Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 6 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 111

Thread: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Some of you know I have discussed the issue of divorce and remarriage on this forum before. My previous position was that those who have remarried while their first spouse is still alive are in a state of continuous adultery and that they should leave their present spouse. My position has changed somewhat on this issue.

    I believe it is wrong and sinful to leave the second partner. It was wrong to enter into the second marriage but having promised perpetual faithfulness and entered into a covenant with that person it would be wrong to repudiate the relationship which the person has entered into.

    All sins have consequences which we cannot alter and carry with them responsibilities. Christians are bound to honor any agreement they enter into even if they acted rashly and should not have entered into it in the first place.

    Numbers 30:6-7 " If indeed she takes a husband, while bound by her vows or by a rash utterance from her lips by which she bound herself, 7 "and her husband hears it, and makes no response to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her agreements by which she bound herself shall stand.

    Ecclesiastes 5:4-7 When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed -- 5 Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. 6 Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands? 7 For in the multitude of dreams and many words there is also vanity. But fear God.

    A similar situation is found in believers who marry non-Christians. Christians are forbidden to marry those who are not Christians but if they have done so they are commanded to honor the marriage.

    1 Corinthians 7:39 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.

    2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

    1 Corinthians 7:12-16 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

    The marriage was wrong to enter into in the above case but the marriage vows are still binding.

    Deut. 24:1-4 forbids a person to return to their previous spouse after leaving the one they have remarried.

    Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 "when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 "if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 "then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

    The Bible says that to return to the former spouse is an abomination and I was wrong for recommending this. Scripture never speaks of a need to dissolve second marriages. The second marriage is certainly adulterous and illegitimate but it is not invalid. It is a real marriage.

    This does not dissolve their first marriage; this can only be done by death. Rather, it places them in a relationship of polygamy. They are in different living conditions but they have contracted a valid though illegitimate marriage. Polygamy is also a permanent lifelong relationship. We find many examples of this in the Old Testament. Those who engaged in polygamy certainly suffered greatly because of it but were not told to leave all but their first spouse. The couple should certainly acknowledge their sin of entering into this second marriage but not told to leave his or her spouse.

    I believe that the problem with my former position is that it creates a third type of relationship. Whereas the Bible speaks of those who are married and those who are not married I had a third category in my mind.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Wildboar? Wildboar? Hello?
    Enlightened? or a little unstable at the moment? Let's try to work this out.

    Your middle name also happens to be "Whosoever" just like everybody else.
    If you had divorced and remarried, Jesus speaks to you personally when he says, Whosoever divorces and marries another commits adultery. Have you decided to stop believing?

    You will remain in a state of uncertainty as long as you fail to recognise that the NT overrides some things in the Old as Paul clearly states. He had an ongoing battle with the religious folks of his day who could not let go of Moses to accept the New Covenant. Failing to take a stand with Jesus by preferring the old wine means we are not bearing his reproach. Then is the offense of the cross ceased.
    Paul very plainly made references to those things that are now abolished by the NT. Deut. 24:1-4 is one of those things. Matt. 5:31 Matt. 19:8.
    Paul wrote if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. So the NT does not deem it an abomination for the divorced to repent and to return to their first and truly binding husband. Only death changes the status of their being one flesh. 1 Cor. 7:39

    If you had covenated to do something evil, lets say assasinate someone, would it be wrong to back out of that reprobate committment? It would not be wrong, it would be expected if you had any sense. And I believe you do. God expects those who have enough sense to believe his words to separate themselves from that covenant made in ignorance, which by Christ's definition is adultery. Flee from it as you would anything else that will result in damnation.

    I'm afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
    I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
    This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
    Yeah, I'm trying to hurt you. Faithful are the wounds of a friend.

    Are you so foolish having begun in the spirit are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (By resorting back to obsolete OT ordinances?)
    Christ is become of no effect unto you whosoever of you are justified by the law, you are fallen from grace.
    The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

    Most of the references you used are wrested or out of context with what the NT has changed.
    For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necesssity a change also of the law.
    Judgement also will I lay to the line and righteousness to the plummet. (prophesying of Christ)
    Christ brought a perfection which could not be had under the OT.
    Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the seed should come (Jesus) to whom the promise was made.
    For the hardnress of your hearts he suffered you to put away your wives but from the beginning it was not so.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by newreformation
    If you had divorced and remarried, Jesus speaks to you personally when he says, Whosoever divorces and marries another commits adultery. Have you decided to stop believing?
    No, I have neither divorced nor remarried and if you read my post you would find that I do believe the second marriage is an adulterous relationship. However, I also believe that the person is obligated to their marriage vows in that second relationship. The Bible always calls these second relationships marriages and refers to those in them as husband and wife.

    Quote Originally Posted by newreformation
    You will remain in a state of uncertainty as long as you fail to recognise that the NT overrides some things in the Old as Paul clearly states. He had an ongoing battle with the religious folks of his day who could not let go of Moses to accept the New Covenant. Failing to take a stand with Jesus by preferring the old wine means we are not bearing his reproach. Then is the offense of the cross ceased.
    All of the NT teachings are based on the OT. Jesus appeals to the OT when making his statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by newreformation
    Paul very plainly made references to those things that are now abolished by the NT. Deut. 24:1-4 is one of those things. Matt. 5:31 Matt. 19:8.
    Paul wrote if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. So the NT does not deem it an abomination for the divorced to repent and to return to their first and truly binding husband. Only death changes the status of their being one flesh. 1 Cor. 7:39
    Paul says nothing of those who have remarried. Paul says that if a person has divorced their partner they ought to remain single. He doesn't abolish Deut. 24:1-4. Verse 4 is actually the only part we find a command about anything. The other part is an observation of what was going on. The KJV is misleading on this passage. Verse 4 says it is an abomination for the person to return to their first spouse after marrying another. Certainly although God allowed certain things in the OT which he expressly forbids in the NT and although there were various ceremonial laws which we are no longer to do because they pointed to Christ this is not the case with Deut. 24:4. God would not call what people should do an abomination. The ideal of marriage is laid out in the creation ordinance. It does not first appear in the NT and certainly God would not forbid someone to return to the first spouse if that was what they should do. The relationship of one flesh certainly exists until one member dies but this relationship also exists with the second spouse and since they are forbidden to return to the first they must stay with the second in order to honor their vows.

    Quote Originally Posted by newreformation
    If you had covenated to do something evil, lets say assasinate someone, would it be wrong to back out of that reprobate committment?
    The analogy is false because it is always sinful to murder. Marrying on the other hand and being married is not a sinful activity in itself. A better analogy is taking out a loan. If a person enters into an agreement to pay back alone they are obligated to do so even if it was a sinful activity because they would incur debt that they would have to pay back for a long period of time and that would make them a bad steward. If you are going to reply that the one is an adulterous marriage but the other is simply a non-sinful loan then the differences is all in labels since the latter could be labeled a sinful debt.

    In Christ,
    wildboar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    No, I have neither divorced nor remarried and if you read my post you would find that I do believe the second marriage is an adulterous relationship. However, I also believe that the person is obligated to their marriage vows in that second relationship. The Bible always calls these second relationships marriages and refers to those in them as husband and wife.

    response: Wildboar, would you then consider this adulterous relationship to be continuing in sin and thus not viewed as marriage in the first place, rather blasphemy?

    All of the NT teachings are based on the OT. Jesus appeals to the OT when making his statements.


    response: Does Jesus not teach reconciliation? How can one reconcile if the two adulterers living in adultery continue in such a life style?

    Paul says nothing of those who have remarried. Paul says that if a person has divorced their partner they ought to remain single. He doesn't abolish Deut. 24:1-4. Verse 4 is actually the only part we find a command about anything. The other part is an observation of what was going on. The KJV is misleading on this passage. Verse 4 says it is an abomination for the person to return to their first spouse after marrying another. Certainly although God allowed certain things in the OT which he expressly forbids in the NT and although there were various ceremonial laws which we are no longer to do because they pointed to Christ this is not the case with Deut. 24:4. God would not call what people should do an abomination. The ideal of marriage is laid out in the creation ordinance. It does not first appear in the NT and certainly God would not forbid someone to return to the first spouse if that was what they should do. The relationship of one flesh certainly exists until one member dies but this relationship also exists with the second spouse and since they are forbidden to return to the first they must stay with the second in order to honor their vows.

    response: I think it then becomes a matter whether one views this second vow as marriage or this vow as continued adultery. We must define what this second vow is. I opt for the latter. It is confirmed in the Scriptures that adultery or death are the only grounds for divorce. It is confirmed in Scripture that if a spouse dies the other then is free to marry. There is nothing in Scripture that advocates that a spouse is free to marry another in the case of adultery.
    Now with respect to the Old Testament, adultery was punishable by death. Consider also what is stated in Deut. 22:13-22. The spouse shows utter wickedness against his spouse if as in Deut. 22 he bring an evil name upon his spouse, or in Deut. 24. his spouse finds no favour in his eyes. In the case of chapter 22 if his spouse is found a virgin he is bound to her. He may not put her away. In Deut. 24 this evil act of finding no favour in his spouse leads to her being given a bill of divorcement and she is out of his house. Because of this evil act she goes hence and marries another. Nothing is said regarding the wicked husband being able to remarry after this.



    The analogy is false because it is always sinful to murder. Marrying on the other hand and being married is not a sinful activity in itself. A better analogy is taking out a loan. If a person enters into an agreement to pay back alone they are obligated to do so even if it was a sinful activity because they would incur debt that they would have to pay back for a long period of time and that would make them a bad steward. If you are going to reply that the one is an adulterous marriage but the other is simply a non-sinful loan then the differences is all in labels since the latter could be labeled a sinful debt.

    response: Galatians 5:19-21 is clear. To continue in this adulterous lifestyle one will not inherit eternal life. But if God has chose His elect here, they will put off this adulterous sinful lifestyle, be reconciled to the one's they have sinned against. This does not mean this one "must" hook back up to their original spouse, they must as a cross to bear, continue life without marriage. This is part of the fruit of the Spirit that is explained in Galatians 5:22-26. Apart from this I maintain that one is desirous of vain glory.
    In Christ,
    wildboar




    greetings and salutations, el rana
    3Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.Mal.2

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    John 8
    1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
    2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
    3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
    4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
    5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
    6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
    7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
    8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
    9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
    10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
    11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    In God's eyes, that person who has remarried is committing adultery and the so called marriage is not a valid committment before Him. Jesus says very clearly to go and sin no more. I am not saying that it is easy, but the correct thing to do is to stop committing adultery.

    Tom
    Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
    Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
    Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    response: I think it then becomes a matter whether one views this second vow as marriage or this vow as continued adultery.
    Scripture speaks of it as a marriage. Members in the relationship are referred to as husband as wife. In the case of the woman with multiple husbands who was living with her boyfriend, Jesus did not say they were merely adulterous relationships but that they were her husbands. If she had been married to the person who was her boyfriend and Jesus told her to leave that spouse and go remain single or be reconciled to the first spouse I would be in agreement with this position but since this doesn't occur anywhere I am not.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Scripture speaks of it as a marriage. Members in the relationship are referred to as husband as wife. In the case of the woman with multiple husbands who was living with her boyfriend, Jesus did not say they were merely adulterous relationships but that they were her husbands. If she had been married to the person who was her boyfriend and Jesus told her to leave that spouse and go remain single or be reconciled to the first spouse I would be in agreement with this position but since this doesn't occur anywhere I am not.
    What Scripture text would you be referring to Pigpen?

    It could also be said that if the women continued in this adulterous lifestyle and disobey Jesus's words, that she would not inherit eternal life would it not?



    greetings and salutations, el rana

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    John 4:15 The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw." 16 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." 17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly."

    Jesus speaks of all five of these men as her husbands. There are certainly a great many other passages including the Deuteronomy passage where the relationship is spoke of as a marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by ray
    It could also be said that if the women continued in this adulterous lifestyle and disobey Jesus's words, that she would not inherit eternal life would it not?
    Yes, and what she should do is clear in the case of the present example where the person is living with their boyfriend. I do not believe it is as clear in the case of someone involved in an adulterous marriage. They are involved with sin by staying married but they are also involved with a continual sin of abandonment and breaking their marriage vows if they leave.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    My poor Wildboar, What have they done to you?
    Be honest now, isn't there a twinge of uncertainty that maybe just mayde it is true that whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery?
    Do not, I say, do not kick against the pricks. If it is not hard for thee to do so, I would say you are fast approaching completely searing your conscience by this demonic doctrine that so boldly and directly contradicts the plain wording of Christ.
    Will you also insult the poor uneducated to whom Christ came to preach, who for centuries have taken his words in their apparent straightforward literal implications? Do you really want to be numbered with those modern fools who consider as heresy the long established accurate reflection of Christ's words as found in the phrase "till death do us part'?
    I am afraid of you; has all the labour on you soul been bestowed in vain?

    Just because it is called a marriage doesn't mean it is binding.
    Just because a man is regarded to be wealthy and have money doesn't mean necessarily that the money really belongs to him.

    Just because the Scriptures refer to being one flesh, doesn't mean necessarily that they are one flesh in a binding lawful marriage situation. Paul uses the phrase one flesh with regard to unlawful fornication.
    Really now, Wildboar, does "married" have to mean lawfully married?
    What we're waiting for next, is for you to now say that those who are one flesh by fornication are committed to be faithful and bound as if by marriage!
    Where will your leaven lead you? To the land of Whole-Lumps-Leavened? Why don't you go ahead and endorse having more that one wife?
    Don't you know we are not to have the righteousness which can be had by using the law (OT) but that which is through Faith? Faith in Christs words? How is it that you have no faith? Having begun in the Spirit (faith in Christ) are ye now made perfect by the flesh (OT law which catered to the unregenerate flesh and which served until Christ came to bring a new covenant and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit)?

    You are very clearly unlearned and unstable and are wresting scripture to your own destruction. A babe in Christ could read to you Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 and you would be getting sound doctrine by those words alone for they are true. You have need that one teach you again the first principles of the doctrine of Christ.

    In the love of Christ according as the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction.

  10. #10
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by newreformationi
    My poor Wildboar, What have they done to you?

    You are very clearly unlearned and unstable and are wresting scripture to your own destruction.
    You sir are an ignorant fool who has no business pointing your finger at Charles when you yourself have no knowledge of grace. Look at your web page:

    http://newreformation.wimms.com/JUSTIFYFAITHQA.html
    http://newreformation.wimms.com/HERESY.html
    http://newreformation.wimms.com/JUSTIFICATION.htm

    On your pages concerning justification, you clearly state that justification is by faith + works. Not only do you have a misunderstanding of justification by faith alone, you also view faith as a work.

    Further, you seem to misunderstand who's righteousness the Lord looks upon when He sees a Christian. I don't recall reading anything about the imputed righteousness of Christ. Do you know what that is? When you speak of living out the righteousness of a christian life, you think that righteousness is YOUR righteousness. A true Christian never looks to his works, indeed, he counts them as dung. He doesn't even think he CAN perform good works. Sure he strives for obedience, but this obedience is not in any way meritorious. It is the righteousness of Christ, His vicarious life that is imputed to the believer and God sees His saints as perfect! Not because of what they are doing, but because they have been robed with HIS PERFECT LIFE.

    You sir, need to be schooled in the Gospel. I hope that you will come to a knowedge of the truth, Lord willing.

    Sincerely,
    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    I also made some statements that there was complete agreement among the early church fathers on the issue of divorce and remarriage. While there certainly was a great deal of agreement, there is also some disagreement. Basil for instance believed that in the case of the women who remarries after divorce and does not separate from the second spouse there can be no forgiveness but in the case of a man he can be forgiven. In a passage commenting on 1 Corinthians Chrysostom writes "But what does that mean? For instance, if he command thee to sacrifice, and to communicate with him in impiety by reason of the marriage, or (if he command thee) to retire, it is better that the marriage rather than that piety should be torn assunder. If the unbeliever is the cause of separation, let him be the cause of separation" and Theophylact writes in regard to the same passage "As if he command thee either to partake with him in unbelief, or to recede from the marriage, then let the marriage be receded from. For it is better that the marriage rather than that piety should be dissolved." At least some of the early church fathers did not believe that marriage which took place outside of the church had the same indissoluble character as that which took place inside the church. I'm not defending this position but it does show they were not in complete agreement. The Canons of the Council of Eliberis (between AD 306 and 324) state that a woman who when unbaptized was married to a catechumen but the catechumen left her and who then marries another man may be admitted to baptism because the marriage while unbaptized is not viewed as indissoluble. Even the marriages of Christians who were not yet baptized were not viewed as being indissoluble. And there are many other such passages in other writers.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Darth Gill
    You have horribly misunderstood my documents or you have horribly misunderstood the Word.
    Though a man say he has faith and have not works, can faith save him? So this is a salvation issue. Faith along with works (or action) which action is produced by His grace in our lives.
    1 Cor. 15:10.
    James answered his own question. Can faith alone save him? A whole part of that chapter is dedicated to demonstrating that action along with faith is necessary to bring salvation. By Salvation I mean the ultimate entrance at his return which is the end of the world.
    Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter into the gates of the city. No keeping of the NT commandments= no entrance at judgment.
    They that have done good unto the resurrection of life, they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. I suggest that if you don't believe this you are also in need of being taught the first principles of the oracles of the doctrine of Christ.
    Line up or get out.
    The persuasion whereby you have been persuaded comes not of Him who has called you.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Newreformationi:

    Your misunderstanding of the Grace of God, and of the Word of God in general is making you talk as a heretic of Paul's days. I suggest before you tell the owner of this Forum, Brandan, to get out that you take your damnable doctrines, doctrines of the devil away to any place of your choosing where words such as "exegesis" and "systematic theology", and clear understanding of the whole context of the Word of God are not important. You are simplistic, and totally devoid of any understanding of the Word of God as a whole and sees it as a collections of verses and books that represent nothing as a whole.

    This is a Reformed Doctrine Forum, if you know what it means, which I seriously doubt. What are you doing here? We welcome non-reformed people here if they agree not to call our members names and as long as they do not spreading cults here as you are doing. You are a lawless loner, who claims to have received the Holy Spirit ast 17, but who interprets the Word of God as one who received the "foul spirit" and not the Holy One. Your addition to the cross, your combination of "actions" and "grace", your simplistic inteperpretation of the texts you mention speak loudly about your poor understanding of anything you read.

    A warning: people who go to hell, the unelect, the reprobate, have a tendency to believe in self salvation as a means of sef-deception. Your mingling of Grace and works is self-deceptive. You believe you saved yourself at least partially, thus you are not saved at all.

    You continue to spread heresies in this Forum and you will not have a future here. No one misunderstood your writings. They are devoid of any acceptable rules of Biblical interpretation and Holy Ghost inspiration.

    If you want to learn and debate, we ready to debate. Calling WildBoar unlearned was the greatest proof that you are one youself. You sound as one of those charismatic unfortunate para-christians that have no understanding of the Word of God... but I already said that...

    It is funny that you believe that "actions" save, but you have not demonstrated any of these "saving actions" by the way you addressed to Wildboar. Thus what you have is a confused set of rules for yourself that you cannot even demonstrate in your own life. You should be practicing these actions before preaching it, if you really believe they can save you.

    Thankfully, we are totally and solely dependent upon the Grace of God in this Forum, and we don't need any igorant lone ranger, who study the bible by himself and in a pharisaical way calls himself a "biblical christianity" religious follower to come here and preach this pentecostal "faith plus actions" heresy.

    I don't like to write this way, but your words both to WildBoar and Brandan calls for an action similar to that of Paul against the heretics of his days... and words that Jesus used against the religionmongers of His days...

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Newreformationi:

    I just read your profile... Now I know why you write such bunch of bologna...

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by newreformationi
    Darth Gill
    You have horribly misunderstood my documents or you have horribly misunderstood the Word.[
    Though a man say he has faith and have not works, can faith save him? So this is a salvation issue. Faith along with works (or action) which action is produced by His grace in our lives.
    1 Cor. 15:10.
    response: This is blantant faith/works justification. We are justified by faith alone. Have you ever read the Canons of Dort?


    Quote Originally Posted by newreformationi
    James answered his own question. Can faith alone save him? A whole part of that chapter is dedicated to demonstrating that action along with faith is necessary to bring salvation. By Salvation I mean the ultimate entrance at his return which is the end of the world.
    response: This tends to be the problem. You are looking at the Scripture here as James words. Start realizing that this is God's Word and that it cannot contradict what His Word speaks elsewhere. This is tunnel vision.


    Quote Originally Posted by newreformationi
    Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter into the gates of the city. No keeping of the NT commandments= no entrance at judgment.
    response: If ye love me, keep my commandments. Do we, apart from God have the ability to do this? How is it that we come to love God? How does or how can man merit with God? He cannot.


    Quote Originally Posted by newreformationi
    They that have done good unto the resurrection of life, they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. I suggest that if you don't believe this you are also in need of being taught the first principles of the oracles of the doctrine of Christ.
    response: What about the theif on the cross? How was he saved?

    Quote Originally Posted by newreformationi
    Line up or get out.
    The persuasion whereby you have been persuaded comes not of Him who has called you.
    response: This last babble of yours wreaks of self righteousness. As one who suffers this at times, direct yourself to the spiritual restroom and relieve yourself of it.



    greetings and salutations, el rana

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    This is a perfect example of one hijacking a thread moving it to their own agenda. We all have this tendancy, but this, I have to admit, is one of the most flagrant examples of this I have seen. We start with Marraige, then move to faith plus works? Like tertullian said, "What does Jeruselem have to do with Greece?"


    Joe

  17. #17
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    This is a perfect example of one hijacking a thread moving it to their own agenda. We all have this tendancy, but this, I have to admit, is one of the most flagrant examples of this I have seen. We start with Marraige, then move to faith plus works? Like tertullian said, "What does Jeruselem have to do with Greece?"


    Joe
    Actually, in newreformationi's defense, he didn't bring the topic up... I did. He was attacking Charles' and calling his position unbiblical, yet I believed he had no authority to do that as he believes in salvation by works and I was pointing that out. Many may perceive this to be an ad hominem attack on newreformationi, but it is my opinion that an understanding of justification is prerequisite to discussing all other biblical doctrines.
    This is my signature.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    Actually, in newreformationi's defense, he didn't bring the topic up... I did. He was attacking Charles' and calling his position unbiblical, yet I believed he had no authority to do that as he believes in salvation by works and I was pointing that out. Many may perceive this to be an ad hominem attack on newreformationi, but it is my opinion that an understanding of justification is prerequisite to discussing all other biblical doctrines.
    Brandan, it is smacking of agenda setting infornmation. I would guarantee, no matter what the topic was, it would have resulted in his own theology. Ad hominem, straw man, silence, it all boils down to a person entering a thread, attacking from left field, only in order to speak their own theology. I know this because history shows I have done this. Attacking Charles is wrong, but it is worse to move a thread like this into ones own forum and wanting center stage. What does James have to do with Charles reconsidering his position on marraige? Absolutely nothing. I could have started a thread and said, I am reconsidering my position on historical biblical criticism, newref would have addressed the topic at first, then move it to his own agenda. Plus I do not know if Chuck mentioned this in order for a blown out debate. Didnt we go through this with prakk?



    Grace and Peace

    Joe

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    Actually, in newreformationi's defense, he didn't bring the topic up... I did. He was attacking Charles' and calling his position unbiblical, yet I believed he had no authority to do that as he believes in salvation by works and I was pointing that out. Many may perceive this to be an ad hominem attack on newreformationi, but it is my opinion that an understanding of justification is prerequisite to discussing all other biblical doctrines.
    Fer sure, fer sure good buddie Darth. It is the standing or falling of the church..
    Catch you on the flip flop, and remember to keep the semi pelagian off your windsheild and the arminian off your tail.

    greetings and salutations, el rana

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Change in My Position on the Those Who Have Remarried

    Now let's see.
    I am regarded as a heretic because I believe that they that have done good will inherit eternal life and they that have done evil will inherit eternal damnation. (Paul said about the same thing in Acts, remember?)
    Sounds a little bit like what Paul said concerning himself being called a heretic for believing all things that are written in the scriptures. (The end of Acts). So I quote a scripture and believe it and am therefore a heretic. And then I am told that I err because I haven't read something about Dort.
    I believe the scripture spoken by Christ in John 5 as mentioned above therefore that must be in line with being a Christian. Believe in Christ's words=Christian. You are apparently trying to persuade me to believe this Dort thing. Do you want me to be a Dortian? Believe in the Dort thing = Dortian. What happened to the scripture that says you have no need that any man teach you because of the Anointing? and the other one that we are complete in Him who is the head of all principality and power? Your message to me is that I need the Dort thing or I am in danger of being deceived by taking the words of Christ at face value in their context.
    Come out with it, be honest. Tell me straight out what is in your heart. "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" Isn't this in effect what you are saying to me? I haven't been educated in the Dort thing, who am I to say anything to you?

    But I am someone who can say something to you. And this is what it is because what we are talking about is whether or not marriage is as sacred as the old solemn phrase, "till death do us part" purports it to be.
    So hear the words of one you regard as a heretic;

    Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.
    Whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery.
    If a woman divorce her husband and be married to another, she commits adultery
    If a man divorce his wife, he causes her to commit adultery.
    The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives

    God is not a respector of persons. Them who by well doing seek for glory honour and immortality, They will inherit eternal life. But to them who are contentious and obey not the truth: indignation and wrath; tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, to the jew first and also to the Gentile for God is not a respector of persons.

    I have been accused of not seeing the scriptures as a whole and am therefore deceived. I believe that this is a lie and that it is spoken in hypocracy because those who would judge me thus are the ones who are not seeing the scriptures as a whole in the light that the NT reveals. Some things have been abolished (2 Cor. 3) to make way for the truth that Jesus came to bring, which truth mankind wasn't ready for until Jesus made that new covenant which included not only a revamop of certain things but the granted ability to walk in those things by the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    Many are denying the power of godliness, which Jesus came to give us, by promoting a non obligatory message. "What must we do to be saved"?
    Blessed are they that keep his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life and that they may enter into the gates into the city. No obedience= no right to enter.
    Christ's grace is responsible for the change in our lives which makes obedience to him possible. His is the glory and the power. We are but earthen vessels through which his resurrected life can be made manifest as a testimony to the world that he is indeed risen.
    Grace reigns through righteousness. (Rom. 5) It will cease to reign if we continue to not yield to its promptings. One of these promptings is that the institution of marriage is sacred, being broken only by death.
    Paul made reference to frustrating grace by resorting to obsolete OT ordinances. (Gal.2)
    Jesus himself threw out Deut. 24:1-4 (Matt. 19:8 Matt. 5:31) citing that it was only written for the hardness of their hearts. From the beginning it was not so.
    How can we be so unstable as to believe that the NT which brought perfection allows those under it to commit an act which God hates? He hates divorce; always did. He only allowed it to deal with the problem of their hardheartedness until the seed should come (Jesus). (Gal.) Things were imposed temporarily until the time of reformation (Jesus) (Heb.)

    In the love of Christ.
    The stakes are too high to not be direct.
    According as the Lord has given me for edification and not to destruction.
    You believe the NIV that says you can divorce for adultery and you trust that and do it? You will go to hell if you don't repent and get out of that adulterous marriage. This is according to Jesus. God is my witness. May all those who contradict this be visited by God himself with enlightenment to receive the glorious light of the gospel of Christ.
    But to them who remain to be contentious and obey not the truth, let them be anathema marantha.

Page 1 of 6 1 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2012 OLYMPICS
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-06-05, 12:02 PM
  2. I'll Go To Heaven When I am good an ready
    By Fledge in forum Old Miscellaneous Archive
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 01-21-02, 05:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •