The divorce and remarriage question

[JCISGD]

Sorry i apologise on two accounts, i had forgotten you were the original poster and i have not read all 200 odd posts. Is this expected of all new commers ?

I had posted because i felt it relevant to the topic, but i see now i probably should have started a new topic, sorry all.

[Shiloh62]

Hisgirl, find out for sure if the laws of your state considered you common-law married. If you were, get a divorce and you will be free to marry again. If you weren't, then there is nothing that holds you to him.

Thanks Xan. I was told once by a Christian friend that my situation is consdered married so therefore I am regarded as a divorced woman and must NOT remarry.

Well that doesn't stack up with me because God would NOT have convicted me to part ways with him and I did not make any covenant before God when I "shacked up" with him.

I have been doubtful of some of the things I have been told by some well meaning Christian women. I have had a lot more realistic answers on this Board.

There is a difference between someone living together without entering into a marriage and someone who makes a committment between themselves and God. I would suggest you seek God about the matter. Common law marriage is something the government in certain states came up with through legislation, and I am not sure that God would consider you to have been married. What I would ask you is whether or not you considered yourself married at the time? If not, I don't think you are bound forever to the man in question, but keep in mind, that is only my opinion.

Maybe we should all take a time out ,read 1 Corinthians Ch.7,and report back after that.Paul says its better not to marry, so I didn't.

[JCISGD]

Yes your right it will only lead to frustration as you already hold yourself out to be the authority on all things, claiming that you will prove all my arguements false. By whoose standards?. Did all the previous posters admit fault and now adhere to your veiw, or is it just in your mind that your right because it sounds right to you.

Honestly i came to this forum thinking it was a place to share different veiws, but i see now these forums are a cyber Para Church, with the top dogs thinking they have the corner on all truth, and must jealously guard their little ones. I guess that is the right of those who start something, but its not what you advertise or are leading new comers to think.

Who is it that has decided that your take on divorce-remarriage is right ? is there a vote, or is their an authourity that can be recognised and therefore judged to know if trustworthy?

I have been posting to share my sincere opinion, and let my readers judge, but you come on here telling me im wrong and making sarcastic remarks. This is not the way of truth. Let your yes be a yes and reply if you want to, but dont harass others with your time schedule and frustration at having to reply, let the truth speak for itself. You are not God, He has not made it your job to monitor and correct all mistaken veiws. He does that. He knows all that is written here and will judge me if i am wrong. Be sure God is not mocked. If i am teaching falsehood i will pay for it in my own life, and if anyone follows falsehood it is their own fault. Yes where God leads wrong veiws need correction, but by holding it to the light and not by bully tactics.

In Christ Love, Arthur.

[JCISGD]

Hi FoC i dont mean to waste your time, and i really didnt post to debate, but to share what i thought was valid evidence. I apologise for some of my remarks that have come from pride, and were out of order.

I realise now i would have been wiser to post under a new topic, as this is rightfully your to defend.

It was and is not my intention to go around calling anyone adulterers. What i am saying is that from all accounts it seems to me that many people are in error, and that IF they are surely they would want to know before its too late. I dont think that these different sides need debating, only presented and then let those who read it weigh it up.

I am willing to try to answer genuine questions, but those who refute by way of their own opinions is i think unhelpful to all. That is not to say opinions should not be shared, but that to keep in mind, that nothing will in the end be proved by them.

[JCISGD]

Thanks for all of the answers. It appears to be one of those things where Christians will never agree on.

If the Law called for those that commit adultery to be stoned, why were they a need for divorce?

Does it make sense to divorce for fornication and not abuse? I can never wrap my head around the logic.

If we define fornication broadly enough, then nearly everyone would be "off the hook." Charima Magazine has articles every month on divorcing ministers. These are tabloid-gutter-rat stories. It's always great to see the reader's comments about how they should have allowed God to fix all of their problems.

It's fun to cast stone until your own marriage is on the rocks.

****

HisGirl, you were never married so it should be a non-issue. You made no vows to stay with that man. I think a covenant defines a marriage, not living together. You may check into that. But if you are smart....

Ive started reading the earlier posts as i agree i shouldve before jumping in, my apologies FoC.

My friend you admit here you are confused about the very teachings you uphold. What i am saying that the veiws i posted clear up all these confusions and we know God is not the author of confusion, so it must be mans teachings that is causing it.

As you say defining fornication broadly is a cause of confusion, which is my point exactly. Adultery in the 7th commandment is used to cover all sexual sin (Charles Finney 'Systematic Theology' i think or ' The Heart of Truth). But fornication i believe does not cover Adultery as the two words are used side by side in alot of verses, and importantly among the sins (sins still persisted in) that will prevent entry to heaven.

Im not trying to cast stones or tell anyone what they must do, im only presenting what i have been shown, its up to the reader to accept or reject.

[JCISGD]

What you are saying is that the bible uses two words side by side yet they are interchangeable ? They are used side by side to show there is a differnce or else it makes it a nonsense to use them side by side.

What did you mean you do this every day, are you saying you are paid to be on here ?

[JCISGD]

Matthew 19

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him,

[JCISGD]

What you are saying is that the bible uses two words side by side yet they are interchangeable ?

No, friend...what *I* am doing is accepting what the real scholars accept. That the TWO words have DIFFERENT yet RELATED intents. No different than 'theft' and 'embezzle' have DIFFERENT yet related intents. One is quite broad in intent, the other more narrow.

This point isnt actually evidence that fornication doesnt cover adultery, Im afraid.

They are used side by side to show there is a differnce or else it makes it a nonsense to use them side by side.

And did you READ the difinition I presented in my last post ?

Do you believe that the Greek SCHOLAR who wrote that definition was a complete moron who somehow MISSED that in two verses in the NT that adulery and forncation are used together ?

G4202

porneia

por-ni'-ah

From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

I hardly think the man spent his lifetime in study and missed that fact.

Im afraid if that is all the evidence you have that youd better get back into the scriptures because there are a few time where ONLY fornication is used to cover ALL sexual immorality..some letters dont even use the word 'adultery' but DO use 'fornication' when speaking about our abstaining from sexual immorality.

Id learn to know what IS and what ISNT actually relevant as evidence if I were you...

ive done the study myself pertaining to porneia and have concluded precisely what the scholars do....that it is ALL inclusive of sexual immorality.

What did you mean you do this every day, are you saying you are paid to be on here ?

I debate this pathetic homewrecking, marriage destroying error every day...on forums just like this one all over the web. "paid" ? No clue how anything I said could have given you that idea.

So now you are saying you will trust certain scholars because they spent their life studing? Not me i put my trust in someones ability to prove it to my God given faculty of reason if it lines up with the scriptures.

What yardstick are you using to determine a "real" scholar? FoC you are still using the because i said so arguement, i am merely presenting what i have read let the truth stand on its own legs.

About 3 posts ago you said something about doing this every day, I wondered where you got the time if you were not paid, but then again i am a slow typer.

[JCISGD]

- Personally I do not believe that 're' marriage is biblical in any sense because it has the connotation that a lawful marriage can be broken, and a new one can take place. I believe that divorce is only biblical if there was no legal marriage in the first place, so you wouldn't get 're' married, you would get married.

- Jesus teaches us that getting a divorce and then marrying is comitting adultery through the gospels, Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18

- We are given an 'exception clause' in Matt. 5:31-32, in which Christ say's divorce is alright if the sin of 'porneia' is committed (unlawful intercourse) which is not 'moicheia' (adultery). How do we reconcile Christ telling us that divorce is unlawful and then turning around and saying its lawful in certain circumstances? Christ is not contradicting Himself, He tells us that a lawful marriage can never be disolved, but you can get a divorce if there was never a 'lawful' marriage that actually took place. If the immoral act of 'porneia' is committed in a marriage, the marriage was never legal meaning that the two partners did not understand what marriage was when it took place, and thus a divorce is fine because there wan't even a marriage to begin with.

- The key word is 're' marriage. Christ absolutely forbids this, because to get 're' married would imply one could have a lawful marriage, sever that union, and participate in another lawful marriage. This is not possible as Christ tells us. Divorce is only permitted if a lawful marriage never took place in the first place, because the marriage then is only a legal one, not a marriage in God's eyes, and you couldn't get 're' married, you would participate in your first lawful marriage. Many Churches term this 'annulment' because the marriage was null and void in God's eyes.

- However these are only my personal thoughts and I do not wish to offend anyone in any manner, I know how emotional divorces can be, but at the same time I have to hold to my principles, and respect anyone else who holds to theirs

God bless

What is unlawful intercourse within a marraige?

- Unlawful intercourse within a marriage would be cheating on your spouse, or some type of action (generalized) in which you are not looking at your spouse as a person but as an object. These actions strongly suggest you were not sincere in your intent when you got 'married' if the intent was not correct, a marriage never took place in the first place, and is declared 'annulled' and you may marry. But 're' marriage is highly un-biblical in that it suggests we can sever what God has brought together and then establish another one, this is something Christ harshly condemns.

God bless

Cheating on your spouse is adultry. However, you said it is not. Please clarify.

- I'm speaking about sexual immorality Xan, anything that violates a lawful marriage. (Trying to think of how to explain this and remain neutral ) Adultery would be cheating on your spouse yes, but that does not automatically mean the marriage was invalid from the beginning, you might have just been mislead. When I say cheating on your spouse in relevancy to porniea I speak of the lust that is within your heart from the beginning, in that the marriage is not lawful to begin with because you intentions are misplaced

God bless

Ah! You're talking about someone defrauding their spouse when he/she gets married. For example, a pornographer that cheated with his fantasies during courtship and continued during the marraige unknown to the innocent spouse.

- No i'm saying that people use others as objects to relieve their pain, and instead of being selfless and marrying because they love their spouse, they marry their spouse for selfish reasons. On these grounds the marriage is unlawful, and did not take place. Therefore divorce is permitted because there was no valid marriage. "re"marying however implies that you can have a lawful marriage in the eyes of God, sever that, and create another one. Christ harshly condemns this. So if your marriage never lawfully took place, you don't get 're' married, if you do get married, it will be your first.

God bless

Oops i need to recant a little, im not in agreement with this last part. My opinion is that the only annulment is as Joseph thought their betrothed had committed fornication and thereby broken their vow, and so it was not joined by God who knows all things and would not be party to the supposed joining. Correct it was not marriage in Gods sight, and therefore annuled.

but now see also that although this concession was granted to the Jews, hence it is not mentioned in Mark and Luke or John, Jesus now commands us to forgive which makes all this divorcing and remarriage wrong. If seperation for safety or sanity is needed, this does not stop us praying and believing for God to change hearts. The problem is we often pray for God to change the other persons heart when it is ours thats hardened, and this is the cause of all divorce. Like it or not, we cannot get around the clear teaching that God hates all divorce, and it only happens because of hardened hearts.

[JCISGD]

So now you are saying you will trust certain scholars because they spent their life studing?

Why dont you READ my posts and HONESTLY represent what *I* have said from now on chap ?

I trust NO ONE. I simply AGREE with their conclusions. Learn the difference.

Not me i put my trust in someones ability to prove it to my God given faculty of reason if it lines up with the scriptures.

Pretty funny. Shall I quote your own post where you name two names of men who VERY clearly swayed YOUR own views in this matter ?

At least the scholar I quoted for that definition was unbiased....the FACTS from the WHOLE word of God PROVE that porneia MUST be all inclusive of sexual sin.

What yardstick are you using to determine a "real" scholar?

One whos statements are actually supported by the WHOLE word of God. ...the word that PROVES that porneia IS any and all sexual immorality. And what do YOU have....some silly argument that both words are used in the same sentence ? We've explained this already....'theft' and 'embezzlement' can be used in the SAME sentence as they have SIMILAR yet someone varied meanings.

FoC you are still using the because i said so arguement,

Ive presented EVIDENCE here...and what have you given us....I mean really chap...go back thru YOUR posts in this thread and SHOW us what YOU have actually provided as far as RELEVANT evidence. Pretty much nothing from what Ive seen....

i am merely presenting what i have read let the truth stand on its own legs.

Ive seen nothing here but your own opinion without ANY evidence whatsoever.

When you start presenting actual evidence in the matter, Im all eyes and ears....

Sorry but i think you are such a twister of words i dont see how we can go forward other than a third party mediate and call us out. I will admit i too may be twisting yours, after all we are all baised towards ourselves are we not.

Ill try to answer some of your objections.

1. I cannot see how you can use a scholars teaching simply as "real" because you say so or that he has been in an occupation for a lifetime.

2. You use the word swayed by these men, i did not. I said where proven to my reason but more importantly scripture. I/they could still be wrong, but so far i

would have to bypass my reason to think otherwise. I see no grounds for doing this, the opposite actually " whatever is doubt is sin. We are within our right

to hold onto that proven to us unless and untill proven otherwise. It is a sin to willfully hold to doctrine against many proofs and in the face of doubt. I have

no doubt of what i have presented here, but am willing to be proven otherwise.

3. You continue to claim that you only are using the whole word of God, and resort to emotionalism by calling my arguements silly etc.

4. Theft and embezelment can be used in the same sentence if in context. Likewise the use of Fornication (if it covers all sins, i.e sexual immorality) and

adultery ( which is sexual immorality also ) makes it nonsensical to use them together in THE bible verses. i.e " repent of sexual immorality and sexual

immorality".

5. My point exactly, is that you say your evidence is evidence but mine is not. I am not saying what i present is more than my opinion, only that it is my opinion

that the evidences presented are sincere and i wish to leave it to each reader to decide dor themselves.