|
Post by danlirette on Nov 14, 2007 9:07:59 GMT -5
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:15:36 -0800 [21:15:36 MST] From: Ruben Israel To: dan.lirette Subject: You may place this on the board
SIN IN THE CAMP
For anyone that believes a believer is in adultery when remarried, let me make this clear and to the point.
Over the years I have not preached with certain men due to sin in the camp, I have sent men home when I found out sin within the camp. I do take my preaching very seriously as does our Father. I once place a man on a bus about three years ago during Mardi Gras for living in sin and I did not want his sin to be cancer within the group of preachers.
Also once while in England I removed two men before we preached in Scotland for the same reason.
I WILL NOT PREACH WITH SOMEONE WHO IS KNOWN TO MASTURBATE WHILE WALKING WITH GOD NOR WILL I ASSOCIATE WITH A FORNICATOR AND I WILL NOT ALLOW A KNOWN ADULTERER TO JOIN ME PREACHING NO MATTER HOW NICE HE IS, IF I EXPECT THE HAND OF GOD UPON US.
With that said, anyone that believes remarried Christian are active adulterers, YOU are not true to your own belief. YOU should not fellowship with us, break bread with us, receive counsel from us, get support from us, IF what YOU believe is true. Why would YOU want our leaven to destroy the whole loaf?
Do not worry about offended me, if you believe such, OBEY as per James 4:17. I was not offended when I removed people during a preach for known sin within my group, as should you if you are confident in your stand....Selah.....
Ruben Israel
|
|
|
Post by joem on Nov 15, 2007 10:47:30 GMT -5
I haven't seen anything posted on the position of the ECF's on this subject and wanted to post these quotes for informational purposes.
What the ECF's taught;
Hermas
What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorces his wife and marries another, he too commits adultery (Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).
Justin Martyr
In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart. "And, whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery." According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts (First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).
Clement of Alexandria
That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union is expressly contained in the law: "You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality." And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. "Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery," it says: "for if anyone divorces his wife, he debauches her"; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seems to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her [and] who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [A.D. 248]).
1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
I personally would not be comfortable supporting someone who preaches against homosexuality and masturbation but are themselves engaged in an adulterous relationship. I harbor no ill will against someone who has been remarried, but I cant justify it, nor do I feel the need to.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 15, 2007 10:54:04 GMT -5
The Council of Arles (314) was more lenient. It dealt with the young Christian whose wife became an adulteress. Its counsel was similar to that of Elvira, that he should refrain from marrying a second time as long as the adulterous wife lived. No mention was made, however, of excommunication should he remarry. (Harrell, Divorce and Remarriage, 182-83. Even though sometimes expressed in terms only of the male, there was nonetheless a concern for the female as well on the part of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.) Tertullian (c. 200), like his contemporaries, held that the marital bond is indissoluble. In his Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage, he strongly objected to a woman's remarrying even after her husband's death, because then she would have "one husband in the flesh and another in the spirit. This would be adultery-joint knowledge of one woman by two men." In regard to divorce, he claimed that the new law of Christ had abrogated the OT law permitting divorce; that same new law thereby outlawed remarriage. Tertullian did, however, accept remarriage if the dissolution of the first (either by death or divorce) had occurred prior to one's conversion (for in Christ, one becomes a new creation). (Translation from Ancient Christian Writers (trans. W.P. LeSaint; ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe; Westminster, MO: Newman Press, 1951) 13:93, 103, 96-97.) Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, did not seem as strict as his contemporaries. He noted that Christ rejected "the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause" (1.14.16), but he did not seem to rule out divorce completely. Indeed, he admitted that some church leaders "have permitted a (divorced) woman to marry, even when her husband was living," and he confessed that such permission was "not altogether without reason," being undoubtedly a lesser of evils (1.14.23). (Translation from, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alan Menzies; New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons, 1908) 9:505, 510.) Source: www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_divorce_snuth.html
|
|
|
Post by joem on Nov 15, 2007 11:27:38 GMT -5
Hermas wrote;
Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a righteous man." I said to him, "Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions." "Say on," said he. And I said to him, "Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?"
And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery."
And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented…In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. –The Shepherd 4:1-10
That is not a case for remarriage, but against it. Being told not to do something but not going into detail about the consequences of disobeying is far from permission.
Basil writing after the Council of Arles still maintained the position that remarriage equated adultery;
The man who has deserted his wife and goes to another is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who live with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her…The woman who lives with an adulterer is an adulteress the whole time.
The woman who has been abandoned by her husband, ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. The Lord said, “If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery;” thus, by calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse with another man. For how can the man being guilty, as having caused adultery, and the woman, go without blame, when she is called an adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with another man?
A man who marries another man’s wife who has been taken away from him will be charged with adultery… - Amphilochius 199 (a)
Ambrose of Milan echoed Basil's writings;
But what shall I say about chastity, when only one and no second union is allowed? As regards marriage, the law is, not to marry again, nor to seek union with another wife. It seems strange to many why impediment should be caused by a second marriage entered on before baptism, so as to prevent election to the clerical office, and to the reception of the gift of ordination; seeing that even crimes are not wont to stand in the way, if they have been put away in the sacrament of baptism.
But we must learn, that in baptism sin can be forgiven, but law cannot be abolished. In the case of marriage there is no sin, but there is a law. Whatever sin there is can be put away, whatever law there is cannot be laid aside in marriage. - On the duties of Clergy:1:257 (a)
And what else did John have in mind but what is virtuous, so that he could not endure a wicked union even in the king's case, saying: "It is not lawful for thee to have her to wife."118 He could have been silent, had he not thought it unseemly for himself not to speak the truth for fear of death, or to make the prophetic office yield to the king, or to indulge in flattery. He knew well that he would die as he was against the king, but he preferred virtue to safety. Yet what is more expedient than the suffering which brought glory to the saint. - On the duties of Clergy, 3:89 (a)
No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall in a snare and sin with a strange woman. “If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce,” for you are not permitted, while your wife lives to marry another.” – Abraham 1:57:59 (a)
You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men should stand in awe of God. Hear the Word of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” –Commentary on Luke, Sec. 8:5 (a)
Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome all agreed that remarriage after divorce was not allowed and each of them agreed that remarriage while the ones spouse is living, is in fact adultery. Even Augustine admitted that remarriage was adultery and he found ways to excuse his own fornication which resulted in child born to his concubine. Go figure?
Subjects such as adultery, homosexuality, sodomy and fornication were all hot topics in the Early Church. They were each addressed specifically and each were defined and condemned. It is not like some other issues of our day in which the Early Church was relatively silent about.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 15, 2007 11:30:10 GMT -5
I would enjoy continuing in this discussion, yet we should do it in another thread; this particular one concerns Ruben addressing certain individuals who he preached with.
I would like to see if these individuals would respond.
In Christ,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 15, 2007 17:15:05 GMT -5
What response would you like to see Dan?
I have not been on the computer since the last pm I sent you. I do not have internet access. I live in a trailer.
Do you think I cannot preach without Ruben?
Like I said I appreciate Ruben and Britt (that was the other name I mentioned) and others who are divorced and remarried.
However, due to the way I understand the Bible and the words of Jesus I would never be able to say with a clear conscience that someone who is divorced and remarried with a living spouse that they are assured entrance to heaven.
If people want to fall out with me for that then let them fall out. However, I am not on a witchhunt. I am not constantly bringing this issue up. Dan is the one doing that.
Hey Dan, if the shoe fits then wear it. I am sorry you don't agree with me. I don't believe you or anyone else can go to heaven in a remarried situation.
I am not trying to appease you, Ruben, Britt, or anyone else. Neither am I talking about them behind their back and trying to turn others against them.
This is what you are doing Dan. You are the one seeking to play divide and conquer.
I know how you are Dan. I knew it was a loaded question when you asked it. I knew from your post a few weeks ago you were going to bring Ruben into this.
If I was afraid of people knowing what I thought I never would have posted my response about Randy and Paula White.
When I first made that post I was not trying to hurt you or anyone else, just stating what I believe. If the truth offends then it offends.
If it means I cannot preach with certain people anymore (this is not my desire or my agenda) then so be it.
I have to answer for myself. You have to answer for yourself Dan. Ruben cannot answer to God for you either.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Nov 15, 2007 18:32:43 GMT -5
Brothers,
I have to say, that at this point I do lean towards the stance that Micah has taken. If I could let me create a syllogism in order to logically progress through this topic:
A. Jesus said if anyone divorces and remarries and the spouse is yet alive they are in adultery. B. Paul said that no adulterer has a place in the kingdom of heaven.
Conc.: No one who divorces and remarries has a place in the kingdom of heaven.
I want to make clear however that I could be entirely wrong in this regard, as repentance is still an option and forgiveness can be obtained upon that condition. But what then would repentance from this sin look like? It seems as if the only way to repent of a remarriage that is adulterous would be to divorce the current spouse, which apart from the cause of adultery is also sin.
I am not condoning the act on the basis of confusion as practically all of that I just wrote presents the depth of the evil in fact as the only way to repent of that sin is to commit another sin. It brings to remembrance an old phrase, "oh the tangled webs we weave".
I had no idea that Rueben or Britt were in adulterous marriages, and I hope that you did indeed receive permission from Rueben and you as well Micah concerning Britt as this has the potential to strike a great blow to their ministry and usefulness and also is slander if not. I am not accusing you, really just asking you if you had received that permissions in the from of statement.
Also, I was wondering from what scriptures is the stance brought that says remarriage is permissible while the divorced spouse is yet living? I am curious as to the hermanuetic and the exegesis that sorrounds this as I have heard the view, but never seen the scriptures which build the foundation of it. It would be great to see a list of scripture for that view.
- Evan
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 15, 2007 18:43:18 GMT -5
I hope that you did indeed receive permission from Rueben and you as well Micah. - Evan Yes, Brother Evan, Ruben specifically wriote to me the other day in response to my writing him and he specifically asked me to post the initial email (above) on this Board; you may ask him if you wish. As for Micah speaking of Britt; I do not believe Micah had permission to name him, and think it wrong to do so. With that, the Lord continue to use you, Brother Evan, as I know of a certainity he has and is using you to bless others. In Christ, Dan
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 15, 2007 18:53:31 GMT -5
I know how you are Dan. I knew it was a loaded question when you asked it. I knew from your post a few weeks ago you were going to bring Ruben into this. This cannot be, as I had no knowledge of Ruben's remarriage until AFTER the initial posts when I was chatting in Private PM with a Brother and he revealed it and asked me not to post it on the Board but to ask Ruben first. Your judgement on me here is false and incorrect, and you in fact only suspected I would bring Ruben into this, when in fact at the time I had no idea he was remarried; so your "knowing" was in fact a judgement against my heart, and a wrong judgement at that, Brother Micah. I hold no ill towards you and pray that this entire thread would turn out to your benefit in that you would reconcile with your Brothers who you suported but inwardly did not even believe they were saved. This is unfortunate and I feel saddened concerning this. My hope is that you would come clean with these dear Saints and talk these issues over, not continually come against men's hearts and misjudge people. This will be my last reply to your posts, Brother, as you cannot write anything other than judgements on my heart, which no man knows save God. Lastly, I hold no ill will towards you and do truly pray you will see this issue through further and come to a spirit which seks reconcilliation. ini Christ, Dan
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Nov 15, 2007 19:07:28 GMT -5
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 15, 2007 19:07:31 GMT -5
Does anyone really think that they could remain abstinent for the rest of their lives if a spouse divorced them? I think you can repent from this sin.....what is acceptable to God in this area of repentance I don't know. But it is better to marry than burn...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 15, 2007 20:52:30 GMT -5
Does anyone really think that they could remain abstinent for the rest of their lives if a spouse divorced them? I think you can repent from this sin.....what is acceptable to God in this area of repentance I don't know. But it is better to marry than burn... Of course it is possible brother. I can do ALL things through Christ who strengthens me!
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 15, 2007 21:48:34 GMT -5
I have thought about what Evan brings up before.
I am not sure what I think about the remarriage issue, but what can one do when he has remarried? If you break up THAT marriage then are you not sinning even more, and basically shutting the second spouse off from sexual relations for the rest of his/her life, since you are returning to the first marriage? How can one escape that situation without sinning?
This alone causes me to wonder if perhaps the no-remarriage-after-lawful-divorce belief can possibly be true, because it seems to present a dilemma that would cause a person to be sinning no matter what course of action they took. Or maybe I am confusing something. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Nov 15, 2007 22:49:10 GMT -5
Are you serious? Judge not lest you also be judged.
Joe, great quotes there from the ECFs. I hadn't seen many of those.
As far as the Tertullian quote (though I don't think it was actually quoted) about him not believing that one could remarry even if the spouse died I am pretty sure was a Montanistic view. The Montanists were something like a denomination by today's standards. There were some other views that Montanists held to that I believe were in error, this being one of them. I am not sure why they held to this view.
As far as remaining celibate... I don't see too many people sympathizing with us single guys. It must be possible to do with the grace of God. Now, I do sympathize greatly with after being married and enjoying marriage for all that time to then have to come to terms with remaining celibate the rest of your life (unless the first spouse dies)... It would be like death. I shutter at the painful thought.
If anyone thinks that putting away a "wife" because the relationship is not lawful and concludes that that would be causing another to sin by deprivation, let me ask, If a fornicator kicks his girlfriend out of his bed because that relationship is not lawful, is he now causing her to sin? Or what about a homosexual who breaks off the relationship with his partner? Does he now cause another to sin? I think the answer is obvious. Grasping the concept that the relationship is not lawful nor did it start lawfully I think is the key to seeing the logic behind it all.
Now, is it possible that after a person gets saved that the sin of remarriage is erased? I wish it were so but I see no biblical grounds to believe that. It would be like saying that after getting saved, being a homosexual is now ok to continue in. John the Baptist told Herod, a sinner, that his "marriage" was not lawful. Did he want him to just get baptized and then it would be ok or did he expect him to repent? I just can't get around the fact that Jesus says, "whosoever" and the "committeth", signifying a continual in doing.
Now back to the idea of putting away a wife that is not lawful for you to have... Does God approve? What did Israel do? Please look at Ezra Chapter 10 to see. I once drew a crowd at GMU by simply reading this entire chapter. At the time I never thought I would ever see much significance years later.
Now, I would still like to see any ECF quotes explaining Matthew's "exception" clause. I have considered it to be talking about betrothal but I could really be wrong. I have learning about betrothal lately and it is pretty interesting.
Lastly, what do I do with people who are called brothers yet are found to be in this situation? Should I break fellowship with them? Should I not even eat with them? Should I public call them all to repent? I will be honest, at this point I just am not sure what to do. There is still a part of me that really hopes I am wrong but I am with Micah in that I cannot in good conscience assure someone that they are heaven bound that is divorced and remarried with a first spouse still living. Those are my thoughts.
Blessings,
Miles
For a short book that further explains Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage look up "What the Bible says about Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage" by John Coblenz. Is online at anabaptist.org or anabaptists.org
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Nov 15, 2007 22:52:19 GMT -5
I have thought about what Evan brings up before. I am not sure what I think about the remarriage issue, but what can one do when he has remarried? If you break up THAT marriage then are you not sinning even more, and basically shutting the second spouse off from sexual relations for the rest of his/her life, since you are returning to the first marriage? How can one escape that situation without sinning? This alone causes me to wonder if perhaps the no-remarriage-after-lawful-divorce belief can possibly be true, because it seems to present a dilemma that would cause a person to be sinning no matter what course of action they took. Or maybe I am confusing something. Thoughts? I just re read your post. If you have been remarried there is no returning to your first spouse, that would be an abomination. The only place for reconciling to a wife is she has been divorced or put away is if neither the husband nor the wife has been remarried in the interim.
|
|
oaora
Full Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by oaora on Nov 15, 2007 22:52:51 GMT -5
I'm just going to answer this as honestly as I can. I think it is easy to say to someone that they can't remarry when it's not you. However, if it happened to me I don't think I could say with assuredly that I could handle life without the companionship of a woman. It's a necessity for some people. Doesn't mean that God wouldn't convict me differently if that ever happened. I'm just not convinced that God wouldn't want you to start over after repenting. I think that it is better to marry again than be alone and burn as the Scripture says.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Nov 15, 2007 23:03:54 GMT -5
I'm just going to answer this as honestly as I can. I think it is easy to say to someone that they can't remarry when it's not you. However, if it happened to me I don't think I could say with assuredly that I could handle life without the companionship of a woman. It's a necessity for some people. Doesn't mean that God wouldn't convict me differently if that ever happened. I'm just not convinced that God wouldn't want you to start over after repenting. I think that it is better to marry again than be alone and burn as the Scripture says. Read that passage again brother. Paul specifically addresses who that statement is to. 1 Cor 7 8-11 KJV 8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. He says what is ok for unmarried and for widows and THEN what is ok for those who are divorced and even says "not I, but the Lord" which I can only assume is talking about Jesus' own words on the subject provided for us in scripture.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 15, 2007 23:07:30 GMT -5
I've exhausted my own wordings, so I will post Brother Josh's posted link from above... I pray it will be a blessing to you all. Divorce and RemarriageDivorce and remarriage is an area of intense controversy among Christians. It is admittedly a difficult and complex issue. Doctrinal positions on this issue range from "no divorce, no remarriage under any circumstances" to "divorce for any cause." We, at Consuming Fire Fellowship, offer this concise doctrinal statement which we feel reflects the spirit and letter of Scripture regarding this issue. Marriage Is A Lifetime Contract In The Purpose of God.Genesis 2:24 speaks of the man and woman “cleaving” to each other and "becoming one flesh." Thus, breaking a marriage is like rending the body apart. The marriage contract is intended to be binding until death (I Corinthians 7:39). Marriage is symbolic of Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:31,32) who are bound together in an indissoluble union. Divorce Is Sin And Should Never Be Practiced By Christians.Malachi 2:16 says that the Lord hates divorce; the Lord Jesus reaffirms this in Matthew 19:3-9 (what "God hath joined together, let not man put asunder"). Nevertheless, should Christians be innocently abandoned and divorced by their spouses there is little they can do in our licentious and Christ-rejecting culture. The Exception Clause: For Fornication.The Lord Jesus names "fornication" as grounds for remarriage after one has been divorced (Matthew 19:3-9). However, what does our Lord mean when using the term "fornication?" The Greek word "pornea" translated "fornication" in Matthew 19 and Luke is used elsewhere in Scripture to denote "harlotry" (Luke 15:30); "incestuous relationships" (I Corinthians 5:1); "sodomite relationships" (Jude 1:7); "betrothal unfaithfulness" (Deuteronomy 22:13-21); and "marital unfaithfulness" (Proverbs 7:10-20; Hosea 2:2; Jeremiah 3:6-9; Ezekiel 16:28-34; 23:43-45), where adultery and fornication are used synonymously. As shown above, the restricting of "fornication" to mean only "betrothal unfaithfulness" is to ignore its usage in other parts of the Bible.Certainly, when Jesus cites "fornication" as an exception to His divine principles regarding divorce and remarriage He cannot be referring to single acts of sin. Why? Because elsewhere the Bible instructs Christians to forgive and to seek reconciliation, to love our enemies, and to even pray for those who despitefully use us. Therefore, we are of the opinion that what is meant in these passages refers to "perpetual adultery," or, being deserted by a spouse who then remarries another, thus committing continual adultery. There is no command in the Bible that marriage must be broken off for fornication or any other sin. There is a better course -- to forgive, and be reconciled (as in Hosea 1-3). Desertion By An Unbeliever.Desertion of a believing mate is addressed by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 7:15). The Apostle states that the believing mate "is not under bondage" in such cases. Again, we are of the opinion, based on the totality of Scripture, that "desertion" here refers to being abandoned, divorced, and the offending party remarrying another. Under these conditions the deserted Christian is not bound to the marriage contract.. This situation is in direct contrast to that of I Corinthians 7:11, where the "separated" believer is bound to the spouse. The same root word ("bound" or "bondage") is used in I Corinthians 7:27,39 where it refers to the marriage contract. Moreover, the incentive to remain with the unbelieving partner (i.e., that the unbelieving partner is sanctified by the unbelieving spouse) is nullified when the unbelieving partner deserts. Two Christians joined in wedlock do not have grounds for divorce outside of fornication. Allowance is made for "separation," but there is no allowance for divorce ("putting away") or remarriage ("let her remain unmarried"). The reason stated is that the door must always be open for "reconciliation." Scriptural Divorce Gives a Right To Remarry.Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24:1,2 which clearly states that a right to divorce means a right to remarry (Matthew 19:8). Since a Scriptural divorce is a dissolution of marriage, the Scripturally divorced person is an unmarried person. When a former partner marries, the other party is automatically freed from the bonds of that marriage, regardless of where the guilt lies, and thus is free to remarry. Remarriage is not permitted for desertion of a believer by a believer, unless the deserting party remarries (thus committing adultery and breaking the marriage bond). Remarriage is not permitted in the absence of fornication or desertion of a believer by a believer where the divorced partner is still living. Remarriage is permitted when a former divorced partner is deceased.Moral Failure, When Duly Repented Of, Cannot Bar The Offended From Fellowship. When a person comes to Christ, he is forgiven of all failures in life, moral or otherwise (II Corinthians 5:17). Human obligations may continue, however. If he is divorced and remarried before salvation, he should remain in that new marriage, since to remarry the former spouse (even if possible) would be an abomination (Deuteronomy 24:3,4). If he is divorced without Scriptural cause and has not remarried and his spouse is not remarried, he may be reconciled to the former spouse or remain unmarried. Unscripturally divorced persons or unscripturally remarried persons should not be barred from church fellowship if there is clear evidence of repentance. The right hand of fellowship may be denied for those who deliberately obtain an unscriptural divorce or remarriage against counsel. When considering a divorced person for an official church position, the Elders must weight the facts of each case in order to determine eligibility. Sanctity of Marriage.We are as fully committed to the sacred character of marital commitments as other believers. We join with them in deploring the high divorce rate and the disintegration of family life. Our view of the Scriptures is not a careless yielding to the spirit of modern life, but a conscientious examination of the entire teaching of God's Word on this subject. Let us hope our Scriptural conscience is respected by those of differing views. Article Source: www.consumingfirefellowship.org/Divorce%20And%20Remarriage.htm
|
|
|
Post by joem on Nov 16, 2007 9:00:25 GMT -5
I have thought about what Evan brings up before. I am not sure what I think about the remarriage issue, but what can one do when he has remarried? If you break up THAT marriage then are you not sinning even more, and basically shutting the second spouse off from sexual relations for the rest of his/her life, since you are returning to the first marriage? How can one escape that situation without sinning? This alone causes me to wonder if perhaps the no-remarriage-after-lawful-divorce belief can possibly be true, because it seems to present a dilemma that would cause a person to be sinning no matter what course of action they took. Or maybe I am confusing something. Thoughts? Tyler, I have struggled with the same thoughts. Maybe the answer would be to remain in the relationship, but do so in celibacy. This is the only way I can see for someone to stay in a second marriage and not commit adultery while still providing for the needs of his family. I know this will not be a popular answer , but I believe it is the Biblical one. Most of you probably know this, but the "escape clause" in Matthew 19 is considered by most scholars to be an addition that was not in the original text. Either way, it does not grant permission for remarriage. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 16, 2007 17:08:11 GMT -5
I am still also in the process of learning more of this subject. I posted what I understood so I could see other sides and perhaps be proved wrong.
Nothing I have seen so far has convinced me otherwise. This is my conviction and the way I understand it.
I have not condoned anyone in this situation. Unless attending the SOAPA conference is considered condoning it. If that is the case, then that would be where it could be said I condoned it.
However, I have not launched an all out attack on this subject because I am still in the process of investigating it and am not sure of how to handle all the ramifications.
The post by Dan to me and returned back to Ruben put me in a position where I had to make a stand before I was totally settled on the issue and how to go about taking a stand.
As far as posting Britt's name, Britt's name has been brought up here before and even an article written by him on the subject. I assumed since this had been brought up before that this was public knowledge.
I do not generally go all out and confront things authoritatively until I have studied the subject extensively and have exhausted any shade of doubt I have had. Especially an issue as controversial and potentially devisive as divorce and remarriage.
All I have ever stated here is I cannot see from the teachings of Jesus and the bible how any person living in that state could be saved.
I made this statement to open this up to discussion as I was not thinking of anyone in particular nor calling anyone out.
I am not making apologies for what I believe but I have not appreciated being sent a post to be forced to comment on a certain person's salvation and then having that post sent to that person when I did not give permission.
This was a purposefully devisive move on Dan's part and he knew exactly what he was doing.
I believe I understand the problem of divorce and remarriage but before I confront others on this I want to have answers and solutions. Some situations are more difficult than others.
Due to Dan's putting me on the spot and sending my response to Ruben without my permission forced me to have to confront this issue before I believed God released me to do.
Again although I do not appreciate this I accept the consequences of taking a stand on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 16, 2007 17:48:54 GMT -5
You seem to be watering down your position with "I haven't fully investigated thsi yet" from previous statements of people not being saved due to remarriage.... you stated remarried peopel are not going to Heaven; that'sa blunt statement on all remarried people, Micah.
This is an unfortunate discovery, Micah.
As for the post, you will need to speak to Ruben; he specifically asked me to post it... I didn';t even ask him to post anything on the site; he wrote me a second email asking me to post this to the Brethren, which I feel I am free to do, as you are free not to respond; however, again, you will need to speak with Ruben on this post.
The Lord bless you abundantly, Brother.
In Christ,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Nov 18, 2007 19:59:46 GMT -5
Dan, I haven't been around or posted much lately, but the last I recall, you were claiming that Reuben was a servent of the devil and headed for hell due to his method of preaching.
Why are you now using his position or situation to defend your own? From some of the things that you have said in the past about the guy, I'm suprised that he would be the one that you picked for guidence on this.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 18, 2007 20:31:37 GMT -5
Dan, I haven't been around or posted much lately, but the last I recall, you were claiming that Reuben was a servent of the devil and headed for hell due to his method of preaching. Why are you now using his position or situation to defend your own? From some of the things that you have said in the past about the guy, I'm suprised that he would be the one that you picked for guidence on this. EDIT: Brother Tony, please take a look here, Brother: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=sayitall&action=display&thread=1184707761
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 18, 2007 21:38:43 GMT -5
By the way, I am on here pretty often as well and was not aware that you had changed your position on Ruben. That doesn't mean that you haven't, it just means that I was not aware that you made it public...if you did. If you didn't make it public, make you should...since you made your distaste for Ruben preaching VERY PUBLIC...
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Nov 18, 2007 22:51:01 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 3:1-3, "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
Dan, when I first noticed your post about this subject, I felt that you were being led by the flesh. You have been hurt by what Micah has responded concerning remarriage. And you could not leave it alone. I felt it was a spirit of division working when you brought up Ruben Israel into the picture. And now we can see it working in the brethren. I do not believe you were being led of the SPIRIT when you posted these topics. It is a shame that you would try to start somthing between 2 ministers by going behind the backs and gossiping like the old women in the church I have incountered in the past. It is time to humble and repent before this goes too far.
This is my last post tonite. I will be leaving tomorrow into the wilderness for a week for prayer and fasting seeking the FACE of GOD and HIS WILL. I have not mentioned fasting to make myself spiratual fellows. Only that you would all keep me in prayer as I take this journey. It is well needed. Thank you and GOD BLESS ALL. AND I MEAN ALL.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 19, 2007 0:23:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 19, 2007 0:39:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 19, 2007 0:40:02 GMT -5
Sorry brother, I guess that tells you how bad my memory is sometimes!
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Nov 19, 2007 16:59:35 GMT -5
Dan,
No one is watering anything down. I have always posted that I cannot see how anyone in a divorced and remarried situation can be saved while the former spouse is still living.
From my above post since I repeatedly mentioned I had to take a stand thanks to your divisive work, I thought it was obvious I had already spoken to Ruben.
You got what you wanted Dan. I have spoken to Ruben.
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Nov 19, 2007 18:43:35 GMT -5
Dan, No one is watering anything down. I have always posted that I cannot see how anyone in a divorced and remarried situation can be saved while the former spouse is still living. From my above post since I repeatedly mentioned I had to take a stand thanks to your divisive work, I thought it was obvious I had already spoken to Ruben. You got what you wanted Dan. I have spoken to Ruben. Micah, the issue here is that you're on campus preaching that men much be saved and that God commands all men everywhere to repent. Have you gone to Ruben's face prior to these posts...to Britt's face etc etc and told them they were hell bound sinners? Yes, you're watering the issue down the issue as you claim to "appreciate" Ruben and such men and yet have not stuck with your convictions and called them to be saved as in your mind they need to be. You say I bring in dividiveness, and yet in your secret thoughts you were never united with Ruben nor other remarried persons; you rubbed shoulders with them, befriended them etc etc and yet you, in your mind, call them children of the devil, as you have clearly stated they are not Born Again. So the divisiveness front you're trying to spoin at is incorrect; you were never in truth united with these men. What the issue is here is that you're now compelled to actually follow your convictions openly and without hypocrisy, which you previously did not do. What you preach on Campus should be the same as you preach to Ruben, myself and all remarried men. Please don't claim I'm being divisive, Brother, when in reality you don't even consider those individuals Born Again and yet would never publically call them to repent as you do with students on campus. I'm simply greatful the issue has been brought into the light, which is not always easy, but the rewards afterwards are always a blessing....sometimes things are a struggle and can even hurt to come to the light, but when they do, and this applies to all areas of our lives, we can rejoice that we're being purged by the Lord to bear much fruit for His Kingdom. The Lord bless youtoday, Brother Micah. In Christ, Dan
|
|