Remarriage Bibically

[iwant2serve]

No... it says a WIFE is not to depart but if she does let her be reconciled or remain unmarried.

1 Cor 7:10-11
[SUP]10 [/SUP]But to the married people I give charge—not I but the Lord—that the wife is not to separate from her husband.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]But if she does [separate from and divorce him], let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband. And [I charge] the husband [also] that he should not put away or divorce his wife.

Do you actually thing that remaining single only applies if the wife leaves the husband?

 

[iwant2serve]

I think that determining what is right concerning divorce should not be done using a rule book; any more than concerning any other issue of life. Jesus teachings give us principles to guide our decision making. The indwelling Holy Spirit gives us additional guidance. Because Jesus has said: John 10:10
10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
KJV

and John 15:11-12
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
KJV

We may conclude that when the principles and ideals of Jesus' teachings are not applied to promote joyous abundant life; they are misapplied.

Sounds like you are implying that there are no rules for us to live by once saved and God does not mean what he says. When a King says this is how it is to be then that is how it is and nothing can change that but the King. As far as I know a King does not change his law as Jesus our King himself said. Heaven and earth will pass away but my Word will always be.

 

[iwant2serve]

We may conclude that when the principles and ideals of Jesus' teachings are not applied to promote joyous abundant life; they are misapplied.[/QUOTE]

His principles and teachings did not promote Joy and abundant life to those who changed what He said to suit their lifestyle either.

 

[MarcR]

Sounds like you are implying that there are no rules for us to live by once saved and God does not mean what he says. When a King says this is how it is to be then that is how it is and nothing can change that but the King. As far as I know a King does not change his law as Jesus our King himself said. Heaven and earth will pass away but my Word will always be.

The OT makes mention of many covenants, of God; several of which were made with specific individuals.

There are two eternal general covenants still in force; but we must choose between them; because one can't be in both at the same time:

If you want to try to earn your own Salvation, there is the Covenant of Deut Chapter 29 (also mentioned in numerous other places); but, if you want Salvation given to you, there is the covenant of Jeremiah 31. These covenants are distinct and separate; they do not mix and match. I choose the Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31.

The guiding principles by which God wants me to live are written on my heart and I have no need of a rule book.

1 Cor 6:12
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
KJV

 

[BarlyGurl]

1 Cor 7:10-11
[SUP]10 [/SUP]But to the married people I give charge—not I but the Lord—that the wife is not to separate from her husband.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]But if she does [separate from and divorce him], let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband. And [I charge] the husband [also] that he should not put away or divorce his wife.

Do you actually thing that remaining single only applies if the wife leaves the husband?

I notice you just skipped right over the longer more detailed post I made.

Irrespective of WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY or what I think... it is pretty clear at this juncture you have made up YOUR mind so any further effort to show you the whole counsel of God in this matter is MOOT. BTW instead of using amplified, try studying with a greek/Hebrew concordance... you might learn something.

 

[shotgunner]

We may conclude that when the principles and ideals of Jesus' teachings are not applied to promote joyous abundant life; they are misapplied.

His principles and teachings did not promote Joy and abundant life to those who changed what He said to suit their lifestyle either.[/QUOTE]




I can conclude that whenever you use scripture to keep people in bondage they are misapplied.

 

[iwant2serve]

I notice you just skipped right over the longer more detailed post I made.

Irrespective of WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY or what I think... it is pretty clear at this juncture you have made up YOUR mind so any further effort to show you the whole counsel of God in this matter is MOOT. BTW instead of using amplified, try studying with a greek/Hebrew concordance... you might learn something.

Well I have a Greek/ Hebrew study Bible that I use more than any one I have.

 

[iwant2serve]

I can conclude that whenever you use scripture to keep people in bondage they are misapplied.[/QUOTE]

I suggest you take a look into how serious this matter is by looking at the words like cleave and one flesh.

Cleave - to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly, mean to become closely attached, implies a growing together, suggests a sticking together of parts so that they form a unified mass, stresses strength of attachment.

One Flesh - refer to the spiritual and physical union of two people in a relationship, especially marriage,

1 Cor 6:15-20

 

[shotgunner]

I can conclude that whenever you use scripture to keep people in bondage they are misapplied.

I suggest you take a look into how serious this matter is by looking at the words like cleave and one flesh.

Cleave - to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly, mean to become closely attached, implies a growing together, suggests a sticking together of parts so that they form a unified mass, stresses strength of attachment.

One Flesh - refer to the spiritual and physical union of two people in a relationship, especially marriage,

1 Cor 6:15-20[/QUOTE]





I absolutely do take marriage seriously. A divorce is never to be taken lightly, which is exactly what Jesus was addressing when speaking to the Pharisees. I will not however use those scriptures to sentence a young divorced woman to celibacy for the rest of her life, especially when she has been divorced through no fault of her own and has done everything possible to restore her marriage.

 

[iwant2serve]

I absolutely do take marriage seriously. A divorce is never to be taken lightly, which is exactly what Jesus was addressing when speaking to the Pharisees. I will not however use those scriptures to sentence a young divorced woman to celibacy for the rest of her life, especially when she has been divorced through no fault of her own and has done everything possible to restore her marriage.[/QUOTE]

So scripture have out clause built in them?

 

[shotgunner]

I absolutely do take marriage seriously. A divorce is never to be taken lightly, which is exactly what Jesus was addressing when speaking to the Pharisees. I will not however use those scriptures to sentence a young divorced woman to celibacy for the rest of her life, especially when she has been divorced through no fault of her own and has done everything possible to restore her marriage.

So scripture have out clause built in them?[/QUOTE]



That's not what I said. You are just interpreting it wrong. The law of Moses which was ordained by God allowed for remarriage. Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the law. You can't interpret what Jesus said as completely contrary to the Law.

 

[BarlyGurl]

I absolutely do take marriage seriously. A divorce is never to be taken lightly, which is exactly what Jesus was addressing when speaking to the Pharisees. I will not however use those scriptures to sentence a young divorced woman to celibacy for the rest of her life, especially when she has been divorced through no fault of her own and has done everything possible to restore her marriage.

So scripture have out clause built in them?[/QUOTE]

That has been SHOWN to you... but you will not LOOK at it!!!

 

[Angela53510]

I facilitated a group for abused women in 2004. There were 10 women in the group. It took nearly 6 months before each one admitted they were Christians. In a secular abuse group!

One woman divorced her husband after he shot her and tried to kill her. He was serving time in jail.

One woman was living with a sexually abusive man. She wouldn't give the group details, but she started crying every time she talked about what was wrong in her marriage.

One woman was still with her husband. He would not give her money for food. He bought the booze. Sadly, she did not know with a joint checking account she could cash his cheques and buy food and pay the bills. I set her straight on that one. For the first time, she was not beaten down and cringing, knowing that she could actually feed herself and their son.

Another woman had a physically abusive husband. He would beat her, the children. He would smash the computers, TVs, throw furniture out the window. She called the police repeatedly, and he was thrown out. But she went back to him, because 5 children were too hard to handle on her own.

Another woman was systematically being physically, sexually emotionally abused. And the excuse the husband used was that it was his "right" as a Christian husband to do as he pleased.

And so on... These were the ones that really stood out to me. The others were not as vocal - they were just timid and scared, and beaten down.

So 10 Christian women. Their husbands are all abusive, really evil men in some cases.

The wives divorce, in some cases. They have been sinned against by their abusive husbands. Now they are supposed to remain celibate and have no love the rest of their lives?

Because their husbands were abusive and sinful men?

Seems like the husbands are the ones needing to experience the consequences of their actions, not the wives.

Abuse is a kind of adultery. It separates the bonds between husband and wives. It destroys trust and love.

So why was it not written into the Bible? Maybe because God had other issues he wanted to talk about?

Or maybe adultery is a BIG issue, because the Old Testament is full of examples of prophets calling out Israel and Judah for their spiritual adultery? I just read through the major prophets, and I am reading the minor prophets. It stands out so strongly that spiritual adultery is the reason for the destruction of Israel and the captivity of Judah in Babylon.

"Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known," Jer. 7:9

"For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. With their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even offered up to them for food the children whom they had borne to me." Eze. 23:27

"They sacrifice on the tops of the mountains
and burn offerings on the hills,
under oak, poplar, and terebinth,
because their shade is good.
Therefore your daughters play the whore,
and your brides commit adultery.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore,
nor your brides when they commit adultery;
for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes
and sacrifice with cult prostitutes,
and a people without understanding shall come to ruin." Hosea 4:13-15

Since my experience in that group, my heart goes out to abused women who chose to divorce, rather than suffer physical damage to their bodies. My heart goes out to all those who are divorced by their spouses, for reasons not including abuse or adultery. My heart goes out to those whose marriages turned black and ugly, instead of being a place of love, nurture and caring.

While I would agree the divorce rates in our society are too high, perhaps they are unnaturally high for a reason - because men and women are sinful people, and are have lost sight of the living God in their lives.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave

They did have second chances, but only if they could afford it. Under the old covenant a sin was forgiven by sacrificing certain animals, this particular sin you would have to sacrifice a bird, that particular sin you would have to sacrifice a lamb. So as long as you had the money to buy the animals, you could afford to have your sins forgiven. The problem was under the old covenant, many could not afford 10 sheep for the 10 sins they committed, So they were lost, and the sins just kept adding up, till their was no hope for that person to be saved. Jesus came teaching a new way for sins to be forgiven, so that those who were lost and doomed, could now be Saved. The pharisees were wealthy people, therefore if they committed a sin, they would buy whatever animal they needed and sacrifice to have that sin forgiven. The problem was they were rich, and did not have mercy and compassion on those who were not. A person would come to priests, and say i can't afford to buy a sheep, for my one sin that i committed, instead of the rich pharisees having mercy and compassion on that person and help that person, they would turn them away, because they lived by every letter of the law, if a sin is to be committed you have to sacrifice a particular animal, it was not their fault they could not afford those animals to sacrifice them. That is why Jesus told them, they should have had mercy.

Mat_23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

So when Jesus showed up in the flesh, MOST were lost, while the rich were Saved according to the Old covenant. So those Many who were lost, because of their sins not being forgiven, had nothing to lose but to believe on the man who teaches them another way they can be SAVED. Under the old covenant, as long as you had the money, you could continue to buy animals for sacrificing, so that your sins could be forgiven.

^i^ responding to post #83

From what I understand from the Bible, the poor got to use turtle doves and were not required to have those huge animals.

Where are the Scriptures that teach that? Seriously i would like to know.

A blood sacrifice had to be offered. The priests would offer an animal up for the whole nation and the sacrifice was as good as the high priest. Many times if a certain high priest had some sin they had a rope around him just in case so they could pull him out of the Holy of Holies.

This was done all the time, the High Priest went in. Not only was he tied off with a rope but he had bells on. The reason for this was if a High Priest had sin, he was not worthy to be in the Holy of Holies, and therefore when he went in, he would die in there. The problem was then, how to get a dead priest out of there, when nobody else could enter into the Holy of Holies. That is why the rope was tied to them thereafter, if they stopped hearing the bells for a length of time, then they would drag the dead priest out via the rope.

Again, different covenants require different conditions.

True.

^i^ responding to post # 87

 

[presidente]

I notice you do not include the "patriarchal order" of God's design in your OP, the prescriptions are NOT the same for male and female. I also notice that you appear to be using a "blanket" analysis regarding the issue and therefore I would insert... that becoming a new creature in Christ and born again... ALL sins are forgiven... and this issue is also given attention in the scripture, I would surely counsel a person who is uncertain to study carefully and wait upon the Lord for HS conviction if there was any question.

Otherwise, I say yes, that is what the scripture teaches... people claiming to be Christians have been usurping God's authority regarding marriage increasingly... walking into apostasy.

Are you getting at the fact that the 'exception clause' in Matthew only applies to a man divorcing a woman, and not vice versa, and that the Bible never gives the woman the right or power to divorce her spouse? Jesus only mentioned wives divorcing husbands to forbid it. I read that here was one known case of a wife divorcing her husband in Judaism, and that was Herodias divorcing Phillip with the help of the chief priests, before she remarried Herod, an incestuous marriage to her brother in law, and the prophet John the Baptist said to Herod, "It is unlawful for thee to have her."

I Corinthians 7
[SUP]39 [/SUP]A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7
[SUP]2 [/SUP]For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. [SUP]3 [/SUP]So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

Mark 10
[SUP]10 [/SUP]In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. [SUP]11 [/SUP]So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. [SUP]12 [/SUP]And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
(KJV)

 

[DiscipleDave]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave

Sure, if they do not have sex together. Can two people who love each other live with each other without having sex? Sure they can. Being Homosexual is not what is sinful. The act of homosexual sex is what is sinful. So can two guys who get saved, be OK with God, sure if they do not have sex with each other. This generation falsely believes that having sex is LOVE. Two people can live together and NEVER have sex, and yet love each other dearly. But this generation equates love with sex. Many homosexuals i have counseled, have said to me "How can it be against God for me to love him/her?" i tell them it is not against God to love him/her, it is against God to have sex with him/her, big difference. But this generation equates love with sex. Can two people live together and Love each other without ever having sex? The answer is Yes. It is not the Love that is sinful to God, it is the Sex that is sinful to God.

^i^ responding to post # 40

So you can love someone romantically of the same sex, and it is not sin if you do not have sex with them? What about desire? Is it a sin to desire? If you love someone romantically I would assume there is desire.

What you have said I find intriguing. It is something to think on.

There are good desires and there are bad desires. Any desire that is contrary to Scriptures, is a bad desire. For example if someone desires to steal something, stealing is contrary to Scriptures therefore that desire would be wrong. If a person desires to give to the homeless person, that desire is not contrary to Scriptures and therefore would be a good desire.

If a single person desires to have sex with another, this in itself is not sinful, but the acting upon it, would be considered sinful. A Heterosexual desires to have sex with the opposite sex, this is not sinful, but for that person to do it, then it became sinful. This applies to Homosexuals as well.

However if you lust, because of your desire, that also is sinful, for example looking at porn, lusting.

^i^ responding to post # 88

 

[DiscipleDave]

That is what I thought. I cannot imagine loving someone romantically and then not desiring them. I can imagine loving someone and not desiring them but it's a different sort of love. It can be profound, special and intimate but is not romantic..However that does not mean romantic love would not happen or desire would not happen.

It would be an awful way to live to always desire but never to have. Very tempting.

i desire to have sex, because my flesh is flesh and is of the Earth, But even though i desire to have sex, i have now been celibate for over 8 years. My desire to have sex has not deplenished. But just because i desire to have sex, does not mean i will do it or have to do it because i desire it. Two people who love each other should keep romantic feelings at bay. Sure it is not going to be easy, but if you Truly want to live Godly in this world, it is NOT going to be easy. The question then is - what is a person willing to give up to live Godly? To please God and not self. Two men who love each other, but want to live Godly lives that is pleasing to God, will keep their romantic love in check, they will agree together to give it up to please God and not themselves. Again, as i said before. Sex is not required for one person to LOVE another person.

^i^ responding to post #92

 

[DiscipleDave]

If they're not having sex and being romantic with each other, they're not homosexuals.

This statement is not True. Being a Heterosexual or a Homosexual is by who you are attracted to. If you are attracted to the opposite sex then you are a Heterosexual, if you are attracted to the same sex, you are a Homosexual. if you are attracted to both sexes, then you are a Bi-sexual. Being one or the other, has absolutely NOTHING to do with HAVING sex or being romantic with one another. You are one of those three things, depending on who you are attracted to. NOT who you have sex with. However generally speaking you have sex with those who you are attracted to. But what makes one a Heterosexual, Homosexual, or Bi-sexual, is by who they are attracted to.

^i^ responding to post #93

 

[DiscipleDave]

Exactly., a recipe for torture for both parties. That would be like a single man and a single woman living together expecting everyone to assume they are not sinning as well as they themselves believing they won't get closer and fall into a relationship. Just putting yourself in a situation like that living together is not wise. And for the Christian, just isn't right. Very much has the appearance of evil.

What you say here is TRUE. It is altogether best to remain as i am, and that is celibate. Two people living together is a recipe for great temptations to come upon them, and it is not wise to be in that situation. That being said does not change the Truth that two people of the same sex can love each other, and still please God by not having a sexual relationship. However the odds of such a situation is probably one in a trillion, that it will actually happen. Therefore BEST to avoid all situations that could lead to living in sin.

^i^ responding to post #95

 

[DiscipleDave]

He remembers our sin NO MORE. Grace doesn't work ONLY when we deserve it. Grace by it's very definition is for when we mess up and we mess up all the time if not outwardly we do not always have perfect thinking. The gift of grace is needed in order to live soberly righteously and godly in this present age... So understanding how we have it is essential.

The way you describe grace iwant2serve is not grace. We need grace every day of our lives even as born again believers. God has given us grace to live and move in. No condemnation when we deserve condemnation., no judgment when we deserve judgment. Jesus took those penalties already. Now we must learn to rest in Him. We now work to REST.

If you are righteous., you will seek to do righteously. if you stole you will seek to steal no more. That will be your goal. Before we were born again, we were guilty of our sins. We had to carry the guilt and penalty of our sins outwardly and inwardly. But when we were born into the family of God., by the redemption Jesus gave us., we are now IN the family and under GRACE not law. You live and move in the ARK of safety. If you sin, you sin in the ark. You're not splashing around on the outside of the ark with the unsaved un-redeemed who do not have the righteousness of Jesus. Provision has been made for us.

Yes, we are already and fully forgiven for every sin past - present and future. All covered. Thank You Jesus.

The problem with what you say above is it is a belief that is contrary to Scriptures.

Gal_6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Now according to you, Jesus has already paid for our sins past, present, and future, So why then is this verse told to CHRISTIANS? According to you, we do not reap what we sow, because Jesus has paid for it already. So why are Christians told that we WILL reap what we sow? Look at the very next verse and what it says.

Gal_6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

So then,if a person commits fornication, (by sowing to his/her flesh) and the Bible plainly teaches that if a person does that, they themself will reap corruption in their flesh. But don't you say, that if a person commits fornication, sows to the flesh, that Jesus has already paid the cost, the price for that sin? Why then does the Holy Inspired Scriptures teach that WE will suffer in the flesh if we choose to sow to the flesh? So should i believe the Word of God, or believe what you teach?

Col_3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

Again, this is contrary to what you believe above. If then i do wrong, does Jesus pay for that wrong? or will i be the one who has to pay for that wrong? You teach that if a person does wrong (sin) that Jesus has already paid for that sin, so why does the Scriptures teach if YOU do wrong, YOU shall receive for the wrong which you did. WHY? if Jesus has already paid for that wrong as you teach?

Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Wait! Don't you teach that if a person does evil, that Jesus has already paid the price for that evil? Yet we see here Scriptures that teach Tribulation and anguish upon EVERY soul that does evil, PERIOD!! And God has not respect of persons, ANYONE who does evil shall suffer Tribulation and Anguish, EXACTLY like the Word of God plainly teaches. Yet you teach something different than what the Word of God teaches. Should i believe you or the Word of God?

Jesus paid the cost of our sins at the cross. When a person comes to Him to be Saved, it is at that time, that Jesus took the stripes, was beaten, and crucified, for that persons PAST sins. Jesus paid the price for sin of that person ONCE. After a person is SAVED, Jesus does not continue to get beaten with stripes. You do error thinking that all your sins are paid for past, present, and future. If you think that is Scriptural, then show the Scriptures which teach that. You can't because it is not found anywhere in Scriptures, that is a teaching being taught by the false prophets behind the pulpits, it is an interpretation of men, and NOT what Scriptures teach. Again, back up what you believe with scriptures. Where does Scriptures teach Past, Present, AND FUTURE. You can't, because it is not in the Word of God, it is the word of men.

This is what the Word of God plainly teaches.

Rom_3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are PAST, through the forbearance of God;

This is what this generation interprets that verse to mean.

Rom_3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, present, and future, through the forbearance of God;

Notice how this generation ADDED to the Scriptures? Believe the Word of God, not what people teach today.

^i^ responding to post 109