Divorce: The Sin Preachers Nod & Wink At

[Ransom]

A broader, more general term often translated as "sexual immorality" or "fornication".

And why can porneia not also encompass moicheia? The existence of a general term does not exclude it being used for things with their own specific term.

As I said in my previous post, Paul uses porneia in 1 Cor. 5:1, describing a relationship that might be incestuous (for which koine Greek does not have a specific term) but was most definitely adulterous. And in 1 Cor. 7:2, he writes, "because of the temptation to sexual immorality porneia, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Clearly he's talking about sexual acts that would violate the exclusivity of the marriage covenant, which is, by definition, adultery.

 

[DoctorDuck]

And why can porneia not also encompass moicheia? The existence of a general term does not exclude it being used for things with their own specific term.

As I said in my previous post, Paul uses porneia in 1 Cor. 5:1, describing a relationship that might be incestuous (for which koine Greek does not have a specific term) but was most definitely adulterous. And in 1 Cor. 7:2, he writes, "because of the temptation to sexual immorality porneia, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Clearly he's talking about sexual acts that would violate the exclusivity of the marriage covenant, which is, by definition, adultery.

So are you arguing that John Piper’s viewpoint is correct, or that it could be correct? Am I incorrect in stating that Piper’s view is somewhat halfway between the traditional Catholic and Protestant views? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Ransom]

So are you arguing that John Piper’s viewpoint is correct, or that it could be correct? Am I incorrect in stating that Piper’s view is somewhat halfway between the traditional Catholic and Protestant views? Or am I misunderstanding?

If you mean Piper's view that Jesus uses porneia to mean infidelity that betrays the betrothal agreement, then it seems to me, a fortiori, that porneia committed after the marriage covenant has been affirmed and consummated would be the greater offence; so if divorce was justifiable in the former case, it would be also in the latter.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Why?

Because you are saying that the issue we are discussing (divorce, remarriage, perpetual adultery) is to be realized through the essence of interpretation, yet in my query to you asking how you derive your hermeneutic for your interpretation you dismissed it out of hand, but you invoke the very process of interpretive schemes here with Ransom. Secondly, you shy away from wanting to deal with other people's interpretations, and in numerous cases your dismissive attitude is with people citing Jesus' very words..... ironic.

 

[DoctorDuck]

OK, so to summarize, depending upon how you (your church/denomination/theologians) interpret these Ancient Greek words, a divorced-remarried person is or might be living in a perpetual state of adultery. That’s how I interpret it. And NONE of you have shown that this is categorically false. At best, you have shown it might be false.

 

[DoctorDuck]

Because you are saying that the issue we are discussing (divorce, remarriage, perpetual adultery) is to be realized through the essence of interpretation, yet in my query to you asking how you derive your hermeneutic for your interpretation you dismissed it out of hand, but you invoke the very process of interpretive schemes here with Ransom. Secondly, you shy away from wanting to deal with other people's interpretations, and in numerous cases your dismissive attitude is with people citing Jesus' very words..... ironic.

Well, in light of that whole “casting pearls before swine” thing, I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well, in light of that whole “casting pearls before swine” thing, I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

You're accountable to your own overseer, not me, so I ain't worried about it in the least. Your answers to me, and to some relatively significant degree your answers to others who have shown you truth in this matter is regularly met with seeming snark and a cavalier dismissiveness. That is a hallmark of pride. Just something to think about. Have a great day Mr Duck.

 

[ALAYMAN]

OK, so to summarize, depending upon how you (your church/denomination/theologians) interpret these Ancient Greek words, a divorced-remarried person is or might be living in a perpetual state of adultery. That’s how I interpret it. And NONE of you have shown that this is categorically false. At best, you have shown it might be false.

No, I don't subscribe to the "nose-counting" theory of Scripture interpretation, but I find value in knowing the opinions of great Christians and theologians in history. Ultimately Scripture and our conscience is the arbiter of our discernment of truth, which is a cardinal Baptist doctrine of soul liberty and priesthood of the believer. The difficulty in resolving biblical truth, like Calvinism vs Arminianism, must come down to the individual Christian's understanding of the Lord's word, but we seek to "sharpen iron" among one another. In this issue, I think grace overwhelms notions that lend itself to censuriousness and legality.

 

[DoctorDuck]

You're accountable to your own overseer, not me, so I ain't worried about it in the least. Your answers to me, and to some relatively significant degree your answers to others who have shown you truth in this matter is regularly met with seeming snark and a cavalier dismissiveness. That is a hallmark of pride. Just something to think about. Have a great day Mr Duck.

My answers are biblical, and you can’t prove otherwise, or you would have already. And as for “snark,” I can’t even hold a candle to you.

 

[DoctorDuck]

I think

I’ve learned that when I read phrases such as “I think,” it really means “I don’t know.”

 

[Ransom]

OK, so to summarize, depending upon how you (your church/denomination/theologians) interpret these Ancient Greek words, a divorced-remarried person is or might be living in a perpetual state of adultery

Who, except conceivably the Roman Catholic Church, believes remarriage puts someone in a perpetual state of adultery?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I’ve learned that when I read phrases such as “I think,” it really means “I don’t know.”

And your absolutist phraseology is most likely born out of stubborness, and an obvious admission that you have a weak case that fails to refute the counter-evidence.

 

[DoctorDuck]

And your absolutist phraseology is most likely born out of stubborness, and an obvious admission that you have a weak case that fails to refute the counter-evidence.

In these matters, I’ll gladly side with two thousand years of theology and philosophy, and guys from Notre Dame with a Th.D and Ph.D after their names. If you prefer siding with a guy named “Phil” from the forum, more power to you.

 

[ALAYMAN]

In these matters, I’ll gladly side with two thousand years of theology and philosophy, and guys from Notre Dame with a Th.D and Ph.D after their names. If you prefer siding with a guy named “Phil” from the forum, more power to you.

Another successful snarky post, but a failure to address truth. I ultimately said, let's do away with Phil and Aquinas' words, and deal with Jesus' own words regarding husbands, wives, and multiple marriages, and that's when you took your ball and went home.

 

[illinoisguy]

The IFB church I grew up in has never allowed a divorced man to be a church deacon or pastoral staff member. They are allowed to be ushers and Sunday school teachers. The reason for the divorce is irrelevant, just being divorced is cause enough.

The question of whether to allow divorced persons to teach Sunday School is a hot issue for some. Here, for those who are interested, is an online debate on the subject from the Sharper Iron web site.

Should Divorcees Be Forbidden to Teach or Lead in Local Churches? | SHARPER IRON

sharperiron.org

Jimmy Reagan, on his "Reagan Review" web site, listed the IFB position on divorced teachers as a "hopeless inconsistency:" "It is wrong to have a divorced man teach in your church, but you may have a divorced woman come and teach on Bible versions." He doesn't name names but I would assume that he is talking about Gail Riplinger.

Hopeless Inconsistencies (IBTR #39)

Sometimes when we institutionalize rules that are not actually mentioned in the Bible, nor can be honestly inferred from its pages, we can fall into the most hopeless inconsistencies. Likely many C…

thereaganreview.com

Moral of the story - any preacher who takes a strong stand against divorce and remarriage need not ask me to be a follower of any politician, megachurch pastor (John Hagee, etc), prophecy teacher (Hal Lindsey, etc) or Bible version guru (Peter Ruckman, etc) who is divorced and remarried.

 

[DoctorDuck]

Another successful snarky post, but a failure to address truth. I ultimately said, let's do away with Phil and Aquinas' words, and deal with Jesus' own words, and that's when you took your ball and went home.

Not true. The crux of my argument was that I have stuck with the literal words of Jesus (letters in red) and you immediately began asking me about unrelated examples and how I’d interpret them, then my “hermeneutical approach.”

 

[DoctorDuck]

The question of whether to allow divorced persons to teach Sunday School is a hot issue for some. Here, for those who are interested, is an online debate on the subject from the Sharper Iron web site.

Should Divorcees Be Forbidden to Teach or Lead in Local Churches? | SHARPER IRON

sharperiron.org

Jimmy Reagan, on his "Reagan Review" web site, listed the IFB position on divorced teachers as a "hopeless inconsistency:" "It is wrong to have a divorced man teach in your church, but you may have a divorced woman come and teach on Bible versions." He doesn't name names but I would assume that he is talking about Gail Riplinger.

Hopeless Inconsistencies (IBTR #39)

Sometimes when we institutionalize rules that are not actually mentioned in the Bible, nor can be honestly inferred from its pages, we can fall into the most hopeless inconsistencies. Likely many C…

thereaganreview.com

Moral of the story - any preacher who takes a strong stand against divorce and remarriage need not ask me to be a follower of any politician, megachurch pastor (John Hagee, etc), prophecy teacher (Hal Lindsey, etc) or Bible version guru (Peter Ruckman, etc) who is divorced and remarried.

My all time favorite (and most effective) Sunday school teacher was a divorced man. I was in his 9th and 10th grade class (I think). I remember being shocked when he disclosed to us boys that he’d been previously married. It was decades earlier and all any of us knew about was his current wife and kids. He also said it was the reason he was limited to certain roles in the church. I had mixed emotions about the situation—still do. Sadly, he passed away several years ago.

 

[Ekklesian]

My answers are biblical, and you can’t prove otherwise, or you would have already. And as for “snark,” I can’t even hold a candle to you.

Yes, they are biblical. So is the law.

But what you need to understand is that mercy and truth came through Jesus. Christ's commentary on the law was to restore the law to it's original interpretation, and to purge it from the rabbinical corruption which turned the concession into a license.

Christ, under the law, and when restoring the law, gave no mercy, because the law has no mercy to give. But the Apostles, loosened certain things, and the one central and universal dogma was that of marriage.

Naturally, the carnal heart will do what Hillel did, and turn the concession into license. Christ, in His resroration of the law in the Sermon of the Mount, gave no occasion for desertion, or abuse, or other miseries inflicted by a churlish or odious spouse. The Apostles did, though.

And despite the other errors of Rome, an Annulment is the offshoot of that understanding.

Marriage is a blessed estate. We are called to peace. But where peace cannot abide, there can be no marriage...no matter what vow one might have made thinking otherwise. So one, according to the letter, avoids adultery. What of the murder and warring that is ongoing?

At one point, when my ex said I vowed for better or for worse, I said, That didn't mean your worst. It was eventually she who said we needed to divorce.

You need to realize that it's your elders that are telling you that you do not understand the dynamics at play, or what was Christ's intent in His words.

But since you're all about purity...let me ask you this: You have one daughter. Are you practicing birth control?

But where birth control is used...isn't that just about getting off? Isn't it just about your strong desires, mutual though they may be? And what did Jesus say about looking upon a woman with lust? I don't see a spousal exception there.

 

[DoctorDuck]

Who, except conceivably the Roman Catholic Church, believes remarriage puts someone in a perpetual state of adultery?

Aside from the Roman Catholic Church, the conservative Anabaptists, the Mennonites, certain Independent Baptist bodies, Holiness churches, and conservative Reformed movements teach that all remarriage while a former spouse lives is wrong, interpreting passages like Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 as an absolute prohibition. The Eastern Orthodox Church also leans heavily in that direction, according to my research.

 

[Bruh]

How is adultery not sexual immorality?

He didn’t say that.