Divorce and Remarriage: The Sin Baptist Preachers Nod & Wink At

Ekklesian said:
I'm just talking about contraception in general. Do you know what the early church fathers taught on the subject? (It's nothing new, you know.)
Click to expand...
By “church fathers,” do you mean the “Church,” as in the Catholic Church? If so, I don’t believe that it differs much from how the Church teaches about the subject today. Relations must be limited to marital couples, and procreation must not be restricted.
 
DoctorDuck said:
Do you realize that the majority of the Christian world supports my position, not yours?
Click to expand...
Do you know that Christianity isn’t a popularity contest? Do you realize that being a “red letter” Christian who isolates what Jesus said from the rest of the New Testament and pits Him against Paul is just as bad as someone who thinks his opinion justifies condemning someone for life for things that are impossible to undo? The foundation of the Church is built upon “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” Progressive revelation is found throughout the Bible and that includes the change of dietary laws (Mark 7:19), abolition of animal sacrifices that could not take away sin (Hebrews 10), no longer tolerating multiple wives or concubines, doing away with the necessity of circumcision, the qualifications of leaders and conduct in the church, etc. That would also include addressing things Jesus never addressed in his earthly ministry as Paul did concerning remarriage after divorce which you have made the unpardonable sin.

The sad part is you took Jimmy Carter’s position on homosexuality which he helped normalize on the federal level for the first time in American history and started a thread on divorce and remarriage as a red herring to run cover for a President who taught Sunday School in a Southern Baptist Church and claimed that Jesus would have approved of homosexual marriage. You have been guilty of adultery by Jesus’ standards which go beyond the letter of the law. So if your wife divorced you for committing adultury as Jesus defined it, would you be okay with that or would you weasle your way out with some exception clause.
 
Last edited:
DoctorDuck said:
By “church fathers,” do you mean the “Church,” as in the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
I mean the early church in the first centuries of Christianity.

DoctorDuck said:
If so, I don’t believe that it differs much from how the Church teaches about the subject today. Relations must be limited to marital couples, and procreation must not be restricted.
Click to expand...
It was pretty much the universal Christian view.
 
If we choose to continue to interact with the Duck on this issue, we must understand that he does not understand or recognize the simple meaning of the word ‘except’.

But they are our pearls and we can cast them at swine if we so choose.


Quack…I mean Oink!
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
If we choose to continue to interact with the Duck on this issue, we must understand that he does not understand or recognize the simple meaning of the word ‘except’.

But they are our pearls and we can cast them at swine if we so choose.


Quack…I mean Oink!
Click to expand...
@Tarheel Baptist, please check your PM’s brother.
 
Ransom said:
This would be an issue if we believed in marriage as a sacrament, which is why the Roman Catholic church forbids Catholics from marrying outside of the church. They are then in a state of mortal sin until the marriage is rectified (that is, receiving the blessing of the Church with a second, Catholic marriage ceremony).

But we do not believe that marriage is a religious sacrament. Rather, it is a creation ordinance: an mandate instituted by God before the fall. The prototype marriage is that of Adam and Eve: the first man and the first woman, given to each other for life and producing offspring. It's not a sacrament, but part of human nature, to marry and start families. Nonbelievers are married, although imperfectly.

Paul in 1 Cor. 7:12-16 tells the Corinthian Christians not to seek to divorce an unbelieving spouse if the spouse is content to remain married. Paul doesn't tell them they aren't really married. Perhaps some of these people sinned and married non-Christians after their conversions. Probably most of them were already married before one of them became a Christian. In any case, their marriage is real and ought to be protected, as far as it depends on the Christian partner.

A marriage between unbelievers might be, in some sense, sinful (they are not rooting their marriage in God's purposes for sexuality, for example, or modelling the relationship between Christ and the church). However, an imperfect marriage is not no marriage at all.

To go back to this part of your question:



Well, that depends. What do you mean by "completely against God's will"? Did God send an angel to tell them to get married in the church? Almost certainly not, so they're not disobeying a direct divine command. In Scripture, marriage is a fact, but it doesn't lay out a specific procedure for doing weddings. So they're not going against the revealed will of God, either.

They might have sinful reasons for avoiding a church wedding, such as a personal tiff with the pastor. But on the other hand, maybe their reasons are perfectly reasonable and pragmatic, such as not having a lot of money to spend on an elaborate ceremony and reception that aren't the point anyway. A $10,000 wedding at church and the community centre later isn't more godly or lasting than the no-frills, $300 ceremony in front of an officiant at city hall.
Click to expand...
Jesus devoted a few verses to weddings, and Paul devoted one chapter in 1 Corinthians 7. I believe that if it were an issue that could determine a person's relationship with Him, more Scripture would have been devoted to it.
Marrying right determines a person's mental and psychological health. If we take scripture literally and don't make it say what it doesn't say, it's easier to understand. For instance, Paul, in chapter 7 says a woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive. Paul is using Jewish law and tradition. He didn't say a man is bound to his wife as long as she is alive. We imply that it can be both ways, but Paul implicitly relates this to a woman leaving her husband. Christ is the head of the church in Ephesians 5:23 just as in marriage, the husband is the head of the wife. Just as God gave Judah a bill of divorce because of her unfaithfulness, Christ can do the same to a church. Paul deals with this in 1 Cor 7.
Although there are legal ramifications when a couple comes together, marriage in God's eyes is a spiritual union. Two ungodly people may be legally married by the state, yet, as far as God is concerned, they're just two people living in sin if He isn't involved. In this case, if one becomes a believer and the unbeliever doesn't want anything to do with him./her, then they are allowed to depart. I believe Paul means the unbeliever rejects the new life of the believer. Paul says to let them depart. Then, Paul is clear when he says in verse 28 that if they remarry they have not sinned. (These are the "others" who were not virgins.)
Biblical marriage is a spiritual act, sanctioned by God only between two people whom He brings together. Anything other than that is just a legal contract.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
If we choose to continue to interact with the Duck on this issue, we must understand that he does not understand or recognize the simple meaning of the word ‘except’.

But they are our pearls and we can cast them at swine if we so choose.


Quack…I mean Oink!
Click to expand...
C’mon, don’t be lazy. Just do a Google search of duck jokes. 🙄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top