Dealing with divorce.

[Castor Muscular]

Since it is an issue in you church now in order for you to be consistent you will have to look at the verses posted and make a consistent policy.  If I had your position on the unwarranted biblical reason for divorce and no aversion to church discipline I would not let them be members (that is how I see your position).

That is the consistent position, which is why he's deflecting it with a question about another divorce.  The only way NOT to see them as actively engaged in adultery is to cherry-pick scriptures to apply as law.  And I'm pretty sure his church would not admit members (or would discipline members) if they were actively engaged in adultery. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

If a couple came to join our church, their divorce would not play a part in them being members.  Their child support would not be an issue for membership so for our church a non issue.

Since it is an issue in you church now in order for you to be consistent you will have to look at the verses posted and make a consistent policy.  If I had your position on the unwarranted biblical reason for divorce and no aversion to church discipline I would not let them be members (that is how I see your position).

I don't believe it is a correct Biblical position to consider the second marriage as "perpetual adultery", therefore your assumptions about the way to proceed are moot, as I said originally it was not in the scope of my considerations.

Would it be one time adultery?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Would it be one time adultery?

Let me get some popcorn; I'm dying to see the answer.  Can you cheat on your wife for 10 years and be guilty of only a one-night stand?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Would it be one time adultery?

Yes.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Would it be one time adultery?

Yes.

Woohoo!  I've got to get a screen shot of this.  I want to enjoy it for a LOOOOONG time. 

 

[prophet]

Committeth is always present tense.

2 simple little things...fornication, partaking of others idolatry (you aren't actually worshipping them, just setting a bad example), get over these, and ye do well. 
  Judgement has to be made, on a case by case situation, because of the clear Scriptural directive not to eat with 'self proclaimed brothers in Christ' who commit fornication, including adultery.  Someone who is remarried, should be given an opportunity to be restored...also a scriptural directive, and judged by 'he that is spiritual'.  Maybe they are sincere...great!  See if they pay their honest debts, for one.
  Walking circumspectly does not equal malice.  Most of the time, there is no black and white in a divorce. We need wisdom, in such situations, and ,thank God ,He hands it out in heaps.

Anishinabe

 

[ALAYMAN]

Would it be one time adultery?

Yes.

Woohoo!  I've got to get a screen shot of this.  I want to enjoy it for a LOOOOONG time.

Likewise, for posterity, because when you finally take the time to study the issue out you'll feel mighty foolish for taking a position that remarriage after divorce causes an individual to live in a perpetual state of adultery.

 

[Castor Muscular]

John Gill:

causeth her to commit adultery;
that is, as much as in him lies: should she commit it, he is the cause of it, by exposing her, through a rejection of her, to the sinful embraces of others; and, indeed, should she marry another man, whilst he is alive, which her divorce allows her to do, she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery;
because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man; and it may be added, from ( Matthew 19:9 ) that her husband, who has put her away, upon any other account than fornication, should he marry another woman, would be guilty of the same crime.

In other words, in the eyes of God, the improper divorce does not dissolve the original bond of marriage.  Period.  Therefore, in both cases there is a perpetual state of adultery, the original bond never having been severed. 

EDIT: Fixed some language, since I incorrectly stated the man in both cases.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Committeth is always present tense.

Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9, and in Matthew 5:32, except for the first "to commit adultery", which is Aorist Infinitive.

The problem with ALAYMAN is that he totally misunderstands the whole purpose of these passages, but if taken as law, then it is most definitely a perpetual state of adultery. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

John Gill:

causeth her to commit adultery;
that is, as much as in him lies: should she commit it, he is the cause of it, by exposing her, through a rejection of her, to the sinful embraces of others; and, indeed, should she marry another man, whilst he is alive, which her divorce allows her to do, she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery;
because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man; and it may be added, from ( Matthew 19:9 ) that her husband, who has put her away, upon any other account than fornication, should he marry another woman, would be guilty of the same crime.

In other words, in the eyes of God, the improper divorce does not dissolve the original bond of marriage.  Period.  Therefore, in both cases there is a perpetual state of adultery, the original bond never having been severed. 

EDIT: Fixed some language, since I incorrectly stated the man in both cases.

Deu 24:1  When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deu 24:3  And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deu 24:4  Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Clearly according to the OT law, which Jesus was making reference to in the "adultery" passages (Deuteronomy was Jesus' favorite OT book to reference) the woman's second marriage is considered "marriage" and not perpetual adultery.

And of course there's the woman in Jn 4:18 who had 5 husbands, not four fornicators and a husband, not four lovers and a husband, but five husbands. 

Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9, and in Matthew 5:32, except for the first "to commit adultery", which is Aorist Infinitive.

The problem with ALAYMAN is that he totally misunderstands the whole purpose of these passages, but if taken as law, then it is most definitely a perpetual state of adultery. 

LOL, the problem with Castor is that he forgets who brought the adultery passage up in the first place.  I never invoked adultery as the basis of discipline, but rather divorce, and subsequent to the divorce (for it cannot be fixed once the remarriage took place) was a lack of effort to gain forgiveness from the wounded party, so you simply need to stop erecting strawmen.

 

[Biker]

LOL!! with open toed shoes...

a dude with couch cuddling issues flirting with another dude who can't go three posts without making some double entendre or bondage reference....


lol indeed.

What in the world?? my open toed shoes comment was not linked to anything X rated/homo
Good Lord, get your mind out of the gutter!

 

[Castor Muscular]

Deu 24:1  When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deu 24:3  And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deu 24:4  Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Clearly according to the OT law, which Jesus was making reference to in the "adultery" passages (Deuteronomy was Jesus' favorite OT book to reference) the woman's second marriage is considered "marriage" and not perpetual adultery.

You can't be serious.  The Pharisees (funny how you make the same argument they do) addressed this very thing, and Jesus corrected them with the same language he used in Matthew 5:32. 

Matthew 19
3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

So much for your argument. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

You can't be serious.

I'm as serious as John Piper and John Macarthur, who make the same argument, amongst many other "legalists".  The bottom line, which you conveniently ignored, is that I didn't raise the issue of adultery, you and Mat did.  The very Scripture you cite supports my argument, that the issue that precipitated the divorce in the beginning, no matter what the outwardly expressed sins were, was due to hardness of heart.  That same hardness of heart ought to be repented of, and it should be done with a view to the individual who was harmed by the hardness of heart.  Since remarriage has already occurred, obviously a reconciliation of the original marriage is impossible (as the Apostle Paul suggests in I Corithians 7), but addressing the offended former spouse with repentance is certainly within the pale of Christian charity and would go a long way towards demonstrating the humility that should accompany a person who understands the grievous nature of the sin that they committed (and the hurt that may still persist from that divorce).

 

[Castor Muscular]

You can't be serious.

I'm as serious as John Piper and John Macarthur, who make the same argument, amongst many other "legalists".  The bottom line, which you conveniently ignored, is that I didn't raise the issue of adultery, you and Mat did.  The very Scripture you cite supports my argument, that the issue that precipitated the divorce in the beginning, no matter what the outwardly expressed sins were, was due to hardness of heart.  That same hardness of heart ought to be repented of, and it should be done with a view to the individual who was harmed by the hardness of heart.  Since remarriage has already occurred, obviously a reconciliation of the original marriage is impossible (as the Apostle Paul suggests in I Corithians 7), but addressing the offended former spouse with repentance is certainly within the pale of Christian charity and would go a long way towards demonstrating the humility that should accompany a person who understands the grievous nature of the sin that they committed (and the hurt that may still persist from that divorce).

So you're doing exactly what I said you would do.  You're cherry-picking scripture.  According to Jesus, divorce is only permissible in the case of adultery, which you regard as "law" and something subject to discipline in the church.  But when Jesus continues to say remarriage has NOT occurred because the original marriage was never dissolved, that you reject because it's not something you can discipline in the church. 

It's all about control, and you'll twist the scriptures every which way to get it. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

So you're doing exactly what I said you would do.  You're cherry-picking scripture.  According to Jesus, divorce is only permissible in the case of adultery, which you regard as "law" and something subject to discipline in the church.  But when Jesus continues to say remarriage has NOT occurred because the original marriage was never dissolved, that you reject because it's not something you can discipline in the church. 

It's all about control, and you'll twist the scriptures every which way to get it.

I don't have a clue what your hangup about control issues are, but it is evident that you have them.  The matter of church discipline for known unrepentant sin is as old as recorded church history.  My argument from the onset of this discussion hinges upon the idea that the divorce was sin in and of itself, because as Jesus said, there was hardness of heart.  And the import of the discussion doesn't center around theological views of "law", but rather the notion that illegitimate divorce is caused by hardness of heart, and that hardness should be repented of.

The issue of sexual immorality is not the hinge my door is hanging on.  For that matter, most reasonable people permit for legitimate divorce on the basis of not only porneia, but abandonment, which is not sexual in nature at all.  Regardless of which view of permissible or illegitimate divorce you take, the point is that divorce is a sin on one or both parties part.  If it is an illegitimate divorce, then there was hardness of heart.  It may be possible that that sin has been repented of, and that  the divorced parties are reconciled (to the greatest extent possible in the case where remarriage to a different person has occurred).  If that is the determination made by the elders/pastors when they interview the member-candidate, then the story is over.  But my main point from the beginning was that it most certainly is the business of the church to make sure that the proper exercise of forgiveness, reconciliation, and repentance has occurred.  If it has not, and there's lingering damage from the divorce due to neglect of these Christian virtues by the offending party, it is an issue for discipline to be exercised up to and including not allowing them full membership within the body.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]So you're doing exactly what I said you would do.  You're cherry-picking scripture.[/quote]

 

[ALAYMAN]

This is most likely the same look you get  after extrication when Castor comes to an unannounced sudden stop.

 

[Mathew Ward]

So you're doing exactly what I said you would do.  You're cherry-picking scripture.  According to Jesus, divorce is only permissible in the case of adultery, which you regard as "law" and something subject to discipline in the church.  But when Jesus continues to say remarriage has NOT occurred because the original marriage was never dissolved, that you reject because it's not something you can discipline in the church. 

It's all about control, and you'll twist the scriptures every which way to get it.

I don't have a clue what your hangup about control issues are, but it is evident that you have them.  The matter of church discipline for known unrepentant sin is as old as recorded church history.  My argument from the onset of this discussion hinges upon the idea that the divorce was sin in and of itself, because as Jesus said, there was hardness of heart.  And the import of the discussion doesn't center around theological views of "law", but rather the notion that illegitimate divorce is caused by hardness of heart, and that hardness should be repented of.

The issue of sexual immorality is not the hinge my door is hanging on.  For that matter, most reasonable people permit for legitimate divorce on the basis of not only porneia, but abandonment, which is not sexual in nature at all.  Regardless of which view of permissible or illegitimate divorce you take, the point is that divorce is a sin on one or both parties part.  If it is an illegitimate divorce, then there was hardness of heart.  It may be possible that that sin has been repented of, and that  the divorced parties are reconciled (to the greatest extent possible in the case where remarriage to a different person has occurred).  If that is the determination made by the elders/pastors when they interview the member-candidate, then the story is over.  But my main point from the beginning was that it most certainly is the business of the church to make sure that the proper exercise of forgiveness, reconciliation, and repentance has occurred.  If it has not, and there's lingering damage from the divorce due to neglect of these Christian virtues by the offending party, it is an issue for discipline to be exercised up to and including not allowing them full membership within the body.

The illegitimate and legitimate reasons for divorce will have hardness of heart.  It is not just for an illegitimate reason that there is hardness of heart.

If your main point is that it is the business of the church to make sure forgiveness, reconciliation and repentance has occurred then you will have to look at the flip side and see if the adultery that occurred from an illegitimate divorce has forgiveness, reconciliation and repentance also in the home when the pastors interview folks for membership.

Even though you did not bring up adultery, the Scriptures do.  Since you threw out a broad brush statement about most churches in America not performing church discipline, now you will have to ensure that if they have not repented on the 1 time adultery then it is an issue for discipline to be exercised up to and including not allowing them full membership within the body, if you are going to be consistent.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The illegitimate and legitimate reasons for divorce will have hardness of heart.  It is not just for an illegitimate reason that there is hardness of heart.

If your main point is that it is the business of the church to make sure forgiveness, reconciliation and repentance has occurred then you will have to look at the flip side and see if the adultery that occurred from an illegitimate divorce has forgiveness, reconciliation and repentance also in the home when the pastors interview folks for membership.

If a person commits fornication, then there is Biblical allowance for the offended party to divorce.  The divorce is legitimate in such case, and there's no sin committed due to the divorce.  However, you are right, in the interview process it would be appropriate to make sure that they didn't harbor bitterness, and that they hadn't taken vengeance out on the guilty party.  If they did not do such things/actions though, and there's no lingering hatred or other sinful attitude towards the spouse then there would be no need for discipline.

Even though you did not bring up adultery, the Scriptures do.  Since you threw out a broad brush statement about most churches in America not performing church discipline, now you will have to ensure that if they have not repented on the 1 time adultery then it is an issue for discipline to be exercised up to and including not allowing them full membership within the body, if you are going to be consistent.

I don't follow your reasoning, nor see your point here.  Could you say it differently?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The illegitimate and legitimate reasons for divorce will have hardness of heart.  It is not just for an illegitimate reason that there is hardness of heart.

If your main point is that it is the business of the church to make sure forgiveness, reconciliation and repentance has occurred then you will have to look at the flip side and see if the adultery that occurred from an illegitimate divorce has forgiveness, reconciliation and repentance also in the home when the pastors interview folks for membership.

If a person commits fornication, then there is Biblical allowance for the offended party to divorce.  The divorce is legitimate in such case, and there's no sin committed due to the divorce.  However, you are right, in the interview process it would be appropriate to make sure that they didn't harbor bitterness, and that they hadn't taken vengeance out on the guilty party.  If they did not do such things/actions though, and there's no lingering hatred or other sinful attitude towards the spouse then there would be no need for discipline.

Even though you did not bring up adultery, the Scriptures do.  Since you threw out a broad brush statement about most churches in America not performing church discipline, now you will have to ensure that if they have not repented on the 1 time adultery then it is an issue for discipline to be exercised up to and including not allowing them full membership within the body, if you are going to be consistent.

I don't follow your reasoning, nor see your point here.  Could you say it differently?

This is a different point than Mat is making. But do you practice church discipline on the woman whose husband is the one who chooses to divorce for non-biblical grounds? If she were an innocent party, would she be subject to discipline?

"Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”