for the act of adultery is justified in marrying another?  If two believers are in a marriage and one commits adultery, is not the other allowed to divorce?  If this isn't what you get from the passage, I'm not sure how you're arriving at another conclusion.



Well, I suppose now would be a good time for me to explain it better then, huh?  I did a little bit earlier in the thread.  But I'll make it more clear shortly.

Right now, I'm starving.  So I'm gonna grab some lunch..then I'll head back and explain where I'm coming from.

The short answer is, no, I don't think that is what it says.  I'll explain why shortly.


----------



## bullethead

Huntinfool said:


> Actually that middle passage shows very clearly that women and men had the power to initiate divorce at the time.



Separate or Divorce?


----------



## Huntinfool

> _If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him._



Uhhhh.....bullethead.  Did you read this part?


----------



## Ronnie T

Matthew 5:32 Jesus said:
 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:9
 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery .”

*Now here's what Paul says in 1Cor 7.  All of Paul's comments are in response to some questions the church in Corinth asked him.  I don't know what the questions were, we only have the answers.

1. “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.

11. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 

 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances;

Paul's comments seem confusing to many people today.  Probably because he's answering specific questions which we aren't prevy to.
From a legalistic point of view, Paul could be saying that a woman can divorce, but a man can't.  Paul obviously isn't actually saying that to us.
But, this is what the NT says concerning divorce and divorce and remarriage.


----------



## rjcruiser

bullethead said:


> Still waiting to see it says what reasons a wife can divorce her husband. You gave great examples geared towards why a man can. Check to you Mr. Brunson.





Wow.  all I can say is wow.

You must have a tough time with application of scripture if you read every word as literal.  

As I've said many times before, context context context.  I'm guessing you don't get context....rather you twist what you read to further your own trolling agenda.


----------



## WTM45

Can't be right.  It ain't the KJV!

In all seriousness, that passage does not seem to condone nor condemn divorce itself.  It simply introduces the concept of another transgression/sin, adultery.

That's OK though, isn't all forgiven simply through one's asking for forgiveness?  Is it not accepted that humans are weak and will transgress/sin and that is accepted?  All is forgiven if one simply asks?
Maybe adultery is a little bit lower on the sin scale than murder!


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> But, this is what the NT says concerning divorce and divorce and remarriage.



How do you feel forgiveness should play into the "adultery clause?"


----------



## Bama4me

bullethead said:


> RJ, I did read through them, didn't see anything that is specific to a woman. Don't troll with your agenda if you don't want others to troll with theirs.
> *Flat out, Divorce is geared towards the Man in the Bible*.



Don't know how you can come up with this idea based on a thorough study of divorce in the New Testament.  In Mark 10:11-12, the "case in question" obviously includes things from a woman's standpoint. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, we see both sides "equally represented again"... whether you are a woman or man, Paul addressed both sides of the coin (with equal rights applying).

Maybe what causes you to lean towards this idea is the fact Matthew's account is written solely from the side of a man divorcing his wife.  Matthew, in considering the entire book, was addressing a Jewish audience... and in the 1st Century Jewish community, women didn't have the right to pursue litigation against her husband.  If I remember my research correctly, she had to bring any matter to the elders of her city... and they would pursue the matter on her behalf.  Thus, in writing to a Jewish audience, there wasn't a need to include that side.  The book of Mark, however, was written to a Roman audience... to a culture of people where women could often pursue a legal matter against a man.  Thus, the inclusion of the woman's side in Mark's account... and also in the Corinthian letter.


----------



## rjcruiser

WTM45 said:


> Can't be right.  It ain't the KJV!


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Heck, apparently I'm not a Bible studier or believer because of the issue.



Not fun being on the other side of this accusation, is it HF.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> Not fun being on the other side of this accusation, is it HF.



Has anyone accused you of being a non-Christian?

I've not read it yet...I know some have questioned your beliefs....but blatantly called you a non-Christian?

There was a short time ago that posts like that would get you banded.


----------



## WTM45

Bama4me said:


> Don't know how you can come up with this idea based on a thorough study of divorce in the New Testament.  In Mark 10:11-12, the "case in question" obviously includes things from a woman's standpoint. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, we see both sides "equally represented again"... whether you are a woman or man, Paul addressed both sides of the coin (with equal rights applying).
> 
> Maybe what causes you to lean towards this idea is the fact Matthew's account is written solely from the side of a man divorcing his wife.  Matthew, in considering the entire book, was addressing a Jewish audience... and in the 1st Century Jewish community, women didn't have the right to pursue litigation against her husband.  If I remember my research correctly, she had to bring any matter to the elders of her city... and they would pursue the matter on her behalf.  Thus, in writing to a Jewish audience, there wasn't a need to include that side.  The book of Mark, however, was written to a Roman audience... to a culture of people where women could often pursue a legal matter against a man.  Thus, the inclusion of the woman's side in Mark's account... and also in the Corinthian letter.



According to some (many fundamentalists), God set the man as the head of the household, so the man is the ultimate authority and decisionmaker.  Women have their place in the family, in the church, in the community and it is quite often said to be in the kitchen.


----------



## rjcruiser

WTM45 said:


> According to some (many fundamentalists), God set the man as the head of the household, so the man is the ultimate authority and decisionmaker.  Women have their place in the family, in the church, in the community and it is quite often said to be in the kitchen.



While your first sentence is correct, your second is very much based on assumption and stereotype.

Like saying everyone in the south marries their sister.  Just ain't the case.


----------



## WTM45

rjcruiser said:


> Has anyone accused you of being a non-Christian?
> 
> I've not read it yet...I know some have questioned your beliefs....but blatantly called you a non-Christian?
> 
> There was a short time ago that posts like that would get you banded.



Makes one scratch their head, huh?


----------



## WTM45

rjcruiser said:


> While your first sentence is correct, your second is very much based on assumption and stereotype.
> 
> Like saying everyone in the south marries their sister.  Just ain't the case.



My friend, it is a fact and I lived it growing up in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist household in Gwinnett County Georgia.  It is still held as gospel by my parents and their siblings, with my Grandparents holding the very same beliefs until the day they died and were buried in the GA clay.


----------



## rjcruiser

WTM45 said:


> My friend, it is a fact and I lived it growing up in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist household in Gwinnett County Georgia.  It is still held as gospel by my parents and their siblings, with my Grandparents holding the very same beliefs until the day they died and were buried in the GA clay.



Not really.

Look at Michelle Bachman...she was crucified by the press for being "under submission" of her husband.

I agree that wives are to submit to their husbands authority...but husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church....laying down their lives for their wife.

How does that fit with your quote above?


----------



## WTM45

I'm not defending the interpretation of fundamentalists, nor am I stating all believers or even all fundamentalists hold the same interpretation.
Certainly all do not live by that interpretation even if they believe it.

I simply know it is real, and it is easy to find those who hold firm to the idea that the man controls everything in their households.
Everything.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> Well, I suppose now would be a good time for me to explain it better then, huh?  I did a little bit earlier in the thread.  But I'll make it more clear shortly.
> 
> Right now, I'm starving.  So I'm gonna grab some lunch..then I'll head back and explain where I'm coming from.
> 
> The short answer is, no, I don't think that is what it says.  I'll explain why shortly.



I read your post earlier (#5)... but don't follow your line of reasoning.  The issue discussed by Jesus is not simply one of remarriage... it's one of divorce and remarriage.

The words of Christ in Matthew 19:9 was part of Jesus' answer to the Pharisees question in verse 7... which was a response to Jesus' comments in verse 6.  In essence, the Pharisees were asking "if man is not supposed to be separating what God joins together, why did the law of Moses allow people to legally divorce?"  To them, they had Jesus in a question that wasn't easily answered.

Christ's answer consisted of two things.  First, He told them "why"... the law of Moses permitted it because of the hardness of people's hearts.  Second, He initiated a policy that would be part of "His law"... the law of the Lord Jesus (which governs our lives today).  This new law?  "Whoever (1) divorces his wife except for the reason of adultery and (2) remarries another commits adultery."

In the answer, notice the condition.  IF divorce occurs due to adultery, the innocent party can remarry with the approval of God.  IF divorce occurs for another reason, any future marriages of the two are not God-sanctioned.  If God allows (sanctions) people whose spouse has been unfaithful to remarry, then He also sanctions the divorce the person had to initiate to become eligible to remarry.  Nowhere in the passage does it speak of who (whether a believer or unbeliever) initiates it.  

The condition of initiating the divorce seems to me to be the fact that adultery has occured... not if the person is a believer or non-believer.


----------



## Ronnie T

rjcruiser said:


> How do you feel forgiveness should play into the "adultery clause?"



Well, from the scripture I provided back in #94 I think, Jesus said a person that commits adultery can be divorced, and the person harmed can remarry.

Beyond that, and answering your question, If my wife were to commit that sin against me I hope I would be able to keep the marriage together and forgive her.  I feel much the same way that HF feels about the issue, for myself personally.

But I also know what the Bible says, and I can't build a wall to hide what it says.  I'm not going to go to other internet sites that support a particular view.  I'm not going to read a 21st century book to find the answer.
I'll allow others to read God's word and make the hard decisions for themselves.

I don't think a person should divorce just because the Bible gives them an opening.  But Jesus Himself understood the enormity of committing adultery.

I married a Christian couple that divorce two years later because the wife spent 2,000 dollars without the husbands permission.  Divorce is not good.  But sometimes marriage isn't good.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> Has anyone accused you of being a non-Christian?
> 
> I've not read it yet...I know some have questioned your beliefs....but blatantly called you a non-Christian?
> 
> There was a short time ago that posts like that would get you banded.



Yes, you did.  I threw a flag on it also.  Do I really need to get into the stuff HF has posted?  Did you read some of the threads that got deleted?


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> Has anyone accused you of being a non-Christian?
> 
> I've not read it yet...I know some have questioned your beliefs....but blatantly called you a non-Christian?
> 
> There was a short time ago that posts like that would get you banded.



And no, nobody has specifically called me a non-Christian.  They have said:  "you claim to be a Christian, but...." which is the same thing.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by rjcruiser
> Has anyone accused you of being a non-Christian?
> 
> I've not read it yet...I know some have questioned your beliefs....but blatantly called you a non-Christian?
> 
> There was a short time ago that posts like that would get you banded.
> 
> Makes one scratch their head, huh?




Kinda does...huh?


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> Yes, you did.  I threw a flag on it also.  Do I really need to get into the stuff HF has posted?  Did you read some of the threads that got deleted?



As RJ said...I never questioned your heart.  I questioned your beliefs and doctrine and asked you to back up your positions biblically.  I don't think that is too much to ask of a believer.  Do you?

If you read what I posted as questioning your faith, I apologize.  In fact, I think I already did that....but I'll do it again.

That was not my intent.  The intent was to get you to think about your positions and go to scripture to test them.


----------



## Milkman

Folks............ a word of advice on something some of you may want to do that may end up extending the tenure of some members.


Click on user CP

Click on edit ignore list

In the open field add member(s) name

Click on Okay


---------------------------------------------------------

This procedure is known to automatically lower blood pressure and relieve tension.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> If you read what I posted as questioning your faith, I apologize.  In fact, I think I already did that....but I'll do it again.
> 
> That was not my intent.  The intent was to get you to think about your positions and go to scripture to test them.



Sent you a PM.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> Yes, you did.



No I didn't.  I just spent 30 minutes searching too...so please...point to where I did.

Unless you've got multiple usernames...you've posted in 26 threads within the Spiritual forum.

I've posted in 12 of those.  None said you were not a Christian.



			
				JB0704 said:
			
		

> I threw a flag on it also.  Do I really need to get into the stuff HF has posted?  Did you read some of the threads that got deleted?



Read some of those that were deleted...posted in some.  Not sure why they were all deleted...but hey, I can't go and read stuff that I didn't see, so I'm sure there was a good reason.



JB0704 said:


> And no, nobody has specifically called me a non-Christian.  They have said:  "you claim to be a Christian, but...." which is the same thing.



Nice qualifier.  And no, that isn't the same thing.  It is asking you to reconcile what your beliefs are compared to x...where x is usually the Bible.

Again, I don't even think I've done that in the open forum to you....please provide the link though.


----------



## rjcruiser

Ronnie T said:


> I married a Christian couple that divorce two years later because the wife spent 2,000 dollars without the husbands permission.  Divorce is not good.  But sometimes marriage isn't good.



And I'd say just based on that brief story, the husband was in sin for the divorce.

Not justified based on Biblical standards.


----------



## grouper throat

Ronnie T said:


> Well, from the scripture I provided back in #94 I think, Jesus said a person that commits adultery can be divorced, and the person harmed can remarry.
> 
> Beyond that, and answering your question, If my wife were to commit that sin against me I hope I would be able to keep the marriage together and forgive her.  I feel much the same way that HF feels about the issue, for myself personally.
> 
> But I also know what the Bible says, and I can't build a wall to hide what it says.  I'm not going to go to other internet sites that support a particular view.  I'm not going to read a 21st century book to find the answer.
> I'll allow others to read God's word and make the hard decisions for themselves.
> 
> I don't think a person should divorce just because the Bible gives them an opening.  But Jesus Himself understood the enormity of committing adultery.
> 
> I married a Christian couple that divorce two years later because the wife spent 2,000 dollars without the husbands permission.  Divorce is not good.  But sometimes marriage isn't good.



Thank you for reassuring my original reply. I feel as both you and HF feel.

I'll give you an example; A couple was married and a few yrs later his wife committed adultery. He knew about it and forgave her after some heartache. 4 years later she did it again and he then filed for divorce. In your opinion would this divorce be justified by God? I think we all agree he can marry again also, right?


----------



## rjcruiser

grouper throat said:


> I'll give you an example; A couple was married and a few yrs later his wife committed adultery. He knew about it and forgave her after some heartache. 4 years later she did it again and he then filed for divorce. In your opinion would this divorce be justified by God? I think we all agree he can marry again also, right?



I'd agree with you as it shows a pattern and no real true repentance.

Although, look at Hosea and Gomer.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> No I didn't.



This is getting derailed quickly.  For the part I am responsible, I do apologize.

And yes, to say "you claim to be a Christian, but.." is to insinuate that I am either not living the "good life," or am not a Christian, or am not following the Bible.

In light of the poker references on the other forum, I will see your   and raise you a


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> Sent you a PM.




Read it.  Thought it was awesome.  No worries.  We're good you and me.

Wish I could get other folks to understand that.  Strong debate among brothers is a good thing.  It makes us sharper.  Makes us better able to justify the hope that is in us.

Glad you're here brother....even if we disagree a lot.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> This is getting derailed quickly.  For the part I am responsible, I do apologize.
> 
> And yes, to say "you claim to be a Christian, but.." is to insinuate that I am either not living the "good life," or am not a Christian, or am not following the Bible.
> 
> In light of the poker references on the other forum, I will see your   and raise you a



Link?

But, I'll see you and raise you one.



I don't believe you are following the Bible on certain issues.  Church being one of them...homosexuality being another.  But that doesn't mean you're not a Christian.  My PMs with you should show that.


----------



## Ronnie T

grouper throat said:


> Thank you for reassuring my original reply. I feel as both you and HF feel.
> 
> I'll give you an example; A couple was married and a few yrs later his wife committed adultery. He knew about it and forgave her after some heartache. 4 years later she did it again and he then filed for divorce. In your opinion would this divorce be justified by God? I think we all agree he can marry again also, right?



Sounds like he must have loved her a lot and he did everything he could do.  It's a shame when one person wants to be married, but not the other.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Read it.  Thought it was awesome.  No worries.  We're good you and me.
> 
> Wish I could get other folks to understand that.  Strong debate among brothers is a good thing.  It makes us sharper.  Makes us better able to justify the hope that is in us.
> 
> Glad you're here brother....even if we disagree a lot.



Cool, and thanks.


----------



## Bama4me

grouper throat said:


> Thank you for reassuring my original reply. I feel as both you and HF feel.
> 
> I'll give you an example; A couple was married and a few yrs later his wife committed adultery. He knew about it and forgave her after some heartache. 4 years later she did it again and he then filed for divorce. In your opinion would this divorce be justified by God? I think we all agree he can marry again also, right?



100% ok from what Matthew 19:9 says... and I think you bring up an interesting point regarding a marriage where one party is unfaithful.  A marriage doesn't HAVE to end when one spouse is unfaithful... even though the other would certainly have the right to end the marriage.  I've known several who have forgiven their spouses... even admitted they contributed the unfaithfulness... and were able to make their marriage work.


----------



## Huntinfool

There is a particular sermon that I am re-listening to right now so that I can get my thoughts together on the permanence view.  I will post up my thoughts as soon as I can get them together.  But don't think I've forgotten....I'll get them up here eventually.

That was the whole point of the thread.


----------



## bullethead

rjcruiser said:


> Wow.  all I can say is wow.
> 
> You must have a tough time with application of scripture if you read every word as literal.
> 
> As I've said many times before, context context context.  I'm guessing you don't get context....rather you twist what you read to further your own trolling agenda.



That's twice you've called me a troll in this thread when I am asking for answers to questions. I read online from Christian websites that say "NO" a woman cannot divorce a man according to scripture so I ask what the thoughts are here and if there is scripture to back it up. This is not the only religious forum I frequent so using some info I get here is helpful elsewhere. Lighten up RJ.


----------



## Ronnie T

I've pulled this from the GON forum rules and regulations.

Furthermore, it is the intent of the Forum to provide an atmosphere where every member, regardless of age, nationality, race, creed, religion, political persuasion, sex, or level of education, shall be treated with the respect due them. This concept will be enforced with vigor.


----------



## christianhunter

Huntinfool said:


> I think you know my heart well enough to know that I dont' condemn you.  What a tough situation to live through.  I won't even pretend I can understand how hard that was.
> 
> But...you also know my position on the issue.  The first part of your post said something like "well I guess I'm living in permanent sin".  That's, of course, not true.  We live under grace.  Divorce is no worse a sin than anything I've ever done...and I'm forgiven...and so are you buddy.
> 
> I just happen to believe, after a long time studying the issue, that there is no biblical justification for divorce.  I do understand the difficulties in life that it implies.  But I can't understand the realities of how difficult that is.
> 
> I do understand that I'm in the minority on that especially when it comes to adultery.
> 
> I wouldn't tell you that the Lord doesn't condone your current marriage.



I wasn't talking about you HF,I feel that I do know your heart.I believe I studied most,if not all of the Scripture concerning marriage and divorce during that 15 year span,of being single.That is the reason I talked with so many pastors.I even went to a few marriage seminars alone(Christian).I just felt no other recourse for myself,as I had waited 15 years.I have seen the evidence of my ex-wife,with 4 or 5 more marriages to her credit,and all of them ended too.


----------



## Huntinfool

Fair enough.  This is not an issue that anybody would break fellowship over.  I see it differently than you.  That is all.


----------



## jmharris23

HF, I have not read this whole thread but do I understand you to be saying that the adultery of a spouse is not a biblical justification for divorce or did I misread something?


----------



## Huntinfool

Ok...so here is my very butchered explanation for my "permanence" position on marriage.  Forgive my poor explanation and I'll just point you to an eloquent version of it in this sermon.  It's worth a listen even if you disagree with me...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11309913170


There are three primary views on the possibility of divorce.  Permanence (no divorce, no re-marriage....ever), semi-permanence (divorce for certain issues, no re-marriage), permissive view (divorce and remarry...for various reasons and there are two primary camps).  That's the doctrinal background.  There are three major camps and most fall into one of these.

Take re-marriage out of the question because that's not the issue at hand.  Divorce is.  But I'll try to address re-marriage as well.  If we concentrate on divorce, there are ONLY two issues that seperate the three camps in any capacity:

1)  Adultery
2)  Abandonment of a believer by a non-believer

That's it.  Those are the only two issues and they are the only two possibilities that could be debated biblically.  There is no way to argue around that.

If you allow for divorce, you can only make a biblical argument to  allow for it on those two grounds.  So...I've read lots of stuff in this thread about abuse, alcoholism, abandonment of a believer by a believer.  None of those things are debated among these three camps.  There is no divorce allowed biblically.  Does it feel fair?  Heck NO!  But it's right and it's good because it is of God.

One of the primary purposes of marriage is to be a physical representation of Christ's relationship with the Church (i.e. his bride).  If that is the case, then, it is UNTHINKABLE that Christ would ever abandon his bride....for ANY reason.  Many times he accused Israel of being adulterous, yet he always reconciled.  He will never ever leave nor forsake the church as his bride.  That's the first reason I believe permanence.  Marriage is a representation of Christ's relationship with the church and if adultery or abandonment were reasons to divorce...he would have left us a LONG time ago.

But the meat of it is actually in the text and in the context of what I read.  So let's dive into that.

There are two places in the Bible where we find the "exception clause" that allows for adultery.  So let's start with that issue.  Is adultery a biblical reason for divorce?  Well, I would guess that most of you would say "yes"...and I think you're justified in making that case.  I disagree...but it's not a fellowship breaking kind of issue.  So let me explain why I disagree.

The two exception clause passages are BOTH found in Matthew.  That's important to note. 



> “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
> (Matthew 5:31-32 ESV)



Let's take this one first.  It's important to look at what Jesus is talking about and how he words it.  The "it was also said" piece is refering to the case law that Moses laid out in Deut Ch 24.  Moses was aware that divorce was rampant among the people and he was putting restrictions on it.  The specific purpose was to restrict a man from taking BACK his wife after he had divorced her, she re-married, and was divorced again...she, at that point was an adulterer and unclean.  He was not to remarry her.  

This is not a passage about when it is ok to divorce.  It's a passage about re-marriage.  It's specifically addressing the original hearer's understanding of re-marriage.

It is WELL established in other passages regarding divorce, that if you re-marry, you commit and act of adultery....and there are no exception clauses placed on that statement.  

Now...look at what Jesus said.  "...everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality *MAKES* her commit adultery..."  He is not speaking to when it's ok to divorce.  He's speaking to what happens if you divorce.  In every other case except sexual immorality, the woman is MADE to commit adultery.  In the case of sexual immorality, the woman makes HERSELF commit adultery.  That is the point of the passage.  When there is immorality, she makes herself an adulteror.  Otherwise, she is MADE into that by the divorce...and that is laid out clearly in ALL of the other passages regarding divorce outside of Matthew.




> And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.



I broke this passage up because this is the most important point and it is the MOST overlooked when people discuss divorce.  The Pharisees, in this part of it asked Jesus a VERY specific question. * "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for ANY cause?"*

What was Jesus' answer?  Well, it's the rest of the passage.  But essentially, the answer is NO!  "Are you kidding me?  Have you not read....they are no longer two but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, LET NO MAN SEPERATE.....PERIOD."  No exception in that answer.  The question was asked...and the question was answered.  





> ” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> (Matthew 19:3-9 ESV)



Then, they pressed him and asked him "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?"....Jesus' answer?  "He didn't command you to do that."..."Because of the hardness of your hearts, he ALLOWED you to do it."  *BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO*.  Again, very important point.

The exception clause here is addressing what happens if the man re-marries after he divorces his wife according to the case law.  He was interpreting the case law for them because they mis-quoted it.  It is saying that you are not committing adultery if you remarry after that.  But he answered the question of whether divorce is permissible in the first part.  The answer was a very clear...no.  He gives the exception clause AFTER he's answered the direct question "Is it ever lawful to divorce?".

The point is that Jesus clearly said that divorce is not allowable under any circumstances.  Then he goes on the answer a second question regarding the case law that Moses laid out for them.  The message is...do not divorce, it was not that way from the beginning and God does not allow for it.  The he addresses what happens should you choose to divorce anyway.  Long way from there to God saying it's ok to divorce.

This post is way too long already.  So I just want to list the other instances where divorce is spoken of in the NT and ask you to tell me what piece is conspiciously missing.  I'll give you a hint...it has to do with an exception.




> To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
> (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 ESV)



No exception...



> To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
> 
> (1 Corinthians 7:12-16 ESV)



No exception...



> For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
> 
> (Romans 7:1-3 ESV)



No exception for divorce.....ONLY death.  If there is re-marriage while the spouse is alive it is an act of adultery.



> And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> (Mark 10:11-12 ESV)



WHOEVER divorces his wife....no exception....if you divorce and re-marry...it is an act of adultery.  No exception.



> “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
> (Luke 16:18 ESV)



EVERYONE....no exception.  It doesn't say "everyone, except if there is adultery".


Why is there no exception in these passages?  You would think if it was allowable, it would be in every instance of the discussion of divorce and re-marriage.  But it's not.  I can get into the reasons...but this is already way to long and I apologize for that.  I thought it was important to lay out way I believe what I believe since I'm clearly in the minority.

This is long and so I'm not sure I've made my case.  But I hope I've helped you guys understand where I'm coming from.  Are you living in a perpetual act of adultery if you have divorced and re-married?  Absolutely not.  It was a single act and it is covered by grace.  Was it wrong?  Yes...I believe it was.  But no more wrong than anything I've done in my life (and boy I've done some big ones!).  

The beauty of the cross is that we are covered by grace.  It doesn't mean that we continue sinning (i.e. Romans 6 & 7).  What it means is that our past unrighteousness is covered and we move forward in righteousness.  

I know that this will not sit well with a bunch of you and especially those who've experienced the heartbreak of divorce.  I apologize if you read this condemningly.  It is not meant to be so.  It is meant to lay out a biblical argument and that is all.  I hope I did a halfway decent job of it.

It would take me all day to really write everything out.  But I hope this gives a good overview.

Fire away!


----------



## Huntinfool

jmharris23 said:


> HF, I have not read this whole thread but do I understand you to be saying that the adultery of a spouse is not a biblical justification for divorce or did I misread something?



See my ridiculously long post above....yes that's what I'm saying.  I'm not alone, though I'm in the minority.  John Piper agrees with me.  Voddie Baucham agrees with me and many many churches throughout the country also agree.  It is an unpopular position.  But I believe it biblical and I've thought and studied on it for a long time.

It's not a fellowship breaking issue for me.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> John Piper agrees with me.



...But, isn't he also a five point calvinist?



Huntinfool said:


> It's not a fellowship breaking issue for me.



For the sake of a good honest debate, no hard feelings....

I'm not trying to stir anything up, or beat a dead horse here...but....If you believe a person who remarries commits adultery, shouldn't your system of Biblical judgment also discipline that individual?  

Let's say there is a person in your church, we'll call him "JT," who has been left by his wife.  He, believing he has not sinned, goes on and remarries.  How is that not "living in sin" according to your beliefs?  Let's say "JT" does not believe he has sinned, shouldn't you then "confront" the "sin?"

This is why I feel it is best we keep our own house in order, and let other folks deal with their's....too much left for interpretation.


----------



## dawg2

JB0704 said:


> .......too much left for interpretation.



Therein lies the problem, division and major arguments...


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> ...But, isn't he also a five point calvinist?



And?

You say that as if it means he is a fringe cook debil worshiper.



			
				JB0704 said:
			
		

> For the sake of a good honest debate, no hard feelings....
> 
> I'm not trying to stir anything up, or beat a dead horse here...but....If you believe a person who remarries commits adultery, shouldn't your system of Biblical judgment also discipline that individual?
> 
> Let's say there is a person in your church, we'll call him "JT," who has been left by his wife.  He, believing he has not sinned, goes on and remarries.  How is that not "living in sin" according to your beliefs?  Let's say "JT" does not believe he has sinned, shouldn't you then "confront" the "sin?"
> 
> This is why I feel it is best we keep our own house in order, and let other folks deal with their's....too much left for interpretation.



I think you're somewhat right...and why HF has put that they're not continuing to live in sin since it happened in the past.

I would say that a person who has been divorced is no longer biblically qualified to be a elder/pastor.  If it happened before they were saved, then I guess it would be different.  While they are a professing Christian, not gonna happen.  I guess speaking of real life scenarios, look at Charles Stanley.  Great preacher, but I'm not sure if he's still qualified to be in the pulpit.


----------



## Huntinfool

> If you believe a person who remarries commits adultery, shouldn't your system of Biblical judgment also discipline that individual?



Discipline is only intended to result in repentence and reconciliation.  If they understand that what they did was wrong and are repentent in the issue, then there is no reason for discipline.

That holds in all cases of discipline.



> Let's say there is a person in your church, we'll call him "JT," who has been left by his wife. He, believing he has not sinned, goes on and remarries. How is that not "living in sin" according to your beliefs? Let's say "JT" does not believe he has sinned, shouldn't you then "confront" the "sin?"



Yes, I suppose we should.  Confront is a strong word.  But yes, he should be brought to a biblical understanding of his actions.

I know that probably doesn't sit well.  But, he's not "living in sin" if he then understands that his current marriage is permanent and treats his current marriage as so.

Most churches that hold the doctrine of permanence will not re-marry someone who has been married before.  My church does not actually believe what I believe.  But I love those folks dearly and have been part of that body for over a decade.


----------



## Huntinfool

> If it happened before they were saved, then I guess it would be different.



That's an interesting point for discussion as well.  It's addressed in that sermon I posted and I won't do a good job of explaning it. 

But, God, as far as I can tell doesn't just recognize marriages between believers.  He recognizes all unions between a man and a woman.

Voddie explains it like this in the sermon:

Let's say we have two people come into our body who are unbelievers.  They are married and the have 5 kids together.  But they are not believers.

Let's say that, after a while, they are radically saved and full on followers of Christ bearing fruit to all who see them.

Do we then say, "I'm sorry, but your marriage is a sham and your kids are illegitimate because those things happened when you were un-believers.  Only marriages between believers are recognized in the Church."?

No, we don't say that.  We recognize the legitimate marriage for what it is.  God recognizes it as well.

Therefore...I don't think you can delineate between marriages and divorces prior to conversion.  God never approves of divorce.  If there is a requirement of leadership that they never be divorce...then it should stand regardless of "when".


----------



## rjcruiser

Huntinfool said:


> That's an interesting point for discussion as well.  It's addressed in that sermon I posted and I won't do a good job of explaning it.
> 
> But, God, as far as I can tell doesn't just recognize marriages between believers.  He recognizes all unions between a man and a woman.
> 
> Voddie explains it like this in the sermon:
> 
> Let's say we have two people come into our body who are unbelievers.  They are married and the have 5 kids together.  But they are not believers.
> 
> Let's say that, after a while, they are radically saved and full on followers of Christ bearing fruit to all who see them.
> 
> Do we then say, "I'm sorry, but your marriage is a sham and your kids are illegitimate because those things happened when you were un-believers.  Only marriages between believers are recognized in the Church."?
> 
> No, we don't say that.  We recognize the legitimate marriage for what it is.  God recognizes it as well.
> 
> Therefore...I don't think you can delineate between marriages and divorces prior to conversion.  God never approves of divorce.  If there is a requirement of leadership that they never be divorce...then it should stand regardless of "when".



Thanks for the recap...I can't go to sermon audio at work.  Streaming media is blocked 

As far as the thought, I can understand the position, but I'll disagree with it.  We can't expect non-believers to be held to the same standard as believers.  Remember, they are spiritually dead.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> You say that as if it means he is a fringe cook debil worshiper.



debil worshiper, yes.  But I would never call anybody a "fringe cook."  



rjcruiser said:


> I would say that a person who has been divorced is no longer biblically qualified to be a elder/pastor.



Well, I reckon "JT" doesn't care too much for those things anyways


----------



## WTM45

rjcruiser said:


> As far as the thought, I can understand the position, but I'll disagree with it.  We can't expect non-believers to be held to the same standard as believers.  Remember, they are spiritually dead.



That's a denominational argument addressing membership in the New Covenant.
Might want to look a little deeper into that, and it could be another good topic of discussion.


HF, I have to tip my hat to you.  What you have posted clearly took some time and effort to research, document and communicate.  Well done!


----------



## Huntinfool

Full disclosure WTM....I stole most of it directly from the sermon I posted because it is so well laid out.  But in any case, I have spent a lot of time studying this particular issue because the state of marriage in our churches and in our society is distressing to me.

It breaks my heart that Christian marriages end at the same or higher rates as non-christian and it breaks my heart that more than half of all marriages in this country will end in divorce.


----------



## CAL

Just a comment on the divorce issue.This is a true story too.A very prominent church member was nominated to be a deacon in the Baptist Church.Unknowing he had been divorced many years before.Upon finding out his nomination was removed.The impact to this man and his family and the embarrassment kept him from ever going to that church ever again.His youngest son is a preacher today.


----------



## Huntinfool

So, then, I would assume that he knew of his denomination's stance on divorce and leadership qualification beforehand, correct?

If he didn't know that prior to "accepting" the nomination, I can imagine that was quite embarrasing.

Glad to hear that it didn't turn the family away from the church altogether though.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, I would assume that he knew of his denomination's stance on divorce and leadership qualification beforehand, correct?
> 
> If he didn't know that prior to "accepting" the nomination, I can imagine that was quite embarrasing.




There is a lot of differences on interpretation within denominations.  Many Baptist churches think the "husband of one wife" means "one at a time."  Others take a hard line and say "only married once."  Each Church sees it differently.  

I think it is horrible what happened to the man Cal is talking about.  If he is qualified today, what difference does yesterday make.  What does that say about that Church's thoughts on grace?  



Huntinfool said:


> Glad to hear that it didn't turn the family away from the church altogether though.



....this kind of stuff turns lots of people away from Church altogether...I personally know a few....


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> What does that say about that Church's thoughts on grace?



Forgiven and qualified are two different ballparks.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> Forgiven and qualified are two different ballparks.



Wait a second, now. This might be a topic for a different thread, but, do you know how many times I have heard a preacher say:

"Your sins are forgiven, forgotten, washed as white as snow" because of Jesus.  

Are you saying they are wrong?  Sin (if divorce even qualifies which I do not think it does) is not "forgiven, forgotten, and washed as white as snow?"

God doesn't hold sin against the sinner, but the Church can?


----------



## Huntinfool

There are consequences to sin...trust me.  They are not eternal.  But there are consequences none the less.

I am forgiven.  But I live with the consequences of my actions.  

Probably best for a new thread.  But, yes, we live with the consequences of our actions.  They are not "punishment".  They are consequences.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> There are consequences to sin...trust me.  They are not eternal.  But there are consequences none the less.
> 
> I am forgiven.  But I live with the consequences of my actions.
> 
> Probably best for a new thread.  But, yes, we live with the consequences of our actions.  They are not "punishment".  They are consequences.



And you give the man the authority to determine those consequences?


----------



## jmharris23

So





Huntinfool said:


> See my ridiculously long post above....yes that's what I'm saying.  I'm not alone, though I'm in the minority.  John Piper agrees with me.  Voddie Baucham agrees with me and many many churches throughout the country also agree.  It is an unpopular position.  But I believe it biblical and I've thought and studied on it for a long time.
> 
> It's not a fellowship breaking issue for me.



So what do you do with Matthew 19 and what Jesus says about divorce?


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> And you give the man the authority to determine those consequences?



Like HF said...consequences.

And yes, on certain things, man has determined the consequences...such as $104 for going 50 in a 35 through downtown Oxford.

On this specific issue, it is not man's authority, but God's Word that tells us the qualifications for elders/teachers.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> On this specific issue, it is not man's authority, but God's Word that tells us the qualifications for elders/teachers.



....okay....but how does that "husband of one wife" eliminate a man who only has one wife?


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> ....okay....but how does that "husband of one wife" eliminate a man who only has one wife?



I think it also goes under the managing one's household well.  How can a man of God direct the church and give leadership to it, when he can't maintain peace in the home?

That is my biggest issue with Pastors/believers who are in leadership in the church that go through divorce...even when it is the wife that initiates it.  Something has caused the spark to go away...perhaps too much focus has been spent on the ministry than on the family.


----------



## christianhunter

rjcruiser said:


> And?
> 
> You say that as if it means he is a fringe cook debil worshiper.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're somewhat right...and why HF has put that they're not continuing to live in sin since it happened in the past.
> 
> I would say that a person who has been divorced is no longer biblically qualified to be a elder/pastor.  If it happened before they were saved, then I guess it would be different.  While they are a professing Christian, not gonna happen.  I guess speaking of real life scenarios, look at Charles Stanley.  Great preacher, but I'm not sure if he's still qualified to be in the pulpit.



Did Brother Stanley remarry?...I haven't heard.
I know he got a divorce,haven't heard of a new marriage.I was told in my situation,and this is very personal for me.If I were to be called later in life to preach,that the law on divorce did not apply to an Evangelist(as far as preaching goes).Teacher-yes,Pastor-Yes,Evangelist-no.I have studied this for 12 years,I stated earlier it was 15,but I was not saved from 27-30.I'm not ever going to,use THE WORD of GOD to benefit myself if I'm wrong.THE WORD is unchanging!
Much of what HF is saying is true,if not all.Scripture is very plain,and THE WORD of GOD does not contradict Itself."A bill of divorcement was given for the hardening of the heart."

Deut:24:1-4,is a passage,where you cannot remarry your first wife,if either of you have married another.It is an abomination to GOD to do it.Adultery is an abomination,homosexuality is an abomination.We look at the word abomination,and get its meaning-A hated thing!
THE LORD hates all sin,no big sin no little sin.Now I'm not going to say in my feeble attempt to justify myself,or anyone else contrary,to THE WORD of GOD.As in every second,of every minute,of every day,I'm at HIS loving Grace and Mercy.If I sinned 11 years ago,I ask for forgiveness.If I repented of it,I would have to get a divorce from a loving wife,who I'm very happy with.It is a sin,no argument there,but it is a sin that can be forgiven.


----------



## rjcruiser

christianhunter said:


> Did Brother Stanley remarry?...I haven't heard.



No...I don't think he has.  I guess my biggest issue is that it happened while he was pastoring his church.  I think that at times, some pastors can put their church above their family.


CH...not sure on the differences between evangelist/preacher/teacher.  I guess each situation has its own things that need to be evaluated.  And no, I don't think you should divorce your current wife and go back to your old wife.  And I don't think you are living in sin.

I don't think this is issue is a cookie cutter one size fits all issue.


----------



## jmharris23

Disregard my previous question HF. I found your answer and went and found Piper's thoughts on this.


----------



## Huntinfool

> If I repented of it,I would have to get a divorce from a loving wife,who I'm very happy with.



CH, with respect, I think you missed the boat here.

Repenting of past sin doesn't mean you have to "undo" it.  It is "undone" by forgiveness through grace.

As you pointed out, were you to go back and re-marry your first wife, that would be an abomination.

The point is that we live under grace.  If we sin, we repent and are forgiven.  But, as Romans 6 tells us, we do not go on sinning so that grace may abound.

Love your wife.  It is a great mystery that God blesses even second marriages.  I don't understand it.  Go forward and love your wife and make the committment that your marriage to her will only end in death.  That's the point.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> I think it also goes under the managing one's household well.  How can a man of God direct the church and give leadership to it, when he can't maintain peace in the home?



Ok.  But what does that have to do with Cal's example.  That man's divorce happened several years ago.  

I am glad God is more forgiving than the church.


----------



## Huntinfool

To answer your earlier question JB, many churches interpret "husband of one wife" to mean "having only been the husband of one wife...ever" or "having only been with one woman".  It's very closely related to that church's doctrine on divorce.

But RJ is right.  All of those qualifications are inter-related.  Elders and overseerers should be "above reproach" to a large degree.

If you think about it, there are lots of ways a man can be married to only one woman currently and still be disqualified because of other women...follow me?


----------



## Huntinfool

I gotta be honest...I'm shocked that I haven't gotten a whole bunch of rousing rebuttles to my ridiculously long post.  

Maybe is was too ridiculously long to read!!!  Ha!


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> To answer your earlier question JB, many churches interpret "husband of one wife" to mean "having only been the husband of one wife...ever" or "having only been with one woman".  It's very closely related to that church's doctrine on divorce.
> 
> But RJ is right.  All of those qualifications are inter-related.  Elders and overseerers should be "above reproach" to a large degree.
> 
> If you think about it, there are lots of ways a man can be married to only one woman currently and still be disqualified because of other women...follow me?



I follow the last sentence. But we are back to the interpretation problem causing people pain.  This is why I think it is best to keep our own house in check and let others do the same.

Again, Cal's example gave no circumstance where we could assume this man's house was not in order.


----------



## Huntinfool

So, then, in your view, there are no requirements to "qualify" as an elder or overseer?

Since those in the church cannot determine who qualifies and who doesn't in your view...then I can only assume that there are no requirements other than willingness and being asked?

Man...we are WAY off course now.  But, hey, I started the thread.  I'm ok with it.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, in your view, there are no requirements to "qualify" as an elder or overseer?



Thats not what I said.



Huntinfool said:


> Since those in the church cannot determine who qualifies and who doesn't in your view...then I can only assume that there are no requirements other than willingness and being asked?



I think God determines it, and man messes that up completely.

How 'bout this: if it's grey (husband of one wife definitely qualifies there), err on the side of common sense and not religious dogma....fewer people get hurt and driven away.  I think that is a much more "Christian" way of handling things.

But, I really have no dog in the fight.  It is easier to avoid this stuff (religion) than to try and fix it.  I live at peace (as Paul told the Romans).


----------



## Huntinfool

But that common sense approach quite literally disqualifies almost no one in the Christian community, does it?

Know very many men in Christian churches who are married to more than one woman currently?

I might say that common sense tells me that literally only married to one woman at a time doesn't make much sense as a restriction.

...unless, I suppose you go with the "well this was written for the people during a time when multiple wives was commonplace".  I suppose you could go there.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> ...unless, I suppose you go with the "well this was written for the people during a time when multiple wives was commonplace".  I suppose you could go there.



This was written at a time when there was a lot of cultures being blended together under the umbrella of one faith.  So, I am pretty certain it was in reference to polygamy, about as certain as you are that it wasn't.  Why didn't he just say "married once?"  

And no, I don't know many Christians who currently have multiple wives, but if they did, they would certainly not qualify 

That should answer the rest.


----------



## Huntinfool

But....what about the "one man, one woman" stuff in Genesis and throughout the Bible.  I think it was pretty clear, even to pre-Jesus Jews, that God's intent was one man joined in flesh to one woman.

The cultures around them allowed for polygamy....but God's intent has been clear from the beginning and clarified through Jesus and the disciples teaching.

Why would they have needed to clarify that?


----------



## Huntinfool

jmharris23 said:


> Disregard my previous question HF. I found your answer and went and found Piper's thoughts on this.



So what's your reaction?

Here is one of his arguments...and it is a good one:



> When Christ Divorces, We May
> 
> One of the reasons that I have emphasized the ultimate meaning of marriage so much in these chapters is that the meaning of marriage is such that human beings cannot legitimately break it. The ultimate meaning of marriage is the representation of the covenant-keeping love between Christ and his church.  To live this truth, and to show this truth, is what it means, most deeply, to be married. This is the ultimate reason why marriage exists. There are other reasons, but this is the main one.
> 
> Therefore, if Christ ever abandons and discards his church, then a man may divorce his wife. And if the blood-bought church, under the new covenant, ever ceases to be the bride of Christ, then a wife may legitimately divorce her husband. But as long as Christ keeps his covenant with the church, and as long as the church, by the omnipotent grace of God, remains the chosen people of Christ, then the very meaning of marriage will include: What God has joined, only God can separate.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> But....what about the "one man, one woman" stuff in Genesis and throughout the Bible.  I think it was pretty clear, even to pre-Jesus Jews, that God's intent was one man joined in flesh to one woman?



Then why are many of the heroes of the OT polygamists (Abraham, David, Solomon)?  The Jews of the NT still followed the OT, which does not frown on polygamy at all.  Paul was trying to change their perspective on many things: catfish, pork, polygamy, etc.  You can't honestly say that a monogamous marriage is the Biblical norm when taken as a whole.

These fellas had a funny way of showing that it was clear to them.


----------



## Huntinfool

It is God's norm.  If I said it was the norm in biblical times, I mis-spoke.  It was made clear from the very beginning that God's intent was one man and one woman.  It wouldn't have needed clarification.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> It is God's norm.  If I said it was the norm in biblical times, I mis-spoke.  It was made clear from the very beginning that God's intent was one man and one woman.  It wouldn't have needed clarification.



Where in the OT is that made clear?  Was it with Solomon being the "wisest man ever" having 900 + wives?  Or was it King David, a man after God's heart, having his own personal harem?

HF, you are making my point for me.  You are seeing what you want, and so am I.  How could either of us justify hurting another person based on such a "grey" topic?


----------



## Huntinfool

Genesis...chapters one and two.  It is not grey.  Are you implying that there is room to read polygamy is ok with God?  

If not, then you agree with me that God's intent (as laid out in the Bible) is one man and one woman.  Black...white.

There is no room for grey on that issue.  Either he laid out a model for marriage or he didn't.  Whether people followed that model is a different issue.


I think we can agree that any man who would WANT 900 women telling him what to do was a little nuts...right?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Genesis...chapters one and two.  It is not grey.  Are you implying that there is room to read polygamy is ok with God?




HF, I am sure you are aware that there was only one man and one woman in Genesis Chapter 1 and 2.  Polygamy would have been difficult.

If it was so wrong, why didn't they talk about it?  You are making an implicit case which only exists to those who want to see it.  Which is why, as I have said 4 times now, I think it is better we keep our own house in order.

And the NT is pretty clear against polygamy, the whole "husband of one wife" thing.  The OT is mute on the subject.


----------



## Huntinfool

ok....keep your own house in order.  I got ya.  I don't get it....but I got ya.


I want to get this back to divorce.  So I won't keep going with the elder thing.  There have been LENGTHY threads about those qualifications.


What do you think about the Piper quote that I posted a few posts back?


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> What do you think about the Piper quote that I posted a few posts back?



I think the man is confusing metaphor with reality.


----------



## Huntinfool

In what way? 

...and frame it in the context of Christianity and your knowledge of the Bible.  I wouldn't expect non-believers to subscribe to any of this.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Discipline is only intended to result in repentence and reconciliation.  If they understand that what they did was wrong and are repentent in the issue, then there is no reason for discipline.
> 
> That holds in all cases of discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I suppose we should.  Confront is a strong word.  But yes, he should be brought to a biblical understanding of his actions.
> 
> I know that probably doesn't sit well.  But, he's not "living in sin" if he then understands that his current marriage is permanent and treats his current marriage as so.
> 
> Most churches that hold the doctrine of permanence will not re-marry someone who has been married before.  My church does not actually believe what I believe.  But I love those folks dearly and have been part of that body for over a decade.



There really isn't a 'doctrine of permanence' is there??
Just because a person feels a certain way about a scripture doesn't make it a doctrine does it? Especially when there's conflicting scripture.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ah...but I don't see any conflict.  

If there is conflict in scripture, then it is fallable.

I don't know the specifics of what makes doctrine and what makes theology.  Webster simply says that a doctrine is something that is taught, or a position in a body of knowledge.

I would say it fits that definition pretty well.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> In what way?
> 
> ...and frame it in the context of Christianity and your knowledge of the Bible.  I wouldn't expect non-believers to subscribe to any of this.



The ideal of Christ and the Church as being "married" is simply a metaphoric show of the perfection of the union which is to reinforce trust and a feeling of permanence.
It could not be portrayed as anything other than perfect if it were of a divine nature.  And it has to be divine and perfect, since one party to the relationship is a deity.

Nowhere does the scripture teach or profess the "church bride" (believers or non-believing children of believers) as being perfect or even expected to act in such perfection.
Reference to the "perfect bride" was a call to strive for perfection.  If perfection was expected, the assumption that forgiveness is there and available for transgressions/sins of that bride even if she repented simply would not exist because she is expected to be perfect.

The NT outlines some examples of reasons for breaking the marriage vow, but does not clearly state they are 100% exclusionary of other possibilities.   That would go against the doctrine of eternal forgiveness granted through repentance.

An omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent God would have to make allowance for the fact humans are not perfect and will make mistakes.  What individual groups of followers (read denominations) wish to add to their charter and by-laws is simply based on their own opinion.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  But what does that have to do with Cal's example.  That man's divorce happened several years ago.
> 
> I am glad God is more forgiving than the church.



You're mixing up forgiveness and qualifications.  Like HF posted before, sin has consequences.  It can be forgiven...put as far as the east is from the west, but the consequences/scars remain for ever.



Huntinfool said:


> I gotta be honest...I'm shocked that I haven't gotten a whole bunch of rousing rebuttles to my ridiculously long post.
> 
> Maybe is was too ridiculously long to read!!!  Ha!



Nope...good post.  Made me re-think my position on it.  Not sure I 100% agree on it in every instance..but I can see why one would think that way.



Ronnie T said:


> Just because a person feels a certain way about a scripture doesn't make it a doctrine does it? Especially when there's conflicting scripture.



Ronnie, how much of your beliefs on divorce have to do with the situation you're dealing with right now?

Not saying that you are unjustified for how or what you believe, but it is near impossible to take personal experience out of the equation.


----------



## WTM45

rjcruiser said:


> You're mixing up forgiveness and qualifications.  Like HF posted before, sin has consequences.  It can be forgiven...put as far as the east is from the west, but the consequences/scars remain for ever.



Then how would an almighty God ever accept the imperfect human church bride, which is known to be imperfect "until that day," as qualified at all for the contract/covenant offered her?

See, it is a metaphor.  Imagery.  Symbolism.


----------



## Huntinfool

> An omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent God would have to make allowance for the fact humans are not perfect and will make mistakes.



He did.  Forgiveness of sins, paid for on the cross.

Half of that metaphor you're talking about is human and very non-perfect.  The only way the portrayal of that union could be assumed perfect would be if both halfs were perfect (i.e. deity).  But they are not.

It is a metaphor.  But a metaphor is meant to compare two things and their similarities.  If God compares the relationship of the church to Christ as a marriage, then we must assume that his idea of a marriage is portrayed in that metaphor....unending until one or the other is no more.


----------



## Bama4me

HF... not going to quote your explanation of your position... but I do not understand how you can come to the conclusion based on Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9 that divorce for the cause of unfaithfulness is not permitted by God.  Even after reading your explanation, I don't understand the reasoning... if the divorce was not allowable, then adultery would be committed.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Then how would an almighty God ever accept the imperfect human church bride, which is known to be imperfect "until that day," as qualified at all for the contract/covenant offered her?
> 
> See, it is a metaphor. Imagery. Symbolism.



I didn't follow this.  The bride is forgiven.  Why would her imperfection prevent Christ from accepting her as his bride?


----------



## WTM45

So, the ideal of humans being married is not similiar at all to the Christ/Church analogy, as neither party in a human marriage is a perfect deity.
No deity could expect perfection from such an agreement between two imperfect parties, and would have to offer the same forgiveness opportunity to each party.

Lofty goal, the idea of permanence.  And, I believe one that is quite noble and worth the effort.  But reality exists and keeps it in the news.
If the forgiveness is there for those who seek it, then the ability to carry on and attempt a life of belief and service after forgiveness has to be made available.  And for most people, that means a need for a mate, a "help-meet" and a soulmate.  Why would a benevolent deity not wish for a follower to be complete in their lives?


----------



## Huntinfool

Bama4me said:


> HF... not going to quote your explanation of your position... but I do not understand how you can come to the conclusion based on Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9 that divorce for the cause of unfaithfulness is not permitted by God.  Even after reading your explanation, I don't understand the reasoning... if the divorce was not allowable, then adultery would be committed.



Divorce is allowable....legally.  Jesus is speaking of the consequences of a divorce.

Your choosing to see the exception clause and ignore the very DIRECT question that he answered....how do you get around that?



> And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> (Matthew 19:3-9 ESV)




The Pharasees asked him directly, "Is divorce allowed under any circumstances...".  He directly answered.  No it is not.  Then he went on to speak of the consequences if divorce is chosen.  

It was very much legally allowed.  The question is whether God approves.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> I didn't follow this.  The bride is forgiven.  Why would her imperfection prevent Christ from accepting her as his bride?



Then, to be in complete comparison, a man would have to show agape love and offer eternal forgiveness for any indiscretion when they knowingly marry a woman who will not be faithful to him.  Forgive and forget.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> Then, to be in complete comparison, a man would have to show agape love and offer eternal forgiveness for any indiscretion when they knowingly marry a woman who will not be faithful to him.  Forgive and forget.



You got it my man...I think you unwittingly just supported my permanence position.


(Well, the forgive part....forget takes a very long time and may never happen.  Forgive and don't hold a grudge is more like it I suppose)


----------



## Huntinfool

> Why would a benevolent deity not wish for a follower to be complete in their lives?



I don't know.  Ask a Nun...or a Monk....or a Christian who never married.  I needed a wife in a big way.  I'll admit that.


----------



## Ronnie T

I read all the sermon and the things connected to it.  I've got to say that it all sounds good.  But I have to take it as a biblical philosophy that comes from a man's heart and desire rather than from the whole of God's word.
God obviously made man and woman to become an eternal union.  They were to multiply the world.  Yet, from the very beginning it was never an eternal union for everyone.  Throughout the entire old testament the vast majority (it seems) of men and women relationships that were documented show that men had several wives at one time or they divorced and remarried over and over again.
It happened so often it's almost humorous to look at the failed marriages and high number of cases of adultery.  Even so far as one man taking the life of another man so he could have his wife.  He and that "wife" had a child that was concieved prior to her husband's death.  God took that child's life later on.

In the New Testament, the Pharisees continued to shake up Jesus' ministry by asking Him the 'difficult' questions.  One of those questions concerned divorce.  At this point, as often happened in Jesus' teachings, Jesus 'reigned in' some of the teachings of the Pharisees.  Kinda like the "you've heard it said" teachings from the sermon of the mount.
But Jesus did not respond to the Pharisees by saying that no one can ever divorce again, which He could have!  Jesus could have said that there's a permanence to marriage that cannot be broken for any reason.  But Jesus did not do that.
Jesus named adultery as the exception.  The Gospel goes on to identity adultery as a sin that's unlike any other sin.  It's a sin a person commits of their own flesh, against their own flesh and someone elses.  Adultery is one of the sins that cannot be allowed into heaven.  It is the deal breaker.  It is that which can break the bond of an otherwise unbreakable union.

I think it's great for a husband and wife to vow that they will never break the marriage apart.  All should.  I certainly intend to.
I'm not divorced and don't intend to ever divorce.  

Oh how simple it would be, if good people only married other good people.  There'd never be the heartache of a broken marriage.  If people in bad marriages could 'both' go to God for resolution.  
But a divorced Christian can at least find comfort in the fact that Jesus Christ Himself publically stated, and the Holy Spirit transcribed it, that adultery is an excusable reason for divorce with no requirement to ask for God's forgiveness.

What's the remedy for the divorce problems in the world today?
I guess it's the same as it was in 1000 B.C., godly people who marry godly people, then both of them continue living for each other.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie,

As a pastor, what would you say to a woman who showed up with a broken arm, two black eyes and burn marks on her face?  She wants a divorce and she asks for your biblical pastoral counsel. What would you say to her?


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> Divorce is allowable....legally.  Jesus is speaking of the consequences of a divorce.
> 
> Your choosing to see the exception clause and ignore the very DIRECT question that he answered....how do you get around that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pharasees asked him directly, "Is divorce allowed under any circumstances...".  He directly answered.  No it is not.  Then he went on to speak of the consequences if divorce is chosen.
> 
> It was very much legally allowed.  The question is whether God approves.



The Pharisees' first question was "is it lawful to divorce for any reason?"  In "testing" Him, they were asking Him to side with one of two prominent Jewish rabbis... Hillel and Shammai.  Hillel interpreted "uncleaness" found in Deuteronomy 24:1 to be "any reason"... including things as trivial as "burning the cornbread."  Shammai viewed the same passage to mean that there had to be divorce over something substantial... including but not limited to sexual immorality.  Their question to Jesus was actually, "is Hillel's interpretation correct?  Their intent was to cause Him to lose favor with some followers.

In responding, Jesus didn't take a side... He went back to God's original intent for marriage stated in Genesis 2:22, and implied they were asking the wrong question.  They were interested in breaking marriages... they should be interested in keeping marriages together.  Hence, Jesus' warning regarding their desire to separate people.

The follow-up question in verse 7 was an attempt to find inconsistency in Jesus' response.  Their response was "IF it has always been God's intent for marriage to be permanent, why did the law of Moses give provisions for divorce to occur?"  Their implication was... "if this was God's original intent and you claim it should be so today, why was there a period of time when God clearly allowed divorce (under the law of Moses)?"  Hence the reason for Jesus' reply in verse 8... because hardness of people's heart, God allowed it.

In verse 9... Jesus went on to outline what God would allow in the Christian age... marriage is permanent, but if unfaithfulness occurs, a person can legitimately divorce his/her spouse and remarry another w/o condemnation of God. 

From my viewpoint, verses 4-6 is a commentary of how God has always wanted permanence in marriage, verses 7-8 explain why God allowed an exception in the time of Moses' law, and verse 9 outlines grounds under which a divorce/remarriage is allowable in the Christian age.  I don't see any other way to interpret the passage... but maybe it's just me?


----------



## Ronnie T

rjcruiser said:


> Ronnie, how much of your beliefs on divorce have to do with the situation you're dealing with right now?
> 
> Not saying that you are unjustified for how or what you believe, but it is near impossible to take personal experience out of the equation.



If you're talking about the subject from a couple of weeks ago??
I hope those two will stay together.  They're working on it.  Both of them are working on it.  They need to, their children need it, and obviously God would want them to be able to stay together to work toward once again become a powerful family in His Son's church.

Even though Christ said she could, doesn't mean she should or has to.
I'll be very disappointed if they aren't able to move through this.

But Jesus said what He said.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Ronnie,
> 
> As a pastor, what would you say to a woman who showed up with a broken arm, two black eyes and burn marks on her face?  She wants a divorce and she asks for your biblical pastoral counsel. What would you say to her?



I'm not sure what order I'd follow, but I'd tell her two things.

I'd tell her that in the Bible, Jesus only named adultery as a God ordained reason for divorce.  And she needs to weight what the Bible says.

I'd also tell her that she needs to get someone, a relative, a policeman, myself, to go to her home and pack her bags and move away from that man at least for now.  I would stress how important it is for her to protect herself from him because the justice system won't do it for her.

But I would neither urge her to divorce him nor stay with him.

If it were my daughter, I'd likely take the decision process out of her hands, if you know what I mean.


----------



## jmharris23

Ronnie T said:


> I'm not sure what order I'd follow, but I'd tell her two things.
> 
> I'd tell her that in the Bible, Jesus only named adultery as a God ordained reason for divorce.  And she needs to weight what the Bible says.
> 
> I'd also tell her that she needs to get someone, a relative, a policeman, myself, to go to her home and pack her bags and move away from that man at least for now.  I would stress how important it is for her to protect herself from him because the justice system won't do it for her.
> 
> But I would neither urge her to divorce him nor stay with him.
> 
> If it were my daughter, I'd likely take the decision process out of her hands, if you know what I mean.




As a pastor I am with Ronnie on this one. I have thought about Piper's stance all day and being familiar with him I appreciate it. I am sure that he has given it much thought and prayer and didn't come to this lightly. 
I see his point and even took the time to check up on his language work. 

But I will also say that things aren't always black and white as much as I would like them to be. 

For example, there is a couple in my church right now who are both divorced and have their own kids. Life has dealt them both a few hard knocks and a while back they crossed paths and became good friends. As it is with men and women, their friendship became more and they have fallen in love and are committed to providing a solid Christian example and home to each other and their kids. They recently came to talk with me about their relationship and their desire to be married. 

They are going to get married regardless of what I tell them. It would be much easier in black and white. 

Sometimes as a pastor I come to a place that where I just offer the Word for what it is and let God work in his grace.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> You're mixing up forgiveness and qualifications.  Like HF posted before, sin has consequences.  It can be forgiven...put as far as the east is from the west, but the consequences/scars remain for ever.



...as long as Churches keep holding it against people.  Why not just let folks move on, it's the most "Christian" thing to do.  The only people calling these folks disqualified are y'all based on your interpretations of the subject.  The Bible can say whatever you want it to say if you look at it the right way, which is why I never take anybody's word for it.


----------



## Huntinfool

Bama4me said:


> The Pharisees' first question was "is it lawful to divorce for any reason?"  In "testing" Him, they were asking Him to side with one of two prominent Jewish rabbis... Hillel and Shammai.  Hillel interpreted "uncleaness" found in Deuteronomy 24:1 to be "any reason"... including things as trivial as "burning the cornbread."  Shammai viewed the same passage to mean that there had to be divorce over something substantial... including but not limited to sexual immorality.  Their question to Jesus was actually, "is Hillel's interpretation correct?  Their intent was to cause Him to lose favor with some followers.
> 
> In responding, Jesus didn't take a side... He went back to God's original intent for marriage stated in Genesis 2:22, and implied they were asking the wrong question.  They were interested in breaking marriages... they should be interested in keeping marriages together.  Hence, Jesus' warning regarding their desire to separate people.
> 
> The follow-up question in verse 7 was an attempt to find inconsistency in Jesus' response.  Their response was "IF it has always been God's intent for marriage to be permanent, why did the law of Moses give provisions for divorce to occur?"  Their implication was... "if this was God's original intent and you claim it should be so today, why was there a period of time when God clearly allowed divorce (under the law of Moses)?"  Hence the reason for Jesus' reply in verse 8... because hardness of people's heart, God allowed it.
> 
> In verse 9... Jesus went on to outline what God would allow in the Christian age... marriage is permanent, but if unfaithfulness occurs, a person can legitimately divorce his/her spouse and remarry another w/o condemnation of God.
> 
> From my viewpoint, verses 4-6 is a commentary of how God has always wanted permanence in marriage, verses 7-8 explain why God allowed an exception in the time of Moses' law, and verse 9 outlines grounds under which a divorce/remarriage is allowable in the Christian age.  I don't see any other way to interpret the passage... but maybe it's just me?



I've heard that before and I think it's a widely held position.  I think you articulated it well.

There's only one problem (well two really) that I can think of that cause me to think it's not correct.

First, what do you do with ALL of the other passages outside of Matthew that talk about divorce and re-marriage?  Not a single one of them mentions the exception for adultery.  Not one.  How do you reconcile that with your position?  

I suppose you could say, well Jesus was the ultimate authority.  But he sent the disciples out to spread the gospel.  The spoke for him...and not one of them mentioned that exception for the remainder of the NT.

So, you see, the position that the passages in Matthew are saying what you laid out very well are inconsistent with the remainder of the NT UNLESS....they don't say there is an exception for adultery.  Continuity of scripture is essential.  If it conflicts itself, then it is fallable.

Also, regardless of how you read the first question...they clearly got a "no"...otherwise they wouldn't have asked the second.  I think it's a stretch at best to try to infer what the intent of that question was.  Rather, it should be read as is.  "Is there any reason for divorce?"...No.

Like I said, I think you laid that out well and it's widely held.  These are the reasons I think differently.

There is no conflicting scripture with permanence.


----------



## CAL

Well,since this is a Divorce discussion.What would be your discussion about a person who had been married 5 times.What would you say about his Christianity situation.Is he forgiven for his undertakings.
There is more but lets discuss this first.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> First, what do you do with ALL of the other passages outside of Matthew that talk about divorce and re-marriage?  Not a single one of them mentions the exception for adultery.  Not one.  How do you reconcile that with your position?
> 
> I suppose you could say, well Jesus was the ultimate authority.  But he sent the disciples out to spread the gospel.  The spoke for him...and not one of them mentioned that exception for the remainder of the NT.



To answer your first objection, the issue you raise is one that doesn't consider the whole of Scripture.  Whenever we want to get a "complete" picture of any topic in the word of God, we must search every passage which deals with the topic.  Consider the idea of baptism as an example... no one single passage gives the entire "picture" of what occurs when a person is baptized.  Yet, when we consider the whole of Scripture together, we see that baptism:
*  Is where we meet Christ's blood (Ephesians 1:7 + Galatians 3:27; "saves us" according to 1 Peter 3:21)
*  Adds us to the church (1 Corinthians 12:13)
*  Provides us a new life (Romans 6:4-6)
*  Allows us to have a clean conscience (1 Peter 3:21)

The last idea (a clean conscience) is only mentioned in connection to baptism in one place in the Bible... it's not found in any other passage referring to baptism.  Does the fact that it's only mentioned once imply that those who are baptized don't enjoy a clean conscience?  No... it simply means that for whatever reason, the recipients of 1 Peter needed to understand that idea and evidently, it did not need mentioning in any other NT letter.

In reference to your second objection... I beg to differ.  IF they obeyed Matthew 28:20, they very much would have taught that very principle many times... "teaching them to observe ALL things that I have commanded you." No other place outside of the gospel epistles do we find an apostle write "if anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself daily and take up his cross daily and follow Me."  Yet, I FIRMLY believe the apostles taught it to those they converted... because our Lord commanded that teaching to be passed along by their lips.  The fact we don't see it written again in the NT doesn't mean it was not an apostolic teaching.


----------



## Huntinfool

How do come to the conclusion that my first objection doesn't consider the whole of Scripture?  I took all passages regarding divorce into the argument.

You cannot read the Matthew passages, then look at the rest of scripture regarding the issue and reconcile it with a belief that there is an exception for adultery in my opinion.

Your example about baptism is true.  I get that.  But those examples are not mirrors of each other with one single exception.  They are all different expositions on the subject.  Each building on the other.

All of the passages on divorce reinforce the same point.  They say the same thing.  

Divorce and remarry?  God intended marriage to be permanent.

Divorce and remarry?  It's an act of adultery.  

Each of them says the exact same thing.  The only difference in any of them is that the two in Matthew mention what most people believe to be an exception.  

There is a very good case to say that there is no exception there.



> IF they obeyed Matthew 28:20, they very much would have taught that very principle many times... "teaching them to observe ALL things that I have commanded you."



...but they didn't teach the exception...at least not in scripture.  I can only go on what I know in scripture.  I agree with you, they were required to teach all things that he commanded.  Since they did not teach the exception in scripture...I must conclude that they did understood there to be no exception.


----------



## Huntinfool

CAL said:


> Well,since this is a Divorce discussion.What would be your discussion about a person who had been married 5 times.What would you say about his Christianity situation.Is he forgiven for his undertakings.
> There is more but lets discuss this first.



I am simply telling you what my understanding of scripture tells me.  I am not passing judgment on anyone who has been divorced.

Each of the divorces was an act of adultery.  Each of them was not approved by God.

I cannot speak to his "Christianity situation".  I don't know him.  Sinning does not take your salvation.  If you are saved, you are saved...and you will still sin.

Is he forgiven?  If he repents and considers his current marriage permanent to death, of course he is.  Grace covers all sin.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Adultery is one of the sins that cannot be allowed into heaven.



Ronnie,

Can you clarify for me what you mean by this?  I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

It reads like "People who commit adultery will not be allowed into heaven".  I don't think that's what you meant, but I wanted to clarify.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie T said:


> I'd tell her that in the Bible, Jesus only named adultery as a God ordained reason for divorce.  And she needs to weight what the Bible says.



No exception for abandonment?  

No issue there.  There are lots of "1 clause" believers who say only for adultery.  But there are "2 clause" people who read abandonment of a believer by an un-believer as an exception as well.


----------



## Huntinfool

> For example, there is a couple in my church right now who are both divorced and have their own kids. Life has dealt them both a few hard knocks and a while back they crossed paths and became good friends. As it is with men and women, their friendship became more and they have fallen in love and are committed to providing a solid Christian example and home to each other and their kids. They recently came to talk with me about their relationship and their desire to be married.
> 
> They are going to get married regardless of what I tell them. It would be much easier in black and white.
> 
> Sometimes as a pastor I come to a place that where I just offer the Word for what it is and let God work in his grace.



JM,

Great example of what makes it hard to take this stance.  Your heart says they are in love and they should be married.  It seems like the right thing to do. 

As you said, they are going to be married anyway.  I suppose it's more a question of whether you will marry them, right?  You cannot order them to do anything.  You can counsel them.

How is it possible that it is somehow more righteous for those two to stay un-married and raise their kids as single parents?  Honestly...truly...I don't know.

The best answer I have is something that Voddie says in the sermon I posted an Piper echos as well.  Essentially the answer is that God takes an oath or a vow very seriously.  There are many passages that address how seriously, so I won't list them.  I'm sure you know them well.

As hard as it is to tell those two that they are still living under a vow to remain married (at least in their hearts) to their first spouses, that is exactly what we are told is the truth in scripture.  I'm making an assumption here and I'll guess that not BOTH of those marriages ended because of adultery.  So, even if you accept that adultery is an exception...they cannot marry in God's eyes.  At least one of them is still bound to thier spouse (I would say both).  

The point is to say, what better way to proclaim God's glory than to rely on him and his truth and to maintain a vow that you made before him.  To say to the world, this vow is unbreakable until death because God ordained it.  

Difficult?  Man I can't imagine.  Overwhelmingly so I bet.  It's a question of whether it's true or not.  





By the way....for those that care.  Here is Piper's explanation of why he thinks the "exception clause" is not an exception.  I didn't go into the word study because I didn't think it necessary.  But this is the same argument I've read other places...and it is very convincing to me.

In response to "Did Jesus mean we could divorce for adultery?":



> I don’t think that is what Jesus meant. Jesus does not use the word “adultery” (moicheia) here (when he says “except for sexual immorality”). He does not say “except for adultery,” which is what we would expect him to say if he were referring to adultery. He does use the word for adultery elsewhere (Matt. 15:19), and he uses it specifically in distinction to the word he uses here, namely, the word that ordinarily means “fornication” (porneia, see especially John 8:41) when distinguished from adultery. Therefore, I think what Jesus is doing is warning his readers that this absolute prohibition against remarriage does not apply to the situation of betrothal, where fornication may have happened. In other words, he is saying, “When you hear me give an absolute prohibition of remarriage after divorce, don’t include in that prohibition the divorce of a betrothed couple because of fornication.”
> Matthew is the one Gospel that tells about Joseph’s intention to “divorce” his betrothed Mary because he thought she had committed fornication. “Her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19). The word for “divorce” here (apolusai) is the same as in Matthew 19:9. Moreover, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” or “righteous” (dikaios) in resolving to “divorce” Mary. There is no suggestion that Joseph would have been prohibited from marrying someone after “divorcing” Mary in this betrothed situation. My conclusion is that in Matthew 19:9, the inspired apostle is showing us that Jesus’ prohibition of remarriage does not apply to Joseph’s kind of situation.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> ...as long as Churches keep holding it against people.  Why not just let folks move on, it's the most "Christian" thing to do.  The only people calling these folks disqualified are y'all based on your interpretations of the subject.  The Bible can say whatever you want it to say if you look at it the right way, which is why I never take anybody's word for it.



No...the church is not holding it against them.  They are freed from the burden of the sin....but the consequences remain.

Again, they can serve the church, they can help out, they can be involved.  They just can't be in the position of leadership as pastor/elder.




CAL said:


> Well,since this is a Divorce discussion.What would be your discussion about a person who had been married 5 times.What would you say about his Christianity situation.Is he forgiven for his undertakings.
> There is more but lets discuss this first.



I'd refer to the woman at the well.  I believe she was forgiven.


----------



## Ronnie T

Ronnie T said:


> I read all the sermon and the things connected to it.  I've got to say that it all sounds good.  But I have to take it as a biblical philosophy that comes from a man's heart and desire rather than from the whole of God's word.
> God obviously made man and woman to become an eternal union.  They were to multiply the world.  Yet, from the very beginning it was never an eternal union for everyone.  Throughout the entire old testament the vast majority (it seems) of men and women relationships that were documented show that men had several wives at one time or they divorced and remarried over and over again.
> It happened so often it's almost humorous to look at the failed marriages and high number of cases of adultery.  Even so far as one man taking the life of another man so he could have his wife.  He and that "wife" had a child that was concieved prior to her husband's death.  God took that child's life later on.
> 
> In the New Testament, the Pharisees continued to shake up Jesus' ministry by asking Him the 'difficult' questions.  One of those questions concerned divorce.  At this point, as often happened in Jesus' teachings, Jesus 'reigned in' some of the teachings of the Pharisees.  Kinda like the "you've heard it said" teachings from the sermon of the mount.
> But Jesus did not respond to the Pharisees by saying that no one can ever divorce again, which He could have!  Jesus could have said that there's a permanence to marriage that cannot be broken for any reason.  But Jesus did not do that.
> Jesus named adultery as the exception.  The Gospel goes on to identity adultery as a sin that's unlike any other sin.  It's a sin a person commits of their own flesh, against their own flesh and someone elses.  Adultery is one of the sins that cannot be allowed into heaven.  It is the deal breaker.  It is that which can break the bond of an otherwise unbreakable union.
> 
> I think it's great for a husband and wife to vow that they will never break the marriage apart.  All should.  I certainly intend to.
> I'm not divorced and don't intend to ever divorce.
> 
> Oh how simple it would be, if good people only married other good people.  There'd never be the heartache of a broken marriage.  If people in bad marriages could 'both' go to God for resolution.
> But a divorced Christian can at least find comfort in the fact that Jesus Christ Himself publically stated, and the Holy Spirit transcribed it, that adultery is an excusable reason for divorce with no requirement to ask for God's forgiveness.
> 
> What's the remedy for the divorce problems in the world today?
> I guess it's the same as it was in 1000 B.C., godly people who marry godly people, then both of them continue living for each other.



I'm glad the sermon you've mentioned powerfully motivated you.  All of us want that to happen.  Lord knows it doesn't happen often enough.  But there has to be a time when we put that sermon aside and go back to the Word.  Don't use a sermon as a justification for getting the Bible to say something it might not actually say.  Not my sermon or any others.
The Bible is simple.  If Jesus said it, it's said.  If Jesus okayed it, it's been okayed.  If Jesus condemned it at one time but didn't condemn it on another occasion, it doesn't mean both must be condemned today.  It means there was a difference in the two someplace.

I admire your conviction, but I'm afraid you're going to hurt someone today or in the future with your bold and powerful stance on this subject.

Hf, what do you think of the first two paragraphs of my comments from the other day?  You never commented.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> No...the church is not holding it against them.  They are freed from the burden of the sin....but the consequences remain.
> 
> Again, they can serve the church, they can help out, they can be involved.  They just can't be in the position of leadership as pastor/elder.



Because you said so?  In order for the Bible to mean what it is you say it means you have to add words to it: "Having only ever had one wife," as opposed to what is actually says: "husband of one wife."

So, adulterers can be elders as long as they are forgiven and they stay married, but some dude gets left by his wife for whatever reason and he is unqualified?  Nice.

Why in the world would I, or anybody else, want to be part of a place where I am considered "unclean," but some dude can cheat on his wife years ago and still be an elder if she didn't divorce him for it?  I did not need forgiveness from God, and I do not need judgment from the Church, which is what you are doing, you are judging them unworthy based on a scripture that you had to add to in order to make it work.


----------



## Huntinfool

> I'm glad the sermon you've mentioned powerfully motivated you. All of us want that to happen. Lord knows it doesn't happen often enough. But there has to be a time when we put that sermon aside and go back to the Word. Don't use a sermon as a justification for getting the Bible to say something it might not actually say. Not my sermon or any others.



The sermon is simply a very biblically based message that is chock full of all of the passages pertaining to the issue.  It is not what I base my belief on.  I posted it because it is a VERY good explanation of the position...better than I can do.

I took that, along with Piper's argument, went back to the text and read it myself.  From my perspective, they are right.



> The Bible is simple. If Jesus said it, it's said. If Jesus okayed it, it's been okayed.



Totally agree.  I just don't think he ok'd it.  It's laid out pretty clearly to me.  "Is it ever ok to divorce?"...."no".

The follow-up is a clarification of the case law and an explanation of what happens IF you choose to divorce.  Pretty clear to me in scripture.  I understand that you read it differently.  I'm ok with that.  As I said, I'm in the minority.



> I admire your conviction, but I'm afraid you're going to hurt someone today or in the future with your bold and powerful stance on this subject.



I don't follow.  Just because I remove one exclusion?  We agree that abuse, drugs, alcohol, emotional seperation, and all other reasons are not valid for divorce.  Why would adding one other reason hurt someone?  I'm not convicting them for their actions.  Possibly pointing out the need for forgiveness for that action.  But as I have said many times in this thread....grace covers all.


These two?



> Originally Posted by Ronnie T
> I read all the sermon and the things connected to it. I've got to say that it all sounds good. But I have to take it as a biblical philosophy that comes from a man's heart and desire rather than from the whole of God's word.
> God obviously made man and woman to become an eternal union. They were to multiply the world. Yet, from the very beginning it was never an eternal union for everyone. Throughout the entire old testament the vast majority (it seems) of men and women relationships that were documented show that men had several wives at one time or they divorced and remarried over and over again.
> It happened so often it's almost humorous to look at the failed marriages and high number of cases of adultery. Even so far as one man taking the life of another man so he could have his wife. He and that "wife" had a child that was concieved prior to her husband's death. God took that child's life later on.
> 
> In the New Testament, the Pharisees continued to shake up Jesus' ministry by asking Him the 'difficult' questions. One of those questions concerned divorce. At this point, as often happened in Jesus' teachings, Jesus 'reigned in' some of the teachings of the Pharisees. Kinda like the "you've heard it said" teachings from the sermon of the mount.
> But Jesus did not respond to the Pharisees by saying that no one can ever divorce again, which He could have! Jesus could have said that there's a permanence to marriage that cannot be broken for any reason. But Jesus did not do that.
> Jesus named adultery as the exception. The Gospel goes on to identity adultery as a sin that's unlike any other sin. It's a sin a person commits of their own flesh, against their own flesh and someone elses. Adultery is one of the sins that cannot be allowed into heaven. It is the deal breaker. It is that which can break the bond of an otherwise unbreakable union.




IMO....Jesus did not name adultery as the exception (see the word study I posted earlier today).  In fact, he didn't even use the word for adultery in the text.

If I read it correctly, your point is that God intended marriage to be permanent.  I agree....why would the unchanging God change his mind?

BUT...you say, it hasn't continued that way.  The OT is rampant with divorce, murder, etc.  I agree.  Does that mean that God wanted it that way?  Nope...it just means that people chose not to follow the way God intended.  We've been doing that for generations in many areas of life.  

Would you assume that since people still commit murder, God has somehow changed his mind on the issue?  No.  People disobey God's intent every day.  His original intent for marriage (as you stated) was permanence.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> How do come to the conclusion that my first objection doesn't consider the whole of Scripture?  I took all passages regarding divorce into the argument.
> 
> You cannot read the Matthew passages, then look at the rest of scripture regarding the issue and reconcile it with a belief that there is an exception for adultery in my opinion.
> 
> Your example about baptism is true.  I get that.  But those examples are not mirrors of each other with one single exception.  They are all different expositions on the subject.  Each building on the other.
> 
> All of the passages on divorce reinforce the same point.  They say the same thing.
> 
> Divorce and remarry?  God intended marriage to be permanent.
> 
> *Divorce and remarry?  It's an act of adultery.*
> 
> Each of them says the exact same thing.  The only difference in any of them is that the two in Matthew mention what most people believe to be an exception.
> 
> There is a very good case to say that there is no exception there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...but they didn't teach the exception...at least not in scripture.  I can only go on what I know in scripture.  I agree with you, they were required to teach all things that he commanded.  Since they did not teach the exception in scripture...I must conclude that they did understood there to be no exception.



Since you claim my example on baptism is "apples and oranges" to our topic, let me provide an "apples and apples" example.  Hebrews 13:17 clearly says we must obey/submit to our leaders... which would be elders.  1 Timothy 5:19-20, however, gives an exception when it would be allowable for submission to be superceeded... if an elder is sinning.  In the passage, the same Greek phrase used in Matthew 19:9 (except) is utilized.  The idea of "submission" of Hebrews 13:17 doesn't agree with "accuse" of 1 Timothy 5:19... nor with the idea of "publicly rebuking him in 5:20."

With that cited, realize the command of 1 Timothy 5:19-20 is found nowhere else in discussing elders or leaders in the church.  Does that mean I can simply toss specific teachings in this text out the window... just because the "exception passage" isn't restated elsewhere?

No matter how you to interpret it based on other passages, Matthew 19:9 clearly says that one who divorces and remarries another is not in a sinful relationship.  You can say "why don't other passages mention it" all day long... but the fact is, Matthew 19:9 DOES mention it. If I start going throughout the Bible throwing out ideas in topics just because they are only mentioned once, I'll omit a good bit of what God intends for me to believe/practice in my life.

The fact we don't find specific evidence in the later part of the New Testament doesn't change the fact apostles were commanded to teach ALL that Jesus commanded to those who were converted.  Again, go find Luke 9:23.. or John 4:24... or many other teachings of Christ... restated in New Testament writings. Just because I can't find it, I must assume the apostles failed to teach it?  If that's the claim we make, we charge the apostles with sin and the Holy Spirit for failing in His responsibility (John 14:26 - "the Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance all things that I said to you").

Sorry... I can't buy what you're selling.


----------



## Ronnie T

JB0704 said:


> Because you said so?  In order for the Bible to mean what it is you say it means you have to add words to it: "Having only ever had one wife," as opposed to what is actually says: "husband of one wife."
> 
> So, adulterers can be elders as long as they are forgiven and they stay married, but some dude gets left by his wife for whatever reason and he is unqualified?  Nice.
> 
> Why in the world would I, or anybody else, want to be part of a place where I am considered "unclean," but some dude can cheat on his wife years ago and still be an elder if she didn't divorce him for it?  I did not need forgiveness from God, and I do not need judgment from the Church, which is what you are doing, you are judging them unworthy based on a scripture that you had to add to in order to make it work.



A person who's unqualified to be an elder should never be considered "unclean".  And it isn't the church who makes that judgment, unless they prescribe qualities that weren't directed by the apostles or Christ.
I think the marriage and children clause was a part of their biblical qualifications because of the nature of their responsibilities in the Lord's church.  They care for the needs of each person of the church.  Maybe it's so that young married couple who's having marriage difficulties can come to the elder for help without having to question that elder's past marriage problems.
All I know it that the requirement is there.  I either live and abide by it, or I get one of those little bottles of 'white-out' and paint over it so it will disappear.


----------



## Huntinfool

> but some dude can cheat on his wife years ago and still be an elder if she didn't divorce him for it?



Just FYI, most churches that hold that position on divorce also hold the same for adultery.  They consider "one wife" to mean the flesh union that is experienced in...well you know.

Adultery and divorce would have the same impact on qualification as they mean you were not faithful to the union oath you made with God and your wife.


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> All I know it that the requirement is there.  I either live and abide by it, or I get one of those little bottles of 'white-out' and paint over it so it will disappear.



How is "husband of one wife" translated to "only been married once?"

So, a fella can cheat on his wife, leave her, come back and get forgiven, then be an elder.  But, another fella in the next pew over gets left by his wife for somebody else, even though he tries his best to work it out, and is not qualified.

I want no part of that logic.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Adultery and divorce would have the same impact on qualification as they mean you were not faithful to the union oath you made with God and your wife.



Where did you get that from?  I have never read "never committed adultery" as a qualification anywhere in the Bible.

Folks add things to fit their bias.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Matthew 19:9 clearly says that one who divorces and remarries another is not in a sinful relationship. You can say "why don't other passages mention it" all day long... but the fact is, Matthew 19:9 DOES mention it.



Actually...it doesn't say that.  I think you meant to say it says you can divorce and remarry because of adultery.



> The fact we don't find specific evidence in the later part of the New Testament doesn't change the fact apostles were commanded to teach ALL that Jesus commanded to those who were converted.



Again...I agree with you.  But they didn't teach it.  My view of it allows all of scripture to fit nicely.  You have to infer the intent of the question in Matthew and that the apostles did teach it even though it isn't written when they discuss the issue.

In any case, Jesus ALSO said that any man who looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her....You have to understand that your position requires that any woman married to a man who has ever looked lustfully at a woman, is then, biblically justified in divorce.  

Is there somehow a difference between physical adultery and adultery in your heart?  Jesus didn't seem to indicate that there was a difference.  How do you work around that if you allow divorce for adultery?



> Sorry... I can't buy what you're selling.



You don't have to.  As I said before, I admit....most people don't.  But I think that most people are simply re-stating what they've been taught through the years and have never done a serious scripture  study on the issue.  

I know you have...I'm not including you in that statement.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Folks add things to fit their bias.



Yes....you've said that a bunch of times.  I get it.




> But, another fella in the next pew over gets left by his wife...



Your past, understandably, makes you not want to read it the way most do.  I have things from my past that make me want to read things differently as well.  It's very hard to put our feelings aside and just read the text for what it is.  I will give you that.


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> A person who's unqualified to be an elder should never be considered "unclean".



How 'bout "not clean enough for an elder."  You are giving them a "scarlett D."  Any sin is ok, unless you get divorced over it.  God forgives all, but the church can't forgive divorce.  

I don't want y'all to think I am upset about this.  I am not.  As I have said, I have no dog in the fight, I would never, ever, ever, want any part of being an elder in church.  I just hate this for the good men who do who are hurt by a religious doctrine that makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## JB0704

And you are adding things here HF.  "Never committed adultery" is not a biblical qualification for being an elder.  Neither is "never been divorced."  That is what has been taught in church for hundreds of years, I know, but it is not what the Bible says.  I have also always been taught many, many things which were not correct.  The Church (universally) just recently got over it's bias against inter-racial marriages.  They had been wrong for hundreds of years.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> In fact, he didn't even use the word for adultery in the text.



Really?  The Greek word in the text first translated "adultery/sexual immorality" is the word "pornea".  Literally, it means "unforbidden sexual intercourse."  When used in the Bible to describe the act among married people, the word "adultery/sexual immorality" is used (i.e. 1 Corinthians 5:1).  When used among unmarried people or in its broadest send, it is often "fornication/sexual immorality" (i.e. 1 Corinthians 6:18).   It is used once in the text.

Another Greek word, "moichao", is also used to denote sexual unfaithfulness in the verse... the last usage in the text.  "Moichao" is a more prohibitive term.  Thayer says it means "to have unlawful intercouse for another's wife."  Obviously, it fits perfectly in the latter case.


----------



## Huntinfool

> And you are adding things here HF. "Never committed adultery" is not a biblical qualification for being an elder. Neither is "never been divorced." That is what has been taught in church for hundreds of years, I know, but it is not what the Bible says. I have also always been taught many, many things which were not correct. The Church (universally) just recently got over it's bias against inter-racial marriages. They had been wrong for hundreds of years.



I didn't add it.  I was just trying to clarify what a lot of churches believe.  You were asking how they could allow for adultery and not divorce.  I was just trying to clarify that for you.


----------



## Huntinfool

Bama,

See Piper's explanation that I posted earlier.  I am not a greek scholar.  I have to rely on those I trust who are (Voddie's argument is exactly the same).

In response to the question of whether Jesus meant to exclude adultery...



> I don’t think that is what Jesus meant. Jesus does not use the word “adultery” (moicheia) here (when he says “except for sexual immorality”). He does not say “except for adultery,” which is what we would expect him to say if he were referring to adultery. He does use the word for adultery elsewhere (Matt. 15:19), and he uses it specifically in distinction to the word he uses here, namely, the word that ordinarily means “fornication” (porneia, see especially John 8:41) when distinguished from adultery. Therefore, I think what Jesus is doing is warning his readers that this absolute prohibition against remarriage does not apply to the situation of betrothal, where fornication may have happened. In other words, he is saying, “When you hear me give an absolute prohibition of remarriage after divorce, don’t include in that prohibition the divorce of a betrothed couple because of fornication.”
> Matthew is the one Gospel that tells about Joseph’s intention to “divorce” his betrothed Mary because he thought she had committed fornication. “Her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19). The word for “divorce” here (apolusai) is the same as in Matthew 19:9. Moreover, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” or “righteous” (dikaios) in resolving to “divorce” Mary. There is no suggestion that Joseph would have been prohibited from marrying someone after “divorcing” Mary in this betrothed situation. My conclusion is that in Matthew 19:9, the inspired apostle is showing us that Jesus’ prohibition of remarriage does not apply to Joseph’s kind of situation.



It's a solid argument and interpretation....

I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to prove me wrong.  We should agree to disagree.  My purpose for posting my position was simply to show "why" I believe it.  I'm aware that I won't convince many and I'm ok with that.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I didn't add it.  I was just trying to clarify what a lot of churches believe.  You were asking how they could allow for adultery and not divorce.  I was just trying to clarify that for you.



Then they are adding it.  Even then, the question remains, why doesn't the Bible just say "never been divorced" if that is what it means?  The qualification is in Titus and Timothy, and both, in the several translations I just looked up, say the same thing: husband of one wife.  You have to add to it to get it to mean what you say it means.

Also, why is it a man can do whatever he wants and be forgiven enough to be an elder except have a divorce?
There is stuff in there about being good with money.  I have never heard of a man being turned away because he has a bankrupcy in his past.  

Nice church.  My fellow pew sitter can be a deacon because when he cheated his wife she didn't leave.  But, when I was very young, my wife did leave, so I got that "D" on my chest which makes me unworthy.  See why I detest the idea of being in church?


----------



## Huntinfool

> I have never heard of a man being turned away because he has a bankrupcy in his past.



All of the qualifications are equally important.  We're talking about divorce in this thread.  That's why it's being focussed on I suppose.

If you've proven you haven't managed your house, your finances and a number of other things well in the past, there is some question as to whether you should be leading others in doing so.

It's not a conviction of the man.  It's just saying "maybe there are others in the body who are better qualified for this particular type of service."

There is something in there about being or good reputation outside the body.  If you are a know adulterer, or drunk, or embezzler from you past...regardless of your current state, the world might look at you and wonder why the church is trusting you as a leader.  That's one of the reasons...so as to not raise question outside of the body.

Fair?  I'm not going to pronounce on that.  That's just what it says (and, yes, I know....that's how I intepret it which is not good).


----------



## JB0704

HF, why doesn't the Bible just say "never been divorced" if that is what it means?


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> Then they are adding it.  Even then, the question remains, why doesn't the Bible just say "never been divorced" if that is what it means?  The qualification is in Titus and Timothy, and both, in the several translations I just looked up, say the same thing: husband of one wife.  You have to add to it to get it to mean what you say it means.



No...you have to study it in the original language and view it in the context given.  Actual study is required.



			
				JB0704 said:
			
		

> Also, why is it a man can do whatever he wants and be forgiven enough to be an elder except have a divorce?
> There is stuff in there about being good with money.  I have never heard of a man being turned away because he has a bankrupcy in his past.



Really?  I have.  All things need to be looked at.



			
				JB0704 said:
			
		

> Nice church.  My fellow pew sitter can be a deacon because when he cheated his wife she didn't leave.  But, when I was very young, my wife did leave, so I got that "D" on my chest which makes me unworthy.  See why I detest the idea of being in church?



No...the fellow pew sitter I'd say has lost his right to be an elder/pastor as well.  

Nothing in your past keeps you from serving God.  Nothing in your past keeps you from serving His Church.  But....there are things that are requirements for holding the position of authority within the church.  They are there in scripture.  They are not negotiables.  If it bothers you, then it is the Bible that is offensive to you, not the Church.


----------



## rjcruiser

Nice Avatar JB...Nice 

If it was an A, people might think you were a Bama fan


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> If it bothers you, then it is the Bible that is offensive to you, not the Church.



Here you go, now, I am arguing with the Bible because that is what you say it says.....come on man.  The church interprets the Bible to fit their bias.

Again, because God clearly didn't want divorcees being elders, and because divorce was clearly a problem in Jewish culture, why didn't he just say "never been divorced."

The husband of one wife context is in two different books the same way.  I don't read greek, so I pulled up every translation I could on crosswalk, they all say the same thing.  None of them said what you say it is saying.

I am not debaitng God, I am debating y'all.


----------



## Huntinfool

> HF, why doesn't the Bible just say "never been divorced" if that is what it means?



Because then I couldn't make things up to fit my particular perspective JB...that's why.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> Nice Avatar JB...Nice
> 
> If it was an A, people might think you were a Bama fan



It's my scarlett letter. I apparently have to carry it with me now.  Otherwise, somebody might mistake me for "elder material."


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Because then I couldn't make things up to fit my particular perspective JB...that's why.



I know it frustrates you, about as much as y'all saying "lot's of folks agree with me" frustrates me.  It is what it is.


----------



## Huntinfool

It doesn't frustrate me....it just frustrates me.



Believe it or not...I was where you are a while back.  Go search my posts from a few years ago.

I believe I started a thread called "Is Doctrine Important?"....and I made the exact same arguments that you make every day.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> Here you go, now, I am arguing with the Bible because that is what you say it says.....come on man.  The church interprets the Bible to fit their bias.
> 
> Again, because God clearly didn't want divorcees being elders, and because divorce was clearly a problem in Jewish culture, why didn't he just say "never been divorced."
> 
> The husband of one wife context is in two different books the same way.  I don't read greek, so I pulled up every translation I could on crosswalk, they all say the same thing.  None of them said what you say it is saying.
> 
> I am not debaitng God, I am debating y'all.



Let me ask you this....do you think that a divorced person has managed their household well?

Did you manage your household well with your first wife?

You don't have to answer those questions publically, but that is probably my biggest issue with divorced men being pastors/elders.  I just don't see how a divorce can happen while a man is managing his household well.



JB0704 said:


> It's my scarlett letter. I apparently have to carry it with me now.  Otherwise, somebody might mistake me for "elder material."



I think you have to be in church for people to think you might be "elder" material


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> ....I made the exact same arguments that you make every day.



I just threw up a little....

Kidding man!  

It's ok. I don't get y'all, but thats what makes this forum a good time.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> Let me ask you this....do you think that a divorced person has managed their household well?
> 
> Did you manage your household well with your first wife?:



Everybody has a story to tell, don't they?  Mine is long and full of whatever it is that got me here.  I would not make the same blanket statement about managing their house well you did, because there are way too many factors to consider.  I did not marry well, and too young, but, as with everybody, there were multiple factors going into that beyond my own idiocy. Some men and women just go and do stupid things, why hold it against their spouse?



rjcruiser said:


> I think you have to be in church for people to think you might be "elder" material



You have a point.


----------



## Nicodemus

JB0704 said:


> It's my scarlett letter. I apparently have to carry it with me now.  Otherwise, somebody might mistake me for "elder material."






JB, don`t let the holier-than-thou`s, internet prophets, and biblical scholars bother you, because you are divorced. I`m sure God will not judge you nearly as harsh as these worldly folks do. You`re not alone in the D group, there are plenty. Myself included. 

I wonder how many that were undecided about Christianity, have made up their minds that it is not for them, because they have read all this? Some folks do more damage than good.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> Actually...it doesn't say that.  I think you meant to say it says you can divorce and remarry because of adultery.
> 
> Again...I agree with you.  But they didn't teach it.  My view of it allows all of scripture to fit nicely.  You have to infer the intent of the question in Matthew and that the apostles did teach it even though it isn't written when they discuss the issue.
> 
> In any case, Jesus ALSO said that any man who looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her....You have to understand that your position requires that any woman married to a man who has ever looked lustfully at a woman, is then, biblically justified in divorce.
> 
> Is there somehow a difference between physical adultery and adultery in your heart?  Jesus didn't seem to indicate that there was a difference.  How do you work around that if you allow divorce for adultery?



Nope... if adultery is present, then it's acceptable to God.  The inverse of the passage would read like this... "if a man divorces his wife for sexual immorality and remarries, he does not commit adultery."  Don't know how to read that any other way than "God allows divorce/remarriage in this case."

In the case of the apostles, if Jesus taught this, then the apostles would have likewise taught it... the fact that "it all fits nicely together" doesn't remove the fact that it's part of the words of Christ.

Regarding Matthew 5:27-28 making adultery of the heart an acceptable reason for divorce/remarriage, the context and interpretation does not allow it.  In verses 21-30, the Lord further explained what He said in verses 17-20.  In discussing "you shall not murder" and "you shall not commit adultery", He referenced the Ten Commanments.

The point of Christ?  Anger and adultery of one's heart is condemned by God JUST as murder and adultery both are clearly condemned by the Law.  Notice, however, He was not equating the sins in terms of various consequences they would incur.  Under the law, adultery and murder were punishable by death... but there were no physical consequences of either anger or lust.  Jesus, though, wanted to ensure His followers would realize both the physical action AND the emotions leading up to the act were wrong in God's sight (i.e. verse 22)... even though there not physical consequences for those feelings.

Here's the bottom line though... if we want to claim that lust qualifies as a legitimate reason for M/D/R, then we must also argue that anger should carry the same earthly consequences as murder (try that one with authorities).  Even more, though, is the fact "pornea" refers to "illicit sexual intercourse"... in other words, "pornea" is a physical act committed with another person.  "Illicit sexual intercourse" in one's mind only involves one.


----------



## JB0704

Nicodemus said:


> JB, don`t let the holier-than-thou`s, internet prophets, and biblical scholars bother you, because you are divorced. I`m sure God will not judge you nearly as harsh as these worldly folks do. You`re not alone in the D group, there are plenty. Myself included. .



Thanks, Nic.


----------



## Huntinfool

JB0704 said:


> I just threw up a little....
> 
> Kidding man!
> 
> It's ok. I don't get y'all, but thats what makes this forum a good time.


----------



## Randy

JB0704 said:


> And you are adding things here HF.  "Never committed adultery" is not a biblical qualification for being an elder.  Neither is "never been divorced."  That is what has been taught in church for hundreds of years, I know, but it is not what the Bible says.  I have also always been taught many, many things which were not correct.  The Church (universally) just recently got over it's bias against inter-racial marriages.  They had been wrong for hundreds of years.



I have to give this post a big AMEN.  I have yet to visit a church which believed everything the last church I attended believed.  Makes it real hard to determine who is right, if any at all.  I just read my Bible and let God tell me what it means.  He revealed a revelation to me that no church ever taught or could teach because they think "they" have to save people.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> Some men and women just go and do stupid things, why hold it against their spouse?



Right...we all do...myself included.  Nothing held against you.  Just a lot more inspection done as to if you are going to be an elder/pastor.

And...if it happened while you were a Christian, I'd say it pretty much disqualifies you on the spot from those leadership positions in the church.




Nicodemus said:


> JB, don`t let the holier-than-thou`s, internet prophets, and biblical scholars bother you, because you are divorced. I`m sure God will not judge you nearly as harsh as these worldly folks do. You`re not alone in the D group, there are plenty. Myself included.
> 
> I wonder how many that were undecided about Christianity, have made up their minds that it is not for them, because they have read all this? Some folks do more damage than good.



Nic...I think you are reading too much into the thread.  No one is condemning you or anyone to he!l for being divorced.  And no-one is holding anyone to a standard that is above what they hold for themselves.

This thread has nothing to do with salvation...or even service in their church.  It has everything to do with leadership positions within the church.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Nope... if adultery is not present, then it's acceptable to God.  The inverse of the passage would read like this... "if a man divorces his wife for sexual immorality and remarries, he does not commit adultery."  Don't know how to read that any other way than "God allows divorce/remarriage in this case."



Bama, I'm reading this wrong, right?  Are you saying that divorce is acceptable....for just about any reason one can think of?

If adultery is not present, then it's acceptable to God?  Is that how I'm supposed to read that?

Surely not.




> In the case of the apostles, if Jesus taught this, then the apostles would have likewise taught it... the fact that "it all fits nicely together" doesn't remove the fact that it's part of the words of Christ.



....but not of the disciples.  

I don't know how else to say this.  We agree that if Jesus taught it, then they did too.  But I don't see that he did...and so it's very convenient that they didn't either in the text.  To make your case, you have to infer...I do not.

You're firm in your belief.  I'm glad for that.  We disagree on this issue.  I would suspect that we agree on much more than we disagree.


----------



## Huntinfool

> I just read my Bible and let God tell me what it means.



...and what do you suppose the rest of us are doing?


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> Bama,
> 
> See Piper's explanation that I posted earlier.  I am not a greek scholar.  I have to rely on those I trust who are (Voddie's argument is exactly the same).
> 
> In response to the question of whether Jesus meant to exclude adultery...
> 
> It's a solid argument and interpretation....
> 
> I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to prove me wrong.  We should agree to disagree.  My purpose for posting my position was simply to show "why" I believe it.  I'm aware that I won't convince many and I'm ok with that.



As Ronnie T stated above, it may sound solid, but this is an opinion... the Greek doesn't support him to the extent he claims it does.  The reason Joseph would "divorce" Mary was because in their culture, when a couple was betrothed (similar to engagement), it was considered by their culture "a binding agreement."  

Today, it would be very similar to signing a contract to buy a house and paying earnest money.  The house is not owned yet... but you have committed legally to buying it.  When a couple who was betrothed in Jesus' time sought to annul that "contract", a process including the certificate of divorce was involved.  This process was not necessarily instructed in the Law as much as it was the procedure they followed as a people.

Bottom line, despite this though, is the fact Joseph lived under the Law of Moses... and Jesus' words in Matthew 19:9 weren't commenting on the Law... they were His guidelines for marriage for His people... under His covenant.  Thus, whatever might have constituted "divorce" in the Old Law is not relevant.

I agree that we are likely not going to convince each other... but I would caution you to notice that Piper says "I think" a good bit in his explanation.  BTW, I think the reason "pornea" was used in the first section was due to the fact that Jesus was including sexual sin like homosexuality and beastiality.  Neither would have qualified had He used the term "mochaia" there.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> Bama, I'm reading this wrong, right?  Are you saying that divorce is acceptable....for just about any reason one can think of?
> 
> If adultery is not present, then it's acceptable to God?  Is that how I'm supposed to read that?
> 
> Surely not.



Good catch... meant to write "if adultery is present, the subsequent marriage is acceptable to God."  Thanks.


----------



## Randy

Huntinfool said:


> ...and what do you suppose the rest of us are doing?


Going to church and believeing what your pastor tells you?  At least that is what I assume.  I can't imagine sitting through a meeting week after week not believing what the speaker is saying?


----------



## Huntinfool

> As Ronnie T stated above, it may sound solid, but this is an opinion... the Greek doesn't support him to the extent he claims it does.



John Piper and Voddie Baucham are both highly educated biblical scholars.  I don't know you Bama...so don't take this the wrong way.  I trust their understanding of how the text reads.  I wish I read the languages.  But I don't.




> Bottom line, despite this though, is the fact Joseph lived under the Law of Moses... and Jesus' words in Matthew 19:9 weren't commenting on the Law... they were His guidelines for marriage for His people... under His covenant. Thus, whatever might have constituted "divorce" in the Old Law is not relevant.



Divorce was never God's intent for marriage.  I hope we can agree on that.




> I agree that we are likely not going to convince each other... but I would caution you to notice that Piper says "I think" a good bit in his explanation.



"I think"....based on my careful study of the Bible and the original languages.  Not, "I think"....because I made it up out of thin air and don't care what the Bible says.

To JB's point....just like you....just like me.

Do not presume that you are not pronouncing "I think" on what you're posting.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Going to church and believeing what your pastor tells you? At least that is what I assume. I can't imagine sitting through a meeting week after week not believing what the speaker is saying?



So you're reading the Bible and hearing from God.

The rest of us are robots who go to church to have someone else tell us what to believe.  No Bible reading...no hearing from God.

Come on Randy...


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> John Piper and Voddie Baucham are both highly educated biblical scholars.  I don't know you Bama...so don't take this the wrong way.  I trust their understanding of how the text reads.  I wish I read the languages.  But I don't.



As educated as Piper and Baucham may be, there are many who are just as educated who disagree with them. I can read and study the Greek in the passage... but just don't see their interpretation there.  As much as they're "scouring the Greek" and bringing ideas from other texts into the passage, many are doing the exact same thing to expand reasons past adultery.  Hence, a new idea on Matthew 19:9 seems to come out regularly.

We all include "I think" based on study... but I'm not going to accept any teaching of educated people to determine a matter which affects my soul salvation. Personally, I wish it did... as you say, "wrap things up nicely."  However, it seems like a forced attempt to make a passage say what it doesn't (or didn't).

Understand, I've been there... wanting to fit a belief into a passage because it seems to "finally make sense in my mind."  It's not easy in those circumstances to view the Scriptures without bias... I face it, you face it, as does every other serious student of the Bible.  One of the most helpful pieces of advice I ever got about these kinds of things was "we must understand what the original folks heard/learned if we are going to understand how it will apply to us today."


----------



## Huntinfool

> We all include "I think" based on study... but I'm not going to accept any teaching of educated people to determine a matter which affects my soul salvation.



This issue doesn't affect your soul salvation, does it?  You don't base any of your understanding of any passage of scripture on the careful and prayerful thoughts and study of others?  Nothing?



> As educated as Piper and Baucham may be, there are many who are just as educated who disagree with them.



100% agree and have already acknowledged that fact.  In fact, their position is in the minority.  Being in the minority does not = incorrect though.


> Personally, I wish it did... as you say, "wrap things up nicely." However, it seems like a forced attempt to make a passage say what it doesn't (or didn't).



My comment on "wrap things up nicely" was intended to point to the continuity of scripture.  The fact that none of the passages contradict each other under permanence points to continuity not just convenience.

Point is that I think the way you read it is an attempt at making it say something it doesn't.  Jesus answered the question "is it ever permissible".



> Understand, I've been there... wanting to fit a belief into a passage because it seems to "finally make sense in my mind." It's not easy in those circumstances to view the Scriptures without bias... I face it, you face it, as does every other serious student of the Bible. One of the most helpful pieces of advice I ever got about these kinds of things was "we must understand what the original folks heard/learned if we are going to understand how it will apply to us today."



...and that is what I'm doing.  Taking into consideration what the original hearers understood.  I didn't fit my belief into this.  I was convinced of it after study and reading what others thought.  I was an "exception" guy for 35 years.  This does not fit with what I believed for a long time.  I had to admit that my position was wrong based on the evidence in scripture.



Bama, what you seem to be saying is that I'm making scripture say what I want it to say.  The implication is "because" it somehow makes things easier for me.  That makes no sense.  Why would I take a position contrary to the large majority of Christianity if I was just trying to take the easy road?

Surface reading of the exception clause points to an exception.  I promise you that 99% of those who believe in the exception simply believe that because that's what their daddy and grandaddy believed...they haven't done a serious study of the issue.

Based on the careful input of others and my own study (over several years) of the issue, I have come to the conclusion that there is no exception for adultery.  I do not see anywhere in scripture where God gives a green light for divorce...ever.

You see it differently.  But please...don't belittle my understanding of scripture or accuse me of reading with a greater bias than you or anyone else.


----------



## Bama4me

Huntinfool said:


> This issue doesn't affect your soul salvation, does it?  You don't base any of your understanding of any passage of scripture on the careful and prayerful thoughts and study of others?  Nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 100% agree and have already acknowledged that fact.  In fact, their position is in the minority.  Being in the minority does not = incorrect though.
> 
> 
> My comment on "wrap things up nicely" was intended to point to the continuity of scripture.  The fact that none of the passages contradict each other under permanence points to continuity not just convenience.
> 
> Point is that I think the way you read it is an attempt at making it say something it doesn't.  Jesus answered the question "is it ever permissible".
> 
> 
> 
> ...and that is what I'm doing.  Taking into consideration what the original hearers understood.  I didn't fit my belief into this.  I was convinced of it after study and reading what others thought.  I was an "exception" guy for 35 years.  This does not fit with what I believed for a long time.  I had to admit that my position was wrong based on the evidence in scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> Bama, what you seem to be saying is that I'm making scripture say what I want it to say.  The implication is "because" it somehow makes things easier for me.  That makes no sense.  Why would I take a position contrary to the large majority of Christianity if I was just trying to take the easy road?
> 
> Surface reading of the exception clause points to an exception.  I promise you that 99% of those who believe in the exception simply believe that because that's what their daddy and grandaddy believed...they haven't done a serious study of the issue.
> 
> Based on the careful input of others and my own study (over several years) of the issue, I have come to the conclusion that there is no exception for adultery.  I do not see anywhere in scripture where God gives a green light for divorce...ever.
> 
> You see it differently.  But please...don't belittle my understanding of scripture or accuse me of reading with a greater bias than you or anyone else.



If you think I'm trying to belittle you, I'm sorry you're getting that... that's not my intent. I'm not part of the 99% you mention... and many of the people I know don't fit there either.  Personally, I believe it is a twisting of Scripture to get that view... but you believe that's what I'm doing as well.  Obviously, both views cannot be correct... so one of us is incorrect... and possibly both.  To each his own.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Point is that I think the way you read it is an attempt at making it say something it doesn't.  Jesus answered the question "is it ever permissible".
> .......................................
> Based on the careful input of others and my own study (over several years) of the issue, I have come to the conclusion that there is no exception for adultery.  I do not see anywhere in scripture where God gives a green light for divorce...ever.
> 
> You see it differently.  But please...don't belittle my understanding of scripture or accuse me of reading with a greater bias than you or anyone else.



Sermon on the mount.
Matthew 5:    21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. 

Matthew 5:  31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 


Here's an important scripture to help one understand Jesus' allowing divorce for adultery.....
1Corinthians 6:13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 
 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.


----------



## dawg2

holy cow...


----------



## WTM45

rjcruiser said:


> I just don't see how a divorce can happen while a man is managing his household well.



Come on now.


----------



## WTM45

rjcruiser said:


> This thread has nothing to do with salvation...or even service in their church.  It has everything to do with leadership positions within the church.



Wrong.
It morphed into this leadership quagmire.

It was more a discussion of if the God of Abraham allows or forgives divorce.  I think one would have to see that it is described as an act which will NOT prevent a believer from entering the kingdom.

Why, for the love of ice cream can't man do the very same?
I do concede, churches have become private social clubs that can set the rules as they see fit.
Carry on.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> Wrong.
> It morphed into this leadership quagmire.
> 
> It was more a discussion of if the God of Abraham allows or forgives divorce.  I think one would have to see that it is described as an act which will NOT prevent a believer from entering the kingdom.
> 
> Why, for the love of ice cream can't man do the very same?
> I do concede, churches have become private social clubs that can set the rules as they see fit.
> Carry on.



You're right about the original subject.....and I love...I mean LOVE ice cream.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Here's an important scripture to help one understand Jesus' allowing divorce for adultery.....
> 1Corinthians 6:13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
> 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.



Ronnie....

That's a very good point.  I agree that it does elevate sexual sins above others in a sense.

Do you agree that marriage is more than just a "metaphor" (as WTM said) for the relationship between Christ and the church?  In other words, that it's an actual representation, a reflection if you will?

How do you react to the fact that the church (and Israel) has committed adultery many many times and yet, Christ refuses to divorce the one whom he's made a covenant with?


----------



## stringmusic

Huntinfool said:


> You're right about the original subject.....and I love...I mean LOVE ice cream.



I will now join this conversation with some inspiring thoughts.......




 mmmmmmmmm


----------



## Huntinfool

Did you know that they actually make....THIN MINT ICE CREAM?

Are you kidding me?  I don't need any help defiling my body...


----------



## stringmusic

Huntinfool said:


> Did you know that they actually make....THIN MINT ICE CREAM?
> 
> Are you kidding me?  I don't need any help defiling my body...



HA! I don't care much for the mint ice cream.... my wife on the other hand...... did I mention she is 7 months prego with our first, she would probably eat a whole tub of that stuff!!!!


----------



## Huntinfool

You just got yourself on my ignore list my man.  Anybody who doesn't like Thin Mints must be of the devil.

Ok....now back to the regularly scheduled debate on divorce.

(apologies for the disruption)


----------



## Ronnie T

Now that the divorce debate is obviously going to soon calm and eventually end, what is there for us to do about divorce???

What is there that the church can do to help solidify marriages?

What can parents do to develop children that will be "divorce" proof?

One thing that certain:  Too many people should never walk down the isle together, but they do.


----------



## Inthegarge

We started requiring couple to go through Pre-marital counseling to be married at our church. We have seen a sharp drop in the # of divorces. They are assigned a Mentoring couple before and for 1 year after the wedding...Having done this with over 240 couples, we have had only 2 Divorces... It appears our odds are better than the general public....


----------



## Ronnie T

Inthegarge said:


> We started requiring couple to go through Pre-marital counseling to be married at our church. We have seen a sharp drop in the # of divorces. They are assigned a Mentoring couple before and for 1 year after the wedding...Having done this with over 240 couples, we have had only 2 Divorces... It appears our odds are better than the general public....



That's a great idea.
Pastors should probably toughen up in their counciling time with couples.  I like the mentoring couple thing.


----------



## Throwback

Huntinfool said:


> I think I'm the only permanence guy here so far.
> 
> My view is that there is never a case in which God approves a believer initiating a divorce.  In the case of one spouse leaving the other and "forcing" the divorce legally speaking, we are not to fight that process and are to live in peace from that point.
> 
> In my view, we can accept divorce.  But we are not to initiate it....ever.



well I got news for you brother, if my wife 
1) cheats 
2) gets addicted to drugs/alcohol

this believer is hitting the road. I have seen what this does to kids and it is worse than divorce. God can take it up with me at  judgement. 


T


----------



## Randy

Here is the part of Christianity that I don't get.  When I talk to most Christians, they view the Bible as the inerrant word of God even though it was assembled, interpreted, reinterpreted over thousands of years.  Now today some say you have to know Greek or know the "circumstances" of why some book or verse was written before you can truly understand what it means.  It is as if God once had the power to make it inerrant but no longer has that power?  Personally I believe God still has the power to tell you what it means.  I think it is a lot simpler than some "scholars" want you to think.  To coin a more recent phrase, it is what it is.  It says what it says.  I don't need to understand what prison some guy was in or understand what situation some people were in to understand what it says.  It is not a hard to understand book.


----------



## Huntinfool

Throwback said:


> well I got news for you brother, if my wife
> 1) cheats
> 2) gets addicted to drugs/alcohol
> 
> this believer is hitting the road. I have seen what this does to kids and it is worse than divorce. God can take it up with me at  judgement.
> 
> 
> T



10-4 my man.  Hope she doesn't.  Good to know you've set your boundries and already and made that declaration.


Just FYI though...I've seen both of those occur in marriages and I've seen the offending party be broken over it...and I've seen many many marriages and families reconciled and stronger than before after the long road of recovery.  So please don't blanket statement "I have see what it does to kids and it is worse than divorce."

That is simply not true when both spouses are willing to work through the pain of what happened.  I've seen things not work out as well.  So, yes, you are right in some cases.


----------



## Throwback

Huntinfool said:


> 10-4 my man.  Hope she doesn't.  Good to know you've set your boundries and already and made that declaration.
> 
> 
> Just FYI though...I've seen both of those occur in marriages and I've seen the offending party be broken over it...and I've seen many many marriages and families reconciled and stronger than before after the long road of recovery.  So please don't blanket statement "I have see what it does to kids and it is worse than divorce."
> 
> That is simply not true when both spouses are willing to work through the pain of what happened.  I've seen things not work out as well.  So, yes, you are right in some cases.





the only thing to be worked through will be the divorce proceeding if that happens. 

End of discussion. 


T


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> That is simply not true when both spouses are willing to work through the pain of what happened.



....in the case of adultery, I wouldn't care to try.  I don't judge anybody, but I have always wondered what makes people want to hold on to a spouse that cheats.


----------



## Huntinfool

> the only thing to be worked through will be the divorce proceeding if that happens.
> 
> End of discussion.
> 
> 
> T





I happy for you.  



Well, actually I'm not.  But you know what I mean.


----------



## Huntinfool

> ....in the case of adultery, I wouldn't care to try. I don't judge anybody, but I have always wondered what makes people want to hold on to a spouse that cheats.



Love...and a broken spirit in the offending party.  It's pretty simple.

If the offender is not broken over it and doesn't care whether the marriage lives or dies, then there is no hope.  But it happens all the time.

I've watched it....and it's amazing.  I've seen couple after couple after couple walk through that devestation and come out stronger, more committed to each other, and more committed to God.

I'm sure many of you will say..."Yeh, until the next opportunity to cheat comes along.  Once a cheater always a cheater."  Have at it.


----------



## stringmusic

Randy said:


> Here is the part of Christianity that I don't get.  When I talk to most Christians, they view the Bible as the inerrant word of God even though it was assembled, interpreted, reinterpreted over thousands of years.  Now today some say you have to know Greek or know the "circumstances" of why some book or verse was written before you can truly understand what it means.  It is as if God once had the power to make it inerrant but no longer has that power?  Personally I believe God still has the power to tell you what it means.  I think it is a lot simpler than some "scholars" want you to think.  To coin a more recent phrase, it is what it is.  It says what it says.  I don't need to understand what prison some guy was in or understand what situation some people were in to understand what it says.  It is not a hard to understand book.



Proverbs 14:15
A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.


----------



## grouper throat

Ronnie T said:


> Now that the divorce debate is obviously going to soon calm and eventually end, what is there for us to do about divorce???
> 
> What is there that the church can do to help solidify marriages?
> 
> *What can parents do to develop children that will be "divorce" proof?*
> 
> One thing that certain:  Too many people should never walk down the isle together, but they do.



What about parents who develop children that are "divorce proof" and then the children choose mates that weren't raise as well as they were? This seems to be a reoccuring problem that I see, especially with young couples (early-mid 20s).

I believe that pre-marriage counseling is good as long as both mates are taking it in with an open heart and have commitment to one another and God. I went through it and took every word to heart and can still remember the counseling sessions. I believe that post marriage sessions with a pastor/counselor would also be a good idea or a couples (Christian based) class.


----------



## Huntinfool

That's a good point grouper.  As much as it is about raising our children in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord, it is also about modeling for them what they would want in a husban/wife.  Children will often choose a mate based on what has been modeled for them in the home.  Those "expectations" are what they will carry into the marriage.

It's also about telling them, training them as to what to look for in a mate.  Instill in them what is important.

There's actually a line of thought out there (not necessarily mine...though it is interesting) that says that we should not teach our children the normal "dating" relationship.  All dating does is teach them that relationships are disposable and that the ultimately end up in heart-break.  It says that we should essentially teach them to look for a mate, get to know them, bring them in to experience the family...but not date.  It's the "courtship" idea.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Love...and a broken spirit in the offending party.  It's pretty simple.



Yea, but they were so reckless with the feelings of the committed spouse.  Plus in most cases (I know not all).....



Huntinfool said:


> Once a cheater always a cheater."



I once saw a preacher forgive his cheating wife.  He begged her to stay "for the kids."  Well, she stayed, until the next time, and the next, and eventually a huge church was absolutely destroyed over the nonsense.




Huntinfool said:


> I've seen couple after couple after couple walk through that devestation and come out stronger, more committed to each other, and more committed to God.



I'm sure you have, and I'm sure it's cool.  For me and my house, I would not want to be committed to somebody who would be so careless with our family.  But, like I said, I don't think everybody should have that standard.  It's just what works for me.  My wife feels the same way about it that I do.


----------



## Huntinfool

Staying "for the kids" is the wrong reason to stay....and it will end the way you described in most cases.



I think you'd be surprised how many of the Christian couples you know have lived through one form of infidelity or another.  Most suffer through it silently because they are scared of the condemnation that will come their way.


----------



## Randy

Throwback said:


> the only thing to be worked through will be the divorce proceeding if that happens.
> 
> End of discussion.
> 
> 
> T



Now that is not a very forgiving Christian attitude.


----------



## JB0704

grouper throat said:


> I believe that pre-marriage counseling is good as long as both mates are taking it in with an open heart and have commitment to one another and God.



I agree.  My first wife and I were very young, and did no counseling, and, well, I apparently can't be an elder anymore.  My second wife and I not only went through a Church based pre-marital program, but we also went to a professional marriage counselor and took every compatability test out there (I know they aren't fool proof, but they can help avoid disaster sometimes).  

Many of the first marriage's problems, and the first marriage itself, would have been avoided if I had gone through counseling beforehand.  Now, my current wife and I have a lot of wisdom and resources to work through problems we wouldn't have had otherwise.  I don't think it should be mandatory, but people who don't take advantage of such resources are not being very wise, IMHO.


----------



## Randy

Huntinfool said:


> I think you'd be surprised how many of the Christian couples you know have lived through one form of infidelity or another.  Most suffer through it silently because they are scared of the condemnation that will come their way.


Guilty, but we had no kids.  My reason?  I made a commitment to God as well as my wife.  Yes there are days when it is hard to stick with that commitment but 7 years later and we are still together.


----------



## Huntinfool

Ronnie, did you ever answer this one?  I didn't see it and I'm still not clear on what you meant by it.




> Quote:
> Adultery is one of the sins that cannot be allowed into heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie,
> 
> Can you clarify for me what you mean by this? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
> 
> It reads like "People who commit adultery will not be allowed into heaven". I don't think that's what you meant, but I wanted to clarify.
Click to expand...


----------



## Randy

JB0704 said:


> I agree.  My first wife and I were very young, and did no counseling, and, well, I apparently can't be an elder anymore.  My second wife and I not only went through a Church based pre-marital program, but we also went to a professional marriage counselor and took every compatability test out there (I know they aren't fool proof, but they can help avoid disaster sometimes).
> 
> Many of the first marriage's problems, and the first marriage itself, would have been avoided if I had gone through counseling beforehand.  Now, my current wife and I have a lot of wisdom and resources to work through problems we wouldn't have had otherwise.  I don't think it should be mandatory, but people who don't take advantage of such resources are not being very wise, IMHO.


Many young couples just do not understand the unequally yoked thing.  It is real and real important.


----------



## Huntinfool

Randy said:


> Guilty, but we had no kids.  My reason?  I made a commitment to God as well as my wife.  Yes there are days when it is hard to stick with that commitment but 7 years later and we are still together.



Awesome man....just awesome!


Kids add complication to the matter.  No doubt.  But they will be affected either way.  Watching two parents work through a terrible experience will happen in either case.  One ends in resolution and restoration and I think that's a great lesson for them to carry later in life.

It can end up "fine" either way.  My point is that I think we make the assumption "Well, I wouldn't want kids to have to live through that pain".  They are going to have to live through pain no matter which decision is made.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> There's actually a line of thought out there (not necessarily mine...though it is interesting) that says that we should not teach our children the normal "dating" relationship.  All dating does is teach them that relationships are disposable and that the ultimately end up in heart-break.  It says that we should essentially teach them to look for a mate, get to know them, bring them in to experience the family...but not date.  It's the "courtship" idea.



But how do they get to know the things they don't want any part of if they don't date?  I know you didn't endorse the concept, I just think it is odd.

On the other hand, I never want my daughter to date.....


----------



## JB0704

Randy said:


> Guilty, but we had no kids.  My reason?  I made a commitment to God as well as my wife.  Yes there are days when it is hard to stick with that commitment but 7 years later and we are still together.



I am glad it worked out for you, and encouraging to me to hear about it.


----------



## JB0704

Randy said:


> Many young couples just do not understand the unequally yoked thing.  It is real and real important.



I absolutely agree.  That was the problem with marriage #1, and it was the main reason it failed.


----------



## Huntinfool

> But how do they get to know the things they don't want any part of if they don't date? I know you didn't endorse the concept, I just think it is odd.
> 
> On the other hand, I never want my daughter to date.....



Ha!  Me either.  I just figure my daughters will live with me and be spinsters.  Fine with me.

Seriously though.  They get to know each other through courtship.  But they don't leave the family unit often to go out on their own and the are never exclusive to each other until they come to the conclusion that "I'm ready to pursue this relationship to marriage".  

At least that's how I understand it.  

I know this isn't what you're saying, but it rang through my head as I was reading.  It would follow the same line as un-believers saying "But how do you know if you REALLY want to marry somebody if you've never lived with them?".

It's not the norm today...I'll give you that.  I do think that the point about it just setting them up to think of relationships as disposable is valid though.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Ha!  Me either.  I just figure my daughters will live with me and be spinsters.  Fine with me..



Yep!  Becoming a nun is honorable too, I might convert to Catholicism.



Huntinfool said:


> It's not the norm today...I'll give you that.  I do think that the point about it just setting them up to think of relationships as disposable is valid though.



Well, their is two sides to that coin. If my daughter goes against my wishes and decides to date (most likely outcome),  I want her to know when a situation is bad and be strong enough to walk away.  I have seen too many women stay in bad relationships because they were not strong enough to leave, and they eventually are stuck in a horrible marriage which makes life miserable.  I don't want that for her or my son.


----------



## Huntinfool

Totally agree.  Under this set of values, I suppose training in the home would take the place of "life experience".  Train them as to what is acceptable and what is not in a relationship at home...don't make them experience it while they're still not emotionally ready.

Again, I don't have a firm opinion on it.  Just an alternative way to approach it.


----------



## gtparts

JB0704 said:


> How 'bout "not clean enough for an elder."  You are giving them a "scarlett D."  Any sin is ok, unless you get divorced over it.  God forgives all, but the church can't forgive divorce.
> 
> I don't want y'all to think I am upset about this.  I am not.  As I have said, I have no dog in the fight, I would never, ever, ever, want any part of being an elder in church.  I just hate this for the good men who do who are hurt by a religious doctrine that makes absolutely no sense.



Sorry you have such a problem with this, but simply put: 

1) God has set forth qualifications for certain positions in His church. These have been listed in Scripture by God-inspired writers. You will not find any of those qualifications that have explicit or implicit exceptions. Either one is qualified or he is not.

2) There is no entitlement expressed or implied. Nor is there any indication that if one does not hold one of those positions of calling, one is inferior. A man can be qualified and not called. A man may be qualified, but not serve for many reasons that make such service an unreasonable or impossible task.

3) Much of the work done by elders/deacons/pastors/ preachers (I've lumped them together for convenience) can actually be done by all laity, to the extent they are willing and able. And, believe me, in most cases, any assistance is usually greatly appreciated. Ultimately, the measure of the man is not what men think of individual servants in the church, but what God thinks and He looks on the heart. Motivation is a key element of why those who aspire to these positions are passed over. Humility is a hallmark of servanthood and typically is regarded as incompatible with the natural aspirations of men; prominence and  power.

4) It is clear from the qualifications that many have certainly disqualified themselves from these positions.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> Sorry you have such a problem with this, but simply put:
> 
> 1) God has set forth qualifications for certain positions in His church. These have been listed in Scripture by God-inspired writers. You will not find any of those qualifications that have explicit or implicit exceptions. Either one is qualified or he is not.



....Where does it say "never been married?"  We went through this yesterday.  You have all taken one sentence, which is in two books, and made it mean something it doesn't say.  I am sorry the "husband of one wife" doesn't mean what you want it to mean.


----------



## JB0704

GT, the folks who think "husband of one wife" means "never been divorced" are those who have never been divorced, and vice versa.  One would think that the implicit case would be one for grace, not intolerance.  And, I claim no entitlement.  I just made a fantastic case, with y'alls assistance, as to why the Church does not mean what it says it does and why I don't go.


----------



## Huntinfool

> GT, the folks who think "husband of one wife" means "never been divorced" are those who have never been divorced, and vice versa.



I know lots of divorced men who consider themselves not qualified to hold those positions.  

As I said before, it's not punishment.  It's just simply disqualification.  Until two years ago, I wasn't qualified to run for President of the United States.  I wasn't old enough.  The purpose of qualifications for an office are not punishment for those who don't qualify...it's to make sure that those who do are ready and best able to fulfill the duties that are required of them.

I'd say there's a case to make that it means what you say it means.  But it's not a strong one.  My body believes that divorcees are not qualified.  At some point we submit to the authority over us for the sake of fellowship.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I know lots of divorced men who consider themselves not qualified to hold those positions.



    You win.



Huntinfool said:


> As I said before, it's not punishment.  It's just simply disqualification.



...based on a sentence you have to add to in order to make it fit into your criteria.



Huntinfool said:


> I'd say there's a case to make that it means what you say it means.  But it's not a strong one.



Right, because I read the sentence and it is plain as day.  I don't follow a concept that has no logic, or understandable Biblical grounding even though all the "good Christians" say it does.


----------



## Huntinfool

I know you don't man...I pray that one day you won't hold such a disdain for the body.  There are many many benefits and positives.


----------



## WTM45

Simple disqualification would apply to ALL to the fact ALL lack perfection.  If no sin is bigger than another in the eyes of God, then some "called and appointed" overweight gluttons who smoke, gossip and lie might need to have their "leadership card" revoked post haste.


----------



## Huntinfool

There is a difference between eternal consequences of sin (i.e. Heaven and He||) and earthly consequences.  Not earthly in the sense that Man made them up.  Earthly in the sense that there are consequences for actions regardless of forgiveness.  That is just a fact of life.

I live with the consequences of some of the things I've done in my life every day.  I accept that.  But there is no doubt as to whether I'm forgiven.

God laid out qualifications for elders and deacons.  Their interpretation may be debatable.  But there can be no debate that some are qualified....and some are not (biblically speaking).


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> God laid out qualifications for elders and deacons.  Their interpretation may be debatable.  But there can be no debate that some are qualified....and some are not (biblically speaking).



No, It is written all sins are equal in the eyes of the Creator.

How can anyone who has sins in their past (which is everybody according to Scripture), whether they be forgiven by repentance or not, be called and approved "worthy" by other men (brethren) who base their decisions on "interpretation" and their being "moved" by the Holy Ghost?

Are fundamentalists looking for the few specific sins to hang their hats on based on some unwritten subjectivity?

Being firm on one thing requires being firm on all others.  How about if a man once was bad to drink?  Fight?  Cuss?  Steal?  Lie?  Cheat?  Gamble?
I know preachers/teachers/deacons/evangelists who LOVE to brag about how they changed their lives and obtained forgiveness upon becoming "born again."
It makes for a moving emotional story which is intended to build credibility and to sell the belief system.

The result for me?  It turned me off completely.  Thankfully I was able to see it clearly after 19 years of hardline fundamentalist radical indoctrination.

If the eternal consequences result in complete forgiveness by a benevolent deity, then one would have to believe they are tasked to do the same here on earth, in an attempt to be as forgiving as their master.

I'd much rather hear some advice or respect the leadership of a humble person who has openly admitted their mistakes and weaknesses, and is willing to share their experiences without judgement of others.
It floors me couples ask for advice from unmarried priests, nuns and even first year unmarried PhD's who have no experience in the matter whatsover.
But that's just me.  I guess I'm an oddball.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> There is a difference between eternal consequences of sin (i.e. Heaven and He||) and earthly consequences.  Not earthly in the sense that Man made them up.  Earthly in the sense that there are consequences for actions regardless of forgiveness.  That is just a fact of life....



...which Christians remind people of constantly, otherwise, it would be hard to hold the past against folks.


----------



## Bama4me

Randy said:


> Here is the part of Christianity that I don't get.  When I talk to most Christians, they view the Bible as the inerrant word of God even though it was assembled, interpreted, reinterpreted over thousands of years.  Now today some say you have to know Greek or know the "circumstances" of why some book or verse was written before you can truly understand what it means.  It is as if God once had the power to make it inerrant but no longer has that power?  Personally I believe God still has the power to tell you what it means.  I think it is a lot simpler than some "scholars" want you to think.  To coin a more recent phrase, it is what it is.  It says what it says.  I don't need to understand what prison some guy was in or understand what situation some people were in to understand what it says.  It is not a hard to understand book.



Agree with your sentiment... to a point.  The religious world has been guilty of making the simple complicated at many times throughout history.  Probably the worst was the belief that originated within the Catholic church that "common people" couldn't read/understand God's word... only priests were capable of that.

"Context", however is essential in understanding many biblical passages though.  "Context," though, can be gleaned by studying a Bible book in its entirety... rather than just looking at one verse.  An example of what I mean...

According to a study of chapter one of 1 Timothy, it is obvious that Paul is writing to help Timothy in his work as a minister at Ephesus... which was a fairly young congregation.  Thus, the book of 1 Timothy was written from an older preacher (Paul) to a younger preacher (Timothy).  As such, many teachings in the book were given to Timothy and not necessarily meant for others.

An example is in 4:12 ("Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity").  Note in the verse Paul wrote "you" and "your"... this was a command for Timothy/young preachers to follow.  It wasn't intended for everyone at Ephesus to obey.

Yet, go to a youth gathering today, and this text is often used as the basis for a message to young people.  Yet, in its context, Paul wasn't addressing young people... he was addressing a young preacher (major difference).  To use this passage alone and try to apply it to youngsters is a misuse of the text... it's "taking it out of context."

Now, am I saying that young people should NOT be an example in their speech/conduct/love/faith/purity?  Absolutely not... many places in the New Testament are clear in their emphasis of these ideas for believers.  But to use this passage by itself to teach it?  That's a misuse of the text.  Again, "context" is easily determined when we look at the book as a whole... not a part.


----------



## Huntinfool

WTM45 said:


> No, It is written all sins are equal in the eyes of the Creator.
> 
> How can anyone who has sins in their past (which is everybody according to Scripture), whether they be forgiven by repentance or not, be called and approved "worthy" by other men (brethren) who base their decisions on "interpretation" and their being "moved" by the Holy Ghost?
> 
> Are fundamentalists looking for the few specific sins to hang their hats on based on some unwritten subjectivity?
> 
> Being firm on one thing requires being firm on all others.  How about if a man once was bad to drink?  Fight?  Cuss?  Steal?  Lie?  Cheat?  Gamble?
> I know preachers/teachers/deacons/evangelists who LOVE to brag about how they changed their lives and obtained forgiveness upon becoming "born again."
> It makes for a moving emotional story which is intended to build credibility and to sell the belief system.
> 
> The result for me?  It turned me off completely.  Thankfully I was able to see it clearly after 19 years of hardline fundamentalist radical indoctrination.
> 
> If the eternal consequences result in complete forgiveness by a benevolent deity, then one would have to believe they are tasked to do the same here on earth, in an attempt to be as forgiving as their master.
> 
> I'd much rather hear some advice or respect the leadership of a humble person who has openly admitted their mistakes and weaknesses, and is willing to share their experiences without judgement of others.
> It floors me couples ask for advice from unmarried priests, nuns and even first year unmarried PhD's who have no experience in the matter whatsover.
> But that's just me.  I guess I'm an oddball.





That's why the first and primary requirement IS.....they must be "beyond reproach".  

It's not just divorce.

I think "beyond reproach" covers just about everything you listed, so I think in a way we agree.  It is a high calling and a high office and many many people likely don't qualify that think they do.

The thing you're not getting is that "a sin is a sin"...in eternal terms.  There are consequences of DIFFERENT sins while we are here on earth.  

If I commit adultery, my wife might leave me and I may have to visit my kids every other weekend.

If I kill my boss because he's an idiot, I go to jail for the rest of my life.

Same consequence from an eternal perspective (barring salvation)...VERY different earthly consequences.


----------



## WTM45

Earthly consequences, with levels of offense and punishment established by humans.  Might be prudent to worry more over a church leader's actions regarding gossip, lying and finances than to worry about a simple past divorce.


If someone wants to penalize or hold a past divorce against someone, then I guess it is their prerogative.
I have to see holding a drinking, fighting and gambling past as being no different, and ultimately much more important, but that gets the nod of approval often as long as the person in question was "repentant."

That idea of sins being subject to different consequences on earth just appears to be quite two faced.  It is hypocritical at its core.


----------



## Huntinfool

Are you denying that, biblically speaking, there are qualifications for those offices and those qualifications are based on past actions?

If it's biblical, then it's not established by humans.  Interpreted?  Perhaps...and sometimes wrongly.  

But, if you agree that there are qualifications given in the Bible, then they are of God and that means that some of the God established consequences are to be faced here on earth...even though they hold no bearing on the eternal.




> If someone wants to penalize or hold a past divorce against someone, then I guess it is their prerogative.
> I have to see holding a drinking, fighting and gambling past being no different, but that gets the nod of approval often as long as the person in question was "repentant."



BTW...I addressed this in the fact that those who seek that office must be "beyond reproach".  It's the first qualification listed.  Holding a drinking, fighting and gambling past would not pass muster for most churches.  So we agree.  Divorce is no different.


----------



## WTM45

Huntinfool said:


> BTW...I addressed this in the fact that those who seek that office must be "beyond reproach".  It's the first qualification listed.  Holding a drinking, fighting and gambling past would not pass muster for most churches.  So we agree.  Divorce is no different.



I'm not saying that.  I am stating that if the God you worship can forgive through repentance, there is no reason whatsoever why all believers can not do the same.  In fact, they are CHARGED to do that very thing by God in the Scriptures.

Folks can seek that "beyond reproach" and never find it.  There is something in everyone's past that would not hold up to deep scrutiny as being completely "beyond reproach."

I'll exit, as this is more of a doctrine discussion than a discussion of today's reality and our current culture/environment.  I do not wish to be viewed as a simple pot stirrer.


----------



## Huntinfool

You are 100% correct.  I think though, that people too often require that "forgive" = "forget". (but that's a side comment)

I know very clearly that my wife has forgiven me for some of the horribly hurtful things I did to her in the past.  But the scars that those actions left mean that she may never be able to forget.  

We are absolutely called to forgive.  In fact, scripture tells us that if we DO NOT forgive....God will not forgive us.  It's that important.

We always are called to forgive.  BUT...if you live your life in a certain way, you simply do not qualify for the position.  I'll say it again.  It's not punishment.

BTW...I don't think you're stirring the pot.  You're adding from a non-christian perspective to this thread...which is a good thing.

I, on the other hand, am failing miserably at convincing you to see it my way (as I always have!).


----------



## Randy

Bama4me said:


> An example is in 4:12 ("Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity").  Note in the verse Paul wrote "you" and "your"... this was a command for Timothy/young preachers to follow.  It wasn't intended for everyone at Ephesus to obey.
> 
> Yet, go to a youth gathering today, and this text is often used as the basis for a message to young people.  Yet, in its context, Paul wasn't addressing young people... he was addressing a young preacher (major difference).  To use this passage alone and try to apply it to youngsters is a misuse of the text... it's "taking it out of context."
> 
> Now, am I saying that young people should NOT be an example in their speech/conduct/love/faith/purity?  Absolutely not... many places in the New Testament are clear in their emphasis of these ideas for believers.  But to use this passage by itself to teach it?  That's a misuse of the text.  Again, "context" is easily determined when we look at the book as a whole... not a part.


Yes he was talking to Timothy but I think it applies to all young anyway.  Out of context maybe, but it applies.  Many want to say the diet God prescribed in the OT does not apply today.  Oh yes?  Many doctors have confirmed that eating of shelfish and red meat from hopbed animals is bad for our health.  God di not say this to be mean of as punishment.  He knew what was good for man to eat even before all our doctors did.  I don't need context.  It is what it is.


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> Simple disqualification would apply to ALL to the fact ALL lack perfection.  If no sin is bigger than another in the eyes of God, then some "called and appointed" overweight gluttons who smoke, gossip and lie might need to have their "leadership card" revoked post haste.



The qualifications listed do NOT call for perfection. The rest is just straw. Forgiveness doesn't make you perfect or re-qualified, just forgiven. Check out the difference between "reward" and "punishment". Just because the faithful are rewarded doe not mean those who "dropped the ball" get rewarded.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> The qualifications listed do NOT call for perfection. The rest is just straw. Forgiveness doesn't make you perfect or re-qualified, just forgiven. Check out the difference between "reward" and "punishment". Just because the faithful are rewarded doe not mean those who "dropped the ball" get rewarded.



Man has made up his own version of "reward" and "punishment" based on the traditional stigma that has been associated with divorce by the Church.  It fits neatly into their doctrine of contempt for "sinners" by holding certain things as more immoral than others.  

We might both agree on God's wisdom and the knowledge that a gossip is much more dangerous to unity than a divorcee.  Yet the Chruch overlooks this and focuses on one scripture which is vague at best in order to maintain a doctrine of "punishment" as opposed to one of grace. 

As far as context is concerned (because I know it is coming), I am pretty certain the context of the NT is grace.  When that is considered, the argument against divorcees falls apart.


----------



## gtparts

Just for grins, how many of you would give the more important task to your best employee or volunteer?  Is the one who has shown himself to be the most consistently reliable a better choice for a valued and critical role or the one with the spotty record? 

Being saved already accounts for God's forgiveness, but Scripture states very plainly that God rewards faithful stewardship more so than occasional, mediocre, or downright pathetic stewardship. And stewardship here means whatever things are intrusted to you, not just wealth. 

To simplify, salvation is a matter of God's grace. God's blessings (including the calling to critical roles in His church) are not strictly matters of grace, but intimately tied to matters of character and obedience.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> Just for grins, how many of you would give the more important task to your best employee or volunteer?  Is the one who has shown himself to be the most consistently reliable a better choice for a valued and critical role or the one with the spotty record?



That is painting it in black and white.  What does a twenty year old divorce have to do with who a man is today?  Any divorce does not indicate a "spotty record," it only indicates a divorce.  Additionally, the Bible is clear that nobody is sinless.  To say a man who has never been divorced is more Godly than one who has is an assumption at best.


----------



## Bama4me

Randy said:


> Yes he was talking to Timothy but I think it applies to all young anyway.  Out of context maybe, but it applies.  Many want to say the diet God prescribed in the OT does not apply today.  Oh yes?  Many doctors have confirmed that eating of shelfish and red meat from hopbed animals is bad for our health.  God di not say this to be mean of as punishment.  He knew what was good for man to eat even before all our doctors did.  I don't need context.  It is what it is.



If you claim you don't need context, then do you do the following:
*  "Sell what you possess and give to the poor" (Matthew 19:21)
*  "Rise, pick up your bed and go home" (Matthew 9:6)
*  Go throughout Israel saying "the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 10:7)
*  Pray "let this cup pass from me" (Matthew 26:39)
*  Yell "My God My God, why have you forsaken me" (Matthew 27:46)

If you don't do these things, though you acknowledge they are in the Bible, look out... you're making a strong argument for "context."


----------



## Bama4me

Lots of comments in the past few pages on the qualification of an elder as being "the husband of one wife".  Literally, the Greek is translated "a one-woman man."  Certainly, there are at least two meanings of the qualification.  One... he's only been married one time in his life.  Two, he's only currently married to one woman (not in polygomy).  However, both come under the umbrella of being in a marriage approved by God... as per the passages in the NT discussing marriage.

There's also been a lot of discussion regarding what is forgiven, grace covering sins, etc.  Here's a very important parallel which may help us understand if staying in a questionable marriage is allowed by God.  Can a man stay in a homosexual marriage and be pleasing to God?  What if he repents daily of the homosexual sin he is a part of?  What would Scripture require of this man to be in a faithful relationship with the Lord?  Please assume we're all on the level playing field in believing that homosexuality is sinful as per Romans 1:26-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.


----------



## JB0704

Bama4me said:


> There's also been a lot of discussion regarding what is forgiven, grace covering sins, etc.  Here's a very important parallel which may help us understand if staying in a questionable marriage is allowed by God.  Can a man stay in a homosexual marriage and be pleasing to God?  What if he repents daily of the homosexual sin he is a part of?  What would Scripture require of this man to be in a faithful relationship with the Lord?  Please assume we're all on the level playing field in believing that homosexuality is sinful as per Romans 1:26-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.



1. In order for "one-woman man" to mean never been divorced, grace has to be overlooked.  It sounds like your translation backs up the "not a polygamist" interpretation.

2. I am not certain what you are trying to say about the homosexual marriage, I hope you are not equating my second marriage to such.


----------



## Bama4me

JB0704 said:


> 1. In order for "one-woman man" to mean never been divorced, grace has to be overlooked.  It sounds like your translation backs up the "not a polygamist" interpretation.
> 
> 2. I am not certain what you are trying to say about the homosexual marriage, I hope you are not equating my second marriage to such.



JB... not talking about anyone's specific marriage.  Don't know your situation (if you mentioned it in the thread, I didn't see it).  

Grace or no grace, "one" in the Bible means only one of something.  If it doesn't, then we can start throwing out passages such as Ephesians 4:4-6.  The fact we're under grace does not change God's word on the matter... He's the God of all grace and it's His word that's recorded in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

Yes... a "one-woman man" could be signifying that he's in a single (not multiple) marriages.  However, to claim that it can't be interpreted as "only married one time" would be an overstatement... it can legitimately be translated either way.


----------



## WTM45

Bama4me said:


> Yes... a "one-woman man" could be signifying that he's in a single (not multiple) marriages.  However, to claim that it can't be interpreted as "only married one time" would be an overstatement... it can legitimately be translated either way.



That's almost equivocating.


----------



## JB0704

Bama4me said:


> ... it can legitimately be translated either way.



Which is why I say grace should play a role in how we see it.    I can't think of another situation where repented sin is held against somebody.  Holding past indescretions against folks is against everything I believe about the nature of Jesus, which is what, I believe, the Church should be trying to emulate.


----------



## Bama4me

JB0704 said:


> Which is why I say grace should play a role in how we see it.    I can't think of another situation where repented sin is held against somebody.  Holding past indescretions against folks is against everything I believe about the nature of Jesus, which is what, I believe, the Church should be trying to emulate.



I think there's a little more too it than just 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1... there's the issue over when does God allow people to marry/divorce/remarry.  Matthew 19:9 states that the first marriage must be ended by adultery... and in that case, the one who didn't commit adultery has an option of remarriage if he/she so desires.  Obviously, a death of spouse would allow for remarriage as well (see Romans 7:1-2).

When you read the qualifications for elders, that means that if the man has been in multiple marriages during his lifetime, is he a "one-woman man" under the framework put forth in Matthew 19:9/Romans 7:1-2?  If he's not, he does not meet the qualifications.  

Regarding holding past indescretions against people, I'd wonder how far you're willing to take that point when it comes to the qualifications of elders in 1 Timothy 3:1ff.  If a man couldn't have children due to the fact that he'd participated in a sin and became sterile, can we cover it with grace?  If a person only recently became a convert to Christianity because of sinful rebellion for 4 decades, does grace allow that trait to be overlooked?  Can a man walk forward on one Sunday and penitently admit he'd embezzeled ten million dollars from his company and the next Sunday be appointed an elder because of grace?

From your comments, it seems that you want to have a sliding scale on God's word.  If it says something that's difficult, we want grace to cover it all.  Remember that the God of grace is the One that inspired the writing of these qualifications.  If grace was supposed to cover all of them, God would have specified that anyone could be an elder regardless of their characteristics.


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Ronnie, did you ever answer this one?  I didn't see it and I'm still not clear on what you meant by it.



I don't remember if I answers it.....

Adultery is totally forgivable.  Yes.

But I think the verse means that it needs to be forgiven before death.  In other words, if you're cheatin on your wife and die during that time, you might be in lots of eternal trouble.

Don't hold me to that though.
God don't want me to decide things like that.


----------



## Ronnie T

JB0704 said:


> GT, the folks who think "husband of one wife" means "never been divorced" are those who have never been divorced, and vice versa.  One would think that the implicit case would be one for grace, not intolerance.  And, I claim no entitlement.  I just made a fantastic case, with y'alls assistance, as to why the Church does not mean what it says it does and why I don't go.



The person who holds the office of elder will be raised to a higher standard of responsibility to God.  This will be a man who's life and dedication will be far higher than the average Christian in that church.  Yet he has to be a man that's filled with a larger amount of humility than all the others.
I've never known a divorced man who was upset that he could not serve as an elder.  I know plenty of men who've never divorced that aren't qualified in many other areas though.


----------



## thedeacon

When the Bible says that an elder is to be the husband of one wife it simply means that. A divorced man CANNOT serve as an elder.
Thats not my opinion, thats the bible speaking.

I have never been divorced but there are some other things that keeps me from serving as an elder, I accept that and I am ok with it.

God Bless


----------



## Ronnie T

*Perfect marriage, or staying together after adultery.*

Perfect marriage, or staying together after adultery.

I’m always impressed by some of the strong, married couples that I’m familiar with.  Those couples who’ve been married since college and have lived a full life serving God as husband and wife.  Always sticking together.  Always respecting one another.  Never straying from the bonds of the marriage.  That’s a couple who can be a good example in any church gathering.  A couple that everyone talks about how “perfect” their marriage and love for one another is.  The way they’ve allowed God to build their marriage.

But I’m also impressed by that marriage that’s had to weather some storms.  Things haven’t always been “perfect”.  There’s been adultery.  One cheated on the other.  Had sex with another person.  Yet they turned to God and pleaded with God to mend their brokenness.  And they submitted themselves to God, as a couple, so that God could do the mending that he can do.  I’m more impressed with this couple than the first.  This couple who overcame terrible adversity and continue to serve God, and grow, and trust in God more than they ever thought they could trust in Him.
They are the real proof of what God can do.  And I admire them.


----------



## gtparts

JB0704 said:


> That is painting it in black and white.  What does a twenty year old divorce have to do with who a man is today?  Any divorce does not indicate a "spotty record," it only indicates a divorce.  Additionally, the Bible is clear that nobody is sinless.  To say a man who has never been divorced is more Godly than one who has is an assumption at best.



It has to do with a young man making a poor decision during his youth, not necessarily because of his youth. He should not to be excluded from belonging to God's church, but he is not to serve in specific roles that God has given His ruling on through Scripture. 

Would you want the guy that finished last in his class at med. school doing your heart surgery? There is always a reason or reasons that someone finishes last. It most often is for not having given his best effort or maybe he is short on aptitude for the job. 

JB, one aspect of life is that God frequently tests us. It is always intended to prepare us or correct us for what He wants to do through us or to redirect us from what we want for ourselves to what He intends for us. Why don't we let God do things His way? It will always be better than what we could do on our own. This especially applies to filling positions of great responsibility within His church.


----------



## Bama4me

thedeacon said:


> When the Bible says that an elder is to be the husband of one wife it simply means that. A divorced man CANNOT serve as an elder.
> Thats not my opinion, thats the bible speaking.
> 
> I have never been divorced but there are some other things that keeps me from serving as an elder, I accept that and I am ok with it.
> 
> God Bless



The Greek doesn't support that sole interpretation... nor does the English translation.  If I am asked on a form for the IRS, "Are you the husband of one wife," I'd check "yes" because I'm only married to one woman.  I can see how some might read it as "a man who's only been in one marriage," but we can't make an absolute claim that it can't be read the other way as well.


----------



## JB0704

thedeacon said:


> When the Bible says that an elder is to be the husband of one wife it simply means that. A divorced man CANNOT serve as an elder.
> Thats not my opinion, thats the bible speaking



Where?


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> Would you want the guy that finished last in his class at med. school doing your heart surgery? There is always a reason or reasons that someone finishes last. It most often is for not having given his best effort or maybe he is short on aptitude for the job.



1. Getting a divorce is not finishing last in your class.  I find it interesting you would make such an equivalence.

2.  I don't want to be an elder.  It is this kind of stuff which convinces me to stay as far away from the Church as possible.  Nobody, not you, Bama, Ronnie, or HF has given any conlusive evidence that a divorced man cannot be an elder.  Yet you all claim it is "God's commandment."  

Bama, a man's unbelieving wife leaves and shacks up with another dude.  Biblically, she has cheated and moved on.  She divorces him.  You say, twenty years down the road he is not qualified to be an elder?  GT, you say he has finished "last?"  There is no grace in your perspective.

I will not change your minds, and you won't change mine.  I will be at peace at home watching football on Sundays, and I hope you are too in your "divorce free elders" Church.


----------



## WTM45

JB0704 said:


> 1. Getting a divorce is not finishing last in your class.  I find it interesting you would make such an equivalence.
> 
> 2.  I don't want to be an elder.  It is this kind of stuff which convinces me to stay as far away from the Church as possible.  Nobody, not you, Bama, Ronnie, or HF has given any conlusive evidence that a divorced man cannot be an elder.  Yet you all claim it is "God's commandment."
> 
> Bama, a man's unbelieving wife leaves and shacks up with another dude.  Biblically, she has cheated and moved on.  She divorces him.  You say, twenty years down the road he is not qualified to be an elder?  GT, you say he has finished "last?"  There is no grace in your perspective.
> 
> I will not change your minds, and you won't change mine.  I will be at peace at home watching football on Sundays, and I hope you are too in your "divorce free elders" Church.



I like your reasoning and honesty.


----------



## Ronnie T

JB, let me ask you something.

What do you propose the Bible truly means in this matter?
Does it mean that a man who has two wifes at the same time cannot be an elder?
If so, would that indicate that all the rest of us could have two or more wifes at one time?
If it doesn't, why would the issue even be a part of the qualifications?

Obviously, the qualification concerning wives is to set him apart from all other men, right?


----------



## Throwback

Huntinfool said:


> I happy for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually I'm not.  But you know what I mean.



Forgive me for being able to draw a line in the sand based on the book of Matthew. 

T


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> JB, let me ask you something.
> 
> What do you propose the Bible truly means in this matter?
> Does it mean that a man who has two wifes at the same time cannot be an elder?
> If so, would that indicate that all the rest of us could have two or more wifes at one time?
> If it doesn't, why would the issue even be a part of the qualifications?
> 
> Obviously, the qualification concerning wives is to set him apart from all other men, right?



The Bible was written 2,000 yrs ago at a time when many cultures were blending together.  For the first time ever, Jews and Gentiles were worshiping together.  We know, from the OT, that polygamy happened.  It was not really a big deal to them.  Polygamy still happens a lot in the middle eastern cultures. The Bible wasn't written exclusively for Americans and our culture. We have to see it in a global perspective.  I think the Bible clearly was coming out against this practice.  Think about it, what man in his right mind would want more than one wife (kind-of joke)?  It was an issue contemporary to the time.  It seems quite clear to me.

Ronnie, why wouldn't he say "never been divorced" if that was what he clearly meant?


----------



## Bama4me

JB0704 said:


> 1. Getting a divorce is not finishing last in your class.  I find it interesting you would make such an equivalence.
> 
> 2.  I don't want to be an elder.  It is this kind of stuff which convinces me to stay as far away from the Church as possible.  Nobody, not you, Bama, Ronnie, or HF has given any conlusive evidence that a divorced man cannot be an elder.  Yet you all claim it is "God's commandment."
> 
> Bama, a man's unbelieving wife leaves and shacks up with another dude.  Biblically, she has cheated and moved on.  She divorces him.  You say, twenty years down the road he is not qualified to be an elder?  GT, you say he has finished "last?"  There is no grace in your perspective.
> 
> I will not change your minds, and you won't change mine.  I will be at peace at home watching football on Sundays, and I hope you are too in your "divorce free elders" Church.



JB... if that guy is remarried in the scenario that you cite, I believe 1 Timothy 3:3 would allow for him to serve in the capacity of an elder.  However, he must be married in order to serve.  And before you go and say "there's not any grace in your theology," please realize grace is not our's to extend... it's God's to extend.  If God says that's the requirements, we must uphold them or we're guilty of adding to God's word.

More than anything else, our difference in theology is that you believe that "grace" allows people to change what God says in His word.  If you go back to the OT times, you'll observe an unchanging God holding people accountable for doing such things.  And before anyone makes a statement like "there's not grace" in the OT, I would encourage a quick glance at Deuteronomy 7:6-10. Be careful that you're not establishing your own righteousness (Romans 10:1-3).


----------



## Ronnie T

JB0704 said:


> The Bible was written 2,000 yrs ago at a time when many cultures were blending together.  For the first time ever, Jews and Gentiles were worshiping together.  We know, from the OT, that polygamy happened.  It was not really a big deal to them.  Polygamy still happens a lot in the middle eastern cultures. The Bible wasn't written exclusively for Americans and our culture. We have to see it in a global perspective.  I think the Bible clearly was coming out against this practice.  Think about it, what man in his right mind would want more than one wife (kind-of joke)?  It was an issue contemporary to the time.  It seems quite clear to me.
> 
> Ronnie, why wouldn't he say "never been divorced" if that was what he clearly meant?




Some people in the church believe as you do.
Here's why I don't.
If Paul was talking about polygamy; if polygamy was such a problem in the early church, why didn't both Jesus and Paul give the same warning to all other Christians?  
The Bibly has always taught one husband/one wife.  If it were a problem to deal with, Jesus could have brought up the subject during His sermon on the mount.  He surely brought up several other subjects that needed dealing with.
Only one person in all the NT was ever told to have "only one wife", and it was the elder.

That's why I believe as I do.
Like I say, there are those who believe as you do.

But, honestly, since you contend that Christ's church is not good enough for you to be connected to, this subject isn't going to have a great impact on your life.
God's peace.


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> But, honestly, since you contend that Christ's church is not good enough for you to be connected to, this subject isn't going to have a great impact on your life.
> God's peace.



Polygamy was the norm in the OT.  Nothing in the NT would tell us it changed much during the "silent" 400 yrs.

And, you have it backwards, I am sick of myself and others not being good enough for the church. Peace.


----------



## Ronnie T

JB0704 said:


> Polygamy was the norm in the OT.  Nothing in the NT would tell us it changed much during the "silent" 400 yrs.
> 
> And, you have it backwards, I am sick of myself and others not being good enough for the church. Peace.



But the church belongs to Christ.  He needs you to work with everyone else to keep Christ's church involved in touching the world.  It's got problems for sure.  Us dumb human beings!  But the church belongs to Christ, and it will ultimately accomplish whatever Christ sets it to do.
Anyway, I'm off topic.


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> But the church belongs to Christ.  He needs you to work with everyone else to keep Christ's church involved in touching the world.  It's got problems for sure.  Us dumb human beings!  But the church belongs to Christ, and it will ultimately accomplish whatever Christ sets it to do.
> Anyway, I'm off topic.



I appreciate your thoughts on this Ronnie.  I believe they are sincere.


----------

