Did not know that...I will check it out.

I dont remember this hypothetical. Guess I missed it!

By what you just wrote, I guess the sitch is my wife is still with OM, and is having kid with OM...and seeking help here.

As I said in all of this...it depends! Have I divorced her? Then no problem. I would be done and free and clear of her and them.

Were we still married? Different story because they are still in adultery.

Once I would divorce her per what I wrote above, then this marriage no longer exists.

CV...what I was writing about was to those that would say that a marriage born from sexual immorality is not a Scriptural marriage. That would mean that Fornication Marriages would apply!!

I understand the other argument concerning where this thread is.

EAV...how are we supposed to do this since ALL WSs are guilty of this...whether they come home or not!

Working on concluding this thread, as I said. Will let you know when it is done.

MM

I can't stand it anymore. I have to ask. Is your wife with you or not? I am confused. I tried to search for the information and was unsuccessful. Guess I looked in the wrong posts.

Larry

She is! We have a baby on the way in September (he is mine!) and the MB principles have worked better than expected. We are definitely in love again.

Bob, with all due respect, we haven't "debated" anything, nor has anything been discussed. There have been a lot of arguments and a lot to disrespectful judgments thrown around, but that's not "debating" and it certainly isn't discussing anything.




This is very good and I hope you do keep it up.

Perhaps the next time you talk with them you could pose the questions I put to you about forgiveness in Christ and what needs to be done and what a "new creation" means. That way you can at least discuss it with them and get some of the reasoning as to what Scripture says about the topics.




I don't know your Pastor nor do I know what church you attend. I assume he is a Christian. But you might want to ask him about "dogma" and being "dogmatic" about the fundamentals that define Christianity. There is nothing wrong with "dogma," all religions have them. There is nothing wrong with being "dogmatic" about the fundamentals either. Just because someone has been a Pastor for decades is not, I'm sure you'd agree, a "guarantee" that what they believe is consistant with Scripture either. There are many who claim the title of Pastor, Teacher, Priest, etc., who deny the basic "fundamental" beliefs revealed in the Scripture. Why not ask Him about his opinions regarding "faith alone," total forgiveness, being a "new creation" in Christ, Eternal Security, etc. You don't need to discuss those things with me and you have indicated that you don't want to, anymore than BK wants to discuss Eternal Security beyond his belief that someone CAN lose their salvation (his "opinion" or "belief"). But you should discuss them with those folks you do trust to give you an honest answer and you should check all opinions against the Word of God, for your own sake in making certain you CAN stand ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you why you believe what you believe. That is a command from God to all believers.

Congratulations MM. Good guys DO win, sometimes.

Larry <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

FH - I have not forgotten your questions to me here. I do intend answering them on the new MM thread when it starts. I have been doing a lot of research and reading on this issue. It is an even more thorny topic than I ever imagined.

Just a question FH - no disrespect intended but are you and your wife in your first marriage?

Yes. 32 Years next month. Why do you ask?

Because usually someone clinging to such a position on re-marriage has personal reasons for doing so.

Bob, with all due respect, we haven't "debated" anything, nor has anything been discussed. There have been a lot of arguments and a lot to disrespectful judgments thrown around, but that's not "debating" and it certainly isn't discussing anything.

That is correct. I have been asking you questions for three years now and you have never answered me in any practically applicable way. That is not "debate", as you accurately state. Neither of us can or wish to communicate in the others medium so further intercourse is quite pointless


This is very good and I hope you do keep it up.

Perhaps the next time you talk with them you could pose the questions I put to you about forgiveness in Christ and what needs to be done and what a "new creation" means. That way you can at least discuss it with them and get some of the reasoning as to what Scripture says about the topics.

Amazingly my Pastor and church eldership sometimes discuss OTHER TOPICS than forgiveness and whether once obtained it means we need not take any action aginst the consequences of our sins. Sometimes they even discuss the practical application of scripture into peoples lives. They are not hardshell baptists FH so you would not approve of them. Some are infralapsarians, while others are supralapsarians. All are saved and all are helpful. None keep repeating their own hard line until the other breaks. They listen as well as speak. Goodness, we even had some vistors from our local Catholic church visit us on Sunday. Heretical or what ?

I don't know your Pastor nor do I know what church you attend. I assume he is a Christian.

LOL ! He's not a hardshell baptist either and is a strong supporter of missionary work, so I'd guess he doesn't count as a Christian to you

But you might want to ask him about "dogma" and being "dogmatic" about the fundamentals that define Christianity. There is nothing wrong with "dogma," all religions have them. There is nothing wrong with being "dogmatic" about the fundamentals either.

websters :
Main Entry: dog·mat·ic
Pronunciation: dog-'ma-tik, däg-
Variant(s): also dog·mat·i·cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>
2 : of or relating to dogma

This was my usage of "dogmatic" FH. As you know very well, I suspect.

Just because someone has been a Pastor for decades is not, I'm sure you'd agree, a "guarantee" that what they believe is consistant with Scripture either.

just because someone has not been a pastor for decades, and is an inflexible adherent of a highly arguable interpretation of scripture doesn't mean they have the monopoly on truth either.But you know what ? My money's on the man with the pastoral experience.


There are many who claim the title of Pastor, Teacher, Priest, etc., who deny the basic "fundamental" beliefs revealed in the Scripture.

Whose fundamental beliefs ? Yours or another credible bible scholars that disagrees with you that you will not countenance ?

Why not ask Him about his opinions regarding "faith alone," total forgiveness, being a "new creation" in Christ, Eternal Security, etc.

We discuss many aspects of faith and scripture in our time together, and how it can be applied to the benefit of others and ourselves.

You don't need to discuss those things with me

We are incapable of discussing topics between us, you and I FH
and you have indicated that you don't want to, anymore than BK wants to discuss Eternal Security beyond his belief that someone CAN lose their salvation (his "opinion" or "belief").

Do you not understand why so many people do not want to discuss this stuff with you FH ? You only want the chance to prove people wrong, never to listen or learn. Most folks I know think the canon of scripture is an awfully complex message to be granularly interpreted so infallibly as you aver

But you should discuss them with those folks you do trust to give you an honest answer and you should check all opinions against the Word of God, for your own sake in making certain you CAN stand ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you why you believe what you believe. That is a command from God to all believers.

Check against your presumed infallible interpretation of the word of God , huh FH ?

We are as different as chalk and cheese , you and I FH. The way we pray, communicate, think and even how we approached our wives affairs are all too, too dfferent for us to have any common ground. I only spoke against legitimizaing affair marriages here out of humanity, not out of any desire to interact with you, sir.

Good luck

Here are the links to the two new threads, as I promised:

Marriage, Divorce & the Bible

JJ's New Thread

I have asked the Mods to close this thread.

BK, while you didn't specify what "clinging to such a position on remarriage" is, I assume you are meaning your previous statements that such a marriage is illegitimate.

I suspect your question was prompted by the "possibility" that my own marriage was a remarriage of prior married persons. It was in one sense, in the sense that during my wife's affair our marriage was effectively over and she had created a "one flesh" situation with her FOM. It was not, in the sense that we never went through a civil divorce.

This "clinging to" a position is the interesting part, though. What I "cling to" is the Christian's responsibility to forgive a fellow believer as they themselves have been forgiven by God, through Christ Jesus. "Forgive us our debts as we have been forgiven."

What I "cling to" is the right of anyone to post on MB unless the Moderators or Administrators have decided they are "not welcome to post." Can that be hard at times? Certainly. There are many people with varying perspectives and varying emotional reactions to many things on MB, especially things that someone might find "offensive."

"Offensiveness" is very broad, very undefined term, and when it is used as the "yardstick" to determine whether or not any should be "allowed" to post anything where others "might be" offended by their posting, then we "cross the line" into becoming the "policemen" of the system, which a role that is assigned to the Moderators.

If someone offends me, I don't post to them. Sometimes I will post a "what you are saying offends me" sort of post, but then it's time to stop posting on that person's thread and leave them to themselves and to anyone else who might want to engage them in discussion, advice, or comment.

I have not always done that, either. None of us is "above" sinning in our responses to others, especially when the emotions are involved, and I, like just about everyone else, have sometimes let "emotions rule" my responses.

The "key" point, if you will, is that I am a Christian who does believe that we are to forgive a believer who says "I repent," as God has forgiven us. A second marriage, begun in adultery, is no different from any other sin in the sense that all sins are sins against God and in need of God's forgiveness. God grants His total and complete forgiveness for all of a person's sins when they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. This is the thing, as a forgiven sinner, that I "cling to:"

"As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by "putting off the body of sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made you alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Col.2:6-14 NKJV, emphasis added)

Here, the argument has been made, and even used as a basis of some objectors posting, that an "adulterous marriage," of which a marriage to an affair partner is a subset, is NEVER legitimate in the eyes of God. I don't believe that God's forgiveness is limited in that way, since God has made it clear that 1) there is only one "unforgivable sin," blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and 2) "such were some of you" when listing some of the more "egregious" of sins, including adultery.

I suspect that some "objectors" may even believe that someone must "do" something in order to be forgiven by God, even though the Scripture clearly teaches that God forgives a repentant heart, not as a "reward" or a "compensation for acts performed that God obligated to do." This is the basis of "works" based forgiveness and is contrary to "by grace you have been saved, not of works, lest any man should boast." Some even believe that a truly born again believer can lose their salvation and then have to "do" something to earn it back, again in direct conflict with Scripture that clearly teaches that were such a "loss of salvation" possible, it would then be IMPOSSIBLE to be "saved again." No amount of works or anything else would be able to "re-save" someone.

But works have been what has been demanded by some. That has been demanded as a "way for us to know they truly are repentant." That position is also anti-biblical in that Jesus clearly instructed His disciples that they were to forgive "seven times seventy times," if needed, whenever a brother came to them and said, 'I repent.'" No works, just forgiving as God forgives us, by faith alone, not of works, lest any man should boast.

So my "personal reasons" have nothing to do with being remarried. They have everything to do with being obedient to God and His commands to us regarding forgiving fellow repentant believers, if that helps to clarify things for you.

As the Jews of Jesus' day found the Samaritans to be so highly offensive to them that they wouldn't even talk to them, and were highly offended by anyone who would dare to talk to them, Jesus went out of his way to talk with, meet with, eat with, the "undesireables" who were "offensive" to the others, the community of Jews. Jesus did not let the "potential offensiveness" of someone stop Him from talking with them, even if the "offended parties" were aware of his talking to them. Why did Jesus do that? It was not to "rub anything in the noses of the offended." It was to reach out to those "undesireables" to show them that forgiveness of sin is in Him, not in meeting the "works" of men.

I am closing this thread at Mortarman's (the thread starter's) request. This is to NO WAY imply that the closure is due to moderators or MB Admin having a problem with the thread or any of the posters including "justjilly."

She IS a MB member seeking help for her marriage. She has maintained her dignity & remained courteous & polite despite some heavy hits. Is her situation hurtful for some to read? Yes, as are the PC circumstances, the dating and divorce situations. There isn't much about infidelity that isn't hurtful. We learn to use and apply advice which is helpful and to cast off the rest until we need it or are ready to use it.

A couple of new threads have been started. If you have something beneficial to add or support to offer, please help. If you find her circumstances too painful to read, PLEASE skip them and go on to the next post.

Thank You.....